< 19 November	21 November >

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. Blackknight12 is wrong. Ellaalan (talk · contribs) is not this article's creator, because Ellaalan simply ganked paragraph after paragraph wholesale from various other people's writings. Spot checks on several parts of the article turned up several originals that were copied here. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue of the LTTE[edit]

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

This article is so heavily biased that I almost speedily deleted this as spam. I also think that it is likely to be full of lies. For example, it states that the LTTE is not involved in vices, but atrocities like conscripting child soldiers and killing a busload of monks suggest otherwise. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article has no reliable sources, and some are even taken from within Wikipedia it self. It is definitely biased like it's creator Ellaalan and his other article Operation Unceasing Waves III.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR, at the least. Anyone else sick and tired of the various factions in this civil war fighting it out on Wikipedia? Ravenswing 03:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Everything in this fork can be addressed at the mother article, briefly, in more neutral terms. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Shame that Janes link is a 404 - more independent reliable sources could rescue the article from the quicksands of POV. bobrayner (talk) 00:41, 24 November 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 by a sock puppet of a banned user in violation of ban. –MuZemike 03:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Convoy[edit]

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

Inadequate, unreliable third party sources, poor notability, per Dwayne West. SwinginFromaStar (talk) 23:02, 20 November 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 by a sock puppet of a banned user in violation of ban. –MuZemike 03:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (toy line)[edit]

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

Unreliable sources, inadequate article, poor notability, per Dwayne West. SwinginFromaStar (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surely it's repairable, it's certainly notable enough from my experience. It just needs better citations. You don't delete something because it's lacking, you fix it. The guys who wrote the article thought tfw2005.com was a proper source, so that's all they cited, but if you check, I started adding some REAL news wires and magazines to the sources. Mathewignash (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again Mathewignash you demostrate your tolerance for mediocre Transformers articles it has insufficient third person sources to demonstrate notability and relie on fansites as credible sources of information. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:08, 21 November 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 by a sock puppet of a banned user in violation of ban. –MuZemike 03:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impactor (Transformers)[edit]

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

Inadequate per Dwayne West. Also NN. SwinginFromaStar (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has two third party sources and could have more, I see several mentions on google books. Mathewignash (talk) 02:32, 21 November 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 by a sock puppet of a banned user in violation of ban. –MuZemike 03:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest Transformers[edit]

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

Delete. NN. SwinginFromaStar (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a Japanese toy line, but a rather famous one there. Plus the nominator failed to make an adequate arguement as to why it should be deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its no good going WP:IKNOWIT, WP:BIGNUMBER does it have reliable information to assert notability fansites don't cut the mustard I am afraid. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:17, 21 November 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. Jujutacular ^talk 00:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Joy[edit]

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

This article has been speedied twice already. Subject is author of two non award winning books, and the only WP:RS is the mention of her name on the staff list at the uni she works part-time (her own self-published web site doesn't count). Fails at WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, and WP:AUTHOR. Kudpung (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand how somebody who has been spoken of in US News, the NY Times, the Ellen Show, has written two books, one of which (Strategic Action for Animals) was published by one of the leading publishers of English-language animal rights literature, plus interviews and mentions in hundreds of articles, blogs, and radio shows (even the slightest google search will show you this) can be considered not notable enough for a wiki entry. There are plenty of less "notable" people on wikipedia, if I need to list them I can do that. -cz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.105.229 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you need to list are published works, from independent people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, that document, in depth, this person's life and works, from which a neutral, verifiable, and comprehensive encyclopaedia biography can be made. Arguments of the but-someone-else-created-a-bad-biography-article kind will just be ignored, for failing to address the subject at hand. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely, and it's covered by our guideline at WP:OTHERCRAP--Kudpung (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lantern Books is not a "leading publisher", animal rights or otherwise. Normally, that term is reserved for one of top-tier commercial houses, or a university-associated press like CUP or PUP. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Not much to find on GS so won't pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Strong delete - repeatedly-recreated non-notable bio failing all the tests offered by the nominator; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument no more convincing than any other time; possible COI, autobiography and/or sockpuppetry involved, but that's not grounds for deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient evidence of notability. The list of ELs at the bottom of the article amount to less than might appear -- the NYT link, for example, does not contain any substantial coverage about her. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 23 November 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 revert to disambiguation page. This isn't really an orthodox close, but it seems clear the consensus is to have this be either a redirect (not sure where to) or a disambiguation page (i.e. not an article). More seem to be in favor of the idea of the latter so I'm reverting to an earlier version of the page. In a way this AfD was unnecessary since this is a standard edit, and others can feel free to embellish on it (add or remove from the disambig list, switch to a redirect, etc.). The close here is sort of IAR but I doubt anyone will be bothered, least of all ultimate reality itself, whatever that is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Reality[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced dicdef-style article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just turn it back into a redirect or disambiguation page, the way it stood for the best part of three years. --dab (𒁳) 22:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per dab BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the disambiguation page per dab. Cunard (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Gears and Pulleys[edit]

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

This is an orphaned Physics-related article. The content looks like it was copied from a textbook (I removed about half of the content just in case of a possible copyvio) and so, it might violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Minima c (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting topic but hopelessly written. Quality standards not achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Problem goes beyond the quality of writting. Nothing salvageable here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks more like a student's lecture notes. The writing quality is not adequate for a textbook. In any case, all of the potentially useful information here is already present in better Wikipedia articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per a consensus that there are irremediable WP:OR concerns. If the article creator or some other editor wants to work on this content in order to turn it into a usable article I'd be willing to userfy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical mysticism[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia article, but a persuasive essay disguised as an encyclopedia article. It contains a number of false or misleading claims: that mainline Christian churches (described as 'liberal' in this essay) have a practice of prayer that is inspired by New Age, yoga, and zen, rather than the historical practices of the church, while evangelical Christian churches are the real practitioners of mysticism. I don't think that a neutral, sourced article on the subject of 'evangelical mysticism' can be written, because the term is not widely used- most of the sources cited do not use the term, and those that do are blogs, or use it in an entirely different context.

This article uses a synthesis of sources to make a point which supports a specific religious belief but which is not well founded in fact, and there are not enough reliable sources of information about what 'evangelical mysticism' is for any neutral person to do the full rewrite that would otherwise be required. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.POV issues are not considered a valid deletion rationale. This is a notable subject, there are reliable sources out there and an encyclopedic article can be written. It's true that a substantial amount of work may be required, but that isn't grounds for deletion. Redirect to Evangelicalism, plausible search term.--res Laozi speak 22:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the books on that list were written before the evangelical movement. This article is about mysticism in the modern evangelical tradition. The word 'evangelical' had a very different meaning in the 18th century than it does today. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take a look at the external link: "cd_min:2000,cd_max:2099", the search only includes books in the 21st century. I've already known that the 18th century sense of the word is different from the modern sense, hence why I specified 21st century results. --res Laozi speak 22:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am looking at the external link. At least half of those sources are discussing the same essay by John Fletcher (1729-1785). -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - And this is excluding 20th century results, which are also relevant, but weren't included in my original comment. These are just the results from the last ten years. Exclude the John Fletcher results (which are modern analyses, hate to be pedantic, but "written before" is inaccurate), and you still have 50 some results. This subject is notable.--res Laozi speak 22:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Tut tut! Very bad research on your part. Actually read the books that you are citing as being "from the last ten years". Albert Henry Newman died in 1933, for example. Eduard Reuss, another author on your purported list of "last ten years", died in 1891, and the book listed was published in 1874. William Theophilus Dawson, a third author on your purported list of "last ten years", died in 1935 and the book itself was published in 1911. Your list also includes works by A. W. Benn and Edwin Stringham, both obviously dead longer than 10 years, and James M. Campbell, who died in 1926 and whose book was published in 1908.
        Always read what your searches turn up. A search result isn't an argument; and people who point to searches on search engines are not making well-researched arguments, but almost always arguments that are full of holes, as yours is here. (I'm even leaving aside the massive hole in your argument that you pointed to a Google Books search, which is a bad argument on its face, given how Google Books works.) Uncle G (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't bite me please, I'm still relatively new, and I don't know all the kinks to Google Books searches. I'll withdraw my keep, but I retain a redirect, since it may be a plausible search term.--res Laozi speak 22:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There's nothing "biting" there. This isn't some Wikipedia-specific thing, that a Wikipedia novice wouldn't be expected to know. This is how to use search engines as research tools, and checking the publication dates of books, and is not Wikipedia-specific at all. Uncle G (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought Google Books kept track of publication dates? I assumed that specifying 21st century results would be enough, but it seems that it's not. So I've learned something new today. Either way, this is getting off topic. I'm still new to researching regarding notability, which is a "Wikipedia-specific thing", and the part that I consider to be bite-y.--res Laozi speak 23:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Not biting, just a suggestion- start by closely reading this article, and see how much you think could be salvaged after the POV and the synthesis are removed. To my eyes, once you remove the religious argument and the sources that don't actually say what the article is claiming, there doesn't seem to be anything left- and a rewrite is only a good suggestion if there's someone willing to do it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        FisherQueen, I didn't consider your replies to be biting at all, and apologise if I've implied that they were so. I understand your point now, hence my withdrawing of the keep.--res Laozi speak 23:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is great original research. I would love to read this in some periodical, but it does not belong here at WP. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: O.R. essay; not salvagable article. Jonathunder (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shotokan of England Karate Union[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as lacking independent sources since July 2008. There's also no indication of why the organization is notable. There are only 27 member clubs and no other claims of notability. I didn't find any independent sources supporting notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am satisfied with the notability of 27 clubs and their presence via google search. jmcw (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No question it exists or that it has member clubs. Is that alone sufficient to make it notable? I don't think so, but I'll go with consensus. I think independent sources, from outside the organization, are required to show notability and I didn't see those. Perhaps some UK magazines or newspapers can supply these references. Papaursa (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The organization is quite active [1] - I don't know how to search UK newspapers to find sources. jmcw (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found some more 3rd party sources, including a newspaper article, which indicate the success of this organisation in international level competition. It is among the more important Shotokan federations in Britain. Newspaper and magazine sources are surprisingly hard to find because karate gets minimal press coverage and there are so many different styles.--Charles (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't think there's enough sourcing to really show notability, but it's also not fluff. I think it's interesting that the article wasn't edited for over 4 months and, once it was up for AfD, there were 7 edits within 3 hours. Astudent0 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the good things that can happen when an article is put up for AfD--people actually try to fix it. The article has been improved by these latest edits and references.Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does this mean that we will lose our choice of which articles we work on by having many articles dragged through AFD? jmcw (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any kind of edit, even vandalism brings an article to editors attention because it appears on watchlists, which leads them to notice things that need doing. The threat of deletion does give added urgency though.--Charles (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I put the article up for PROD months ago because I didn't think it showed notability and it had no independent sources. It hadn't really changed, so someone putting it up for AfD wasn't unreasonable. The fact that it had been tagged for 2 1/2 years means that no one really was making an effort to fix the article.Astudent0 (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That no one is working on it is not grounds for deletion. jmcw (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's true, but if you don't see notability or sources, I do think that's grounds for deletion. If not then, when? Astudent0 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        After one has made the effort to look for sources onesself. That means more than just reading the article. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well said sir.--Charles (talk) 18:27, 25 November 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 Victorian fashion#Women's Fashion. Only one editor thinks this should be kept as a separate article. The others disagree about whether any content is merge-worthy. Redirecting allows editorial consensus to determine what, if any, content should be merged from the history. Sandstein 07:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19th century female attire[edit]

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

Recently created article by an unregistered user. Appears to just be someone's rather-vague essay. thisisace (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Victorian fashion#Women's Fashion, or simply redirect it if no content is salvagable. Plausible search term. It does look like original research, but not blatant OR.--res Laozi speak 21:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No proper reason to delete is provided by the nomination as reasons such as recently created, unregistered, rather vague have no basis in policy. Our actual editing policy is to assist new editors in such cases. Notice that this editor provided a good source — Byrde, Penelope. Nineteenth Century Fashion. 0713455462. London: Butler and Tanner Ltd., 1992 — and so the accusation of OR is uncivil, failing to assume good faith and demonstrating that the article has not yet been properly inspected. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep There are news results for "19th century" AND "female attire". [2] Words other than female might show additional results. There are books written about this, or just mentioning it in detail. I saw a program on PBS called Frontier House which had quite a bit of detail in it about female attire of the 19th century, that the 1800's. They had laws in place about the dress code, what all women had to wear. Lot of coverage about this to be found. I doubt any history book about that period in time, wouldn't mention the required attire women had to wear. Many feminist at the time rallied and protested for, among other things of course, a change in the female dress code, it oppressive towards women, and something important enough to be protested about. Dream Focus 15:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to merge. There are already articles covering this. Dream Focus 18:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have coverage of this under Victorian fashion. This is vague and very sparse essay-like content with little in here even worth merging. There's also the point that "19th century" is a rather arbitrary and unimportant time period to place the boundaries at. The turn of the centuries weren't where the significant shifts in fashion took place. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: poorly written piece of uncertain sourcing whose topic appears to conflate two distinctive fashion periods: Regency (1795–1820 in fashion) and Victorian fashion, both of which have 'Women's fashion sections. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^yak 17:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect this content fork to Victorian fashion. If there is any relevant content, it can be merged. SnottyWong ^yak 17:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per res. There is a source, and there's useful information there; it's just necessary to cite the actual statements. (The article itself is redundant, but there's no reason not to merge the content.) Roscelese (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just what is there in here that's worth merging? "Today in Modern America women wear things under their clothes, known as underwear."? "Females then never wore t-shirts."? or the slightly bizarre "A pickaninny would take the blame for any escaped gas that was let loose from the rich woman in a public place."? I just can't find a sentence in here that's worth saving and isn't trivially self-evident, let alone not already covered in Victorian fashion. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things like the descriptions of garments - though I suppose those could be added from the existing articles on them as well. Roscelese (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it fairly carefully and I can't find anything worth saving - most is either outright wrong, or only tenuously arguable for a small period of the 19th century. "The dress was worn long and was molded to the female’s body." is a reasonable comment on Regency clothing, but would be outrageous in the high Victorian period. The 19th century just wasn't consistent enough to make simplistic blanket statements about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frog in a Suit[edit]

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

Crystal ballery, verified only by Facebook reference. PROD removed by author without explanation and without adding references to reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure speculation. No reliable sources. Let's wait until it is at least being filmed. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 21:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least userfy until it's been released and become notable, per my original PROD rationale: no evidence of notability yet; wikipedia is not a crystal ball. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JJ98 (Talk) 19:47, 22 November 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 Dulce Maria. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verano (song)[edit]

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

I redirected this song to the page of the recording artist but it was reverted non notable recording fails WP:NSONG Mo ainm~Talk 21:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 21:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the article and semi-protect it from being reverted again. Songs should be redirected to the relevant main article.--res Laozi speak 21:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had the AFD not been started, I would have restored the redirect. It was undone by LuizValentim evading his block.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling the IP was the same editor, but hadn't realised that it was block evasion and would have just redirected myself and reported the IP Mo ainm~Talk 10:48, 21 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Stadtmüller[edit]

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

Fails WP:N in general and WP:ACADEMIC in particular Sulmuesi (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since he was elected for president of History department on Munich University he can not fail nor WP:N in general nor WP:ACADEMIC. "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." I am main contributor to the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment. GS cites seems to give h index = 7. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Highest level refers to President or Vice Chancellor. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep (weakish, but keep nonetheless). Googlescholar is notoriously bad in getting citations in humanities, especially for someone who wrote in pre-internet era (he dies in 1985). GoogleBooks results are significant[3]. Most of the sources are in German, so I can't make out very well what is what there, but this[4] seems to be a festschrift for his 65th birthday. There are bio-pages about him at Leipzig University[5] and at the Hungarian Institute in Munich[6] (see section IV there) where he seems to have been a Director at some point. This[7] (pp. IX-XI) seems to be a published bio article about him. More digging is required, preferably by someone who knows German, but the subject seems to pass WP:PROF and WP:BIO to me. Nsk92 (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: because of this biography/obituary and its content - which seems to indicate sufficient evidence of notability - stressing his importance and regard with which he and his work are held by those in the German speaking studies of some parts of SE europe. [8] (Msrasnw (talk) 01:12, 24 November 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. Consensus seems to be that Fischer probably meets the notability standards for academics, if only just barely. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Jürgen Fischer[edit]

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

Fails WP:N in general and WP:ACADEMIC in particular. Sulmuesi (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This scholar of Balkan politics has GS cites of 36, 22, 15, 4, 3, 1, 1. Does not seem much, even for a poorly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I am main contributor to the article. He is very often cited when it is Balkan issues about. For example 15 times only on Ustaše article. I know it is not much, but he obviously significantly contributed to Balkan issues that are maybe not in mainstream of interest of wide public and science. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to this web page he is a member of the Albanian Academy of Science, which looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per David Eppstein. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per high holdings of his book "Albania at War" on Worldcat libraries (over 1k libraries). He seems to be a decently prominent scholar in a small field. I do not know whether the Albanian Academy of Science is a highly selective society. Ray^Talk 22:46, 26 November 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 (non-admin closure) - Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes. SnottyWong ^chat 00:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur E. Morris[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, declined speedy. I do not think being mayor meets WP:POLITICIAN, and there's no other assertion of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in the Lancaster Intelligencer. Held a number of positions besides being Mayor of Lancaster. Racepacket (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think it is to be expected that a local politician will have coverage in local newspapers. Can you make an argument for general notability or why the subject meets the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN says, "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Here, Morris was not only the youngest mayor in history, but he later served as chair of the Convention Authority that brought him into litigation with a former county commissioner and the local newspapers. So we have a subjective call as to whether Lancaster City and County is sufficiently prominent in the region (Lancaster is the 8th largest city in Pennsylvania) or whether Morris' role in the convention center controversy or as chair of the Three Mile Island decommissioning advisory panel is sufficient. In my view, Morris meets the test. Racepacket (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to "cities of at least regional importance", Lancaster has a population of about 55K, and being 8th in size in it's home state doesn't make it important at a regional level. As for the Three Mile Island commission and the legal conflict you mention, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination if you find significant coverage on those in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm willing to give a lot of leeway to a mayor and this one appears to have received coverage on various items outside his mayorship (e.g. state record holder, race named after him, TMI advisory panel). The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The New York Times, sources far removed from Pennsylvania, mention him as the head or chairman of the panel. Location (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

39 other Lancaster mayors have Wikipedia biographies. Racepacket (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the other articles, see WP:OTHER. In regard to the NY and LA Times articles, he gets passing mention rather than significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The LAT and NYT are major papers that refute the earlier point that he has only been mentioned in local news sources. WP:BIO/WP:BASIC states: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". We are obviously not going to find Thomas Jefferson-like biographies written about this guy, but the article shows that enough has been found over multiple independent reliable sources to write a decent sized article about him. Location (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but ideally we need to find enough in 2ndary sources to be able to put up an article that does not rely on material from sites that are closely associated with him. I think we're close to being able to do that. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am as deletionist as the next guy when it comes to vanity or COI biographies. However, here somebody created a bio for every mayor in the history of Lancaster and created succession boxes linking them. I suspect that is how this article started. Lancaster is the hub of that part of Pennsylvania, and Morris has been active beyond just being the mayor. Again, the notability criteria is subjective, but i think this article is worth a rescue effort. Racepacket (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The options should be Keep or Merge into List of mayors of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. If you consider him notable for only one event, then merge. If notable in general, then he keeps his own article. But to claim he's so non-notable that all information should be deleted in total? This is the sort of debacle which has caused me to semi-retire from Wikipedia. I have no idea what some of you 'deletionists' are trying to accomplish here. Or rather, un-accomplish. Flatterworld (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse a merge, fwiw. Also, please note I have not !voted yet. My feeling is that the subject is not notable enough for his own article, but it's close. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per user:Location The Steve 17:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search for his name and the word mayor gives results [9]. Based on what others have said, I'd say this person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 00:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per some excellent improvements by Racepacket (talk · contribs) in a relatively short amount of time, which tells me that this article could improve even further if even more thorough efforts were made (which they hopefully will be as a result of this AFD). The article is supported by reliable sources. Personally, I would be satisfied with keeping this article simply based on his status as mayor, let alone all the other information that's been added. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, ok, I'm convinced there's enough there, thanks to Racepacket for yeoman's service in finding sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Dusk[edit]

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

Non-notable fan fiction. E. Fokker (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this artical is a good artical —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesfromleahsdiary (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All Ghits seem to be about a band, a floor covering and other stuff. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And one that appears to be poetry by Clark Ashton Smith, which I've bookmarked... Elsewise, nowt. Nowt worth bothering with, at least. Fan fiction is sometimes notable, but like all self-published this is seldom. And judging from the plot synopsis, this ain't one. The reviewers are not a reliable source - they sound easily pleased. I have bought the Twilight series, but not read them as they were presents for a teenage cousin - and accept her judgement that they are good as I know the standard of her own writing (which I think I am responsible for setting her off at...). I'm not passing this one on to her. Oh yes, I nearly forgot. This looks a bit spammy for a facebook group too. Sorry, Jes and Annie - Wikipedia is not for promotion. Peridon (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peridon. Reyk _YO! 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this poetry by Clark Ashton Smith? And how exactly is it for floor covering ect? I am a LOYAL reader of Lunar Dusk. This is a great fan fiction for those who didn't want the saga to end. People write in their own time to please others. Do you really want to be the one(s) to bring them down? Destroy a future? I personally think the writing is a good quality standard for a thirteen year old. So back off.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.21.141 (talk • contribs)

We were just indicating that searching for the name 'Lunar Dusk', you find references to a band, a floor covering and a poem, but too little about this fan fiction, hence our recommendation to delete which has nothing to do with the writing style and surely the future of the site does not depend on having an article here. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I search for Lunar Dusk the first two aren't the Lunar Dusk here, they are the band. But the thrid, fourth and fifth are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.21.141 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was too brief, the Google search is only a means to uncover independent and reliable third party sources than confer notability to a topic and allow for writing a verifiable and neutral artcile. What we're trying to say is that such refs do not seem to exist and we've searched ourselves as well, rather finding refs for other stuff (Facebook links rank high, but do not count as reliable). --Tikiwont (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This piece of fan fiction has no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The poetry was found when looking up 'Lunar Dusk'. Obviously Clark Ashton Smith used the words in something. (It's the sort of thing he would). If the writer(s) of this is/are only 13, I'll back off a bit about the quality. (But not about the notability...) I'd advise reading Clark Ashton Smith - he's a fair way back now but his stuff lives on and was pretty way out for its day. He is worth reading for his use of words and the lovely (possibly not the most appropriate word for CAS's work...) twists at the end in some of them. Can't remember if vampires come in, but zombies certainly do and some fairly weird stuff too. Good luck with the writing, anyway. Keep stuff you do even if it doesn't work. I posted in another discussion about a paragraph I kept for years before it turned into a story (and a prequel halfway there and a sequel to come. Even if something doesn't work, you can recycle. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's okay. I'll pass that on to Jes. I might check his poetry out as I am I big fan of poets and most English related subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annie-xx-alton (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check his fiction too. And please sign with four ~ thingies... Peridon (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to either Amazon.com#Controversies (an article sub-section) or Amazon.com controversies (a standalone article).

In spite of the obviously controversial, to put it mildly, nature of the topic and the lengthy discussion, I think consensus here is pretty clear cut. AfDs are not, of course, votes, but considering the numbers is particularly useful for this AfD. I broke down all of the comments below into the following categories, with totals to follow.

Delete: 6
Delete or Merge: 12
Merge: 8
Merge or Keep: 1
Keep (including "keep and rename"): 8

Discounted !Votes: (10 total, 8 keeps/don't deletes by IPs or new accounts who did not articulate valid arguments, 1 "keep somewhere" with no explanation, 1 delete with no rationale)

So in total I find there to be 35 valid !votes/comments in this AfD (note: even were I to count a few more of the random IP votes, which I don't think is warranted, this would not change my reading of the outcome). Out of those 35, only a small minority were in favor of keeping or deleting outright. Over half of the 35 supported deletion, but two-thirds of those found merging acceptable. Even of the 14 outright keep/delete !votes, several seemed to intimate that a merge would be acceptable.

Looking to the specific arguments rather than the !votes we find a similar story. Almost no one is suggesting that the controversy surrounding the book lacks any notability—i.e. we should probably talk about it somewhere. On the other end, few of the outright !keep voters (JoshuaZ is one exception) are articulating an argument against a merge. The argument that the notability of the book comes primarily or exclusively in the context of Amazon.com's retail choices (and not for the book itself per say) is more convincing and supported by a supermajority, i.e. most or all of those arguing for merge and/or for deletion.

As such a merge seems to be where consensus lies, and we even almost have agreement as to the target. If the newly created Amazon.com controversies remains an article it belongs there, otherwise Amazon.com#Controversies would be the target. Editors should carry out a merge to one of those as soon as possible, and folks can haggle about where the Amazon "controversies" belong later. Please note that Phillip R. Greaves also currently exists as a redirect to this article and will need to be directed to the eventual merge target for The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure.

One final note: merging obviously does not preclude later expansion of the material into a standalone article should additional coverage (and changed consensus) suggest that that's the best course. For now though the consensus to merge and redirect this article is quite clear in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Unremarkable book which has only come to be discussed because of its subject matter (paedophilia) and sale on Amazon.com. It is not in itself a notable book and fails WP:GNG. No objection to a merge to Amazon.com Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Amazon.com Drat! Beat me to it. I was going to nominate this for deletion when Delicious carbuncle got in ahead of me by literally seconds. Totally obscure smut manual of no inherent notability whatsoever, known only because of Amazon controversy that will be forgotten in a few weeks. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe we should wait a few weeks to see if it actually is forgotten or not. Amazon ran into a controversy surrounding a similar book in 2002 (eight years ago), and that controversy is still being discussed in the media even today. It certainly wasn't "forgotten". Stonemason89 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be missing the point - the controversy may be notable, the book is not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is a unremarkable book, and find the topic repulsive, but the contorversy could be lost on the Amazon page, and also doesn't this fall under possible Internet censorship? Maybe a cross link between censorship / Amazon / etc?* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.253.81 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with deletion as deleting the mere mention or review of a book is just as bad or worse as banning or censoring the book itself. What are we afraid of? The information? The mere fact someone has written about a Taboo subject does not qualify any review or book to be banned regardless of content. If we head down the censorship road where does it stop? The Nazis tried that and it failed to work for them too. An open society by it's very freedom of being open for publishing thoughts and discussions on any subject is the very basis for all our hard won constitutional freedoms. If you don't wish to read about a subject, then don't. But don't impose your value system or beliefs on others. Freedom of the press is sacrosanct. Demosthanes2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demosthanes2 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Demosthanes2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bielle (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - mention Nazis and you've already lost the debate - Alison ^❤ 23:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another lol Seconding that motion, Sadads (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I commented on his talk page pointing out Godwin's law, Sadads (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or, alternatively, merge to Amazon.com#Controversies. Has received a great deal of coverage already (all of it negative for Amazon) from many mainstream sources. Another possible solution would be to expand it to include the other "controversial" (obscene, racist, illegal) books that Amazon has chosen to sell or not sell in the past, and the controversies surrounding them; then, possibly rename it Amazon.com controversies or Controversies surrounding Amazon.com's sales policies. There have been enough such controversies by now, and they have received enough attention, that they definitely do deserve their own article, even if only as a group rather than a separate article for each controversy. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable book with just a fleeting mention due to the Amazon link. At best, merge the relevant parts to Amazon.com#Controversies - Alison ^❤ 23:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amazon controversies per Stoneman, as much as I disagree with the nature of the book, the fact that it was reported by a newspaper or two suggests that it reflects on Amazon, Sadads (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think that, as was mentioned by Stonemason, this article would fit well with Amazon's other controversies. Kelvari (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: Just because this book is controversial it should not be deleted. It can be a very good educational resource for therapists and counselors. I work with SAY (sexually agressive youth) and it's literature like this book that helps us teach our children to avoid situations that lead to pedophiles molesting and raping children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.162.46 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 108.17.162.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete: This is now text book material for preventing and spotting signs of possible child / adult relations. This can lay ground work of very useful future preventions. Especially for those accused falsely by estranged spouses / family. Child Protective Services can actually have something in their arsenal other than pure speculation to remove a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.227.147 (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 174.55.227.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Amazon's removal may be the cause of its fame, but articles covering that incident certainly have added sufficient coverage of both the book's content and its author for this article to satisfy WP:GNG. __meco (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amazon.com#Controversies: per Stonemason. Quite apart from the suggestions about the theraputic value of this tome being arrant nonsense, it's appropriate in such a section, and very unlikely to have any staying power as a story otherwise. (That being said, anyone want to bet me a dime against $100 that this isn't going to be a long, long debate?) Ravenswing 14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge the book itself appears to be illiterate nonsense, so it's really a story about Amazon, not the book.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somewhere or the pedos win.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DELETE IT IF THE BOOK ISN'T BEING BANNED. IT'S SILLY AND A WASTE OF TIME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.126.19 (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 110.159.126.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bielle (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Amazon. The controversy is perhaps notable (or at least a verifiable example of an ongoing debate) the book is not notable.--Scott Mac 13:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book simply isn't notable. The controversy may merit a mention in the Amazon article, but I'm unsure if leaving a redirect here is worth it. AniMate 21:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of the book appears to have become notable in his own right, too, since articles are now being published that focus on him specifically: [10]. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Book is notable people are just using their emotions and personal opinions to decide whether or not it is notable. If this book were about basketball nobody would care. I too find the material disgusting - but I find censorship more disgusting. 110.168.143.53 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 110.168.143.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bielle (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:AGF, please. Strange as the notion of handling issues in a logical, dispassionate manner seems to be to many people, there are numerous editors on Wikipedia who seek to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in a fair and balanced manner. For myself, since I am not a mindreader, I presume that people usually fall into that category rather than assume that those voting in a way I don't like are "just using their emotions and personal opinions." Ravenswing 03:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't run across Basketball-Pedophilia analogies every day.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GustavM has weighed in on this discussion here. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Amazon.com#Controversies: non notable in itself. He iro 04:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename I believe that this does warrant an entry to itself to cover everything but I do think that this should probably be renamed in order to encompass ALL of the information about Amazon's policies about keeping the boylover books on as well as the continued coverage Amazon is getting over the continued removal of all boylover/pedophilic material from the site. There's so much information about this that it might be too much to put under the controversy section of amazon. I also believe that PETA's insistence on removing dogfighting could be added in here as a branch off of the pedophile book removals. It could be renamed to "Removal of offensive materials from amazon" (or something like that) in order to include not only the boylover/pedophile books, but anything else that was removed under those pretenses. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete: Less-known book and it's very controversial. It belongs to online trade shops like amazon and shouldn't be listed there.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Controversial" is not at all a reason to delete; in fact, it's the exact opposite, since the book is notable because of its controversial nature, not in spite of it. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The book has been removed from Amazon, and its ten seconds of fame is fast receding into history. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. meco (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't nominate this for rescue. It has tons of eyes on it already, its not like help is needed to find sourcing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nominated for rescue, it's nominated so the ARSe squad can pile on the 'keep' votes. Pardon my ABF but I've seen it happen enough times already <_< - Alison ^❤ 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The book has become notable through controversy, and should remain. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is cited information in here that's hard to find in other places if you're looking for it, because there is such a torrent of info. While it may be 'forgotten', it can easily be removed in a few months if that's so. *Right now*, though, is the best time for the collection of actual information on the subject. There are 2300 articles in Google News on this. Declarations that it 'will' be forgotten are unprovable at this time. Information should be collected, edited, parsed, cited and supported, and we can revisit this early in 2011. --Thespian (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I came to find out about the controversy (not the book) and that this is the latest of a series of books to be removed with this subject area, an article about how and why books are banned would be interesting. I heard about this on MSNBC's tech page. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Censorific (talk • contribs) 11:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — Censorific (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, useful info on a notable book. --JN 466 21:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the Amazon.com article. Self-published book that is completely non-notable apart from the Amazon.com controversy. Keep votes seem to mostly confuse the notability of the Amazon.com controversy with notability for the book itself. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. STOP CENSORSHIP. — TheReal s0nicfreak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Merge to Amazon.com#Controversies. This book is only notable in relation to that incident. I don't see book reviews or reception coverage like we have in articles about other books. The section on the author seems to fall under WP:NOT#NEWS. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User: Toonmonk has weighed in on this discussion here. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Why was this up for deletion? The information is accurate, I believe. There is nothing inherently offensive about information. For example, if you wanted to speak out about this book, you probably need to know about it first. Information is not just needed for promotion, but for its opposite. Know thy enemies, and never ignore them, if that's the reason for this deletion suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.195.158 (talk) — 130.58.195.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, maybe merge a small stub of the info into the Amazon article. There are a lot of books published, and I'd say as a general rule a book that can't find an actual publisher is almost certainly not notable. The article actually contains not that much about the book itself, but it doesn't appear to be scholarly work or otherwise of value. The only reason to keep the article is the controversy. If the article is kept, it should definitely be renamed to something like The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure controversy. But what is there to say about the controversy, really? Not much. And WP:NOTNEWS, and we are an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid broadsheet, and notoriety is not the same notability. Anything that needs to be said can be said in a couple of sentences in the Amazon.com article. Herostratus (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement that as a general rule a book that can't find an actual publisher is almost certainly not notable is not at all true. See Germany Must Perish!. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said "as a general rule. Herostratus (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a book not notable on its own, which cut a snow-drizzle of interest because it exposed what unmonitored self-publishing via amazon can lead to. It's a classic "one event" wikipedia article, and now purely serves to advertise a book designed to help pedophiles victimize children, far beyond any broader interest it could generate without the wikipedia/google mojo nexus.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "wikipedia/google mojo nexus"? That's a new one.... (shakes head) Stonemason89 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in strongly condensed form into Amazon.com#Controversies. All coverage about, and therefore all notability of, this book is related to its treatment by Amazon. Sandstein 07:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Amazon.com#Controversies per Sandstein, does not appear to be inherently notable.--Pink Bull 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 19:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this as a delete, but there's no harm in more discussion here, as the difference between a merge and a delete here is particularly thin. Courcelles 19:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or move because notability is not inherited and the book itself doesn't seem to be notable independent of the controversy. As we saw with WP:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) (yes, it was really nominated 18 times--and only deleted on the last one!), merely being a controversial topic does not protect an article from being deleted (that article was subsequently discussed on DRV many times; it is currently a redirect). Deletion is not automatically censorship. It may be appropriate to have a separate article on the controversy (hence the move option) but it is not appropriate to have an article on the book since the book is not notable independent of the Amazon controversy. On the other hand, the information in the article may be useful elsewhere and notability generally is not a reason to remove content. --N Y Kevin @881, i.e. 20:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the GNAA goes, that article has since been recreated as a redirect. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep because people just want to delete it because of the controversy. This is a useful guidebook for pedophiles and needs to be maintained. Woobarcat (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)— Woobarcat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dude's indef'd, too. Jack ;)[reply]

Merge, WP:TABLOID teapot tempest but one which was heard quite widely. The book itself is not in the least bit notable, the only thing which is notable is the controversy, and that only really in the context of Amazon. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. Non-notable book that amounts to trolling the whole world. Jack Merridew 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Amazon. Probably not notable enough on its own, but merits a discussion in that article. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A completely non-notable book. Any mention of the Amazon dust-up can be cited in a sentence in the Amazon article. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic news dust-up. "WP:TABLOID teapot tempest...." Too much drama, too much free publicity for pedofiles. Bearian (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The last thing we need is to give another excuse for an idiot to sue us. 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no way that guy's lawsuit is going to get any traction. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading tip. Wikipedia has a policy page called Wikipedia:Child protection. On its talk page there are some interesting discussions, some if which clearly would add useful perspectives to many of the comments and opinions presented in the current discussion. See for instance Wikipedia talk:Child protection#CNN goes on the warpath against Amazon.com. __meco (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete Passing news story per WP:NOTNEWS, not a notable book in its own right.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book was well-publicized in many media reports, which were not general reports about Amazon but just that and a few other books. We might consider a merge with the other books banned by Amazon in response to the media push, but I think this would also be counterproductive, because the resulting article would tend to become open-ended. We should not create a "controversies about Amazon" POV fork, nor should we try to cover all the twists and turns in evaluation of individual books in the main Amazon article. I'll add that however short it is, I found this article quite useful because it cited a reference showing that PETA was using the banning of this book to push for banning of books about dog-fighting, a good empirical example of the "slippery slope" in action.^[12] I should emphasize that, as I've said before, WP:NOTNEWS does not call for deletion of the subjects of widespread news coverage. Wnt (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTNEWS exists because people often dash off to their computers to create articles in response to stories in the news without considering the overall notability. This appears to be an example of the phenomenon. I would be quite happy to see this information merged into Amazon.com or another article, but it fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about that guideline, that everyone who cites it always ignores what it says? "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". And the WP:GNG still says "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is very clearly true. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary. Major news stories should always have a standalone article, but this is not a major news story. It is a media brouhaha that is likely to be forgotten in a few weeks' time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, look at the guideline! "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." That says the exact opposite of what you imply! Wnt (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete Completely fails WP:Notability (books). Per WP:NOTNEWS, we do not have an article about a book to record that there was a media fuss at a certain time. The incident (Amazon selling/withdrawing book) is not sufficiently notable (NOTNEWS) to warrant an article, so if the editors at Amazon.com feel it helpful, some material could be used there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again again, look at the guideline! "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

Now it's clear that the very first criterion for the books notability policy, same as the GNG, is met here. Many news articles talked about this book, and they did not simply regurgitate a plot (and weren't just press releases); they discussed what it said.

I should add that while it is not necessary to retain the article, there is much historical significance to this. The book was used in a general crusade against well-known companies selling user-generated books without having a publisher going over and deciding whether it is morally acceptable to publish it or not. It clarifies, as never before, the private publisher's primary role as a censor rather than a mere typesetter and book-binder. Wnt (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are making an argument for why an article on the incident should exist. The book notability guideline does not cover the case where a storm erupts over a company selling a particular book. Such a storm does not make the book notable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between a "storm" and a "review"? Reviews make a book notable according to WP:Notability (books). We could have an article Amazon.com banning of The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure, but that would be stupid, no? Wnt (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book needs to establish notability beyond the Amazon row, which it has failed to do. Merge/delete is still the best option.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are weak though over the GNG bar (if just barely). In such cases I tend to go with "is this really notable" as a metric. And my opinion is strongly on the side of no here. Feel free to treat this as an IAR !vote to delete. Hobit (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the creation of the Amazon controversies article, I'm okay with a merge there as I don't think a short mention there would be undue weight (as it would in the main Amazon article). Hobit (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously, the book itself is anything but notable. Added to this, WP:CHILD would otherwise tip it over to the delete side. The incident itself is notable, and can be added to amazone.com article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has become a subject of significant controversy., with sources to show it. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The controversy may be considered significant, the book itself, no - Alison ^❤ 05:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a quite artificial distinction. Obviously the controversy has arisen over the book's content. The list of book's which became famous (or infamous as the case would prove) over controversies is virtually endless. __meco (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of the citations in The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure are in the context of the Amazon brouhaha. Unlike Lady Chatterley's Lover or The Satanic Verses, the article The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure makes no real effort to establish the notability of the book beyond the fuss it caused on Amazon.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just split off the controversy section from the Amazon.com article to create a new article, Amazon.com controversies. If we end up merging this page, we could merge it there instead of to the main Amazon.com article. That way, WP: UNDUE would not be as much of an issue. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems likely to quickly become a troublesome content fork, but that is a whole other discussion. I note that this book is already mentioned - what content would you add if this AfD closes as a merge? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hardly a "troublesome content fork". Previously, nearly 40% of the Amazon.com article consisted of controversy, which is a violation of WP: UNDUE that several editors had complained about previously on that article's talk page. Moving the controversies out of the Amazon.com article was therefore a necessary step. If anything is "troublesome", it was the status quo ante. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure you are right. What content do you think needs to be added to that article about this book? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If merge is the ultimate result, the reaction to the book from groups like Enough is Enough, the American Bookseller's Association and PETA would be worth adding, since it counts as notable criticism. Exactly where Phillip R. Greaves's name should redirect is another question; while he's received a great deal of coverage, I don't know if having a biography of him would be appropriate, whether it would be wiser to briefly mention him in Pedophile activism or some other such article, or whether it would be best to mention him briefly in Amazon.com controversies along with the book controversy and then have his name redirect there. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep The book is notable for the controversy it created. The fact that it a was a controversy connected with Amazon is more of an argument for a mention in the main Amazon article with a link to the article on the book, since we have a fair bit of material about this controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:03, 26 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baltinava[edit]

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

No references. Needs references. It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 19:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep – Click the geolocation link. Follow the Google link in find sources, the first three links are sources, or follow the lv.wiki link - be WP:BOLD ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. —^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like a town to me. Latvian Wikipedia references a Latvian print encyclopedia. Needing references is reason to place a needs references tag, not for AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I've added the refs from the Latvian article - and discovered I'd got a talk page there too even though I've never edited there yet. Refs don't have to be in English, although it is preferred. Peridon (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified villages are notable per consensus. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:08, 23 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marian devotions[edit]

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

content forking. Article is virtual duplication of Catholic devotions and other Marian related articles. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and modify). Given that this article discusses Eastern Orthodoxy, it is not a virtual duplicate of Catholic devotions. The problem here is that:

Notability: The topic "Marian Devotions" is quite notable and deserves an entry in Wikipedia. This topic, is however, multi-denominational and not just Catholic.

Catholic devotions is just Catholic and can not absorb this article, else I would have voted "Merge". And Catholic devotions are not just Marian, but can involve other devotions.

I think the Catholic section should be made smaller by removing overlap, and the Eastern Orthodox section should be expanded. There is really much more than can (and I think should) be said about the Eastern Orthodox Marian practices. I just started to learn about that as I rewrote the Eastern Orthodox section of another article and noticed "100% copyright issues", as explained here. This AFD actually made me think it would be a good idea to learn more about the Eastern Orthodox and expand that section. That would be fun for me to do, and it will fill the information gap here. I should probably also write a section on Anglican practices, given that there is no mention of it here. So I think it would be good to expand the Orthodox section and add an Anglican section, specially referring to the more modern practices, while trimming the Catholic section.

And it should be point out that this nomination is part of "mass nominations" performed rather quickly, as discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian art in the Catholic Church, following other incidents. However, this AFD does spark interest in expanding the Orthodox and Anglican sections, and I will do that, as I trim the Catholic parts. History2007 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2.4 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". This article seems a better basis for this notable topic than its putative rival. In any case, the matter should be resolved by ordinary editing and discussion, not by AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you feel that this AFD was an excuse and an attempted deletion for other purposes Colonel, the broader question then becomes "what Wikipedia policies are there to respond to disruptive AFD tags"? Do you know what needs to be done to stop disruptive tags in general? One can issue warnings, but what if the warnings are shrugged off and tag generation continues? History2007 (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no editing dispute. Do you have diffs? The article in question is a duplication of many others. That is why it's being nominated.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may explain a few things Colonel: Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary_(Roman_Catholic)#Consecration_to_Mary.3F, as well as the items it leads to. Malke: you have been having editing disputes on this topic for a while now, going back to Catholic views on Mary and before. The question is now about the appropriate Wikipidia policies needed to handle them. And I would note that the 2nd WP:POINT warning was just deleted by Malke.History2007 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is about the article Marian devotions which is a near mirror of Catholic devotions. Comments should be about the merits of either keeping or deleting this article belong here. Comments about Blessed Virgin Mary belong on that talk page where editors can still find the points I made that resulted in the new, accurate edit which still stands. The "dispute" was your objection to the new edit because you don't allow any changes to that article, and you edit warred over it and made personal attacks. You put a warning on my talk page and an administrator came along and pointed out edit warring behavior and threatened to block both of us, but your block would have an extra 2 hours for the personal attacks you made. You've since refactored them after being asked several times to do so by the same admin. Your efforts to save this article should be about the article, and not about trying to discredit my good faith efforts to remove bad articles from Wikipedia. Other editors have noted for a long time now that there is a glut of redundant articles about Mary, nearly all obsessively centered on veneration, and all saying the same thing, the same text, linking to the same pages with more of the same text, and almost none of them are accurate or informative. As a member of the WikiProject Catholicism it's hardly a stretch to know which of these could be deleted for the benefit of the project.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above, & I think History's proposed changes are a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all my comments have already been said, by History.Marauder40 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very clearly and obviously not a mirror--there is only a small overlap in content. And, of course, so notable that some of the subtopics are also. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a mirror article, and it expresses both Orthodox and Catholic devotion. I think Anglican devotion should be added though. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Hawkins[edit]

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

Appears to be self-promotional in nature, claims of his invention of the intramolecular kinetic isotope effect seem unlikely since he is not mentioned in that article (but I'm not a chemist). No significant coverage that I can find. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a B K Hawkins with GS cites of 88, 21, 15, 11, 7... not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any verification for his claimed biochemical advances, the idea of using the shareware model for creative content is not original to him, the citation record is not enough for WP:PROF, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShareBook[edit]

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

Non-notable concept--never heard of it myself, and did not find any sources in google news or books. Appears to be promotional in nature, creator of the concept also appears to be non-notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this concept has not received coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Marysville, Washington. –MuZemike 19:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seal of Marysville, Washington[edit]

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

Why does the "seal" (more like logo) of a city of 25,000 people in northwest Washington need its own article. I do not believe that this meets the WP:GNG. Admrboltz (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Marysville, Washington. This two-sentence item apparently does not need to be an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Marysville, Washington, not significant enough for its own article. Dough 48 72 00:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've added what little content is here (basically, a description of the images already in the city article) to that article, along with the flag description. No need for a merger discussion on several talk pages. Mandsford 15:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - What is there to merge? -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, anymore. It's a moot point, per Marysville, Washington#Symbols. Mandsford 18:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I meant was that even the description of the seal isn't worth merging and that's the only material in the article. but since you merged it, then we should redirect to provide an attribution history. -- Whpq (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any necessity for a redirect, and a lot of reasons against one. I don't know how many times I have to say "I've added it already". There's nothing important in the history of the article, and it's the unlikeliest of search terms. Redirecting articles like this just encourages people to create more "Seal of ____" and "Flag of _____" pages. Mandsford 13:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why musicians fail to make money[edit]

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

steaming pile of original research, essay, see WP:NOT WuhWuzDat 17:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of it's true, but it's an essay not an encyclopaedia article. I can't see a way of making it fit, either. Peridon (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a well-written essay that will probably be copied, and turned in as homework in schools across the world, before it's taken down. Mandsford 15:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical, but I like it... Peridon (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why.....why is this even up for debate? This should be speedied. ----Divebomb is not British 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, which of the 22 different reasons set out in WP:SPEEDY do you think would apply here? It's not as easy as it may seem. Mandsford 13:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Annoyingly, nothing seems to apply. Can we use this AFD as an argument to add another criteria? ----Divebomb is not British 13:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but something this uncontroversial could have been taken through PROD. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No" what? ----Divebomb is not British 14:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No we cannot use this AFD as an argument to add another speedy criteria. We don't come across lots and lots of essays as compared to clearly non-notable people. There's no need to increase the scope. Something like this which we occasionally come across can be put through PROD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is inspirational and very informative. As a five-year veteran of the local-band scene I can tell you how many times me and my mates sat well into the night having longwinded discursive philosophical discussions about why we were not making any money, had no girlfriends, and were still living with our parents at 25. Well, now the answer my friends is upon us and we all have this article to thank. This piece, essay, article, whatever it is has redoubled our efforts to "make it" and finally reach fame, fortune, and get the "hot chicks" that all rockers should get. And we have no-one else but the author of this article to thank. His efforts should be lauded, not deleted and scorned. As far as we are concerned, this article and its author stand for everything that is right and just about the American Way. Hats off! Sincerely, Rocco Lampone 75 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC), lead guitarist for "Deep Blue," Bayonne, NJ.[reply]

Good luck on your career. Now's the time to print a copy and frame it, because it probably won't be here much longer. Mandsford 16:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Significant and noteworthy subject of immediate pressing interest. Great potential for exansion. Is sourced as well. Sourced reliably at that. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. This article can stand on its own currently but will be awesome once it is improved. The topic remains credible however. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Is this a joke? (I imagine the guy above me is the same person who tagged the article for rescue.) ----Divebomb is not British 17:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete multiple problems - No sources (the two blog posts are neither reliable or assert notability), it reads like an essay - all in all a very clear example of What Wikipedia is not. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting and informative, but written as an essay based on original research, not as an enyclopedc article. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: WP:OR essay, almost entirely lacking in sourcing (and what sources are cited aren't exactly scholarly), and lacking encyclopaedic style and topic. An article on the 'Economics of the music industry' (or similar), citing solid economics and industry analysis, would probably be a good article -- this ain't it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So, terribly NOT encyclopedic. NotARealWord (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Wikipedia needs more, not less, articles like this. Is encyclopedic, and can be improved along the lines of explaining the "economics of the music industry" et cetera. The comment two above makes the point for keeping and expanding this fine article. Sepulveda Junction (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC) — Sepulveda Junction (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep/merge The topic is obviously notable as the music business is of great interest to many millions of people. For a selection of sources discussing this topic, please see

An obvious merge target is musician. That's currently a piece of junk and so could use a little stimulation. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete," say all my wiki-instincts. But why? Firstly the tone is "how-to," that is addressing people directly and giving them advice. That could be fixed. However a deeper problem is that an encyclopedia is supposed to be for facts about things that are, not reasons why things are not. I don't think we should have articles on "Reasons why Al Gore is not president," or "Reasons why there are so few German restaurants in the United States," or "Reasons why other animal species besides humans don't use fire," and on and on. A section in Musician on factors leading to success sounds like a good idea.[User:Kitfoxxe|Kitfoxxe]] (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::Follow up Ths is a rally good idea!!!! Wow, I see no reason man why there should not be like articles like that on wikipedia, its like amazing and how man we can as a people, through collaborative efforts and joy explain things that are AND as they aren't man. As long as we have consensus and the stuff is sourced man I see no limit to what we can accomplish and write and do. You are onto something man. Is not the "sum of human knowledge" also the knowledge of why things are not as they are? Happy Holidays, man. Sepulveda Junction (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Is not the "sum of human knowledge" also the knowledge of why things are not as they are?" - but things are as they are. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::::But aren't things "not as they are" inherently part of the set of "things as they are"? Take our specific topic as an example. Isn't the situation of the majority of musicians failing to make money a thing that is. And this article explains why that is. Sepulveda Junction (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Things not as they are" represents falsehood, so can't be part of the set of "things as they are", which represents truth - nothing is ever not as it is. The majority of musicians not making money is part of "things as they are", not part of "things not as they are". An assertion that the majority of musicians do make money would be part of the set of "things not as they are" - ie falsehoods. The article describes things as they are, not not as they are. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection whatsoever to the fact that there are many more non-finacially successful musicians than otherwise being reported in musician. I also don't have a problem with a section there telling some of the factors for musical success as suggested by reliable sources on the subject. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay, original research, personal POV. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously. Original research essay, non-encyclopedic topic. SnottyWong ^confess 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note User:Rocco Lampone 75, User:Tomas Gilbfarb, and User:Sepulveda Junction have all been indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 18:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably. The basic premise of this article is flawed:

"Ninety-nine percent of musicians fail to make money"^{[citation needed]}

The inclusion criteria for these musicians is vague - buskers? People who can fart in tune? Bono?

The definition of 'making money' is vague - enough for the next drink? Enough to live on? Enough to have a career as second tuba in the Halle orchestra? Enough to buy a private island staffed with semi-naked masseurs/euses?

Term is an unlikely search target. The current content is an essay, and inherently POV. pablo 18:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Why original research fails to make good articles. Oh, wait, no. Delete. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 27 November 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. The consensus is clearly inevitable; Giving that, there's no need to continue further--there is no need to make a judgment about POINT at this time in order to close it DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marian art in the Catholic Church[edit]

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

POV Content fork/WP:COAT. See: [13]. It is a near duplication of Roman Catholic Mariology and other similar POV content forks. The coat rack nature of this article is best seen under it's "Appartions" section here: [14]. Also see redundant content here: [15]. And same content here: [16]. (Nota bene: A bonafide article on Catholic art already exists: See Art in Roman Catholicism.) Malke 2010 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I can't see much overlap with Roman Catholic Mariology in fact (he has also put that up for deletion!). I wrote parts of the article, and there are many things about it I don't like, including the title, but the idea that the depiction of Mary in Western art is not a proper subject is ridiculous. A very WP:POINTY nom, one of several, from an editor who had just made something of a fool of him/herself here. There are too many articles in this area, but this is not one of them. Some parts, like the Apparitions section, could be trimmed. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is nominated for deletion because it is using the Marian art as a coat rack to create yet another non-neutral article on Marian veneration. The 'art' discussions are really about veneration hung on the 'art' rack. And thank you for pointing to the other article where my argument resulted in the new and accurate edit.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having written much of the "art discussions" I can assure you they are not "really about veneration", any more than my other contributions on art history, nor do I see how any fair-minded person could think so. I don't follow your last sentence but never mind. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting revision statistics: [17]. Also suggests WP:OWN.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just suggests only 2 people have been very interested in editing the article. Have you got round to reading the talk page yet? Probably not. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the talk page. Yes, I had seen it. It begins with an editor trying to explain what's wrong with the page and then being told that, while he might be right, he's getting reverted anyway. [18]. The last entry is nearly a year old. The one before that nearly two years old. You don't seem to have gained much ground with your reasonable arguments there, either. As I said, WP:OWN where editors are chased away, and the rack holds up veneration. By contrast, look at the editing stats on the article this is really about art Art in Roman Catholicism where the figures show a very different picture. [19]. But the talk page [20] still shows the same type of comments from the same editor.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm not really following you. You seem to have missed Lima's comment on the Marian page "History2007 has asked me to add to this article." which hardly suggests WP:OWN. You have not raised anything on the talkpage before launching this Afd. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Lima had to seek approval first. And apparently, he's since closed his account after this bit was brought to his attention by an admin:[ [21] [22]. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you Malke, and I can not see any relevance to these sentences with respect to the attempt to "delete this article". In my view this tangential discussion about the talk page history has no relevance to the attempted AFD (which was called without merit below) and is just taking up time that could be put to better use to improve Wikipedia. I see no reason to respond to tangential issues further. History2007 (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep On the talk page for this article, someone commented:

"First of all, I think the interested reader gets a lot out of this interestivg article as it stands. Thank you for writing it, whoever you are!"

There is no need to delete an article when people come out thanking those who wrote it. I think the point Johnbod had about this nomination being a case of WP:POINT is quite clear. There are many (I have not managed to count how many yet) similar AFD tags placed by User:Malke 2010 often on Marian articles within the past few hours. And WP:POINT claims against user:Malke2010 were made by 3 editors (myself included) on another occasion and a warning was issued. I think as Johnbod said, this is not in any way an article that should have been nominated for deletion in any reasonable sense. And I would like to point out for those do not know his work, that Johnbod is one of the top art experts in Wikipedia. He really knows much more about art and specially Christian art than most other editors around, and a quick look at his article creation record confirms that. So his opinion should be valued. He knows this topic, and I fully agree with the WP:POINT statement. I think it would be fair to issue a 2nd WP:POINT warning to Malke, given the context of this AFD among many others in a space of a few hours. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is interesting and valuable, without strong overlap. I'm kind of glad it was nominated for deletion because it means it came to my attention. But the nomination itself is without merit. Dylan Flaherty 21:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. This is a separate topic to the more general Art in Roman Catholicism which simply cannot cover everything in detail. freshacconci talktalk 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking into Malke 2010's edits, particularly the article he created, Catholic views on Mary, it's clear that this AfD and the others mentioned are POINTY noms. That he considers this article to be a POV fork when Catholic views on Mary is clearly a POV fork itself, it appears that the goal here is to eliminate articles that contradict his specific understanding of the topic. ‎freshacconci talktalk 15:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Freshacconci, and the 2nd WP:POINT warning was just deleted by Malke. History2007 (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article Catholic views on Mary has had redundant content added by History2007 who edit wars when attempts are made to remove it.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing bogus 'warnings' to editors because you don't like the editor or the edit, is not really a warning. It's letting the dog off the leash. Also, I'd already moved your 'warnings' to your talk page. You then put them back on mine.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The term "bogus" does not apply to the warning Malke, given that other editors on this page have considered this AFD a case of WP:POINT, and that several other editors (MikeNutley, Marauder, Xandar and myself) had considered the issues that led to the first warning a case of trying to make a point or the construction of a stalking horse. And the story does not end there, as you know, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian devotions which was one of the "rapid mass nominations" you performed a few days ago, user:Colonel Warden stated that he felt that was a case of nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion. Your response to Colonel Warden was: There's no editing dispute. However, I do see a long history of editing disputes on this topic, going back to the merge proposal of September 28 2010, and even before. Indeed I feel that a 3rd warning or something is appropriate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian devotions given the Colonel's comment, and the denial thereafter. Moreover, I think not only are these issues taking up time that could have been used for more productive work, they are producing a "non productive" image of Wikipedia to new editors. A case in point is Willthacheerleader18 who is a relatively new Wikipedia editor. Having seen your edits, Willthacheerleader18 just asked a simple question: Can we block Malke from editing wikipedia.. they're just destroying it. I think that says a lot. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per all the things already mentioned by Johnbod.Marauder40 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, the article is both important and worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AT-400 (GTA SA Plane)[edit]

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

not notable fictional object inside a video game. Access Denied – talk to me 16:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - an unremarkable in-game object. Why was this not deleted via PROD? --Teancum (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Teancum (although, I don't know how effective it is to claim SNOW on the first !vote...). -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's not applicable. WP:SNOW means it doesn't have a "snowball's chance in..." you get the idea. This is an extremely minor point of a game that has no chance of getting significant, reliable coverage, thus it applies. --Teancum (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second a snowball deletion - I can't imagine any possible keep rationale. Minimally verifiable, no notability of any kind. Would not make a valid redirect title. Marasmusine (talk) 13:30, 24 November 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. Consensus appears to be fairly clear here Black Kite (t) (c) 00:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Harry Potter series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (2nd nomination)

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

Although based on a notable work of fiction, this article a derivative article, which is frowned upon by Wikipedia, the chronology does not meet notability by itself and lacks real-wold notability. The references used fail to meet the criteria for reliable sources and the sources used seem to be unreliable as only one or two are independent and even those do not treat in much detail the chronology, only allusions to events in a short form that can be easily integrated in the main Harry Potter articles. The chronology seems to be original research since there are no independent publications that mention an official chronology, only fansites which have created the chronology based on the books. The chronology itself is more in line with material for a fansite than for an encyclopedia and the article is written with an in-universe perspective. Reading the former nominations, I believe that the issues that were raised before are still prevalent and the article still has the same problems that were raised by others. It still lacks independent sources for verification and still seems like a synthesis of published material that advances a position. Any relevant material from this chronology should be kept in the Harry Potter articles per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. The article also fails to meet the criteria of fiction-related subjects and, in my opinion, this is an unnecessary content fork that falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion.Jfgslo (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the second discussion under this title. Discussions before renaming are linked on the talk page.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's incredibly trivial, holds no secondo or third party sources. It also resembles a ansite. and we shouldn't have that. If this were about the chronology of the books. then maybe it could've been kept. but this is mainly in-universe.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, unreferenced and in-universe. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to http://harrypotter.wikia.com and delete - someone did a good job constructing this information, and though it is OR their is no point in completely removing the content from the Internet, Sadads (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar content is available in chunks such as http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Events_prior_to_1800 etc, we would want to explore that more Sadads (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Derivative works are not frowned on. THis is a summary argticle that includes material that could appear in many other articles and is useful for Harry Potter fans. If fan sites include this sort of thing then we have a source, and a demonstration that the topic is valid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is against the rules to create articles that are only plot summaries, as is the case here, and fan sites are unreliable sources that cannot be used at all in articles, not even to demonstrate the topic would be notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly is it only plot summery, while the first half discusses the plot, it is not summary as far as I can see. Outback the koala (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong delete, per Jfgslo's arguments. Many of the entries and dates are original research by synthesis, and are often sourced to unreliable websites. The article also lacks real-world content. But worst of all, the article fails to establish its notability, why would we need it if there are no independant secondary sources dealing with the subject ? The chronology of the Potter world has not been covered enough to warrant an article here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep Looking back at the previous AfDs, which have not been listed here for reference. The same arguments apply then as they apply today; for notable fictions of a degree of complication, timeline articles are notable. The interweaving of past events in the various vols. of the series fully justify the virtues of an article like this. It's an article based on the Harry Potter books so the books themselves are quite reliable and even those have been written about in other books also based on ...the original books. The only issue I see here is editors having to work through any disagreements and writing the entire article to avoid in universe concerns. It is Notable and well-sourced. You might not like it, but Wikipedia does Fandom. Sourcing in-universe dates from the canon is just as good sourcing as taking hockey scores from the relevant league's yearbooks. Bottomline: It's encyclopedic and I disagree with the nom. Outback the koala (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outback, I think you're seriously mistaken. The plot of the Harry Potter saga certainly doesn't warrant such an article. It's not that it is particularly complex, only that it relies on several fictional past events, but even these are pretty straightforward and easily understandable in the plot summaries. Besides, most of the entries here are only birthdates and generic events not even tied to the main plots of the various novels, making this article mostly trivial. If, as you claim, the interweaving of past events complicates the plot so much, then do you really think this list would spend time on things like "The famous painting Gunther der Gewalttaige, showing the ancient broomstick game of Stichstock" ? The truth is, this list is mostly trivial, and stripped of all the useless entries it would just be very short and very similar to the already existing plot summaries.
That the original HP books are notable has nothing to do with this. Each article has to prove its own notability, which this list fails to do. This list is just non-notable because there is no coverage about it in reliable secondary sources. The article isn't well-sourced either since it uses unreliable sources such as fansites. And you might not like it, but no, Wikipedia doesn't do fandom. Bottomline, it's not encyclopedic (if it was, there would be secondary sources dedicated to the subject, which is not the case).Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folken, I disagree with your interpretation. When the topic is notable such as here with regard to the HP series, I would say that such a sub article is also notable. I strongly disagree with deleting the page, but I do think that some of it warrants removal, under a variety of policies. That said, that does not mean we should delete off the project all of this information! Deletion in this case is extreme when compared with alternatives like merging. Outback the koala (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The first part of the article is choc-a-block full of fan interpretation and original arguments put forth regarding continuity and canonicity. Wikipedia is not a producer of new theories. The second part is overly detailed trivia and plot summary. Reyk _YO! 02:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harry Potter with much summarization and cutting down. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, merging serves no purposes other than deletionism. We're not paper, and this cannot be covered in another article. Harry Potter is one of the world's best selling series of all time, if not the world's best. A chronology of the events spanning 7-8 books (or whichever) and several spin-offs is neither out of place, nor undesired. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. We're not paper, but we're also not a fansite, not a publisher of original thought, not a plot-only description of fictional works, not an indiscriminate collection of information. This cannot be covered, not only in any other article, but in any article here. It doesn't matter at all how well did the series sell, this is not a valid argument against conserns about notability and Plot-only descriptions of fictional works. There isn't a single independant secondary source for this article, meaning it is perfectly trivial and has nothing to do on Wikipedia. There are already very clear, helpful and comprehensive plot summaries in the articles for each of the books, there is absolutely no need for an additional timeline, which is so useless that the authors felt compelled to add stupid entries like "The famous painting Gunther der Gewalttaige, showing the ancient broomstick game of Stichstock" to artificially lengthen it. This article is completely out of place and undesired, it blatantly violates several policies, so it will be deleted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I'm aware that some fans have deduced the dates of the events in the books, I don't think any of them are RS. As for those dates provided by the author, they're all for trivial stuff. We don't even need to get into the issue of whether a chronology of Harry Potter is something we should have (for the record, I don't think so), because this fails on other counts. Roscelese (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK from Harry_Potter#Plot. Notability of a franchise does not allow the creation of multiple articles about the exact same thing with different presentation... especially when this one is entirely a plot summary, which is what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I came looking specifically for this, so it is wanted and needed. It would be inappropriate to add the extensive chronology to the main page. There are a great many articles on television programmes which have sub-pages, it is more appropriate for literature of merit and complexity. Verification is in the books. Not being able to see the need for particular information is a ridiculous attitude to elevate. Sources of information should not be based on populist desire but upon the existence of the information itself. There are a great many things that I have looked up on Wikipedia which have been deleted or marked for deletion. This information is wanted. Leave it there. There are millions of Harry Potter fans and they will all look this up at some point. If you delete it, someone else will create it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.7.231 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be aware of how Wikipedia works. I suggest you to have a look at various important policies, among them reliable sources, Notability and no plot-only articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this anon does bring up a good point that I had not thought of, namely take alook at the page view stats, this month alone there were 24000 hits to this page. Again, I dont see why the page cant be trimmed down, rather than merged or deleted outright. Outback the koala (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember why we are here, which is to build an encyclopedia, not to follow policies. The policies are just a tool to help us create a good encyclopedia, but if a policy results in deleting a valuable and popular article, then there is something wrong with the policy and it should be ignored or changed. I asked several people who only read Wikipedia, and they thought this was a good topic to have. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment

Per DRV, this article is being relisted for additional deletion discussion so that consensus may be more clearly established. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original closing rationale was: The result was delete. Usefulness and popularity are not reasons for keeping a page. Synthesis and original research, combined with the lack of demonstrated sourcing, is a reason to delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I consider this relisting particularly scandalous as consensus for deletion was clearly established (7 to 4, claiming that "arguments here are split almost equally" or "consensus read incorrectly" is just wrong, blatant manipulation and consensus denial), and as all the arguments in favor of a relisting consisted in trampling the established policies according to which the article was deleted the 1st time. Seriously, since when "don't meet GNG" and "no RS" equates to "I don't like it", as JoshuaZ claimed ? If these guys want to change the rules they should start a community-wide discussion, and not relist AfDs over and over until they get the result they want.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - blatant OR. Start a Harry Potter Wikia site if there isn't one already. dramatic (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not actually OR, as there are many timelines for the topic around like [23] [24] [25] [26]. They may not be reliable sources, but it shows that the Wikipedia article is not original. Field Guide to Harry Potter a book has an Appendix on the topic. the book The Harry Potter Companion has a timeline. There was a court case on the topic Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. & J. K. Rowling V. Rdr Books. So there is plenty around to justify the existence of the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All your links are unreliable and you know it, so what's the point ? You think unreliable is better than original ? No it's not. And Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_series#Timeline_basis and Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_series#Contradictions are OR. As for the books, chronologies relegated to appendixes (= trivia sections), or simply "having a timeline" doesn't make it "significant coverage", which means "sources address the subject directly in detail [...] more than a trivial mention".
Also, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. & J. K. Rowling V. Rdr Books has absolutely nothing to do with this.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the links is that this is not original research, so that removes one of the arguments to delete. Several books with apendices or chapters on the exact topic count as significant coverage, these are not trivial. If a small part of the article is inappropriate it can be edited off. But that part may be OR is not a reason to delete the whole topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of OR (by synthesis mostly) in the article, particularly in the "basis" and "contradiction" sections. Original research is anything "not already published by reliable sources", thus, that fansites also mention chronology is absolutely irrelevant because they're unreliable sources, so it's not "published" material, and above all because fan-writers are highly likely to be the same persons on fansites and on Wikipedia (thus merely copying here what they themselves wrote previously), or to be influenced by Wikipedia itself, etc. Sourcing to fansites = OR. And no, one book mentionning chronology in a trivia section (thus not in detail) is not "significant coverage".Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard aid for a large fictional series. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't supposed to be entirely "standard aid", they're supposed to be encyclopedic, which this article is not. If you want to understand the plot, you have Harry_Potter#Plot](and "The famous painting Gunther der Gewalttaige, showing the ancient broomstick game of Stichstock" isn't an aid at all, in my opinion).Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's excellent rationale. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Harry Potter Wiki. This is not for Wikipedia, excessive detail and too much WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is excessive detail really a delete argument? We are not paper, we can be as detailed as we wish to be. And we should be a detailed encyclopedia. Check the citations, tell me how much of it is OR really? Outback the koala (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excessive trivia is a delete argument because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a fansite (something which I already told you when you invoked WP:NOTPAPER and to which you refused to answer). As for the citations, they're unreliable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:PAPER; "Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but we can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly" Am I misusing the WP:Paper agruement? Or is it you who is ignoring my arguements. I raised my disagreement to you opinion and interpretation of those policies above. Your use of NOTAFANSITE is not aplicable for this article because that is in regard to orginal research subjects; many of the figure on this page have not been calculated, but taken from the primary source (ie the book itself) or from a third party source. This is not a spatering of info. The intro tells us this. If we have to maybe we could cut out the lists because there is too much of a chance for random anon edits (and some have accumulated on the page and need to be removed) Outback the koala (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wouldn't hurt to quote the other parts of WP:PAPER, such as "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done [...] Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". Particularly, WP:PAPER is not an excuse to circumvent WP:IINFO which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion", and I think this is even more clear with WP:PLOT which directly limits the length of a plot summary (whether in prose or in list format). As for original research, it also includes synthesis from primary sources, and fansites are not reliable sources...But these are far from being the only issues with this article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so even if we completely cut out the lists of dates, do you still support complete deletion? Outback the koala (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A chronological list sans dates? I'm fascinated by such a thing, tell us more. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only suggesting the list format may not be the best form to use. I still see no reason to delete the page. Outback the koala (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep There's no OR and there are a large number of secondary sources which give parts of the chronology. Duriez's "Field Guide to Harry Potter" would be one example among many. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is OR: Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_series#Timeline_basis and Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_series#Contradictions. Since when does "one" makes "a large number" or "many" ? Where are all these sources you keep talking about ? And since when an appendix means "address the subject directly in detail [...] more than a trivial mention" ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You can easily find other dead tree sources that mention some of the issues (simply look on Google Books). Duriez is simply the one I'm most familiar with, hence the one I've mentioned. Whether something is in an appendix isn't relevant to whether or not the source is addressing the subject directly in detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is not original research is just cobbled together from what fansites have deduced from either the text or some JK Rowling's casual conversations about character histories. I was once rather deeply involved in the Leaky Cauldron among other fan forums, and had a hand in many of those "If X was Y years old at Z date, then..." conversations. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I wouldn't say this is necessarily as impossible to source as some of the comments above would claim, a detailed and exhaustive timeline such as this is better suited to a fan site. To counter claims that this is a useful or helpful article, I would say that given the many contradictions and anachronisms (as admitted in the article), the series is not meant to be strictly tied to particular real-world years, and thus presenting it as though it does actually hinders a reader's understanding of the series rather than aiding it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is totally redundant, pure in-universe, fan-cruft and unsourced. Chronologies should only be covered in the plot section of the books' articles and the Apperances section of the individual characters. --LoЯd ۞pεth 10:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article functions as a navigational aid among the many Harry Potter-related articles and I disagree with the nominator that the article is a synthesis that advances a position, I don't see what position is being advanced. The sourcing of the article definitely needs to improve, but there are plenty of books that should be useful (such as [27], [28] and [29]). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point; this thing is piece-mealed largely from unreliable fan sources. This should have closed 2 days ago as well, so hopefully this gets looked at soon. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the article does use independent sources, although it could use more. Much of it is from the the book themselves as primary, but many other books and websites are used here. I do see some fansites used as refs here and we should limit those as refs. That is not an argument for deletion though. Outback the koala (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Harry_Potter is the "navigational aid among Harry Potter-related articles", not this article. If that's your reason for keeping the article, then it proves we really have to delete it. And yes, this article proposes a synthesis of various statements from primary sources to try to prove there is (or isn't) a chronology in the HP universe. This is the very definition of OR by synthesis, and it's not up to Wikipedia establish a chronology or to point to "contradictions".
Also, I don't see the point of linking to books that we cannot even access to verify whether they contain a single word about the topic in question. For all I know, there still isn't a single independent, reliable secondary source here.
Finally, the people who relisted got the consensus they asked for, and even more days than necessary, when are we going to end all this ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 04:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

70% in favor of not keeping the article as it is wasn't clear enough ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vote... Outback the koala (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a vote, then you should have accepted "strength of the arguments" the first time.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't agree with the argument that this is "trivia" or "non-encyclopedic": Potter is important enough a literary property to justify the existence of a page like this, if it can be properly sourced. The question becomes whether the page is all OR. I don't think it is: at least a substantial portion of the content here does have legitimate citations, to the books themselves, to Rowling's comments, or to commentary by writers who could be characterized as legitimate experts on the topic. I also believe that that it would be a real shame to cut off public access to the extensive work that has gone into this page (especially given the thousands of views this page receives monthly), so if it is ultimately decided that consensus has changed enough since the 2007 keep result that helpful guides like this are no longer welcome on Wikipedia, the transwiki suggestion made above is vastly preferable to a straight deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each article must meet the notability guideline, and notability isn't inherited. Not all topics tied to Harry Potter can be included. That's why we're still waiting for "significant coverage". You don't agree that the article is trivia, but I don't see the relevance of knowing completely incidental details like characters birthdates either. There are already comprehensive plot summaries in the individual book articles, so besides the notability issue, we have a problem with WP:PLOT: the whole article is a plot summary in a list format. Then, as to OR, it has already been explained: this article proposes a synthesis of various statements from primary sources to try to prove there is (or isn't) a chronology in the HP universe. This is the very definition of OR by synthesis, and it's not up to Wikipedia to establish a chronology or to point to contradictions. And I don't see any commentary by "experts", remember, fans are not expert and fansites are not reliable sources. Deletion is also not a matter of how many people view a page, or how it would be "a real shame to cut off public access to the extensive work" (= ILIKEIT). It is a matter of whether articles "meet the relevant criteria for content". You argue that "helpful guides like this are no longer welcome on Wikipedia" ? But Wikipedia is not a guidebook.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is so much wrong with this article I can hardly decide where to start. It is an in-universe, indiscriminate list, full of fancruft, excessive detail, original research, and synthesis. It belongs on a subject-specific site, but the Harry Potter Wiki at Wikia already has all this and more, so there's no point in transwiki-ing it. gnfnrf (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, original closing rationale, and per gnfnrf above. Them From Space 15:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfounded conclusions; reads like a thesis constructed by a fan. Cactusjump (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft and WP:PLOT. There are plenty of HP fan sites where it belongs. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Shaw[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as it stands at present he is not notable, maybe later but not now. Though noble his interests, noble is not notable and the lack of references prove this. --BSTemple (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No credible assertion of notability at this time. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above, does not demonstrate notability. Fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:BAHAD. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I have met and dealt with this person he is exactly what the article states and does exactly what the article states. This is a tough category for somebody to gain enough attention to become a worldwide name in fact it's impossible and if geting all the vets he has helped on board to save his page is what we need to do then that's what needs to be done! --pangleer (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)— pangleer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep : I am the writer and I feel and have the support of my entire staff to endorse Mr Shaw. We knew it was a long shot but Mr Shaw deserves a place on here for all he has done to raise awareness. He has the interviews and the media attention to justify a page and there will be more on the way. Thank you to EVERYBODY who has become involved in this. We are just happy Mr Shaw has made it this far. None of you will regret allowing his page to stand. (Govguy (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I found this page on accident and I read it and created an account so I could weigh in. I am a veteran and would like to follow Erik and see where he goes and how many more he will help. I would also like to follow him as his book progresses. He doesn't have a website that i could find so this is the best way for me and the rest of the public to do this. Thank you. --Chamberuno(talk) 23:18 23 November 2010 (UTC)— Chamberuno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- To pangleer, Govguy and Chamberuno. No one is questioning the importance of advocates such as Erik Shaw to the veteran community, however please understand that this is an encyclopedia and that like all such things we must have notability guidelines which govern what articles are included and which ones are not. An AfD is not a popularity contest and it is not a simply a matter of getting enough votes to either 'keep' or 'delete' an article. Arguments need to cite appropriate wikipedia policy. As such if you would like to contribute to the discussion please explain how keeping this article is inline with that policy. If you are interested please have a look at: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really don't see the issue. I have seen the "GI JOBS" magazine and it was a good feature for somebody who doesn't want any recognition anyways. I have seen other subjects on this site that have alot less info and are still around. This is a great site for information and Erik deserves a place and I think there is more than enough info to back him up. Wiki has fail safe measures in place and rightfully so but this is a case that I feel should be allowed to stay. The credibility of this site is always in question due to the user input but this is a clear example of a person doing great things and has enough documented right now to at least get a wikipedia page. If it's an issue then end the discussion and delete him but if there is any doubt that he does have a place here then we have to keep him around and see where this goes in the future. Flyinrian (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)— Flyinrian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No or little sources to verify. Novice7 Talk 15:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment How many sources does Wikipedia need? This is a worldwide forum that makes it impossible to get the clear varification out to everybody around the globe. This is even harder for a case like this when we are dealing with a person who is in the gray area. I feel there is a good list of sources to fall back on. I mentioned before if there is any doubt he has a place then he should stay but if the powers that be are just looking for a reason to delete based on popularity then delete him and lets move on. I don't think Erik will never be a household name outside of the US Veteran community but in that community he is doing great things. Flyinrian (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)— Flyinrian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – The number of ((spa)) created accounts commenting makes me suspicious that we may need to evoke a sockpuppet investigation. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies, but I believe WP:DUCK applies here. ttonyb (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been using this site for awhile with no account and had no idea how to comment without creating an account so I do apologize and will refrain from anymore comments. I don't know Mr Shaw from a hole in the wall but I just wanted to voice what I thought was right. I have seen the magazines and read his story and thought I could put in some input. I want to apologize to Mr Shaw too and whoever is the author of his page for getting a little too involved. Flyinrian (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you to everybody who jumped in on this. I ask that nobody else comments on the side of "Keep". I want to let the experts handle this unique situation and I just ask they are fair and realize the importance both now and in the future Mr Shaw plays to Veterans of the United States. I don't expect anybody from a foreign country to understand and if this is a personal issue then Thank you for the opportunity and feel free to do what’s best for Wikipedia. We are just grateful we had this opportunity. My last and final comment in regards to this is there is a lot of garbage allowed on this site and I don't think leaving Mr Shaw on the site is going to damage or hurt the site in anyway and will actually open the door to future advocates and politicians that will be coming in the future years from the Veteran community of the US which benefits Wiki.. We have no more "evidence" to add and everything we have other than pictures is on the page. Wiki is not supposed to be a popularity contest it's supposed to be about education and Mr Shaw meets and exceeds those standards but it's just not in the traditional forum and not a mainstream avenue and we realized this coming into this process. Thank you again, God Bless everybody who helped and Take Care. Govguy (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: part of the reason why this article is being considered for deletion is the lack of sources. To an extent if the article were tightened up to remove extraneous detail and information that is not sourced, it might survive (no certainty, of course), however in its current state it looks like a large, unsourced article on a living person, containing original research. Due to legal concerns, biographies of living people are subject to particular scrutiny. As such, I'd like to suggest that those that feel the article should be kept read WP:BLP, WP:CITE and WP:LAYOUT. These might help to clarify the issues with the article and might help if someone decides to try to rewrite the article so that it meets the guidelines. Finally, in regards to spreading the message of the subject's work, is there not some website out there that offers free hosting? If not, surely there is a company out there that would be willing to donate server space to what is (in my opinion as a former serviceman) a worthy cause if they were approached in the appropriate manner? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think references are going to help. He just seems to be non-notable entirely, and unless he's been seriously underrepresented thus far, sources aren't going to fix that. It doesn't help that the tone of the article is closer to a resume than a biography. That is fixable, but ultimately, nothing thus far demonstrates passing the GNG. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:07, 26 November 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. To say the least, there is no consensus for deletion, but it looks like the arguments for retention seemed to have outweighed the deletion arguments here. –MuZemike 19:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dudesnude[edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep but its meets WP:N and is well sourced, its one of the largest gay dating/hookup/networking websites in the world, with hundreds of thousands of members, compare with Adam4adam or Manhunt.net. Seems to have been nominated in bad faith by a user who tried to speedy delete it but what rebuked. Hemanetwork (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do not see how the article meets WP:WEB or WP:N. The article is not well sourced. The sources are only brief mentions of the site that may prove its existence, but are not adequate secondary sources. The existence of the other article has no bearing on this article as each article must stand on its own merits. The number of members it has also does not have a bearing on notability - neither WP:BIO or WP:N use this criteria to establish notability.

Concerning your statement about "bad faith", I suggest you read WP:AGF and the criteria differences and processes associated with WP:CSD and WP:AfD before you again incorrectly accuse some of of bad faith. ttonyb (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well the lack of dialogue until now didn't come off too well...

Delete — Only two of the references cited in the article have the potential of being reliable sources about the article subject itself, the University of Melbourne source and the University of Illinois source.

The purpose of the UM paper (which does not appear to have been peer-reviewed) was to "produce an exhaustive network map of Victorian gay men’s communities, characterising the groupings of gay men and the relationships that exist between groups" (from Executive Summary, p. 7, in part 1 of the study, available here), in which Dudesnude is mentioned and demographically analyzed as one of the several dozen groups of gay men included in the study through which men network; its importance or significance is not specifically discussed in the study and though data is reported in the study by which its importance or significance might be evaluated it would require prohibited original research to do so here at Wikipedia.
The UI paper does appear to have been published in an academic journal, but the sole mention of Dudesnude is a single reference by a single interviewee as one Internet source that he uses, along with "Manhunt, MySpace, [and] Facebook", to meet partners, but the interviewee says that he does not use any one of the four any more than the other three.

It's clear from this that Dudesnude is popular enough to have appeared on the academic radar, but so far only as a data point. The general notability guideline says, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." From this, it would seem clear to me that the UI paper is not support for notability and the notability of Dudesnude is not supported by more than one reliable source even if the UM paper can — at best — be stretched to be a support for notability. I can find no other reliable sources. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What if it has, hundreds of thousands of subscribers?Hemanetwork (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 1) Popularity is not part of the criteria for WP:WEB or any other Wikipedia based notability; 2) there is no evidence of subscriber levels presented in the article. ttonyb (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well i'll add it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs)

Comment Using a statement in the company's website does not support the statement. What is needed is an independent source per WP:RS. Regardless, popularity is not part of the criteria for WP:WEB or any other Wikipedia based notability. ttonyb (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added a couple more sources, anyone wanna help me search for more? i know they are out there.=)Hemanetwork (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a spread of cultural impact over several years which appears sufficient to justify against the GNG. The nomination refers to GHits and I find 80,700 listed in a simple Google search, it seems odd to dismiss them all as insignificant as I doubt they have been checked; such a large number of matches also raises the WP:SET argument, if this text is not kept as a stand-alone article then it ought to be merged rather than deleted on this rationale. As a side note (as this does not strongly influence a discussion on notability), the Alexa rank is 7,563 which is comparable to Gaydar (website) at 7,095. Fæ (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The Google numbers are notoriously wrong when first presented. A Google search of the title in quotes only lists 518 hits. One needs to go to the last page to see the following statement. "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 518 already displayed." Again, popularity (including web ranking) has no bearing on notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - YOu yourself nominated this article because of google hits though. There are many sources now, including mentions in published works!Hemanetwork (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As Hemanetwork noted, GHits were part of the nomination and I did say that as part of my opinion otherwise I would not have mentioned them. Should you strike this from the nomination I would be prepared to do the same for my opinion. ~~I also do not understand your point, my Google search was for '"Dudesnude.com" -wikipedia' giving 80,700 hits and I get no statement about omitted results.~~ (strike as I do understand the point after a re-reading, with my search I get 689 "most relevant" hits which does not particularly make me want to reconsider my opinion). Fæ (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that google news of substance seems to have been found just news if it's not google, what exactly makes it not notable at this point? (this is hemanetwork btw)Thisbites (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fae. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nehemia Bill Solossa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:ATH. Liga Indonesia Premier Division is not considered a fully professional league, per WP:FPL. Hoping to play on the national team is not enough to establish notability. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 15:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is one of a large number of BLP and club articles created by the editor - the only constant thread is referring to liga indonesia website as the main source - in most cases articles created by this ed stop at that, and WP:RS to check for WP:V have been in the main non-existent. The expanding out an article to actually show aspiration rather than participation is quite unusual. The editor has never been seen to use talk, or respond to any queries also. Although there have been other deletions, there seems no sign of response - and at time a very poor grasp of english.(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Java_provincial_under-23_football_team&action=historysubmit&diff=396695535&oldid=396695497) and possibly not a clear grasp of WP:NFOOTY and WP:ATH. The problem is that if this is a successful deletion - there is potentially the problem with all the others - maybe someone with a good grasp of specific footy and athletes notability could cast an eye over (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Iha9c) to check that others may have also slipped through Satu Suro 09:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 09:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:17, 23 November 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 Monk_(season_1)#ep6. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Monk Goes To The Asylum[edit]

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

This episode of Monk (TV series) fails to meet the GNG or the interpretation of it given in FICTION. TV plot articles like this also fail the specific definition of WP:IINFO#1. PROD removed, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article, unfortunately, shows no notability. However, if it can be proved (i.e. through a "Reception" section, or if something about it is particularly notable), I think it can be saved. Also, there is an article (currently a redirect page) at Mr. Monk Goes to the Asylum. If this article is kept, or improved, it needs to be moved there, as there are many links in other articles that link there. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Monk episodes. Plausible search term, should be redirected to the main article.--res Laozi speak 22:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would suggest that this instead be redirected to Monk (season 1)#ep6 (if it is redirected at all). This way, the reader gets at least an episode description, rather than just who wrote it and when it aired. Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember the episode, but I don't think it really stood out as something that made real world news. In Wikipedia's early days, episode descriptions were being created left and right. Although many of these have migrated over to specialty entertainment wikis, tons of them are still out there, and a few clicks on the "random page" button will lead any new contributor to concluding that these are a regular part of Wikipedia. There's a Monk wiki that can be added to. While the redirect suggestion is a second choice, I don't see it as a plausible search term, since every episode of Monk was entitled "Mr. Monk _______", with the exception of Happy Birthday, Mr. Monk. The most common theme was "Mr. Monk and the _____" and "Mr. Monk Goes to ______" was a close second. Mandsford 15:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monk_(season_1)#ep6. Not notable on its own at this time. That way if it gets more coverage later the article can be easily restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 27 November 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's a suggestion that this be merged but the target is unclear, and there seems to be more of a sentiment in the direction of outright deletion. Thus I'm deleting this, though if someone wants to take a stab at merging I doubt that would be a problem, so I'm willing to restore for a quick merge if someone has the inclination and the knowledge to make it happen. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sawilowsky's paradox[edit]

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

I cannot find any secondary sources discussing this paradox - no hits in google scholar or google books and after a lengthy discussion on the talk page no other sources have been added. As this topic does not meet the general notability guideline it should be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Marginal notability at best, marginal referencing, don't like the idea that this is a use of WP to give prominence as a "paradox" what may be only a remark to those in the field. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Sawilowsky or to Abelson's paradox. All references (so far) to the name are from Sawilosky or his journal, and it does seem related to Abelson's paradox, merely using a different measure of correlation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother with the charade - delete it!Edstat (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOURCE. --Kkmurray (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons above. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Abelson's paradox. Nergaal (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Gay Bars[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. Even if arguably there is some encyclopedic content here, that very little salvageable encyclopedic content can easily be merged to Cardiff. Delete. Nlu (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are you asking for a merge or delete? Doing both is generally not an option. NotARealWord (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Cleanup and merge with List of cultural venues in Cardiff. Mattg82 (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found lists of gay bars for other places here on Wikipedia. Don't see why Cardiff deserves one. NotARealWord (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would suggest that it isn't encyclopaedic and deserves deletion. Apart from anything else, most of the information presented here is liable to change too frequently to be of any value on the Cardiff page.Jimjamjak (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Gruszczyński[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Article about a footballer who has never played in a fully pro league and who fails WP:GNG." PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the UEFA Champions League. However, two appearances in the first qualifying round for non-professional team does not make him notable, in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has played in the Luxembourg National Division, which according to it's article is the "highest football league in Luxembourg," (it also appears on the list at WP:FPL) thus satisfying the criteria in WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG.^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 15:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Weak Delete as league is considered "top-level" but not "fully professional," therefore not meeting the criteria. Certainly save material, this could be useful in the future if he does become fully professional. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 15:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even meet the ridiculously low bar of WP:ATH as far as I can tell. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:31, 23 November 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. If we look at this debate in terms of raw numbers there is no clear consensus for a particular course of action. If we instead look at the strength of the arguments and their basis in Wikipedia policy, we must discount several comments here that have little to no basis in policy and engage in hyperbole and unsubstantiated predictions about the future notoriety of this individual. A spinoff article on as suggested here is a fine idea, but in it's absence a redirect to the current article on the TSA will have to do. Any content worth merging can pulled from the redirect page's history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Tyner[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E Roger ^talk 14:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone deletion: For a couple weeks anyway. Just because he might become an ongoing organizer on this issue. Meanwhile, if anyone opposed to deletion comes along who wants to do something constructive, Transportation Security Administration needs an NPOV section on criticism of TSA on the invasive searches issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom, WP:BLP1E. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. Tyner being in the news for this one event does not mean he has lasting notability. However, the subject of passenger screening is one that has lasting notability. I suggest that the article TSA passenger screening be created (split off from the TSA article). (TSA is currently large enough to fork.) Such an article would have lasting notability and could contain history of screening (like sniffers that were not widely successful) as well as recent changes and the criticism of people like Tyner. The only reason to have an article about Tyner or this single event is if the article on the real subject (incl all events associated with that subject) is large enough to split into multiple articles. Since there is not an article specifically about TSA passenger screening, why would we have a fork (specific event/person) article? Summary: delete, redirect to a section of TSA passenger screening if someone wants to create it. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Transportation Security Administration#Criticisms as a plausible search term based on news coverage. Alternatively, the same could be done to the proposed spinout article recommended by ¢Spender1983 above if it is created. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. ( a ) What transpired involving John Tyner is historically similar to Rosa Parks, and because of this event and the bravery he displayed, he will remain a person of history from this point forward. ( b ) He also has galvanized the indignity of a majority of the American people against government intrusions into their rights of privacy. ( c ) Finally, on the lighter side, he will remain forever famous for his quote, "If you touch my junk, I will have you arrested!" Such things are history made of... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.187.181 (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC) — 24.30.187.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. He's already had a significant cultural impact. -- Evans1982 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect if desired. Ultimately this is a case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS that is best covered very briefly at an article related to the TSA or criticism of its policies. Very little of the article is actually about the subject (rather it is about an incident), and there isn't enough information about the person himself to create a legitimate WP:BLP. Information about the incident is better served at another article as indicated. Likewise, the information in "Aftermath of the incident" appears to become tangential and speculative about general sentiment toward current TSA policies and is inappropriate for this article. Also, responding to the above request to postpone deletion, assuming he might become notable as an anti-TSA figurehead is speculative WP:RECENTISM and is not a legitimate reason to justify retaining an article about him at this time. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Move to non-bio event article, per Steven Slater precedent. This event is certainly notable, even more so than the Steven Slater incident. Like the former, it's served as a lightning rod issue to focus people's rejection of the new TSA methods - naked scanners and groping. I would also ask that the closing admin do this move to non-bio "without prejudice," as Tyner may well continue to be in the spotlight - likely as an activist in the movement against aggressive TSA practices. -Helvetica (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Classic WP:BLP1E. Redirect to Transportation Security Administration. Ronnotel (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename/Redirect I created the article (FWIW). I agree with the criticism that Tyner is notable only for one event, although I think it is possible that his notability will be turn out to be of a more enduring type that warrants a biographical article. In any case, the event itself is clearly very notable (more than the Stephen Slater incident, as someone noted), as demonstrated by the wide news coverage, and I think it deserves to have its own article separate from the articles on TSA screening, etc. (which could link to it). To summarize, the article should not be deleted but it may make sense to rename it "Don't touch my junk incident" or something similar, and add a redirect from John Tyner. This will be easy to do since the content of the article will require little if any modification. Primalbeing (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jayme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep/Rename/Redirect We have to put the information somewhere. This controversy is all over the news.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Press coverage does not establish notability, the article does not reference any "significant cultural impact", and the fact that an article on Steven Slater exists does not indicate that this one should be kept. Furthermore, it's simply implausible for this to become a full-fledged article because there's insufficient information.The incident lasted a few moments, stopped, and won't begin again. No new information is on the way, and there is too little to write about. Efforts to keep this seem to be textbook examples of WP:Recentism, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Merge the information to relevant places and redirect it to Transportation Security Administration#Criticisms. If it becomes notable a year from now, then it can be written. But it's not notable right now. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 02:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Can be recreated if it ever has lasting significance. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none notable self-publicist with one none notable event. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bell (footballer born 1992)[edit]

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

Has not made a professional appearance (I have saved the information onto my computer to re-create the article if he does make his debut because it is well written). Echetus Xe 13:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Echetus Xe 14:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:FPL, Football League Two is considered fully professional, plus there appear to be a requisite number of sourses for WP:GNG. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 15:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't made an appearance in League Two however.--Echetus Xe 16:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and not enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Currently fails both WP:GNG, and WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he makes his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are different suggestions regarding how to solve the issues the article has, but there is clearly no consensus for deletion. The discussion should continue on the relevant talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single market[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —— Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article of deletion of the basis that it is pure original research. While Alinor has made considerable efforts to clear up up the article and reduced the manner in which the article previously deemed certain economic agreements to create single markets, I still think that the best way to deal with more than one group of countries describing an economic area as a "single market" would be to have an disambiguation page. I recommend deletion of this article for the following reasons:

The single market, if it refers to anything, can only refer to the EU's single market. By trying to apply it as a global concept which can be applied to other markets is original research.
The distinction the article tries to draw between the common market and the single market is entirely artificial. Both involved the same four freedoms. This can be clearly see in the original Treaty of Rome. Renaming the common market, the single market was just a re-branding exercise carried out in the late eighties. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the single market was the focus of a considerable push for economic integration within the EC, it is wrong to describe this in terms of economic theory. A single market is not a concept in the lines of a customs union or a free-trade area. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the common vs. single division seems artificial (and is not sourced), but I disagree that this is purely EU issue. As seen in the article the EFTA (non-EU) and EEA (EU+Norway+Iceland+Liechtenstein) are also common markets. Some other trade blocs also have similar initiatives.
I disagree to delete the article. Maybe rename to Common market and/or overhaul of the text, but in any case not delete. A disambiguation page with links to all common/single markets may be OK, but some background info on "what is a single/common market" will also be required (with worldwide view on the subject, not EU-focused), so why not we just overhaul the text? Alinor (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with (and redirect to) Economic Union, after removing the original research and other unsourced information. There might also (conceivably) be some stuff that belongs in Free Trade Area.--Boson (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Economic Union appears to suffer from the same kind of OR that Single Market suffers from. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are two different things. I agree that they could be better sourced, but in any case the previous awful mix of different things into a single list was much worse (and incorrect for many of the entities).
  In any case deletion is bad idea, because this is a widely used term, so many people will be looking for such article. Alinor (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See for example [30] - both "common market" and "economic union" are described in the context of "Economic Integration: Overview". Anyway, the problem is not the lack of sources for each of these stages (from both theoretical and practical point of view), but that sources contradict each other. I tried to synchronize the Wikipedia articles about Economic integration, Trade pact and Trade bloc (plus the List of ...integration-type.../FTA/CU/EMU/etc. articles), so that at least they do not contradict each other (and to correct obvious mistakes such as EEA listed in customs unions, etc.) - but we can't do anything with the different sources use different definition for the same "stage". Anyway, having contradicting sources does not mean that no "common market"/"economic union"/etc. exist - it just means that there could be different definitions of those. Maybe we should add some note in this sense to the article(s)? Alinor (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete and find an editorial solution. I don't think that solving this problem requires deletion, so we are in the wrong forum here. Making this a disambiguation page or merging the content all do not require deletion and can be discussed on the article talk page. Apart from that, I agree with much of the criticism by Blue-Haired Lawyer; there is indeed much OR and just plain wrong content in there (there are huge differences, for instance, between the EEA and the much looser Switzerland-EU relationship). Because of the multitude of forms that economic integration takes in- and outside of Europe, people sometimes use the same terms for different forms of integration and vice versa. But all this whole topic area really needs is some serious expert attention. Either we treat "single market" as a topic peculiar to European integration and redirect and merge accordingly, or we follow Alinor and continue to try to describe it as a generic form of integration closer than a FTA/customs union but less close than economic union. I don't know which solution is correct, but there is a ton of literature about the subject, and somebody needs to pick a few good recent university textbooks and try to follow whatever terminology they agree on. This could, for example, be discussed on Talk:Economic integration. Sandstein 07:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree, just a quick comment - of course the different common markets are different - just as FTAs are different, CUs are different, etc. - each one is an unique treaty with its specifics. But there are common features among these treaties, and that's why they are listed there - EFTA, EEA, EU-Switzerland. Actually these three form a matrix/triangle (EEA non-EU are in EFTA; Switzerland is in EFTA).

The major de jure difference between EEA and EU-Switzerland is that EEA automatically (non-EU EEA states are obliged) adopts new EU legislation (e.g. such that entered into force AFTER signature of the EEA agreement), but Switzerland doesn't do that automatically (is not obliged), but does it after the different EU-Swiss joint committees (for the different policy topics) take such decision. "In practice this right is severely restricted by the so-called Guillotine Clause, giving both parties a right to cancellation of the entire body of treaties when one new treaty or stipulation cannot be made applicable in Switzerland." (see Switzerland – European Union relations).

Thus de facto EEA and EU-Switzerland are very similar.

Additionally there are the EAC, ASEAN and CIS/EurAsEC/Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan announced/proposed common markets - but since these are proposed and there are no actual treaties yet - there is no way to know what form they will eventually take. They can be similar to the EFTA/EEA/EU-Swiss or they may go straight for an single market+customs union or they can implement something different (like ALBA claims to invent a new way of trade relations and monetary system between states) - time will tell. Alinor (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the article is not warranted - per Sandstein. There exist enough reliable source material to develop the article and find an editorial solution to the above noted issues. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciprian Preda[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources to verify the contents of the article, other than the fact that he teaches at UCLA. Nothing about his work as an educator meets WP:PROF, his claim to notability is his second place finish at the International Physics Olympics and being among 20 winners at another International Physics Olympics. Searching using both International Physics Olympics and International Physics Olympiad led to no conformation that either of these awards are true. I'm not saying that he didn't place as I can't find who won but this information needs to be verifiable. —J04n(talk page) 13:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 13:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible GS cites. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Quite probably true that he won a gold medal at an international competition for secondary school students. However, that does not constitute notability. I was able to find a Ciprian Preda on MathSciNet, with 27 citations total over 41 papers, which is a straight case of "not yet notable." Ray^Talk 15:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With 41 publications in MathSciNet he's obviously an active mathematician. But I can't find the evidence of impact needed to pass WP:PROF#C1 and he appears to be only adjunct faculty at UCLA, so I don't think WP:PROF is met. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate delete Nergaal (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 18:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars available in pakistan[edit]

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

I don't think it will be possible to list every single car that is available in Pakistan. Also, I do not think that such a list meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--res Laozi speak 15:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notabile, non verifiable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the whole "not really possible" thing. Perhaps somebody should also AfD List of cars available in India? NotARealWord (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Done. ----Divebomb is not British 15:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the fact that this is an unmaintainable list, this is a terrible, terrible article. ----Divebomb is not British 14:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced, ill-defined & unmaintainable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Unsourced triva, and unverifiable - what makes a car "available"?~~ And it's not even of sufficient quality to keep as a stub. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was hasty and confusing - it does define what it means by "available", but it isn't developed into even the start of a decent list article yet. If someone can actually turn it into a proper list, that would be great, but if not then I don't think it's really worth keeping as it stands. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 author requested deletion JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Leviste[edit]

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

Article about the 17-year-old student son of a Philippine political family. I have declined a speedy, as it is contested and there is maybe just enough assertion of importance to escape WP:CSD#A7, but I do not think notability is established. His parents are notable politicians, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED; he writes a newspaper column, but that is not enough. The references are an article he wrote, a passing reference to him accepting an endorsement for his mother's vice-presidential campaign, and a Youtube clip of him at a party conference. The "hangon" comment was "As the heir to a respected Philippine political dynasty, he has been eyed as a future leader", but we don't do WP:UPANDCOMING. JohnCD (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As per nom - we certainly don't do WP:UPANDCOMING for a child who has '...been eyed as a future leader by the year 2040.' In addition, the references are extremely weak: a blog on an e-zine, and a YouTube of him speaking to somebody in a crowd in or near near what could be a meeting or a school activity. We don't do WP:SOAPBOX either.--Kudpung (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has a potential to become a notable person, but as of now he fails WP:GNG. Salih (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Filipino I can attest that Leandro has become a notable public figure in his own right, as a newspaper columnist, environmental youth activist and spokesperson in the last campaign. To put things in context, , and the links on that page are online copies of newsprinted articles. He is the youngest weekly columnist for this national audience. In the last election, he received national attention in his own right, serving as a youth spokesperson on behalf of his mother's party. He represented the Nacionalista Party at political rallies and press conferences around the country. Searching him on Google reveals links to a newspaper article, an interview of his on the evening news, and a televised ad of him which played a role in the 2010 campaign itself, as noted on the page. Dizonfarms(talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (EST)

I would very strongly suggest you stick to actual facts, otherwise you are invalidating your own arguments.Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the above assertion is factual, the links provided on this page are online editions of articles written published in the Philippine Star newspaper, as is the rest of that website. To clarify the information in the link you have provided, the articles on www.philstar.com are those of the Philippine Star newsprint edition. Dizonfarms(talk) 07:24, 21 November 2010 (EST).

You clearly stated: The Philippine Star is our country's most widely read newspaper. It is not. You are the creator of this article - please try to avoid using personal opinion, and offer facts, and proof of notability per WP:RS and WP:V.--Kudpung (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this article: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=402242. Other newspapers will claim to the contrary, but there is evidence that proves its circulation. Dizonfarms(talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (EST)

Comment - Being a public figure is not the same as being notable. To argue notability based on politics, Leviste will additionally have to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, again with all the sources to back it up. He doesn't. And being a newspaper columnist doesn't get him through WP:AUTHOR. Nor does what Wikipedia readers/editors personally 'attest'.--Kudpung (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't satisfy both WP:POLITICIAN (being a "youth spokesperson" of your mother's party doesn't cut it) or WP:AUTHOR (being a newspaper columnist -- I suspect he's a Young Star columnist, or whatever became of that -- doesn't cut it either). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, author blanked. Hairhorn (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, for lack of any further significant points for keeping it, could I request to have this article blanked? Dizonfarms(talk) 09:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Pacaud[edit]

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

Unable to find any non-trivial, reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. There are lists of his credits on anime sites but nothing about him. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. —J04n(talk page) 12:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC) —J04n(talk page) 12:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --—J04n(talk page) 12:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this article's deletion. You may proceed. Shaneymike (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see extremely little information about him in my CSE. I'm not sure we could even verify the existing stub, much less show notability. --Gwern (contribs) 03:02 23 November 2010 (GMT)
Week delete His role as Rowen in Elemental Gelade is definitely significant. However, one significant role alone is not enough to pass WP:NACTOR. —Farix (t | c) 19:18, 26 November 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. Not sure what is going on with the dueling IP editors here so I'm just taking all of the arguments at face value. Consensus seems to be to delete based on insufficient notability. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mars[edit]

The article is about someone not notable with poor refs, some of which do not support the text. Election to a local library board and running a small business are not sufficient to justify a wiki-bio. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user suggesting this deletion is of suspect credibility. User talk:99.144.244.4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.196.20 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I made the recc - and all you've demonstrated is that I am actively involved as an IP editor at Wikipedia. The AfD will be decided on its merits... or the lack therof. At the moment no one has offered any basis to support the article's inclusion here.99.141.243.84 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like you have actually received a "final warning" for making "disruptive edits" and you are about to have your editing permissions blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.243.132 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus' nominationon behalf of 99.144.244.4 (talk · contribs) was malformed, resulting in the discussion blending in with the preceding one on the same page. I've therefore re-listed this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puffery. Described as a tech expert in the article, the reference only gives him a kind of hat-tip. Just got mentioned a lot by name, as far as I can tell. Lots of cites to a website (mindovo) he started, self-referential, I think. Yakushima (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (As Nominator). Vanity auto-biography. Insufficiently notable local library board member and small businessman. Nothing wrong with that, article subject is clearly a force for good in his town and society - but not sufficient to meet notability requirements for a Wiki-bio. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like this entry needs improvement and expansion. Subject is head curator of TEDxChicago as well as TEDGlobal attendee. Also, found refeence to subject as leader of SaveBrett.net fan movement to keep Brett Favre on Packers - rep for over 60k fans and cited in recent book "Life After Favre." Google search of subject's name dominated by this subject's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.140.34 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 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 : Speedily deleted - blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Menon[edit]

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

Being a success in business and a founder of a company is not considered notable under the WP:BIO guidelines. There is insufficient evidence of the significant impact on the historic record required in the current article or available sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of company executives. Fæ (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:29, 20 November 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) 12:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Cruse[edit]

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

Claims enough importance to pass speedy A7, but in my opinion does not actually have any. A graduate student, candidate for a MFA in dance a/c her own university bio; notability would be in dance, not scholarship. Presenting her work at conferences is not notability. The only refs about her actually are only peripheral mentions, and are internal to her university DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also looked at references and did not find significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Cindamuse (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article meets WP:BASIC. Her pedagogical work has been covered in several news articles, periodicals, and trusted dance networks. DGG, Cruse completed her MFA. She is now a doctoral researcher on educational projects that are published on in major resources, which merits her as a scholar. Danceengine (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)danceengine[reply]
- Comment. In order to meet the WP:BASIC criteria, the subject requires significant and reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article is not supported through significant, reliable sources. Some refs mention the subject in passing, while others are unreliable, as blogs. Notability of scholars need to meet criteria found at WP:ACADEMIC, of which the subject does not qualify. Cindamuse (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. The article claims her notability as an innovator in cutting edge dance education and economy. She is a scholar, but this article claims no notability in that regard. In terms of outside resources, the blogs are written by internationally respected artists and theorists. The field of dance is impoverished, so most dance is poorly covered by media in comparison to other arts - thus blogs and networks have become a major resource for publicity in the dance field. This is confirmed by the fact that the #1 school for dance in the country, The Ohio State University Department of Dance, recently got on board with the networks to indeed keep abreast of significant movements within the field. That being said, Cruse's credibility is validated by the numerous institutions and arts organizations who have invited her to lecture and do workshops in such a condensed period of time. "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)." Danceengine (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)danceengine[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage about the subject to pass WP:GNG. Fials WP:ACADEMIC either. This site in which the subject's interview appeared does not seem to be a reliable source. Salih (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's certainly written and cited in a style that's not very encouraging for keeping it. For example, this [31] page is cited to support the claim (made by Danceengine [32]) that Ms. Cruse "co-founded a scholarship". The page makes no mention of her, however, even as a donor. A claim is made that she received an Ohio Arts Council grant. No source is cited. Some claims of presenting her dance technology work seem verifiable only in one [33] of three venues mentioned in the same sentence, from web searches. Claims that she actually has any dance technology are cast into doubt by her own blog, which characterizes choreobot (and/or VIKKI) as an "artificial intelligence simulation" (i.e., not actual AI software) and as a "concept" based on a "performance." I.e., there's scant evidence of any actual original software; perhaps this is conceptual art, in which imagining that there's some such software is part of the creation. This blog interview [34] is apparently used to support the claim of having performed in work by Jeff Lovett, but that interview makes no mention of any particular performance. The WP bio claims she was "an Ohio University Outstanding Alumni in Innovation" (sic), but the source cited [35] says she hadn't graduated when the article was written, which I'd say disqualifies anyone from being considered an alumnus, much less an outstanding one. Worse, from Google searches, it appears that "Outstanding Alumni in Innovation" is a unique phrase invented by, well, Julie Cruse. In short, I think if you stripped this article of all claims not supportable by reliable sources, you'd be left with very little, and with essentially nothing clearing the bar for Wikipedia notability. On the other hand, weeding out all the unsupported claims might finally clarify the issue of notability, in Julie Cruse's favor. Since Danceengine seems to be a huge fan of Julie Cruse, perhaps she could undertake the gardening task, the better to save the bio from deletion? Yakushima (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above. Yakushima (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Time to put this to rest, it's been relisted twice and not enough people are weighing in for us to come to any consensus so we default to the status quo. Clearly there are questions about notability, and in the absence of additional sourcing another trip to AfD in the next few months would not be at all inappropriate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnie Craig[edit]

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

Poorly referenced, self-promotional (the author seems to be spreading himself over the internet), but most importantly, an article of very questionable notability, which is the matter to be discussed here Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now seems to be someone who is just starting to make a name for himself. Most of the coverage right now is sparse, and blog-like. I would not have too much prejudice for recreation when the subject gets more in-depth secondary source coverage. Gigs (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough evidence to suggest a level of notability and worth to the article. I cleaned up the article recently from what I know and from information on his site. I have followed his photography for a few years now, and is, in my opinion, a valid contribution. He has also had exhibitions in recent months with with some very notable artists, as well as being published by a major art book publisher. I noticed that he is also cited as a notable contributor along side a handful of others on the vice magazine wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.42.88 (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC) — 109.58.42.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Which is the "major art book publisher"? -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Morel Books - www.morelbooks.com -- added in this edit by an IP
    - Here is Mörel. It's a tiny art book publisher. I'm not knocking it -- tiny art book publishers have put out some good stuff (and Mörel is among these publishers), and major art book publishers have put out some crap. But major it isn't. -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I meant major more in terms of the artists they have published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.32.105 (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of the content isn't sourced. Compare the sourcing of the list of his exhibitions with that of, say, this one. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- exhibition citations added. -- added in this edit by an IP

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Sources coverage seems to be consistent Rirunmot (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see a reason to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.153.232 (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 18:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Somebody[edit]

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

Film has not entered into production and has not received a notable amount of pre-development coverage. See WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 08:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation once filming begins and the project gets coverage. At the current time this article is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The rough consensus sides for deletion. –MuZemike 18:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frantic Amber[edit]

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

I'm on the fence here. Although this article has quite a bit of information, it still seems to violate WP:BAND because they're an unsigned band that has never charted anywhere, and all the references appear to be mirrors of each other (well, the English-language references, anyway). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This looks good enough to me, with all the links on the web. –BuickCentury Driver 08:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Erpert, I think the article does not violate the rules. Unsigned does not mean that it does not exist. It is an encyclopedia and I think grammy nomination for a band is not that much required to be enlisted in wiki. I can show you a lot of band which did not get grammy nomination and sometimes they were in unsigned condition also. Vandalism is not a good thing. Regards--- User talk:Rabbanituhin —Preceding undated comment added 08:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Consider reading WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to me a nice article with proper references. –User:Indro Zit Kumar Saha 20 November 2010 (UTC) — Indro Zit Kumar Saha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Might be months away from meeting notability requirements that might be too harsh, but they can have a WP article then. For now, they might also be months away from imploding. If I had a nickel for every band about which I've said, "They'll go far" but turned out to be wrong .... Yakushima (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a lot of web links is not the same as having coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I do not see any significant coverage. The ones in the article aren't. Nor am I able to find any. As such, they do not meet the general notability guidelines nor do I see anything that allows them to meet WP:BAND. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a nicely laid out article of a non-notable band, looks impressive at first glance but really it is all smoke and mirrors. General announcement (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Noone supports Malke 2010's proposal to delete. 2 editors (Twilightchill and DGG) support a merge and History2007's specific proposal is supported by 8 other editors (Shirt58, Johnbod, Dylan Flaherty, Marauder40, Chhe, Willthacheerleader18, Sandstein and John Carter). The consensus to carry out History2007's proposal is strong. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Mariology[edit]

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

POV content fork. Material already sufficiently covered in the following articles:

Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church and
Mariology and
History of Roman Catholic Mariology. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Malke 2010's reasoning; also redundant in content. See Marian_devotions#Roman_Catholicism--Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actualy, the article you refer to was also scheduled for an appearance on death row, along with this one, as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian devotions. Devotions are just a portion of Mariology. History2007 (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification. I have stricken my !vote. I now completely agree with History2007's proposal.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, the article actually duplicates Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. Twilightchill t 20:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Twilightchill t 21:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is clearly a notable topic, and has referenced text that is not available elsewhere n Wikipedia. But this article needs less overlap with others, and more material on doctrines. A few weeks ago, I suggested that this article be merged with Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church and created a Merged prototype in this link on October 25, 2010. Not enough people responded to that merge proposal, but I do think a "consolidation" of some of these Mariology articles is a good idea, but not outright deletion, given that the topic is clearly notable and has book after book written on it. Now, this is probably a good place to discuss the general consolidation plan that I had attempted to start via the merge proposal for this article made on October 25. 2010. If you read through that "Merged prototype" you will see that the redundancies and overlaps with other articles had been avoided, and it stands by itself pretty well. And user:Chhe who commented on the merger was in favor of that prototype. But I think now that other people will comment on here it makes sense to merge 3 articles:

Roman Catholic Mariology: The top level article that addresses a clearly notable topic, including doctrines, perspectives, art, papal teachings, devotions, etc. "at a top level".

Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church: This article, as its name suggests simply discusses dogmas and doctrines. It is "part of Mariology" and should really be merged in here.

Catholic views on Mary: This article just discusses Marian views and perspectives. I wrote 90% of the content for this article, as a result of a rescue flag placed on top of it. It makes sense to merge it into here, as part of this consolidation. It will simply not make sense to have a peripheral article on "Catholic Marian views" while a deletion is discussed on the top, notable topic of Mariology.

I think it will make sense to merge these 3 articles, and that will create an article whose length will then be just manageable and will avoid duplication with other articles. I will build a prototype of that 3 way merged article in a few days. This is a notable topic, and needs to be merged with the other articles it subsumes, not deleted outright.History2007 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per History. This is a very pointy nom, one of a large series, but there are too many articles in this area. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with your comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marian_art_in_the_Catholic_Church regarding WP:POINT and the "mass nominations" (there are others) performed in the space of a few hours, shortly following other incidents. History2007 (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per History, but without commenting on motivations. Dylan Flaherty 21:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per History. Agree with merging the 3 articles he listed in his comments.Marauder40 (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with your statement Marauder on the merge proposal on Talk:Mariology of the popes, that "the extreme number of nominations" along with those mass merge proposals are yet another case of WP:POINT. In fact on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian devotions user:Colonel Warden stated that it was one of the cases of nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion. We have also seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian art in the Catholic Church etc. and the situation is such that a relatively new Wikipedia editor just asked: Can we block Malke from editing wikipedia.. they're just destroying it. What can I say? History2007 (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge but to History of Roman Catholic Mariology, not to Mariology of the popes. Looking a tthe articles, it would seem a more appropriate merge, ad both of these are general articles, while the one on the popes, even when expanded with the material on the pages for the separate popes, is more specific, rather than a continuous narrative. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Admins: Please note that Catholic views on the Virgin Mary is a new article I started that has recently survived a nearly intractable AfD. As it stands now it has nearly identical content to other Marian articles because History2007 put it there and won't allow it's removal or modification. See the latest revert here: [36]. Therefore, any decision to merge articles, rather than a deletion, should not include Catholic views on the Virgin Mary as it is meant to offer new content that includes differing Catholic views on Mary that are nowhere in any Marian article on Wikipedia. And as the Mariology articles are nearly identical in their content, pictures, etc., this is the one chance for a different article. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"meant to offer new content that includes differing Catholic views on Mary that are nowhere in any Marian article on Wikipedia." Interesting comment considering you keep complaining about POV forks and things like that in the other Marian articles. Why not add the content to the other already existing Marian articles? Either the page is a listing of different Catholic views of the Virgin Mary or it isn't, but since the page is in article space and not userspace consensus determines what it is (or whether it should be merged,) not ownership. Marauder40 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This one seems like a no-brainer. I support the four articles recommended by History2007 being merged. They all deal with the same subject matter. This includes the recently renamed article Catholic views on the Virgin Mary.Chhe (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seven days have now passed since the start of this Afd. There is clear consensus among the editors (excluding the nominator) that there is to be no deletion and that a merger is to be performed among the following articles:

with portions moving to History of Roman Catholic Mariology as indicated in the merge document above. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no consensus over which articles are to be merged. However, I agree with TwilightChill in that Roman Catholic Mariology duplicates Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and suggest it be merged there. History of Roman Catholic Mariology can be a speedy delete as it is also another duplication.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editors above have expressed their opinions, and Shirt58, Johnbod, Dylan Flaherty, Marauder, and Chhe supported my proposal which includes the 3 way merger. So 6 out of the 8 editors who voted (myself included) support my proposal. What we have is: 8 votes for merge, zero votes for delete and 6 votes out of 8 supported my proposal for a 3 way merger. Isn't that clear? History2007 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one vote for delete. Mine. The question here is not "votes." It's the redundancy that needs to go, no matter how many "votes." It should be deleted. True, it's an important topic but it's already covered in Mariology. If it is to be merged, then look at Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). There's nothing there that can't be found in a dozen other articles including Roman Catholic Mariology. The article on Mariology is sufficient as it's really almost all about Catholic beliefs anyway. Either delete Roman Catholic Mariology or merge it there. Catholic views on the Virgin Mary isn't going to have more of the same.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think as nominator you cannot vote, and it makes no difference to the numbers mentioned above: 8 votes for merge, zero votes for delete and 6 votes out of the 8 support my 3 way merger proposal. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that the nominator is for deletion. And the votes don't have to be given that much weight if the evidence that this is redundant and a waste of server space is there. Duplication is a valid and important reason in itself for deletion.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will let the Wikipedia editors at large comment on that. I have expressed the facts as I see them. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per History. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most of the several articles about Mary in the Roman Catholic Church, many of which seem to be POV forks of each other. History2007's proposal looks like a good start. Sandstein 07:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not have a situation where the only articles on Mary are the ones created and edited by History2007. There's no reason to merge Catholic views on the Virgin Mary. It's a new article and it would be best if it's allowed to develop. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion about the article content, or about the ongoing edit disputes between Malke2010 and History 2007? Please focus on article content and respect consensus. There is clear 8/10 consensus now for a 3 way merger. History2007 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There can be no more clear example of History2007 ownership issues than that he's just reverted the administrator who closed this AfD. Not surprising as he won't allow editing on the articles he owns and he won't allow new articles on Mary unless he can control the content. A good example of this is the recent warning he put on my talk page because I added content to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) which he immediately deleted. Then, rather than use the talk page for a discussion, he used it for another round of incivility. And now reverting an administrator who doesn't agree with him. Good luck to anybody who doesn't do as he commands. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I did not revert anyone. And making this a case of Malke2010 vs History2007 ongoing edit disputes does not change the consensus for the Afd. Please focus on content and respect consensus. Prior issues that you call incivil were AGF-ed as good humor by your mentor, as you well know. Please ask him to remind you and clarify that if needed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering when the mentorship would be brought up. Consensus does not have to weigh entirely here. Catholic views on the Virgin Mary does not have to be merged/deleted. The comments are largely from the same editors who always seem to arrive to back you up, especially the two who never edit Catholic articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, please focus on content and consensus. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a concern for you when it goes your way, which it does when the usual editors show up. Administrators are still free to recognize that this is a POV content fork and that there is nothing stopping him/her from deleting it, even with this so-called "consensus." Malke 2010 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that is not my understanding. Please follow WP:CALM and let the matter calm down. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per History. I acknowledge that the subject of the BVM in the RCC is a very significant one, and that there is certainly sufficient material for there to exist more than one article on the subject. However, there does seem to be an issue of the content being duplicated, for better or worse. I think it would make sense to first work on the other extant articles, and then, when and if the article becomes excessively long, to create further subtopical articles, but that would best be done by consensus of the majority of the involved editors rather than by the action of one individual editor, not that I fault anyone for BOLDly addressing what they might see as a problem. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In fact, I started on the path to consolidation on October 25, 2010 by starting a merge suggestion, as stated above. However, we need to close this Afd now based on the clear consensus of 9 votes out of 11 that recommend the 3 way merge proposal, so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Mariology is a POV content fork and should be deleted per WP:POVFORK. The wider community consensus WP:CONLIMITED is with the policy and guidelines that address POV content forks and it is not with the limited consensus of editors here. POV content forks are supposed to be deleted. Administrators should not ignore the wider community consensus which backs the policies and guidelines.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have stated that opinion several times now on this page, starting with your nomination of the article for deletion, and we can all read those. Stating this a few more times will not make it any more clear. Please respect the views of the other editors on this page. There is no consensus for deletion, but there is clear (i.e. 9 votes out of 11) consensus for a "3 way merge". Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your count is votes for the merge deletion of this one article Roman Catholic Mariology. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mariology of the popes. –MuZemike 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariology of Pope Paul VI[edit]

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

content fork/duplication of content. Already exists in Pope Paul VI as well as Mariology of the popes. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mariology of the popes. Article is a content fork, but not a POV fork, so I highly doubt anyone would contest a merge. As WP:BEFORE mentions, a merge can be done "without opening an AfD case".--res Laozi speak 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as specified. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 23 November 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 merge to Mariology of the popes. As with the others articles in theis group, a speedy merge is the obvious and inevitable conclusion here. Nobody, including the nominator, has any arguments against doing that DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariology of Pope Pius IX[edit]

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

content fork/duplication of material. Already exists in Pope Pius IX as well as in Mariology of the popes. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mariology of the popes. Article is a content fork, but not a POV fork, so I highly doubt anyone would contest a merge. As WP:BEFORE mentions, a merge can be done "without opening an AfD case".--res Laozi speak 21:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Mariology of the popes & the bio as appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. History2007 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Mariology of the popes and new merge request on that page should be removed. Marauder40 (talk) 15:07, 22 November 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 merge to Mariology of the popes It's not that common to close as a speedy merge , but I think it's appropriate here. Nobody, including the nominator, has any arguments against doing that . DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariology of Pope Pius XII[edit]

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

content fork/duplication of material; content also duplicated in Pope Pius XII as well as Mariology of the popes. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mariology of the popes. Why delete text that relates to an existing article? No clear reasons are given that the merger will not benefit more than an outright deletion. Merger will be suitable to preserve the material given that the main article Mariology of the popes clearly relates to it. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Speedy redirect~~' to Mariology of the popes, ~~since the content has already been merged~~ and this is a likely search term. Article is a content fork, but not a POV fork, so I highly doubt anyone would contest a redirect. As WP:BEFORE mentions, "consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case".--res Laozi speak 21:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is content here that is not present in Mariology of the popes, so a merge would be more appropriate. What is the rush for speedy? These popes died years ago, a few days will not make s difference, and a merge can handle it in a smooth way without loss of content. I do think there is need for consolidation, but let us not lose content and do things in an orderly manner. History2007 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. My comment was made before I realised the nom was mass nominating Mariology related articles, so I assumed in good faith that he was accurate that the article was a content fork. You've made a good point, and I've switched to a merge accordingly.--res Laozi speak 00:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are "mass nominations" as you stated. There were several more, and an editor stated (correctly in my view) on another nominated page that they are cases of WP:POINT as a result of other events. History2007 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Mariology of the popes & the bio as appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Mariology of the popes and new merge request on that page should be removed. Marauder40 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 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 merge to Mariology of the popes. As with the others articles in theis group, a speedy merge is the obvious and inevitable conclusion here. Nobody, including the nominator, has any arguments against doing that DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariology of Pope Leo XIII[edit]

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

duplication of content/content fork. Already exists on Mariology of the popes as well as on Leo XIII Malke 2010 (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mariology of the popes. Why delete text that relates to an existing article? No clear reasons are given that the merger will not benefit more than an outright deletion. Merger will be suitable to preserve the material given that the main article Mariology of the popes clearly relates to it. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Speedy redirect~~ with Mariology of the popes, since ~~the content has already been merged~~ and this is a likely search term. Article is a content fork, but not a POV fork, so I highly doubt anyone would contest a redirect. As WP:BEFORE mentions, "consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case".--res Laozi speak 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is content here that is not present in Mariology of the popes, so a merge would be more appropriate. What is the rush for speedy? These popes died years ago, a few days will not make s difference, and a merge can handle it in a smooth way without loss of content. I do think there is need for consolidation, but let us not lose content and do things in an orderly manner. History2007 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. My comment was made before I realised the nom was mass nominating Mariology related articles, so I assumed in good faith that he was accurate that the article was content fork. You've made a good point, and I've switched to a merge accordingly.--res Laozi speak 00:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are "mass nominations" as you stated. There were several more, and an editor stated (correctly in my view) on another nominated page that they are cases of WP:POINT as a result of other events. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Mariology of the popes & the bio as appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Mariology of the popes and new merge request on that page should be removed. Marauder40 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 18:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cohen (comedian)[edit]

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

Unsourced self-promotional BLP. I searched around looking for news sources on him, and all I find are ones on the soccer player. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no references except a personal website, a youtube video, and an expired domain. The photo is from his myspace page--this page looks like self promotion. Delete.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:MUSICBIO. —J04n(talk page) 11:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. First, it is clear that the rough consensus leans toward deletion. Second, the arguments for deletion (mainly WP:CFORK, WP:FICT, and most importantly, lack of secondary sources) refuse many, but not all, of the reasons for retention. –MuZemike 18:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Green Goblin[edit]

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

Article fails both WP:V and WP:NOT#PLOT, and this state is irreparable. First, WP:V includes this key sentence: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This article cites 119 sources, of which 1 (count them, 1!) source meets that standard. That single source supports a single sentence about the plot. There is no way to rewrite this article to the point that it is based on reliable, third-party sources, because they do not seem to exist. I can hear the screaming already But WP:V permits the use of primary sources!". It certainly does, but it doesn't permit articles to be based on them, which this one is. Further, WP:NOT#PLOT states that "Wikipedia articles should not be ... Plot-only description of fictional works." This article is a plot-only description. A filtered plot description, perhaps, but the only thing it contains is plot elements. Logically, the only thing that can be in a fictional history of a character is plot points: it can't contain anything else and still be a fictional history. Thus, there is no way for the article to be improved to survive WP:NOT#PLOT. As the article fails to meet two fundamental policies, and cannot be improved to pass them, it needs to be deleted.—Kww(talk) 04:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very encyclopedic topic, which helps people understand a notable character that has been around for decades, and featured in many notable comics and well reviewed story arcs, as well as the various animated series, and even in major films, plus other merchandising. There is too much information to fit comfortably in the main article, so this is a valid content fork. Many parts of this have links to main articles about specific story arcs they have been in which are notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have their own articles even. These all got reviews, which of course mentioned the Green Goblin character. Dream Focus 08:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 08:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Green Goblin#Fictional character biography which covers the same ground. This should redirect there. pablo 16:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect per the nominator. I did merge this article but then I suffered edit conflict from User: Dream Focus for it. I understand his point though for I did do it without patience. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you describe what parts of this article need to be preserved and explain why? Does the material at Green Goblin actually require expansion?—Kww(talk) 02:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect - IIUC there has been an effort to prune the material down for the "Fictional character biography" for the main article. If that effor is done, or progressing steadily, everything should be fine. As for the extended in-stoy bio being "very encyclopedic" and needed for readers to understand the character... part of that rings true. Part of if flys in the face of guidelines. Yes, there is room to argue that the bio deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia. But we do have clear guidelines on content. Those guidelines include not using articles as plot dumps. By definition, a long article that has less than 1% of it's references from something other than the primary works is a massive plot dump. As for it bing needed for understanding, no. And if we were brutally honest, to give a reader a handle on almost any character in fiction, very little in the way of an in story bio is necessary. There is latitude allowed when an article also incoperates secondary, preferably third party, sources. That latitude doesn't exsist here.
On a couple of side notes:
First: Extended articles on the Green Goblin have a place in more specialized wikis or reference works. External links can be provided to those. And to a degree, the Comics Project has templates set up that enourage ELs to "Marvel Databaes" on Wikia and "Marvel Universe Wiki" at Marvel's official site.
Secopnd: Wikipedia articles on well reviewed story arcs are welcome, when the secondary sources provide more than just a justification to post a plot dump. Such articles can be pointed to from from the main Green Goblin article either in a "See also" section or using ((Seealso)) from the FCB.
- J Greb (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you describe what parts of this article need to be preserved and explain why? Does the material at Green Goblin actually require expansion?—Kww(talk) 02:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long and short? It looks like most of the "highlights" have already be transferred. (It looks like the section of Green Goblin still needs a through copy edit, but that is a discussion for another place.) If one were so incined, they could see if any of this could/should be copied to Norman Osborn (Earth-616), Green Goblin, or Green Goblin (Norman Osborn), that that is something that can be done after this is turned into a redirect. - J Greb (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is the proper place for such discussion. You've argued for merging in response to my call for deletion. I still maintain that the article can be completely eradicated, as there is nothing in it worth keeping. If you wish it to be merged, you need to identify at least one section that needs to be transferred.—Kww(talk) 15:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small clarification: If this article is simply redirected, which is reasonable, any editor can still view the last "full" version and see if the off Wikipedia articles are missing something. If the article is deleted, only admins on up could do that.
If it is your contention that this AfD is the venue to discus removing/editing Green Goblin#Fictional character biography, I disagree. Last I checck that type of discusion would done in normal course on Talk:Green Goblin, either as normal discusion about improving that article or as an RfC.
Lastly, in part you are right, my "first look" wasn't much. "Merge" is a little short of the mark here - it already has been - "Redirect" is more appropriate. - J Greb (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As we've had this discussion before regarding Fictional history of Spider-Man, this fictography directly contradicts every Wikipedia guideline about writing about fiction and about primary sources. It is a hyper-detailed page that could only be of interest to fans, with way more in-universe jargon and references than any general reader could or would ever want to wade through. Wikipedia should not be a free server for fan sites, which is all that the page is. No scholar, academic, student or other such encyclopedia user wants or needs all that. Only a fan does. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try clicking random article a few times to see numerous examples of hyper-detail such as Anaal Nathrakh (yet another grindcore band), Łapy-Łynki (yet another village in Poland), Long-tailed Mountain-pigeon (yet another bird), Bruce Lemmerman (yet another football player). Detail of this sort is what we do and there seems to be no basis in policy for discriminating against particular topics because you don't like them or their readership and there is, in fact, a policy which forbids this. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia serving a general audience — the entire world. If you want to work on a more exclusive project, then please try Scholarpedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those articles seem to contain 'hyper-detail'. Had you linked to a football player article which contained a synopsis of every game he had ever played, you might have had a point, though. pablo 10:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree entirely with Kww. There is no conceivable way this article can satisfy WP:V through regular editing. The article on the Green Goblin contains well and truly enough back-story, so I doubt it would be improved by dumping anything from this article into it. I also think Tenebrae has a strong point regarding scope. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia aimed at all readers and therefore everything we present should be written so as to be relevant to all. We are emphatically not a free webhost for fansites. If you want to cobble together your fan interpretation of the primary sources, go to a wikia or a fan forum. Don't inflict your speculation, arguments about continuity and canonicity, and general fan chatter on Wikipedia and its readers in the guise of an "encyclopedia article"- because this stuff isn't. Reyk _YO! 00:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is verifiable, that requirement easily met. And only those interested in the character would read this article, just as only those interested in articles about history, science, or whatnot would read articles about them. And you don't need any fan interpretations. Marvel released in 2009 an issue called Dark Reign - The Goblin Legacy which list every aspect of the Green Goblin's(Norman Osborn)'s history. Any information in question can be tagged with a citation needed tag, and a page can be found to reference it. Dream Focus 03:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V doesn't merely require verifiability, it requires that the article be based on independent, third-party sources. Nothing released by Marvel could qualify.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, search that file for "primary" and see the part that says "While primary sources are normally welcome, there are dangers in relying on them." The danger being whether you can trust them, and in these sorts of cases, yes you can, as I have explained. It tells you to see WP:PRIMARY for more information. And once there you will find "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." And it goes on from there giving examples on that page of some cases where using primary sources is just fine. Dream Focus 03:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that an article can make no use of primary sources, simply that it cannot be based on them. Those are two significantly different things. This article is based on primary sources, and that is not in compliance with WP:V. Please read the deletion nomination carefully, and respond to the points made. The Green Goblin is certainly notable, but this article fails WP:V and WP:NOT#PLOT. You've said nothing that refutes that.—Kww(talk) 04:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a valid content fork. If the main article is too crowded, don't destroy valid content, just stick it in a side article. Makes things easier for viewing and some have trouble with loading pages that are too long. And there are reviews for the various story arcs confirming the information there. That is a significant part of the article. These arcs have their own articles, so just copying over the references there, to different reliable sources that have reviewed them, shouldn't be too much trouble. Dream Focus 04:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus has had his say -- and his say again, and his say again, just as he did in the Spider-Man discussion. He is behaving obsessively and fanatically for his own pet project that virtually no one else supports. He simply wants to use Wikipedia space as his personal fan pages, no matter what everyone else wants. Dream Focus, you made your point at the start of this thread. Let other people make their points without constant badgering. That's not fair to the other editors, and shows no respect for points of view other than your own — all you're attempting to do is wear other editors down. If your point were truly valid, you wouldn't have to do that. Let other people talk without your constant interjecting and interrupting, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with your personal attacks against me. You are constantly using slander, and strawman tactics. We are discussing it, which is what AFD are for. Someone wants to quote a policy, then I'll quote another section of it to clarify my position. This is how discussions are suppose to be done. If you don't want to discuss things, then don't bother responding. You tried your best to destroy a similar article, arguing nonstop on many different pages, but were unable to get your way and destroy it. That is because the majority of people that looked into it and took the time to comment their opinions wanted it kept, not just because one person wanted it. Dream Focus 14:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you can stop.

Some of Tenebrae's comment was out of line. Guessing about another editor's motives is bad. Doing so just to put that editor in a bad light does broach WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. However, pointing out that an editor does tend to shout down others in these types of discussions doesn't broach those.

And some of Dream Focus' actions questionable. Adding random or additional arguments - as seen here and here - instead of either answering/responding to specific posts or asking a question of specific editor doesn't help things along. It also doesn't help that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems to be in play. Answering posts or forming arguments based on only part of a point made or using only the part of guidelines you like can wind up hurting the process, not helping it. Also, edit summaries like "anyone with comic books please help add additional references" totally misses the point of one of the fundamental problems here.

Last few things:

The notability of a character from a work of fiction does not necessarily extend to all aspects of that character.
The notability of a single story or story arc does not necessarily extend to all elements of the story or arc.
The notability of one story or arc among many in serial fiction does not extend to the other stories or arcs.
Secondary sources tend to provide material for "Publication histories" - "We doing this to make him more badass" is how the writers/editor/publisher are using the character - or critical commentary - a reviewer putting the character in real world contact or a literary dissection of the character.
Wikipedia guidelines all but bar articles that totally or almost totally plot summaries. An article that is 99.9% sourced to the original comics and written solely in an in story tone is totally plot summary. This is not careful use of primary sources, it comes very close to an abuse of primary sources. Nor is it a desirable content fork, it smacks of an attempt to retain material that would have rightly be judiciously and objectively removed from the primary article to reduce its bloat.

- J Greb (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If enough of the historical events listed in the article have coverage, as they surely do, then the article has proven itself notable. Once that is done, not every single item/story arc has to prove itself to be included. And concerning my questionable actions, I wasn't just adding in random arguments, but stating where to find additional information for this. Best to do it down there where it will be seen. I've been discussing things on the talk page of the article as well. Dream Focus 16:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination acknowledges that there is at least one good source here. The article is obviously a spin-off from our main article about the Green Goblin. There is therefore no issue of deletion to consider here as the worst case is that we would merge into that article. The proposition is therefore disruptive ("disrupting progress toward improving an article") contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. My contention is that there is no content in the article worthy of being preserved. It should be deleted, not merged or redirected.—Kww(talk) 14:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#PLOT. lacks significant third party sources to make it an article. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept there are at least some third party sources though? Dream Focus 14:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every major event that happened in the Green Goblin's history, has coverage somewhere these days. Wired magazine [37] wrote about the character as he was before, and how they were remaking him as the Iron Patriot to be more badass for today's audience. There are 313 Google news results when searching for "Norman Osborn" AND "Green Goblin". [38] Just "Green Goblin" by itself receives 3,900 results. That's a lot to sort through. Searching for the names of each story arch or historic event helps narrow it down. Dream Focus 14:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is about what happened after Dark Siege, which of course has ample third party coverage in reliable sources for all of that. The part concerning Gwen Stacy giving birth to twins, I added a reference for from a major newspaper.[39] The historical event of Gwen Stacy's death, and the and the Green Goblin Reborn! story arc, are mentioned in every book published about comics as being quite important. There are plenty of sources out there to be found, if someone just spent the time to look for them. Dream Focus 14:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say this as neutrally as possible: I don't believe it is appropriate for one editor to repeatedly come to this discussion and comment on virtually every other editor's post. What term can be used for behavior to pursue one's one point repeatedly and redundantly and doggedly? I truly don't believe it is a breach of WP:CIVIL to call this behavior obsessive. Make your point, then let others make theirs. Arguing with virtually every single's editor's position who disagrees with you is badgering. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want someone to comment on what you say, then don't say it. You don't seem to understand what a discussion is. Dream Focus 19:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unreasonable to reply to another editor's comment, and it can be done without badgering. My concern on Dream Focus is not when he directly replies to another editor's comment, it's when he simply adds comments. I would greatly prefer it if he kept his personal commentary localized to one section.—Kww(talk) 20:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Dream Focus' claim that I "don't seem to understand what a discussion is": A productive discussion is not one person haranguing everyone who disagrees with him. If one's point isn't strong enough to stand on its own without constant interjection, that is telling. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to Keep when and if sources can be found. If that is not likely to happen soon, then I think we have quite a bit of Fictional Character Biography at the main article, so it wouldn't hurt anything to simply Redirect to Green Goblin in the meantime, rather than delete or merge. BOZ (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:PLOT (and WP:INUNIVERSE). A 'fictional history' cannot help but be a "plot-only description of fictional works." Lack of significant secondary sourcing in the article seems to support this view. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article topic is clearly notable, detail is too extensive to merge into another article, and the in-universe problems are severe but not irreperable. AfD is not for solving problems that can be resolved through normal editing. NB: A fictional history need not necessarily violate WP:PLOT where it hues closely to a publication history and provides historical detail of changes in plot canon that contribute to an encyclopaedic understanding of an element of pop culture; this article doesn't do that, but it could, hence normal editing. - DustFormsWords (talk)
- A few observations:
  1. The character is notable. Some of the single issue stories or self contained arcs are notable. The whole in-story bio isn't. Not with regard to a general use encyclopedia.
  2. For this character, one that essentially has a single, unbroken, 60 year story, shifting this to a publication history would still mean it belongs in the parent article, Green Goblin.
  3. History with these types of articles has been that they don't get edited to fix the problem. Edits to being them in line with standing guidelines are routinely contested, reverted, and fought tooth and nail. AfD are proposed and the point of "It's a content issue. Go back and work it out in editing on the article's talk page." is pushed. When the AfD's close as "Work on fixing it", nothing happens or, worse, more plot is dumped in. At some point either the guidelines need to go - and consensus has always come back to keep them as is - or the article.
    Personally, that frustrated me, greatly. These become posters for why articles on elements related to pop-fiction - comics, films, television, etc - shouldn't be. That they only attract fans that don't care about Wikipedia's policies on non-free content, sourcing, and on and on. I'm a fan. I believe that there is a place within Wikipedia for articles on characters and stories from comics, among other sources. But I also care about seeing that the articles don't violate NFC policy - primarily about under cutting the copyright holders of the primary sources commercial options - or the guidelines that are in place about writing about fiction. At some point we have to either apply those, making them stick, or admit they aren't worth the pixels they're typed with. - J Greb (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How exactly would this cut into the profits of the copyright holders? Just as reading a review about what happened in a movie or book doesn't make people not want to buy the thing, same thing with comic books. And you are upset that these types of articles attract fans who know about the series and actually care about the article's content, instead of people who don't care at all and thus have no reason to ever find their way to them unless they just want to find something to complain about and/or destroy? Is there non-free content you see on the article? References have been found and are being discussed on the talk page of the article, as well to how best proceed. Dream Focus 13:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - One more thing about the concern about this somehow under cutting their commercial options. Marvel comics has an official website which allows and encourages users to update every fact about characters to it, including the character here. [40] So they aren't going to be bothered about someone doing the same here on Wikipedia, which had been doing this for years before they decided to create a wiki of their on on their site. Dream Focus 13:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —− Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dream Focus' logic, we could describe the action and some of the dialog in every panel the Green Goblin has been in, since there's no copyright issue and since Wikipedia isn't on paper so we don't have to worry about space. I would ask Dream Focus: Is there any reason not to do that?

This is a core question that needs to be answered before debate can continue, because it sets the parameter of this entire discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In every single article for a movie, a book, or a television episode, do we not describe what happened? Why would it be different for comic books? There is no problem with copyrights. And we are only list things which are deemed notable either by being reviewed somewhere, or common sense and consensus of those who understand and actually care about the subject. That is to say, if no review can be found for one section, then you discuss it on the talk page and form a consensus whether it belongs there or not. There is enough mention of various historical events involving this character's long history, to justify the article though. Dream Focus 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your forthrightness in answering part of the question, saying that in your view, "There is no problem with copyrights" in "describ[ing] the action and some of the dialog in every panel."

I do find an OWN-erly presumption inherent in the remark "those who understand and actually care about the subject". All of us here do. To suggest otherwise is remarkably inaccurate and a false statement that does help this discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every single person who showed up at this AFD reads comic books. Nor does everyone who happens by later on going to either. There are always people rampaging about, taking a glance at something, and then trying to destroy it because they don't like it, think it hurts Wikipedia's cred to have articles like this, just don't like long articles and prefer only token mentions that no one finds interesting to read, or for other reasons. I've used the comment "those who understand and actually care about the subject" many times before, it not directed at you. And if there is a specific part of that long article that you are referring to, discuss it on the talk page please. AFD is for determining a subject's notability, not for nitpicking about the details of the article itself. Dream Focus 16:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that making pronouncements and making bad-faith accusations about those who disagree with your position as "rampaging about" and "prefer[ing] only token mentions that no one finds interesting to read" is helpful to this discussion.

It's incorrect to say "AFD is for determining a subject's notability, not for nitpicking about the details of the article itself." There are many reasons listed at WP:DEL#REASON, including the catch-all "content not suitable for an encyclopedia." It's important that we stay honest in any discussion. An article that contains vast amounts of what reasonable editors here are considering non-encyclopedic minutiae can be considered for many actions, including merger and deletion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be a reason to edit some of it out, not destroy the entire article. Otherwise its just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dream Focus 16:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae and Dream Focus, please continue your discussion on the talkpage, or I'll move it there for you. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its related to the article and this AFD, the discussion belongs here. Dream Focus 17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if that's the case, it's important to say that it is improper, inaccurate and dismissive for an editor to tar all opposition to his personal viewpoint as simply being "Oh, they just don't like it," which denigrates and disrespects reasonable editors' legitimate concerns. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the above thread largely doesn't relate to this article and this AfD. For everyone's sake, please continue this thread on the appropriate talk page, not here. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article title only allows plot-only material there by definition, hence the article will always violate WP:NOT#PLOT. Third-party sources sourcing the plot does not change that, since it still doesn't show how the fictional history of this character affects the real world. The plot can fit in Green Goblin#Fictional character biography; if it doesn't, it needs to be trimmed. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anything have to affect the real world? Most of the articles on Wikipedia are about things that don't affect the real world in any possible way. Dream Focus 17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, WP:NOT#PLOT. Reception and significance of a fictional work take place in the real world. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki to Comics wiki, Marvel wiki, and/or Comixpedia, where such details would be welcome. Wikipedia, however, requires that articles about comic book characters are not simply plot summaries, and that reliable, non-primary sources are available to establish the notability of the subject. There are a number of similar articles that may also need to be transwikied (just do a search for Fictional history of). SnottyWong ^confabulate 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd hate to say that fictional histories are fancruft, but they are. And what are they other than plot summaries, with the arc of their plot spread out over multiple books and years? The article consists of plot summaries of individual installments, so by definition this is OR and synthesis. We allow "original" plot summaries for novels (and even video clips, I understand), but this is much more than that, since it is the meat of the article. And yes, I've looked at the "external reference"--a little article from the life section of The Gazette. Come on. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and especially per Sgeureka. This is a full-on plot-dump. More appropriate to a fansite, such as wikia.com. Jack Merridew 02:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't even have articles like this for more notable villians like Wthe Joker or Dr. Doom. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If their histories get large enough then they can do a valid content fork into their own article as well. Someone just has to write it. Dream Focus 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, if their histories can be summerized, so can the Goblin's. There is NO reason why GG's history can't fit into the main article. Seriously, do we really need paragraph-long plot descriptions of every comic GG's been in? Is it nessecary to have a whole paragraph dedicated to his alliance with the Crime-Master? Much of the information here is trivial and useless for an encyclopedia. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding in more publication information and changing the title of it eliminate some of the calls for deletion? The History of Superman and Publication history of Wonder Woman basically cover plot points, and mention notable story arcs, just like this article does. When the Fictional history of Spider-Man was up for deletion, such things were added to it, and it survived all three of its AFDs. Fictional history of Dick Grayson does the same thing. So, would that solve the problem here? Dream Focus 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would distinguish the Superman, Wonder Woman & Spider-Man cases as having a substantial body of work devoted to them, whose 'publication history' (personnel, changes in style, etc) might well be a valid topic. I don't think this works for the Green Goblin as, as a villain, he would not typically have many comics devoted to him. In any case, I would expect to see substantive WP:SECONDARY sourced content analysing this publication history. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Marvel Wikia list 452 comic book issues with him in them, and its still incomplete. He has had various comics dedicated entirely to him, no ongoing series though. And he was in charge of the government's security for a time, and in charge of the Avengers, etc. during the Dark Reign event, and even started a war that destroyed most of Asgard. He wasn't just Spider-man's sometimes enemy. And over a thousand results appear when I use Google book search for "Green Goblin" AND "Marvel" [41] some of them secondary sources that mention him for being part of various historical events in comics. Dream Focus 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble being that comic book writers and editors would typically put thought into (and later mention in sources) their views on what to do with heroes and comic book titles ("what should we do next with Spiderman" or "what should we do next with the Avengers"), not villains ("what should we do next with the Green Goblin"). Villains are typically there simply to give form to the narrative of the heroes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. There is an often mentioned bit about how Stan Lee wanted to reveal the secret identity of the Green Goblin, they really building up to it, and the other guy working on it at the time got mad and left Marvel. Read about that and other information about the Green Goblin in "Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics, Marvel, by Les Daniels". Also see it mentioned in one article, and plenty of Google Book results. So there was a lot put into this character. They recently started a new series called "Osborn" about this character, and he had his own limited series called "Green Goblin" for 13 issues, and various one shots. The character is quite well developed, and very well established in the Marvel universe for decades now. Dream Focus 11:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, that story about Stan Lee and Steve Ditko is apocryphal. Second, your post above about "he was in charge of the government's security" etc. goes on about this character as if he were a real person who really did these things. Finally, none of this has anything to do with the Wikiepedia violations — it's obfuscation, a distracting smokescreen from the real issue.

To follow this logic to the end, why not write book-length biographies of fictional characters here?

One and only one editor is arguing vociferously and continually, arguing every other editor's point. This needs to be factored in during the consensus decision weighing whether to delete or to keep.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the previous poster said about not believing they put much thought into the villains, I giving one notable example proving that they did. There is no "smokescreen" here. You are the one going around commenting on me, instead of my arguments, which is against the rules. And to answer your question, if there is enough valid information to fill a book-length biography, so be it. Discussion on the talk page can determine what is important enough to mention. And if you check the AFD statistics, I'm not the only one saying keep here. And those that said delete, mostly said it before I added references to the article showing media response to various notable things in the Green Goblin history. After I'm done with it, I'll ask them on their talk page if they still believe the article is without merit. Since a considerable amount of information has been deleted from the Green Goblin article, it makes sense to have their entire notable history over in a side article like other notable characters have. Dream Focus 16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you intend to WP:CANVASS the other editors? That's really not proper. Also, I didn't say you were the only "keep," albeit one of few — I said you're the only one who feels the need to argue with every single editor who disagrees with your own personal opinion. Your single opinion is no more or less valuable than anyone else's, but you're treating it as it were.

No one is saying the topic is without merit. No one. That's a straw-dog argument. The issue is whether it has to be a fictography of such extremely minute details as "He left and changed into his Spider-Man costume." You say a book-length biography is appropriate. Wikipedia guidelines — and I know for a fact copyright law — says it is not

In any event, I'm floored by the suggestion that because you're argued against each "delete" post that that negates each of those posts! If an editor changes his or her mind, he or she can come back and say so of their own volition. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? That isn't canvassing, nor anywhere close. Contacting people who said delete because of reliable sources and coverage by secondary sources, and asking if the ones I included are enough for them to change their mind, is certainly not canvassing. And you are the only one who keeps arguing with me directly, instead of the points I have made. Focus on the arguments, not the editor who posted them. Dream Focus 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's the very definition of canvassing, going around to other editors' pages and trying to convince them of something. Second, I've very much been addressing the points of your arguments, however specious I may find them. To accuse someone of attacking you personally because he's pointing out flaws in your argument or disagreeing with you is a common tactic here and certainly in the political realm: When your points are indefensible, you attack the other person rather than address his points. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CANVASS There is nothing wrong with asking editors who already voted, if the changes made in the article fixed what they considered to be a problem. And I'm not responding to the rest of your nonsense. I think its hopeless trying to reason with people like you. You gain absolutely nothing by destroying articles like this, and have absolutely no legitimate reason to do so. It all comes down to people not liking something, they originally shot down and everything preserved, but then enough of them ganging up on the previously ignored guideline pages to force through their agenda, and ever sense people use that as an excuse to delete things they don't like. And the guy running things makes more money every time more stuff gets deleted, and people driven to the wikia, so he isn't going to try to stop it, but instead encouraging it at times. Dream Focus 21:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can reasonably disagree, and reasonably concede to consensus for the greater good. But I wish you could hear yourself saying that anyone who disagree with your position is "destroying articles" ... that disparate editors who have nothing to do with each other and no agenda are nonetheless "ganging up." And I honestly don't know what you mean by some "guy running things" making "more money" by deleting "Fictional history of the Green Goblin" and other articles that violate guidelines. You accuse everyone who opposes your position as having "no legitimate reason." You show no respect for anyone else's position. Our points are all illegitimate, and we're ganging up on you to further "some guy's" agenda. Please realize how all this sounds. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I should discuss the history behind this article. I created this article because the history was too large on the Green Goblin article. I mean the history was getting larger than the Fictional history of Spider-Man for crying out loud making the article huge. But now that I put a shorter fictional history on the main article I did not find as much use for it that's why I originally merged it. Hopefully this discussions will help situations on what to do with this article. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no merging is necessary. The contents of the article came from Green Goblin, and any trivial edits made in an effort to "rescue" this thing should have been made to the main article, not here.—Kww(talk) 18:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I say merge, I meant I redirected it. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Goblin article went from 72k to 42k during the course of this AFD, while this article is 75k. So any merge/redirect would just be deleting most of the information. Dream Focus 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only plot summary, which is not suitable content for either article.—Kww(talk) 21:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename Wikipedia to Fanopedia, Restart Wikipedia to be an online encyclopedia for the general public and edited by people who understand that there is no difference between an article on a fictional character and an article on the fictional history of a fictional character. Borock (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't addressed how the article meets Notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fanopedia doesn't have any notability criteria. SnottyWong ^communicate 01:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet any of the requirements of notability for fiction, it's written with primary sources mainly and it's coverage in third-party sources is very poor to warrant a full article. More importantly it doesn't have real-world coverage, it's a redundant content fork written with an in-universe perspective and I believe it fills the criteria of what Wikipedia is not and reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is written with primary sources, which lack the independence to allow us to WP:verify notability. It's a WP:CONTENTFORK of the green goblin article with only plot summaries, which is what wikipedia is not. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FICT clearly states that "Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. However, the consensus at Wikipedia is that articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details or trivial coverage." This article clearly violates that. It's mostly just unnecessary plot details of the Goblin's appearances in comics. Stuff that belongs on a fansite not an encyclopedia. Delete, Delete, Delete!!! 174.124.170.86 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 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. Discussion about merging can be continued on Talk:Scientology. –MuZemike 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Scientology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I came across the article today, I am not convinced its encyclopedic. Each on of the symbols can be adequately covered in a caption in the relevant article thus this seems to be a unnecessary Content fork. . This frankly looks extremely crufty and lack half the symbols it discusses. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a valid article. The lack of actual pictures is a minor cleanup issue, and would only require another editor who cares enough to remedy; otherwise deletion is not a valid cleanup issue. As far as covering the symbols in "the relevent article", this looks a lot like the most relevent article. I can't find anything at fault here that needs deletion. --Jayron32 04:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Article is short enough so that the table would be collapsible into the main scientology article. I wouldn't call it crufty however, as it is similar to the other many religious articles out there on WP.The^FSAviator • T 04:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron32 –BuickCentury Driver 08:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agree with valid analysis above by TheFSaviator (talk · contribs), any relevant (and sourced) material could be merged to the article Scientology. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the verdict here? The^FSAviator • T 00:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been less than 4 days; AFD discussions run a minimum of 7 days. Give it time. --Jayron32 05:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 18:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurij[edit]

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

Page does not make assertion of notability of company, has not even released a product to the market. Even so, if the company does release their product (beverage), it makes no distinction from other beverages. Also fails reference sources and I am unable to find reliable coverage. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 03:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable. Start-up company does not even have a product on the market. No third-party coverage cited. The article is written like an advertising flyer, apparently trying to use Wikipedia as part of their marketing effort. Plazak (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotional. --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if deleted, suggest a redirect to Kuril Islands. --Nlu (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going On Tour[edit]

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

I pulled this out of speedy delete, but it's notability is doubtful. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doubtful notability, a tour-only CDR; merits no more than a mention on the band page. Hairhorn (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolf[edit]

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

Game of dubious notability without significant coverage. A Google search for Dolf turned up nothing outside of the Wikipedia article and http://www.dolfdarts.com. That site alleges to be the governing body of the game, but there is a bare minimum of content there: no evidence of international tournaments, no links to leagues or local competitions, no links to press coverage. In the absence of secondary sources to document the game, it fails the general notability guidelines. I'm not saying that nobody plays the game; I'm saying that this variant, as created by the named individuals, is not notable. —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not suficient notability The Eskimo (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as original prodder): Non-notable game variant. ... discospinster _talk 03:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than the aforementioned "official" website, there is a total lack of sources to verify anything. Most darts game variations are not notable. This is just another one of those. _wjemather^bigissue 08:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On further inspection it seems to be a variation of another darts game variant, Golf (darts), which is not notable either. _wjemather ^bigissue 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 18:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Balloon Factory[edit]

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

CD with limited circulation, no assertion of notability. Melaen (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a list, basically. Sorry, not famous enough yet. The Eskimo (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 20 November 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. –MuZemike 18:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vonnegut Hardware Company[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage for this business; gBooks shows many hits but most seem to be mere mentions, not in-depth discussion of the subject. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the connections to the Vonnegut family make this somewhat compelling for me. I know that notability is not inherited, which is why I am only weakly behind this, still I don't find that this article quite merits deletion. --Jayron32 02:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm also weak on this, but I do see some historical worth. I'd be happier if this at least could be merged somewhere. Has the primary author been notified? Maybe he can expand it a little. -- œ ^™ 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another weak keep. I think notability is rather borderline. Jayron makes the point more eloquently than I would. bobrayner (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per WP:SNOW and author's insight. Will ask creator whether to be userfied Tikiwont (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lew Carpenter cites[edit]

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

Mind-bogglingly non-encyclopedic index of every time a particular jock is mentioned in a particular book about his team!!!! Orange Mike | Talk 02:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow. Never has an article better spoken to its own deletion than this one. --Jayron32 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come on now. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. Wikipedia is not a place to post indexes of books -- whether or not those books have indexes of their own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FAIL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 03:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An attempt to be bold, and to explain or cite to 10% of pages in a book that mentioned Lew Carpenter. Obviously, too bold and beyond accepted limits. Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May even be able to go under WP:NONSENSE rules.The^FSAviator • T 04:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. This is basically a concordance to a book to find all the references to Lew Carpenter. For each page where Carpenter is mentioned, this list provides an excerpt from the line where he is mentioned. I would consider this list useless, but not WP:NONSENSE, which uses a restrictive definition of "nonsense" that would exclude this page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately via WP:SPEEDY.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an aside, would it be worthwhile to userfy this to the user that created it; they have been working on the Lew Carpenter article, and this may be useful for them to have on-wiki, even if it isn't really an article, it may be misplaced and really belong in his userspace. I totally agree that it doesn't belong in the article space, but it may have some use for the user that created it. --Jayron32 07:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article creator asks for this page to be userfied, I would support having it userfied. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way out of scope. — C M B J 12:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 18:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acer Aspire 5570z[edit]

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

Article no more notable than other Acer Aspire models, no content, only specifications. Melaen (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in list of Acer models. Nothing is even written in the article, this could be nominated for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFSaviator (talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suspect that a specific Windows-based laptop would need to have some remarkably interesting hook in order to warrant an independent article. Perhaps such a laptop would be notable if it were a massively deployed standard issue for a major government or military. Maybe even one of the top 10 best sellers of all time. But some random Acer? Sorry, but no. — C M B J 13:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't even want to get into detailed discussion about how many sales / what specs &c are needed to make a model of laptop notable. We use external sources for that; if other independent people in the outside world have considered a particular laptop model interesting enough to talk about in depth (not just a page on Amazon), that would satisfy me. Maybe there are some Acer models which pass the notability requirement by virtue of have had multiple reviews by general IT news sites &c. But, as far as I can tell, this one doesn't. bobrayner (talk) 18:30, 23 November 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) 12:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Campany[edit]

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

No real claim to notability. Only one four track ep release. Notability is not inhereted from those he worked with. Of the references provided the first is not about him but about beards. Burn out article is not about him, it just has a quote from him as a Newbury Comics employee. For songwriter Campany, things are now Click-ing is decent but is just a short (216 word) local interest piece. Not listed coverage, Billboard also quotes him, say he "has written for the Click Five, Teddy Geiger and Backstreet Boys" but that is not significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 X 2[edit]

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

Album, notability not asserted. Great Moments in Presidential Speeches (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Endofskull (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep They have 9 other albums with an article in WP, and this is the highest charting album they had, but this needs to be deleted, and the other 9 don't, where by definition are less notable. Where is the logic in that? Clearly notable article. Keep, and improve. scope_creep (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. --Juno the pregnant little girl (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly is not a hoax though. Fixer23 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep An album made by a very well known artist. I don't care if they lip synched, they still hit #1 on the charts, making them notable. Would anyone delete a not very notable LP made by Pink Floyd? RomeEonBmbo (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album by a household name.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable artist, even if it wasn't who we thought it was. Reached #6 in the UK.[42]--Michig (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets WP:NALBUM, as it's "by" a notable artist and has charted. Admittedly lip-synched, but that has no reflection on notability. --res Laozi speak 14:55, 20 November 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. –MuZemike 18:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation’s Tears[edit]

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

I would not normally call Afd on this, I would watch it for promotion though. But then I see it has been in AfD before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation's tears and deleted. But I think not CSD#G4 either, I cannot see the old article and this may be a better article. So Back to AfD and see what we get. Triwbe (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous article was deleted as I would understand, primarily on the grounds that the band did not have any released works. The article was thus deemed to be an advert for a forthcoming release. Creation's Tears subsequently released their debut album on 4th Oct 2010 and have had coverage in major UK press and major worldwide websites since. 17th Nov 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parody Paradigm (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one come done to what is in the magazines cited. Does anyone have deatilas about the coverage claimed? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the band has released an album on the label which currently publishes Slipknot, Rob Zombie and Megadeth it is unlikely that the band and the album haven't collectively received enough sourcing, very unlikely. I know little about this sort of music except that there is longstanding magazine support for it and it is probably one of those areas, like TV episodes, where a 'sourcing iceberg' exists, IE what's available online is in no way representative of sourcing available in print. Someone another 02:20, 20 November 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. –MuZemike 18:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pammi Somal[edit]

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

This is so smarmy and so tainted with tabloid journalism that I can't decide from the "sources" whether the underlying subject is actually notable or just being fawned upon by her groupies. Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LinkedIn profile says she was a editor and publisher of an online mag,Cafe Celeb Magazine until 2006, but doesn't make here notable. Some of the films are on IMDB but she's not listed. Can't find anything else.scope_creep (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 40,000 google hits. Details of Bollywood film makers can be hard to dredge up sometimes, but IMDB actually does list her as director of Mummyji (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112725/), and the film received coverage in the Bombay Times with a specific mention of her (http://www.mummyjithefilm.com/media.html). Handschuh-^{talk to me} 01:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - Googlehits are not a valid measure of anything; and IMDb listings do not constitute notability or even an assertion of same. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bombay times article is "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," ~~as is the IMBD~~ so I maintain that she is notable. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is neither a reliable source nor significant coverage; heck, even I have an IMDb listing, and I'm certainly not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, IMDb is not a reliable source. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her film Mummyji has been reviewed here. It seems like she has a body of work in Hindi that may be difficult to find sources for. I'd say Keep and improve.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There are at least two non-trivial English references here for a primarily Indian director. I'm pretty sure there are many more non-English ones. The Steve 18:32, 22 November 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) 12:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shiraz Dossa[edit]

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

Canadian academic primarily known for his attendance at the infamous International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust (the Iranian Holocaust conference. His attendance caused some controversy in Canada a few years ago and this article is basically a defense of Dossa. Based on an examination of Dossa's CV[43] and Google Scholar I don't believe that Dossa's academic work is any more notable than an average Professor. I feel that this page fails WP:ACADEMIC GabrielF (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Shiraz Dossa has a large number of articles on the web providing good primary and secondary sources for inclusion in WP. scope_creep (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF - gscholar (h index = 6) and gnews searches not remarkable. As for his conference attendance, that falls squarely under WP:BLP1E. Altogether, an unremarkable person. Ray^Talk 16:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another one with GS h index of 6. Does not make WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 21 November 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. Sandstein 07:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Action Sports Cricket IPT Records[edit]

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

Delete. Apart from the other complaints raised per the existing tags, these items have no WP:Notability whatsoever as they do not represent any form of top-level cricket or even minor cricket of a notable standard. I am also nominating the following related pages because there is no notability, no provenance, no sources:

Nomination is delete in all cases because none of these subjects are notable. They bear no relation to first-class cricket and there are no sources in any of the articles. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind about the last four having found more information. The articles each need to be tagged for lack of sources but I believe now that the topics are notable enough. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3 up for nomination. None of them have any offical status, not notable to stand alone on their own. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the pages the nominator crossed out. Searches such as this one for Inter Provincial Tournament Meyersdal, this one for Action Sports Cricket IPT Records, and this one for Action Sports IPT cricket return no coverage in reliable sources and fail Wikipedia:Notability. Because these articles are unsourced, they fail Wikipedia:Verifiability and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 28 November 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 Pentax cameras#M Series. Consensus is that this currently fails WP:GNG. Any sourced content can be merged from the history, and if better sources become available, it can have its subarticle again per WP:SS. Sandstein 07:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pentax MV 1[edit]

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

WP:N. Garyseven (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First Ghit: (Redacted) Photo there with it clearly engraved on the top plate "MV 1". So it's a real Pentax model, was distinct from the MV, and as we seem to regard listing individual Pentax camera models as notable in some encyclopedic attempt to list the set, this one warrants inclusion too. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not attempt to provide an article to describe every Pentax camera model. There is no policy or guideline to suggest this. Have a look at "Pentax Optio". In any case, "What about X?" is not a suitable argument at AFD. The Butkus website contains only the camera's manual as a pdf. It does not establish notability. I have struggled to find reliable sources to establish notability. I have added two references. McBroom's book is a reliable source. However it does little more than mention the MV 1 in passing. Classic Cameras & Photography is a blog review, thus has questionable reliability. If better references can be found, this article could be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pentax cameras (with the history preserved under the redirect if anyone wants to complete a merge) I, like Axl, have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to allow Pentax MV 1 to pass Wikipedia:Notability. However, because the article is sourced, albeit with tangential mentions, some information can be moved to Pentax cameras per WP:PRESERVE. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hinniegram[edit]

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

Ignoring the COI, the subject of the article has nowhere near the coverage required by WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is a single Google Books hit, which may provide some extra sources. Outside that nothing. scope_creep (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A book that Dr Jon Hinnie is credited with supplying material for. As I said there is nowhere near the coverage required by WP:GNG - mainly because there is zero independent coverage. Nuttah (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a mnemonic or teaching aid for interpreting blood gas results, but it does not appear to have entered the mainstream or to have spread beyond its namesake/originator. Furthermore, the article is written in WP:HOWTO style, and there would be little or nothing left of the article if the how-to information was removed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge The term is being used as witnessed by the book which cites it. Would it be better placed in an article on blood gas iterpretation ? Heidwork (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC) — Heidwork (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The book includes contributions by Dr Jon Hinnie, what is needed is evidence that this term is in common use from totally independent reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The book was written by John Larkin who I assume is independent and reliable. John Larkin has written the section on The Hinniegram, not Dr Jon Hinnie. John Larkin has published at least one other book that I can find (Cynical Acumen). Both these publications were through a reputable/established publisher - namely radcliffe-oxford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heidwork (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The book specifically credits Dr Jon Hinnie as contributing material, so no, it is not independent. The number of other books John Larkin has written, and who has published them, is irrelevant. The independent coverage must cover Hinniegram. Nuttah (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or transwiki to Wikibooks. There is nothing encyclopedic to be said about this; this is material for a professional procedural manual. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax ("Old Norse"), author blocked for vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controlisable[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it is not a web directory. Access Denied – talk to me 00:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is also not for incorrect BS etymologies. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DICDEF. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 00:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a dictionary. (word has no ghits, does it even really exist?) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 01:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DICTDEF, etc. Please prod next time or find a sympathetic admin to IAR delete in the spirit of WP:NOT. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't exist, it's not from Old Norse, it's total BS--snow? speedy delete? any admins in the area? Drmies (talk) 01:32, 20 November 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 issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of fear[edit]

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

article is VERY poorly sourced and contains a lot of WP:OR. most of the article is unsourced, parts which do have sources are generally conclusions editors have drawn from the sources rather than statements directly supported by the refs. this topic, or phrase if you prefer, might make a legitimate article, just not in this current incarnation. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

examples of poor sourcing and OR ref by ref:
ref 1 is a conclusion someone has drawn from the michael moore film sicko
ref 2 is a podcast/personal blog
ref 3 is a video
refs 4 and 5 are from an unknown news org, not a WP:RS
ref 6 is an op-ed piece
ref 7 statement is WP:OR used to draw an association between nazi germany and the contemporary use of this phrase
ref 8 george orwell... really? similar to nazi germany ref, drawing association between fictional book and this phrase
refs 9 and 10 have nothing to do with the topic
and finally statements supported by refs 11 and 12 are based on an "unreleased" BBC documentary
WookieInHeat (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is 5 years old. It's current state may need improvement, but that doesn't make it un-notable. It's rated 'mid-importance' in several categories.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment i don't see what relevance the notability, age or "importance" of the article has to the issues raised about WP:OR and WP:RS. i addressed issues with literally every single reference; the article currently doesn't have a single reliable source directly supporting anything in it or otherwise justifying its existence with anything other than original research. any thoughts regarding that? if you remove all the original research and unsourced content you aren't left with anywhere near enough material to justify its own article. maybe the Fear mongering article could use a section on this topic instead? WookieInHeat (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fear mongering. I think there is some worthwhile content in the article, despite the need for a cleanup, but I don't see how a "culture of fear" is different from "fear mongering", which seems to be two labels describing essentially the same phenomenon.--res Laozi speak 12:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The notion that fear is used as a political device is very well sourced. This article does seem to have suffered from editor intervention (it is a long time ago since I first came across it and I believe it was better written and referenced than it is now. I for one am willing to go back and review this article and strengthen it. There is a quote somewhere from Tony Benn, a very prominent UK politician who certainly believes in the engendered "culture of fear" thesis in modern society and there are journalists in the U.S. as well as authors and academics who support this idea. It was the main thrust of a three hour documentary which the BBC broadcast some time ago. Claims that the article is not well sourced and that the documentary was not released are, frankly, absurd. The documentary was shown in many countries but the U.S. networks did not take it. It can be seen on the internet and I can assure you that the version posted on youtube and in the internet archive and on Google Video are the version as broadcast. I have both the off-air version and seen the internet versions and they are identical. I would say that the article should definitely NOT be merged with fear-mongering which is a very general concept. The notion that fear is engendered to sway public opinion is very specific and it is what Benn, Moore and Curtis argue as well as other journalists such as Rachael Maddow argue is happening in both the media and the words of certain politicians. Deleting this article would be a travesty.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "fear is engendered to sway public opinion", isn't that what fearmongering is? What's the distinction? Define "general".--res Laozi speak 21:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Fearmongering is neutral and can be done for all manner of reasons including none at all. It looks to me as though someone has deliberately made the fearmongering article on Wikipedia read to be the same as the the Culture of fear article. If you look at a dictionary definition of fearmongering such as that in the Collins or Mirriam-Webseter or the Shorter Oxford English dictionary you find this is so. The Culture of fear is perhaps one result of persistent fear mongering of a certain kind. It does not make them synonymous. An advertiser may try to engender fears about hygiene when selling wet toilet tissue containing an antibacterial, and that may be fear mongering, but it does not create a culture of fear. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a "culture of fear" carries a political connotation? Then both articles need to be rewritten to clearly express that point. And if you're willing to clean them up, go ahead. I'm willing to switch to a keep, provided a cleanup is done.--res Laozi speak 00:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I will participate in the clean up of both articles. The culture of fear is an end point of deliberate fear mongering for some gain which tends to be political though it can be also for commercial or military gain. Please do switch your recommendation. --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into fear mongering. As I understand it, the argument against merging is that the "culture of fear" is a specific subset of fear mongering. But as the article itself notes, the phrase means different things to different people - to some it's manufactured by the government, to others it's from the media, to others it's naturally-occurring moral panic, etc. At its heart, it seems to me just a three-word phrase that fits into the currently popular "culture of negative-thing-x" phrasing, like "culture of obesity", "culture of greed", "culture of hypocrisy" etc. I should note that culture of poverty does have a Wikipedia article, and I don't question that one because it seems to have a well-defined meaning in sociology. But "culture of fear" doesn't - to the extent that people even use it (as noted by the nominator, many of the people currently quoted in the article don't), it has no clearly-defined meaning, and thus is more like the first three examples I listed than the last one. Korny O'Near (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which parts of the article would people like to see merged into the Fear mongering article? was going to withdraw this AfD and change the tag on the article to a merge suggestion to be discussed on the talk page, but seeing as we are all here figured i'd save the little bit of work. let me know, i'll go work on copying the content over. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of it should be copied over. It is not the same as Fearmongering.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think most or all of the article could be copied over, at least to start with - for a general topic like "fear mongering", it seems to me like all of this content fits, at least in theory, as opposed to for an unclearly-defined topic like "culture of fear". Korny O'Near ([[User talk:Korny

O'Near|talk]]) 21:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

i was looking more for specific parts that editors thought would be worthy of being kept. i've detailed many sections which are WP:OR or sourced by non-WP:RS, which specific parts of the article do you believe do not fall into this category? WookieInHeat (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of it should be copied over. It is not the same as Fearmongering. This is a very important topic not to be confused with the situation of someone shouting "fire" in a movie theater. The culture of fear is very precise phenomenon worthy of its own article. It is the subject of several books and articles and a very substantial documentary series. How can a "culture" be an "act"? The merger proposal is preposterous in my opinion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Though poorly sourced, the solution is WP:SOFIXIT not deltion. The topic is itself the subject of a number of books:

Evidently, it seems the topic should be notable enough to warrant an article.Smallman12q (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i realize there appear to be a number of books on the subject, yet i am confused as to why every source that actually discusses the topic is at the bottom of the article in the "books", "documentaries" or "external links" sections. meanwhile the whole article is WP:OR and sourced largely by refs that have nothing to do with the specific subject. if you would like to see the article not be merged, may i suggest you follow your own advice and WP:BEBOLD instead of instructing others to do so? WookieInHeat (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Question Are all the sources that use the phrase "culture of fear" really about the same topic, the topic that some editors here have proposed to distinguish this article from Fearmongering? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the two do go hand in hand. It is unlikely that a culture of fear would develop were it not for the concerted efforts of fear mongers. Fearing mongering is a form of psychological manipulation (usually propaganda). A culture of fear is a way of life.The catholic church engaged in fear mongering during the Protestant Reformation to prevent moral panic. This however did not necessarily create a culture of fear, but rather led to the Renaissance.Smallman12q (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is on an important topic, and I see no reason for deletion. It is genuine, noncommercial, interesting, etc. I would not merge it to another page; Fear mongering is related but not the same. The original complaint is that it is not well written. While of course that is a bad reason for deletion, I also think that it has been damaged by people who want to suppress this discussion. So it is all the more important. I think my views reflect those of several other editors above. -- Rixs (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me this is an article about an important topic. I fear non NPOV (political) reasons exist to want to delete (censor) it, that should not be allowed to happen. Mahjongg (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all the 'keep' comments posted on the 23rd were the result of WP:CANVASing by Hauskalainen (talk · contribs), none have addressed the issue of WP:OR or WP:RS. in addition, more content and refs were added to the article by the same user, all of it OR. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here because of WP:CANVASing. . Please refrain from making such broad accusations.Smallman12q (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry smallman, thought i had seen your name in his contrib list. anyway, you were the only person who raised a point i thought was actually worthy of a response; leaving it above. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn seeing as the general consensus seems to either be to keep the article or merge it to Fear mongering, i've gone ahead and removed the deletion template and changed it to a merge template to be discussed on the article's talk page. i'm also in the process of removing WP:OR and non-WP:RS. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 15:38, 23 November 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.