The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing problems raised in the nomination. The only source cited is what seems to be a self-published website.  Sandstein  09:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tase Matsunaga[edit]

Tase Matsunaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She was the oldest person in Japan, 114 is rare even among supercentenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oldest person in Japan and among the top-100 oldest persons of all time.Ryoung122 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "External links" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, this GRG web page cannot be the sole source for an article on Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actually a ton of sources are available, in that her death was widely and internationally reported [1]. But that seems to me like an instance of WP:ONEEVENT. At any given time there is an oldest person in every country in the world, and as soon as they die they are replaced by another oldest person; does that really make every single one of them notable? I'm dubious. (Besides, as recent news events demonstrated [2] [3] [4], Japan has no idea who its oldest citizens are, or whether they are still alive.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 4 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. The "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing problems raised in the nomination.  Sandstein  09:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadayoshi Tanabe[edit]

Sadayoshi Tanabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good for him that he managed to hang in there for so long, but there is really nothing encyclopedic here. --Crusio (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced and insufficiently notable to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He was the oldest living man in Japan, and a supercentenarian, he was an academic and bibliographer by profession, and was remembered for starting an exchange program with the University of Michigan.Longevitydude (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oldest man in Japan, second-oldest in the world.Ryoung122 20:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "References" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, they cannot be the sole source for an article. David in DC (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverified and non-notable. I could find no sources in a Google or Google News search to verify this person's existence or age. And to repeat my argument from the Tase Matsunaga nomination above, at any given time there is an oldest person in every country in the world, and as soon as they die they are replaced by another oldest person; does that really make every single one of them notable? I'm dubious. Besides, as recent news events demonstrated [5] [6] [7], Japan has no idea who its oldest citizens are, or whether they are still alive. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 4 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. T. Canens (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lempi Rothovius[edit]

Lempi Rothovius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being the nation's oldest verified person ever is notable Longevitydude (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This one doesn't even pretend to have any reliable sources. WP:SNOW? David in DC (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did find one source, a report about her death [8], but only one. As I have argued above, simply being the oldest person in a given country does not grant automatic notability. The usual Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing must be met, and they are not met for this subject. (There is no justification to call for a Snow Keep, however, since discussion here is divided.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 4 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 merge to List of British supercentenarians. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janetta Thomas[edit]

Janetta Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep provided record as oldest living person in the UK is verified. WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes is still a discussion rather than policy or even an essay, so in the meantime we have to make a decision based on our own opinions. My view is passing a set number of years' age doesn't confer notability, but holding a national record as oldest person does. The other option might be to put all the verifiable information about all the record holders in an article such as Oldest person in the United Kingdom, but someone will have to create that article first. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of British supercentenarians is what you are looking for. It's linked-to at the bottom of this article, in fact. Twice. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you notice that the two other "oldest in UK" folks in the succession box didn't have articles? Did you notice there was only one reliable source (GRG webpages have been ruled at WP:RSN as data-dump primary sources)? If you really want to merge that one source into the British list article, I wouldn't argue, but these are not keep arguments. JJB 03:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Did you notice she was the oldest person ever born in Wales? Longevitydude (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And how would I know that, since it's unsourced in article, the unreliable source does not say it, and the reliable source is not linked? JJB 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, "verified" has two meanings here, first WP:V, then three-document GWR-style verification. But this article appears to have neither, because (thanks to MelanieN's legwork below) we are talking about a one-story one-event bio, and the story only says "believed to be Britain's oldest". (I would also like to take the opportunity to be snarky about such naked WP:SYN as "Had Thomas lived another six days ....") JJB 00:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to the list of British supercentenarians, or Keep and give the other titleholders their own articles. Longevitydude (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is plausible, although I do not favor it as a result. "Keep' and give the other titleholders their own articles..." is further than an AfD closure can go. Considerably futher. Mind-bogglingly further. David in DC (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem with List of British supercentenarians is that it's not the obvious place to look for the oldest living person in the UK. A redirect from, say, Oldest living person in the UK (to the section on oldest living person) would help, but if we go back far enough we'll eventually reach a time when the oldest living person was less than 110. I think I'd prefer this as a stand-alone article rather than as a section of another article. As for whether individual oldest people should have individual articles, I can see arguments either way, but I think it would make sense in this case to be consistent. Those that do have articles don't seem to be any more notable than those who don't - the only real difference seems to be whether someone in a national newspaper happened to get round to writing an obituary. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris, these are good issues, but do not relate to deletion of this article. Creating new redirects for the British list, including making Janetta a redirect, may help with finding the oldest living person in the UK among the topic morass, but this article doesn't. I don't have a problem with old-age succession lists also including centenarians, and the title "supercentenarians" may be changed in general if we can reliably source such succession lists, but those and other observations are more appropriate for the link appearing in the nom. This nom is in fact an attempt at consistency in the sprawling bio mass, by starting with deleting the most-unsourced articles and stopping all remaining bios meet a notability bar as consensus develops at that "common outcomes" link. In short, none of these issues overcome the basic WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:V failure already referred to. JJB 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete There are, sort of, three "sources" here. One is from Gerontology Research Group web pages. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, they cannot be the sole source for an article. The second is a footnote referencing the Guardian, a reliable source. But it sources practically no facts and cannot be verified because no link is provided. The final "source" is described in the text as a photo that ran in the Times on the subject's birthday. The Times is a fine newspaper and a reliable source. But there's no link here either. Information might be from an accompanying article, but it could also be from a cut line or extended caption. Such captioning is much less reliable than an article. Without more, this slender reed is not enough to serve as foundation for an article on Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment Since the GRG is an internationally reknowned source that is accepted by Guinness World Records, and the fact that their information is published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Rejuvenation Research, any controversy surrounding the GRG's reliability as a source is completely non-founded. Secondly, it does not matter whether a source is available to view on the internet or not. If it did then all Wikipedia's articles would be subject to recentist bias. Since this lady died in the early 1980s, it stands to reason that few/any articles about her will be available online, but since notability is not temporary, it is an irrelevance. Wikipedia relies on a variety of sources, including books, journal articles and newspaper articles. The nominator postulates that there are no reliable sources, yet this article has multiple. SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It would seem to me that age itself is not enough to pass WP:NOTE and with nothing else to support it, when she passes she would no longer be the longest living. Agree with a merge in the List of British supercentenarians. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice all of the undisputed 114 + supercentenarians have an article, proof that 114 stands out even among supercentenarians, well at least somewhere, so merge sounds reasonable in this case if its not keep, the info is notable enough to at least go somewhere. Longevitydude (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very notable, though perhaps more sources could be added? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could find only a single article about her, namely a Reuters report about her death in 1982 [9] which was reprinted in a few papers. To me that is WP:ONEEVENT. As I have argued above, simply being the oldest person in a given country does not grant automatic notability. The usual Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing must be met, on a case-by-case basis, and they are not met for this person based on what I found. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of British supercentenarians. Nicely written and certainly worth a mention somewhere, but a separate article seems not be justified under WP:BIO. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources, does not meet GNG. I can't find any sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since she was reported in the press as "Jeanetta Thomas", you won't. In addition, as the internet wasn't available in the 1980s, articles available online will be sparse. However there are sources from some digitised national newspapers. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Searching under that variant yields a couple of passing mentions, but no significant coverage. If you have good source, please add them to the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Multple? I suppose 2 is multiple, but it's kinda slick phrasing. One of the two is used only as a source for the subject's name and birth/death dates. It may not even be a legitimate reliable source, as that term is defined on en.wikipedia. But for the moment, let's treat it as wholy permissable. The second is the Guardian article. It's used to source two facts:

"At the age of around 40, she returned to Wales to open a drapery shop, which she ran until the age of 98.", and

"From the age of 107, Thomas resided at a nursing home at Cowbridge, Wales."

The article also tells us that the subject's picture appeared in the Times on the day before her 112th birthday.

Let's see:

J(e)anetta Jane Thomas (2 December 1869 – 5 January 1982)

From age 40 to age 98, she ran a drapery shop,

From age 107 to age 112, she lived in a Welsh nursing home.

Her picture was in the Times just before her 112th birthday.

Call me crazy, but I don't see sourced facts that even pretend to assert notablity. David in DC (talk) 00:06, 6 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. T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Guzmán-García[edit]

Daniel Guzmán-García (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep first verified supercentenarian of a continent is notable. Longevitydude (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article has no reliable sources. Both the footnote and the obituary come from Gerontology Research Group web pages. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, they cannot be the sole source for an article. (The external link to the reprint of an obit may also be a copyright violation.) David in DC (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could find only a single news source about this man [10], plus his inclusion in a list at something called liebertonline [11] That's not enough for notability. As I have argued above, simply being the oldest person in a given country does not grant automatic notability. The usual Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing must be met, on a case-by-case basis, and they are not met for this person. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 4 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. T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berta Rosenberg[edit]

Berta Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she was the oldest Jewish person, if being the oldest African American is notable enough for an article than surely the Oldest Jew is notable, besides she was the oldest living person born in the country Germany. Longevitydude (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would I know that, since the one link in the article is dead? Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFF? Have you read WP:GNG? JJB 16:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with JJB; there are no reliable sources to indicate that this person passes the notablity requirements. This article seems to be nothing more than cruft about how she was the "18th oldest person" and "5th oldest German person". So what? Bcperson89 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Might I make another suggestion then, how about we merge her to the list of German supercentenarians, or the American ones, the chose is yours, the list of where she was born( Germany), or the list of where she died(America), either list will suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevitydude (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. I could find literally nothing about her at Google News. As I have argued above, simply being the oldest person in a given country does not grant automatic notability. The usual Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing must be met, on a case-by-case basis, and they are not met for this person. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources, non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Neptune5000 (talk) 23:40, 4 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. I am discounting the opinion that accuses others of lying and cabalism, as it constitutes inappropriate conduct.  Sandstein  09:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Takii[edit]

Asa Takii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the source seems to meet guidelines, shes a survivor of a notable event, as well as Japan's oldest person. Did I also mention that 114 is rare even among supercentenarians? Longevitydude (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is only one source. The source starts out questioning the facts. It's very headline includes a question mark, and the "facts" about the subject are all cast as "XXX claims" or "XXX Says". Here 'tis, in it's entirety:

"Oldest A-Bomb Victim? Ms. Asa Takii, who resides at the Tachibana-En in Kurahashi-cho, recently became the oldest person in Japan. Now she is making preparations to apply for certification as an atomic bomb victim. Ms. Takii, who is 114, was 61 years old at the time of the atomic bombing. She said that on August 6, 1945, she was going about her household chores. As she was hanging some washing out, there was a big flash and the house collapsed on top of her. She was trapped for three or four days before being rescued. Her husband and family all perished in the bombing.

In principle, anyone who applies for certification as an atomic bomb victim must have at least two people to testify as witnesses, but this might be difficult in the case of Ms. Takii. However, a statement by the applicant can be accepted if witnesses cannot be found. An official of the relevant section in the Prefectural office said he hoped to visit the Tachibana-En in the near future and hold a hearing. The case worker at the old people's home said that she hoped that Takii San's status as an atomic bomb victim would be clarified. It was very rare for atomic bomb victims to live to such an advanced age and extremely rare for persons over 100 to apply to be certified as A-bomb victims."

Zero sources. Non-notable, hobbyist trivia/stubcruft. If there were reliable sources reporting the verbiage on the article page as fact, maybe I'd say it should be merged onto some list. But there's not. Survey says: Delete David in DC (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from the fact that the "zero sources" assertion is a lie, both JJBulten and DavidinDC have previously collaborated in an anti-supercentenarian cabal. Further, much of this is already being discussed (including standards for article existence regarding longevity). I find it unconscionable that one of the top-100 oldest persons of all time is even in this discussion, unless that person chose to remain anonymous. That is not the case here. This woman was Japan's oldest person, and was considered notable by the Japanese press, and even reported outside Japan.Ryoung122 19:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She received more than the usual amount of news coverage about her death [12]. However, to me this is still an example of WP:ONEEVENT and does not amount to notability, unless you consider a widely-reported death notice to meet the Wikipedia requirement of significant coverage by independent sources. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Kelly[edit]

Jesse Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Delete: unclear if notable or not as unsuccessful political candidate. Business career does not appear particularly notable nor does his war record alone, however gallant. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my updated comments below the comment of MelanieN. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As a 'finalist' candidate for a national seat he should be notable, also it's entrirely possible he could run again in the next election, in which case the article would just have to be recreated, possibly with lost information. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As a 'finalist' candidate for a national seat he should be notable,..." -- NO. This is untrue and little more than a facile unfounded assertion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but that "entirely possible" comment kind of falls under WP:NOT A CRYSTAL BALL....Turqoise127 05:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. But WP:CRYSTAL also says we can't assume he won't... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger -- one cannot keep an unqualified article on Wikipedia because the subject of that article may or may not do something two or more years later. You should know that. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how would information be lost? If the page is deleted and later one wishes to recreate it with the same spelling the previously deleted message appears and any admin can restore the article and it can be updated later as far as I know. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep major party candidates for national office are notable, as shown by the references. National attention is always paid to such races. In addition to the references in the articles, there is, from outside Arizona, US News and World Report, msn, Washington Times Washington Post,CQ, UPI NYTimes & NY Times & a few dozen others, and and internationally as well--Msil & Guardian (South Africa), ... DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant race, received lots of secondary source attention. Satisfies WP:GNG pretty squarely. At some point, we really should have a centralized discussion about major-party candidates for national office in the US, but this one we can decide w/o such a discussion. Ray^Talk 14:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kelly came very close to being elected to the U.S. Congress. His race represents important trends from the 2010 election cycle. It's unclear how notable he will be in the future, but his role in the 2010 election earned him a place in the history books.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010#District 8. He is not notable for anything except being an unsuccessful candidate for office. All news coverage is about the election and his candidacy, not about him. The "national coverage" cited by DGG consists mostly of general articles about the election in Arizona, in which Kelly gets a passing mention. IMO he fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Note that other people who ran close but unsuccessful races for Congress have tended to be deleted or redirected; see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Vidak. (This is cited, not as an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but rather of WP:Common outcomes.) Please note also that WP:Common outcomes says plainly that "Candidates for a national legislature/parliament or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability." -- MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brava, Melanie, very well said and well done. Change mine to Delete or redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010#District 8. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you could explain the relevance of fansite? DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI've read the articles. the coverage is substantial. Of course the coverage is about the election and his candidacy, what else would the coverage on any politician be primarily about? On the contrary, if the coverage was mainly about his personal life, he would not be notable. We have indeed redirected many such people in the past--I think that a drastic error, and fortunately we are not bound by it. (I tend not to go strictly by the GNG, but for those who do, and I think that's still a majority of people here, he meets it & there should be no need to say further. The assumption that most unelected politicians would not meet it was in error, and based only on the limited online sources available at the time. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment OK, let's look at those articles. The articles you cited from U.S. News, MSNBC, UPI printed in the Washington Times, and the first NYTimes article each devote one sentence or less to Kelly. I couldn't find anything about him at all in the second NYT article or the link to CQ. Only the column in the Washington Post gives more than a sentence to Kelly; in that column, which is specifically about the Arizona-8 race, 2 paragraphs out of 24 are about Kelly. In all cases the coverage is about the "horse race", that is, who is running or who is likely to win; it does not come close to "significant coverage" about Kelly. You are certainly free to assert that "horse race" coverage about an election (rather than about the person) makes the person notable, but that has not been the usual consensus here per WP:Common outcomes. It's not a matter of assumptions; there is no consensus that unelected candidates are automatically notable, and no consensus that they are not. The consensus is to treat them on a case-by-case basis, whereby they are notable or not, depending on whether or not they have received significant coverage. IMO Kelly has not. --MelanieN (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010#District 8 as suggested by Melanie. The arguments I read above for keeping are that "a 'finalist' candidate for a national seat... should be notable", that "major party candidates for national office are notable", that it was a "significant race" and that he "came very close". WP:POLITICIAN hasn't yet been expanded to be that inclusive, and this person is not notable outside of the election that's referred to in the redirect target. Mandsford 21:24, 5 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.  Sandstein  08:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yui Ibuki[edit]

Yui Ibuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Not very notable in today's standards. She does have a blog (http://ameblo.jp/ibukiyui/), but her releases has never reached the top ten. (WP:MUSIC) みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or indication that the article passes the notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 10:36, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Money as Debt[edit]

Money as Debt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Does not meet WP:WEB. (Edit: WP:NF even less.) No reliable sources proving notability were added since previous deletion discussion. Chrisahn (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, wrong criteria, it's a documentary film which happens to also be available to watch on the Internet. Still sourced with sources that passed the last AfD. Yworo (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to keep the article, you should argue for WP:WEB. The requirements for WP:NF are even higher, and the film will never meet them. I edited the AfD intro accordingly. The last AfD ended in a WP:Non-admin closure simply because it was withdrawn by the editor who started it. Chrisahn (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, I've added an additional reference, an article in Anthropology Today dedicated several long paragraphs to analyzing the film's strengths and weaknesses. It's also mentioned in an issue of Radical Teacher, but I don't have access to the full article so don't know in what depth, so I've added the citation to the further reading section. Yworo (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anthropology Today reference has been mentioned and rejected in the first discussion (which decided to delete the article).Chrisahn (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radical Teacher is WP:NOTRELIABLE Chrisahn (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would you say that? It's published by the University of Illinois and has an editorial board. Yworo (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTRELIABLE: Questionable sources ... include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist ... I don't really know Radical Teacher, but AFAICT many of its views are extremist. It's not exactly published by the University of Illinois, but by the University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Center for Critical Education. Chrisahn (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the full text of the Radical Teacher article - it mentions the film in one sentence. Chrisahn (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The main problem with the article is this: Since the film is based on a factually incorrect description of how money is 'created' (on his website, the author actually admits as much), Wikipedia should have a nice, thorough 'Criticism' section - but we can't, because no reliable source bothers to go near this nonsense. There simply aren't enough sources for a good article, because the thing isn't notable. Chrisahn (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability, in that what we offer here, even if a worldwide hoax such as Piltdown man, has been written about in reliable source... whether treated negatively or positively. We do not judge the flat earth as a deletable article simply becuse it is a provably incorrect concept. We judge it notable because it has been written about and discussed by others... just as has this topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piltdown man and flat earth are nice examples. Both articles clearly say that these concepts are wrong. Money as Debt also is wrong, but hardly any reliable source cares enough to say so. I'd rather have no article at all than an article that can't clearly express what nonsense the film is. Wikipedia should not condone crap simply because it is too obscure to be rebutted by reliable sources. Can you see why I'm getting so worked up about this? Chrisahn (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are examples of viewpoints once held as sacrosanct, even if later disproved (and that disproving took years), that were and are covered in reliable sources. Since you disgree with the film's topic, you are certainly welcome to add something for balance in a "Reception" section to show that the film was received negatively by other RS who disagreed with the film's topic. But you really need to remember, please, the article is not about money creation, it is about a FILM. The film article need not explain the explain the theory behind the theory espoused by the film. The film article need not itself prove or disprove the film topic. The film article, no matter the film subject, need only show the film itself receiving coverage... whther for good or bad. We are not debating truth... only verifiabilty of the film existing and itself being the recipient of coverage... like the film or not... disagree with the film or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial reliable published works and excludes trivial coverage, such as ... a brief summary of the nature of the content. Two 'sources' are given: One is an article in Anthropology Today (the journal doesn't have a WP entry, but probably is WP:RELIABLE) which mentions the film in two (very critical) paragraphs. The other is a blog post by Carolyn Baker (a nut job and conspiracy theorist), which was also published by the Atlantic Free Press (which is probably WP:NOTRELIABLE and only marginally better than a blog: No, we can't pay - this is an Open Source Web 2.0 media project).Chrisahn (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Note: The above editor is the nominator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factual incorrectness of media is not a deletion argument. Otherwise we wouldn't have Worlds in Collision and many other books presented as factual which are actually simply speculation. You neglect to mention that in the second AfD the sources were deemed to be sufficient. Yworo (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Factual incorrectness wasn't my point. I edited my previous comment, I hope it's clearer now.Chrisahn (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • JamesBWatson withdrew his AfD with the comment The sources now provided are not brilliant, but I think they establish enough notability for the article to be kept. I disagree, obviously.Chrisahn (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per last consensus. As the article is about a documentary film and NOT a website, the use of WP:WEB as a criteria to delete a film article is inappropriate and inapplicable. The nominator might as well be asserting that the film also does not meet WP:CORP or WP:BOOK. However, and in application of actually applicable criteria, and even in recognition that documentary films rarely receive the coverage of mainstream blockbusters, this one does meet WP:GNG. Per WP:ATD, article will benefit from proper cleanup and expansion per available sources even if many are in French. That it has not been exceptionally improved since its last keep, is a reason to do so... not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I chose WP:WEB because 99% of its viewers probably saw it on the Web, but anyway - the film does not meet WP:NF:

1. The film is not widely distributed
2. The film is not historically notable
3. The film has not received a major award
4. The film was not selected for preservation in an archive
5. The film is not "taught" as a subject

It also doesn't meet WP:GNG: The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. As stated above, there are two alleged 'sources'. One consists of two (very critical) paragraphs in a high-quality source (Anthropology Today). The other is a blog post by a writer of very low reliability which was later published by a Website with similarly low reliability.

10 months ago you said No need to worry about removable bad cites if good ones are at hand... even if many are in French. Now you again talk about available sources. I checked that list and didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources, not even in French. Chrisahn (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you seem to be getting a little overinvolved in this. Removing material from the article, arguing against everybody's opinion that differs from yours. Isn't it sufficient to state your arguments once? I believe that nominating the article, leaving it alone for others to improve during the AfD, and not arguing against every opponent is considered to be good form for an AfD. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right and I'll try to cool down, but MichaelQSchmidt's claims about WP:GNG and available sources are still wrong. Looking forward to his reply. Chrisahn (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is about the film, not Grignon's website itself. It may need improvement (article will benefit from expansion and full treatment of the issues), but it should not be deleted, per former consensus and arguments above. We can improve reliability of the article's content. Saebvn (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can improve reliability of the article's content - how? Chrisahn (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is User:Saebvn not allowed the guideline-supported opinion that the article might be improved over time and through regular editing? You continue to misunderstand that we are not debating the truth of the film's topic, but are instead discussing an article about a film. We do not have to address the "reliability" of this film's topic... no more than we have to address the "reliablity" of the science in Star Wars or the magic in Harry Potter. That the film has reliable sources in English and French (like them or not) and is repeatedly cited in Google Scholar (like it or not), allows it to meet WP:NF. As explained above, notability is not dependent on a film's topic, but is dependent rather on the film itself having coverage that allows it to meet the applicable notability guideline... and enough reliable sources do speak toward the film, both negatively and positively to meet notability caveats. And toward your mis-application of the "attributes that generally indicate" from WP:NF#General principles, I wish to clarify that these attributes are NOT criteria that must be met... they are simply listed as possible atributes that could encourage a diligent search for sources. No more, no less. It is in the sources that notability is found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reasons for nomination seem rather weak if not misguided. There appear good faith attempts to improve the article further, but lack of quality of content are not reasons to delete. Baseline notability appears evident. Kbrose (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject is referenced by reliable sources, and the nominator's rationale for deletion appears to be based on disagreement with the content rather than on Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seems like it.--Namaste@^? 13:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The depiction of Richard III of England by Shakespeare and other authors is erroneous and false. I have hitherto seen no reason whatsoever to delete articles concerning their portrayals.----Sintermerte----

• Strong Keep' -I do not understand why this article is being nominated for the third time no. Is this information troubling some power at be / people who refuse to do the research? sure seems like it.

On a more pertinent note- The article is of good quality, referenced and notable.(I would even add, important for anyone using "money"). Also, notability exists not just in content (which is prolific all around the net and academia) but it's affiliation with a popular film (at least half a million views), and it's sequel. true, it is a critical view point. you got a positive view point film you wish to put in the "see-also" section? go ahead, let's promote a discussion.

I mean, We have a wiki article on every epsiode of the Simpsons, in this mass entertainment culture, I'm almost ashamed any non-trivial information sometimes encounters such wiki-violence.--Namaste@^? 13:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Schmidt.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - appears to be notable, and Namaste makes good point about the importance of WP coverage of non-fiction media. PamD (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Anthropology Today described it, "an underground hit in activist circles". It's not a widely distributed film and most media have ignored it, very often as it's not seen as toeing their political line. Yet it has been well received amongst the faithful and even where it has been critiqued by "outside" journals (such as AT) they've still taken heed of it. Our notability guideline isn't based on it being praised, it's based on it being discussed, either positively or negatively. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

great quote, suitable for the article. At 10 For and 1 (?) against vote, what are the guidelines regarding this AfD ?--Namaste@^? 14:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still got another day to run. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there are no delete votes other than the nominator, I doubt if anyone would question a speedy closure, but I don't have any problem with this simply running its course. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with speedy closes is that if the subject is at all controversial, someone almost always objects after the fact, which just makes things messy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let it run. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After reading through the entire discussion and the nominator's rather vehement arguments and responses, and reading the article and its references, this seems notable enough. Yes, some of the references are not reliable (that Atlantic Free Press article, for instance--that's someone gushing over something they barely understand, and Cdurable is hardly acceptable as a reliable source: it's a blog/portal, and it has very, very little to say on our subject) and the reliable ones are (highly) critical. But that the film was "rapidly becoming a big underground success," to quote Sheriff Bart slightly out of context, seems clear enough. And even if the content of the film is wrong in so many ways, as is argued here and elsewhere, well, Blazing Saddles also didn't really portray the West accurately. Being wrong, even being fringe, does not make something not notable. Nominator would be well advised to leave it be, to restrain the urge to respond to every single editor, and to find other important articles to work on.

  Edit conflict with MQS and BMK: I agree, BMK, that this should simply run. Before you know it we're rehashing all of this at deletion review, and no one wants that. I think. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup... no problem in simply letting it run its course. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Thanks everyone for are pretty reasonable discussion. The article got a lot better during this AfD. To anyone who still thinks the film is 'valuable' or 'important' - please read at least the salient parts of Money creation and Fractional-reserve banking. It's good for you. :-) It just makes me so angry and sad to see intelligent people believe such nonsense. Chrisahn (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I for one certainly never said I believed the film as truth. And a film's content being absolute nonsense is not a criteria that we use... no more pertinant to a film article being kept or deleted than is the make-believe science of Star Wars or the magic of Harry Potter. Thanks for acknowledging the improvements, and I am sorry you are angry that some folks believe it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

figure-ground diagram (neé Urban Figure Ground Debate)[edit]

Advanced search for:  "figure-ground diagram"
In books/documents  Google Books  · Questia Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news  Google News: recent  · archives Questia  · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media
In academic/legal journals  and reference works  Google Scholar: academic  · legal Microsoft Academic: new  · original Oxford Reference  · JSTOR PUBMED Central  · Questia HighBeam  · Internet Archive
World Wide Web pages  Google Web Search  · Advanced Search Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4 Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free)  Google  · Flickr
More  Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Figure-ground diagram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

Essay, well referenced, but still an Essay...see WP:NOT WuhWuzDat 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's at an unencyclopaedic title, and it doesn't have an encyclopaedic introduction, but there is a concept in urban design called a figure-ground diagram, that this, and the sources that it cites, is in fact discussing. It's related to the Nolli map (credited to Giambattista Nolli) but not quite the same thing. If you want to write an encyclopaedic introduction to refactor this into an encyclopaedia article without deletion, Carmona & Tiesdell 2007, pp. 61 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCarmonaTiesdell2007 (help) and American Planning Association 2006, pp. 464 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAmerican_Planning_Association2006 (help) are not bad places to start. Uncle G (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • American Planning Association (2006). "Urban Analysis". Planning and urban design standards. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 9780471475811.
  • Carmona, Matthew; Tiesdell, Steven (2007). Urban design reader. Architectural Press. ISBN 9780750665315.
• Keep/merge Uncle G has pointed the way forward. Another article which covers these matters is urban morphology. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as pervasive and tenuous WP:Synthesis. Whilst the search-box above demonstrates that "figure-ground diagrams" exist, and the article demonstrates that debates exist in urban planning -- nothing suggests that there is a debate specifically on the use of figure-ground diagrams (in fact the article makes no mention at all of "figure-ground" after the lead). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It in fact mentions figure grounds no fewer than 16 times. You are not reading properly, and your notion of synthesis is thus ill-founded. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies, although my claim that it did not mention "figure-ground" was, technically, correct, I failed to search for "figure ground". Speaking of such searches, I would note that Curtis(2006), one of the more heavily-cited works in the article appears to mention the two-word combination only once (as "figure/ground"). Also, other than the sentence "By the late 1960s and 1970s, architects began to criticize the void condition of the figure ground created by urban renewal for 'disregarding human needs, for not blending in, for lacking signs of identity and association, and for being an instrument of class oppression'", the article does little to place the "figure ground" concept at the heart of debates over urban planning. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P)
      • Why should it? You're being mis-led by the bad title, I suspect. Think of this article as figure-ground diagram (a.k.a., if I can find a decent source to support it, figure-field diagram), a tool used in the figure-field theory of urban design. Then go and read the whole of Trancik 1986, pp. 98–106 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTrancik1986 (help). This article's basic problems were that it didn't have an introduction (explaining jargon such as poché that it later used) and was at an unencyclopaedic title. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you yourself admit, it's also a badly jargon-riddled article, as well as a bad title. Somebody already immersed in urban planning might be able to work out what it's talking about, but the average reader probably wouldn't -- and I don't think simply a better introduction will fix this. So lacking good title, a good lead or good content, what is there to this article that's worth saving? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't admit either of those. Read what I wrote closely, paying particular attention to the tenses of the verbs. And witness that even though I possess it, no deletion tool needed to be used in the fixing of this article. No-one said that there wasn't good content in the early revisions, by the way. You're basing an argument upon facts not in evidence, as it were, there. Uncle G (talk)

• Keep This seems to be a real and notable topic. The article suffers from coat-rackism since it takes us through 500 years of the history of urban planning when just an explanation of the topic would do. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article had a bad start (and title) and still needs cleanup and improvement but the term is important in urban design and is used in architecture as well. Given that the information in the article is referenced I think is easier to improve it from what we have now than delete and re-write. Btw, there is a German wiki article as well. --Elekhh (talk) 00:31, 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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreak song[edit]

Heartbreak song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Appears to be completely original research with zero sources to back anything up. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Original research on a non-notable topic. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sounds like original research, not a single source. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:12, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Haché[edit]

Alain Haché (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

• Delete. Neutral. Notability guidelines not met. I am with ¢Spender1983 on this one: I think I just had a more conservative view of what the notability guidelines represented. With loose interpretation, notability might be satisfied. ¶ However, I think if we agree that a national chair suffices for inclusion, we might as well make an article for each of the 1 852 current Canada Research Chairs [13]: that's 10MB worth of this article in text, assuming similar article size for each of them. And again, that's just for Canada. ¶ For the papers he co-authored, let's put that into perspective: in the last few years, over a million scholarly papers are estimated to have been published annually [14]. To me, that means that the number of articles (<100) co-authored hardly justify notability. If such a number is proof of anything, it is that the authors exist; to me, it doesn't imply that notability is satisfied. Every author and co-author that is published in Nature (Highest impact factor? Highly prestigious.), for example, doesn't need an article for himself. ¶ I personally think it's folly to justify notability so easily: I think issues like this are important to address, because in my opinion they compromise the integrity of the notability guidelines. But you're free to think otherwise. I see everyone else is pretty much on the same page, so I apologize if I have wasted someone's time. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 05:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit: Please refer to this page for additional comments — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball keep, obviously notable, holds the Canadian Research Chair in Photonics for 7-8 years now, well-published, well-cited, wrote Physics of Hockey a well-received and notable popular science books on hockey, plenty of coverage in third party sources, routinely holds interviews on the physics of hockey (such as here for The Washington Post), etc, etc, etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article, he is the author of only one paper. As for being well cited, I'm not aware of those references you hint at. "Routinely" is quite a rhetoric term, and it is uncertain what you mean by et cetera. Look, I appreciate that we disagree on the subject, but if you think you can provide with good counter arguments, please try and take the matter seriously... — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Google Scholar, Alain Haché has co-authored about 62 publications. In addition, the publication Ye Y-H, LeBlanc F, Haché A, Truong V-V (2001). "Self-assembling three-dimensional colloidal photonic crystal structure with high crystalline quality". Appl. Phys. Lett. 78 (52). doi:10.1063/1.1337619., has been cited 124 times after subtracting self citations. An additional 10 publications which he co-authored have been cited by others more than 10 times each. Boghog (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Passes WP:ACADEMIC, and if that wasn't enough, he's been repeatedly cited in third-party sources as per WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability guidelines for academics are hardly satisfied; I think the main debate is regarding the strength of third-party sources supporting the criteria for notability. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 22:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A paper cited 124 times and a national chair is more than satisfactory. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He passes WP:PROF#C1 because of the high impact of his publications (five papers with over 100 cites each) and #C5 because of the Canada Research Chair. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. He holds a "Tier 2" national chair, which is defined here as being for "exceptional emerging researchers, acknowledged by their peers as having the potential to lead in their field." To me that says, "you have the potential to be notable, so we'll invest in you." This makes meeting WP:PROF#C5 questionable and not definitive. Also, I don't read WP:PROF#C1 to mean that if your research is cited enough times, you are determined to have made "significant impact in your scholarly discipline." So it is not definitive that Hache meets that criteria either. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - David Eppstein is completely correct. He passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5, as such is worthy of inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - According to WP:PROF if an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, then the professor is notable. Alain Haché arguably meets WP:PROF#C1 (publications cited by others, see Google search above), WP:PROF#C5 (national chair), and WP:PROF#C7 (physics of hockey). As others have noted above, one or more of these achievements may be borderline, but collectively they establish beyond any doubt that Alain Haché is notable. Boghog (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Re:"However, I think if we agree that a national chair suffices for inclusion, we might as well make an article for each of the 1 852 current Canada Research Chairs [15]: that's 10MB worth of this article in text, assuming similar article size for each of them."

Yes we might as well do it (see both WP:NOTFINISHED and WP:NOTPAPER). Also, as a general remark for chairs, or equivalent positions, these are not given to simple Simons fresh out of grad school. They are given to researchers with well-established research histories, who made significant impacts in their fields. You'll have to look pretty hard to find a chair who doesn't have a decent list of high-impact papers, and who doesn't do a few interviews per year about their field. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list of Canada Research Chairs would be a very good starting point for finding Canadian academics that aren't already included that we should add. As a fraction of all academics, 1852 is actually not a large number. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Nour[edit]

Kareem Nour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

An attempt at A7 was declined because of the article's fanciful claims regarding its subject. A quick peek into Google does not confirm notability, as per WP:BIO. The fact it is also a vanity article doesn't help. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 19:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands. Only ref is his site. Notability doesn't cascade from being an 'official photographer' to people of note. And we only have his word for any of these claims anyway. Peridon (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent sources, and promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons given above. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This puff-piece lacks any independent sources that might establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 14:44, 3 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) 01:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chunni Lal Vishen[edit]

Chunni Lal Vishen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:N. No coverage in secondary sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply non-notable. No sources, no coverage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The lack of reliable sources make it impossible to write a decent bio. Kevin (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unable to find coverage in any reliable sources in order to verify the contents of the article. Without sources the article fails WP:BASIC so can't pass WP:PROF. —J04n(talk page) 01:33, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Dario Julio[edit]

Jose Dario Julio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources, essentially unverifiable. Kevin (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unable to find coverage in any reliable sources. Searched with and without his middle name combined with each team that he is reported to have played for and found nothing. Without verification cannot keep. —J04n(talk page) 13:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage found, not a single reliable source. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:14, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksander Dermanskyj[edit]

Oleksander Dermanskyj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails WP:BIO; I can't even find anything in Lexis. Ironholds (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No secondary sources. Kevin (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. —J04n(talk page) 13:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep To what extent is this discussion driven by ignorance and laziness? The guy is Ukrainian, he writes in Ukrainian, but did anyone search for the Ukrainian term Дерманський Олександр Степанович. Did anyone check the Ukrainian page, three sources are listed and the claims of awards won would indicate pass per WP:GNG? The article is not fantastic and I'm also too lazy to attempt to penetrate the sources in that language, but that's a bad deletion rationale. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Seems that doesn't have any coverage in reliable sources, thus cannot be considered very notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I strongly encourage people to look at these [16][17] before pushing more for deletion of this article. --Slon02 (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't read Cyrillic languages very well (although I'm attempting to learn Russian), but at least one of them appears to be an unreliable source. Do we have any way of judging the reliability of that information? The mere presence of an article on another Wiki is not, in itself, conclusive or supportive proof of the subject's notability (although it may indicate their relative importance. Ironholds (talk) 07:41, 1 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) 01:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanda Daminato[edit]

Vanda Daminato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; even LexisNexis has nothing on her. Fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems never to have been written about. Kevin (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. —J04n(talk page) 13:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources, no notability. Fails WP:BIO. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:17, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ ALX[edit]

DJ ALX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, can't find any reliable secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. —J04n(talk page) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable secondary sources. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, no secondary sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:18, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Lhasa[edit]

DJ Lhasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, can't find any reliable secondary sources on him. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. —J04n(talk page) 20:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also couldn't find sources, 2 years without is long enough. Kevin (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indeed, no indication of notability out there. The few significant hits are trivial mentions, typically in long lists of DJs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, can't find coverage from reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Tooga - BØRK! 18:09, 4 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) 01:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My BFF, Sex[edit]

My BFF, Sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Not notable and fails Wikipedia:Notability. The only notability it has is that it was written by a famous author which we don't even have an article for. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Creator is a probable SPA: Purplepogostix (talk · contribs). OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Promotional article on a non-notable topic. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not very notable, also sounds a bit of self-promotion. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - A7 - no credible indication of significance of a high school online newspaper column Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with the discussion tending towards keep. There are concerns about recentism acknowledged by both sides, but the delete !voters were unable to rebut the presumption of notability that accompanied the coverage in the various sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farooque Ahmed[edit]

Farooque Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS _wjemather^bigissue 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename. Both of nominator's concerns are justified, however in the context of international terrorism today this is a distinctly notable subject. However, perhaps a re-focusing and renaming of the article to 2010 Washington Metro bomb plot might be in order? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Approximately 11,000 terrorist attacks occurred in 83 countries during 2009." What makes this one have lasting significance as required by policy and clarified by WP:EVENT? _wjemather^bigissue 23:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to know their definition of "terrorist attack". I'd bet a large proportion of those 11,000 are "lone nutjob with a rusted AK" type events, vs. plots to blow up major metro train stations. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All we know is that they are the US State Department's figures. I think many of these incidents just do not stand up on their own – as you say coverage is usually "in the context of international terrorism today" – and are best discussed in the context of this hightened sensitivity to potential terrorist threat. A brief summary in a general article is more appropriate, which we already have. _wjemather^bigissue 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable high profile criminal/plot with widespread coverage in RS. the applicable policy is WP:N/CA not WP:EVENT since no event occurred. I do not have a problem with renaming the article either though we could have an article on both the plotter as well as the plot. 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt and Faisal Shahzad are an example of substantially similar plot/plotter--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but you contradict yourself. N/CA is of course a sub-section of EVENT (and is a guideline not a policy). _wjemather^bigissue 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not really. I am just pointing to the most appropriate guideline that applies here. clearly a criminal conspiracy existed here and a person has been arrested. This is exactly the sort of High profile crime that WP:N/CA was written for. the notability is established the diversity of RS covering this and the depth of coverage. May I ask why you feel that 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt and Faisal Shahzad satisfy the guidelines and this one does not ?? and if you believe that they do not why aren't you nominating them for AfD also now that I have pointed out their existence ??? --Wikireader41 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of terrorist incidents, 2010. Established precedent is very clear that small scale and failed terrorist attacks, even those inside the US, are not notable enough to warrant their own article. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what established precedent are you talking about?? we have always had articles on similar high profile criminal plots. see one example above in my comment above about times square bombing attempt and faisal shahzad. it might also help you to follow the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Osman Mohamud which is a very similar plot to get a sense of what the community standard is on such plots.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent I am speaking of is the fact that most minor terrorist events and/or their perpetrators have not been considered worthy of anything more than brief mention such as the List of terrorist incidents, 2010, including events in which dozens have been killed and injured, also including events like the May 10 pipe bomb detonation in Jacksonville, Florida. I am already active in the Mohamed Osman Mohamud discussion, and have argued exactly the same point. I also feel Hosam Maher Husein Smadi is a prime candidate for a merge for exactly the same reasons (I think it would be nice if all 3 could be discussed at once in one place since they are very very similar). As far as I can tell of community standards on this issue, it is that acts committed by Muslims inside the US are very important- even if they fail and the attackers had little chance of success to begin with - while any terrorist act committed by a non-Muslim or outside the US is trivial and not worth a separate article, even if large numbers of people died. Apparently the community (judging by these 2 AfD discussions) is comfortable with this standard and believes it does not represent a US-centric, Muslim-fearing POV that is incompatible with WP. I do. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The religion of the terrorist or where it occurs doesn't matter. The potential scale of the event, had it been successful, does. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment 1000%, if "potential" and "had it been successful" are removed. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well the notability and intense media coverage is due to the "potential" damage this plot could have caused. IMO a smaller plot where only a few people are actually killed is less notable than a plot where 100s could have been. religion has nothing to do with it. yes there is undercoverage in WP of non anglophone countries but that does not mean that we stop covering notable incidents in US.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valid argument. I still disagree, but it is a point worth considering. Mostly I'm just getting tired of the issue, and I'm pretty sure neither article is going to end up deleted anyway. Nevertheless, I still find it very curious that a non-incident where nothing happened - and nothing was likely to happen based on the fact that the alleged perpetrator had demonstrated zero ability to fulfill his dreams on his own - should receive so much attention or warrant an encyclopedia entry. 67.252.54.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete or merge into a greater article of terrorist plots. Agree with IP 67.252.54.152. Cannot possibly meet WP:EVENT in any form since no event occurred. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY , again, since nothing happened. There are people everyday who are plotting to destroy something, or kill someone, and they arent in here as they are not notable. If something had occurred or materials seized or anything to prove that there were indeed people who on XXXX date were gonna blow up the Red Line at the Pentagon or something and they were captured with a briefcase of C-4, then it would be a different story. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• He was captured with a bomb in his possession tha the attempted to set off. The fact that the bomb was a dud because he'd been trapped by a sting operation doesn't change the fact that it was there. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That justs shows that he thought he was doing something, not that he actually did. No event, nothing else notable about him, what else is there really? As I said in the Portland case, we need some sort of standard for this type of story. When nothing really happens, why is it encyclopedic? Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And it was a "bomb" given to him by us to see if he was stupid enough to try it. No one was ever in danger, he would not have been allowed to put anyone in danger and nothing happened but he got himself arrested. This incident and the others like it could be covered just as well in an article like the terrorist attacks of 2010. All you are doing, IMO, is trying to justify giving idiots like these more than their 15 mins of fame. If he had independently put this plot and actually gotten the materials together and failed in the attempt then that would be notable. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite keep per Wikireader41--Mbz1 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure) dmz 03:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of management consulting firms[edit]

List of management consulting firms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Spam magnet. Alleged "list" contains full stub articles for each and every entry. If kept, this list needs SERIOUS pruning of each and every description to a single brief sentence describing specific area(s) of practice and geographic area served. Alternatively, a wikitable would allow for this information to be displayed in a non-prose ( and non-spam!) fashion. WuhWuzDat 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Previous AfD nomination rationale was that the article was duplicative with its associated category, and didn't contain any additional information. Now that additional information is added, it is being nominated again for having too much information. The article is undoubtedly very ugly and requires major cleanup, however the concept of the list is legitimate and therefore deletion is not the answer in this case. SnottyWong ^speak 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I agree that the data could be more concise and better organized, deletion is not the best route to achieve that result. Cleanup tags would be sufficient; or, better yet, cleaning up the content or converting it into a wiki-table (as the nom also suggested) would be more productive routes. The existing basic structure appears to meet WP:LIST. Additionally, the argument of the list being a spam magnet seems to be mitigated by the list having clear inclusion criteria that all of the firms listed at this time are meeting WP:CORP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nom has made a very WP:Pointy nomination after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. The 1st AfD was a Keep (withdrawn nomination) once the article was improved and original concerns about spam addressed. The article in its present form has been maintained (notable entries added and non-notable entries removed) by several editors since the first AfD. The argument that the list entries are WP:SPAM is not valid as 1) all non-notable entries are routinely removed by editors and according to WP:SPAM, …However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities. And 2) since all the list entries are notable entities and the expanded information is merely an extrapolation of content in the main articles, how can they be considered Spam? As for the existence of expanded data associated with each entry, this is perfectly allowable and encouraged by WP:AOAL. This article complies fully with WP:List and WP:CLN and has a track record of being maintained in compliance with WP guidelines and policies. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It list all the management consulting firms notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and link to those articles, while also giving a brief mention of what they are. And this information all has references to back it up. Its far more useful to list some information about them, instead of just listing their name since it'd be meaningless without a summary. Dream Focus 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only value I can see for this article is a promotional one. Unless we want to make a big step toward "WP yellow pages"... having a cat for those firms serves the purpose of information well enough. TMCk (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If someone wants this list, please reformat it as a table with an objective set of criteria for what information is of encyclopedic value (location, number of offices, number of staff, year established, ...). Stuff like this is rubbish: "focusing on strategic and operational CEO-agenda concerns", "stated mission ...", "said to be the largest consulting firm". Deletion is the only way to clean this up because there has already been an edit war resulting in the current promotional and unmaintainable fluff. Johnuniq (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vetting your statement and link the article in question here seems to be nothing more than a coat rack.TMCk (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Could use a great deal of editing but I believe the page is salvageable. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How? Could you clarify a bit?TMCk (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was perhaps a bit brief. The list needs editing and formatting, but I don't think there's any underlying problem that warrant deletion. The list itself is reasonable and can aid in navigation. The main reason for delete seems to be spam problems, but they can be dealt with as needs be, either by removing spam items, or AfDing actual spam pages, etc. There also seems to be some sort of content dispute over how much/what information should be associated with each item, but I don't believe that warrants deletion here. The only way I see that being a deletion reason is if no one comes forward after some time to fix the article, and I don't believe we've reached that point. Most of the content problems could probably be fixed by ripping out much of the text and reformatting everything as a table with name, countries, awards(?), target clientele, etc. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 05:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for extending your rational.TMCk (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nominator's objection seems to be the amount of detail provided for each entry. This is not a reason to delete as the entries can obviously be edited by ordinary means to make them briefer. The discussion of this matter on the article's talk page seems inadequate. Bringing an editing dispute of this kind to AFD is improper 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.". See also the deletion process which emphatically states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". And note that there are numerous featured lists with details and text provided for each entry such as List of castles in Cheshire. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "the amount of detail provided for each entry" is or should be in any way related to either keep or delete the list and neither should be an edit dispute determine the course of this AFD.TMCk (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all objections noted by the nominator are content related, which should be dealt with via normal editing and negotiation and dispute resolution as needed. I have never seen an AFD which amounts to "I don't like how this list is formatted". This is in now way the domain of AFD. Be bold, fix it. If someone objects, work it out on the talk page. --Jayron32 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This nomination has no validity at all. Management consulting firms are obviously notable, listing them is sensible. Issues with spam can be dealt with by normal editing. WuhWuzDat seems to be unaware of WP:BEFORE and needs a good trouting for making this kind of nomination. Fences&Windows 12:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly needs tidying up, but this is a valid list. pablo 19:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, but if no one cleans up that mess within the seven days of this AFD it's a "no go" as the article stands now and after no "keepers" are working on it, this is definitely a delete candidate which can be reinstated when ready. I took OSborn's comment above as a serious reconsideration when writing this; So yes, keeping it as a plain list would be acceptable but since it isn't that it has no merit to stay alive for now. There is no edit/improvement to the article as of now. Should that change I might change my mind and "vote". If not there is no wp-reason to keep it after the seven days have passed.TMCk (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree; this process is not about how shite an article may be, (and this is not the most woeful of articles by a long way) but about whether it should exist at all. pablo 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pablo ... this AfD is a question on if the article should exist. Once that's established (or even concurrently, actually) a discussion can take place on the article talk page on the best format for improving the article (if trimmed text, or if a wiki-table - and if a table, what elements/columns should be part of the inclusion criteria for list entries). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --  pablo 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite. It is altogether appropriate to list the notable firms that have WP articles, as for any other line of business. I think the problem is including the description of the firms. That's not our style--our thoroughly established way of doing these is to list the articles, and then there's a link to the articles for further information. The only need to say anything more is when it is a question of identification nor clarity, or the exceptional case that a firm that is clearly notable doesn't have an article yet, and there's a need to add a few words and a reference to show why it is worthy of having the article written. We could have decided to write our list article like this, but we have not done so. If necessary, this will have to go to dispute resolution, but I think that anyone insisting on the content as it is should think again, because I think there would be essentially unanimous opinion to the contrary. Removal of articles that are written improperly is not the appropriate response, but it seems that as the system actually works here we have no really adequate way for calling attention to this except AfD. RfC isn a case like this is a little excessive, and nothing else seems to get enough attention. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of the firms listed probably are not really notable, or rather, not really significant; "notability" tends to break down in the face of publicity departments. Where PR is a problem, notability needs to be read very narrowly. These businesses are the sort of thing that should never have individual articles to begin with.
  
  I agree that the text describing most of these firms is floridly non-neutral, and that almost all of the text should go. Almost every single one of these entries is making unreferenced claims to being "global" or "international", and more than one are "most prestigious" or a "leader". In short, almost every entry is full of bullshit. Like the nominator, I suspect that it may take more time or energy to police this from spam than it may be worth.
  
  But when you're dealing with an overcrowded field of publicity hungry businesses like this, an overview article is a better way to handle this than a series of individual stubs or spam articles about each one. I think we should strip this down like the nominator had tried, agree on the sorts of things that can be added (location, date of foundation) while insisting on genuinely neutral third party sources for any claims of global leadership and similar twaddle. And we should look very carefully at each of the linked articles, and delete and salt any that contain spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that spam is a serious problem, & I feel towards it just as you do (in fact, there's currently a post on my talk page saying I've been too hasty to speedy a spammy article--and they're probably right). Obviously, articles about firms whose very purpose is public relations need to be watched carefully. I fully support the standard that the criterion for inclusion is a list like this is having a Wikipedia article or being obvious qualified for one, & I watch a few similar lists for the purpose of removing listings for those that do not. But if there is an article, the only way to judge their suitability for Wikipedia is one at a time, at AfD for each underlying article. Since the criterion of having a Wikipedia article is so easy to watch for, such a list is not very difficult to patrol. In fact, a list like this it provides a rather easy way of spotting the introduction of unjustifiable articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Category:Management consulting firms is a better way to keep this list. Wikipedia is not a directory, there's just too much potential for advertising, spam and other abuse. If this article is kept, I strongly suggest it at least be semi-protected to discourage new users from promoting firms they have a conflict of interest with. --§Pumpmeup 02:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if category is justified for firms in a type of business, then a list is also justified. One is not better than the other--they have complementary advantages--the category is populated automatically from the articles, but the list can give context. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per spam magnet as well as WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Also, a term like "management consulting firm" is so vague that every new startup will try to get on this page. I tag these types of articles (about "management consulting firm" companies, not this list) all the time; probably 20% of my speedy tags. While there are some cases for categories as well as lists to exist and overlap, I do not feel this is one of them. — Timneu22 · talk 16:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those "some case" are the standard way for almost everything, & we have this for every sort of business. I find it much easier to watch for the insertion of red links in lists, than check new articles in a category. It;s only a spam magnet the sense that it serves to pull out the spam where we can see it and get rid of it. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The general consensus seems to be that the description text does not add to the article. Per this, I have removed the description text from each entry. (Subsequent edits could reformat this as a proper table.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rename to 2010 Portland car bomb plot. I'm not wed to the name, so the article can be renamed further if consensus develops on the article talk page as long as the new name concerns the incident and not the individual. T. Canens (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Osman Mohamud[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)).

Mohamed Osman Mohamud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. _wjemather^bigissue 16:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an entry of interest to many people, and relevant to the public, just like entries covering similar subjects of the government stopping terrorist attacks, e.g. by Faisal Shahzad, Farooque Ahmed, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi.
  • I agree - Keep (as is, not Rename) - All of the persons mentioned above (along with Najibullah Zazi and his father, Mohammed Wali Zazi) are notable only for significant non-events, such as failed bombings or simply plotting to commit a terrorist act, and none of the corresponding articles are targeted for deletion. All are residents (legal or illegal) of the US and not foreign nationals attacking from the outside (like Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab). Many have not even come to trial yet. In fact, the case of Hosam Maher Husein Smadi is virtually identical to this one! Why is this particular article targeted for deletion when there are so many others that fit the same criteria? Eegorr (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nominator per WP:BLP1E & WP:NOTNEWS, this person is only known for one recent news event and is otherwise not at all notable. Pol430 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is notable, just like similar subjects of the government stopping terrorist attacks by Faisal Shahzad, Farooque Ahmed, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi. Sclt1127 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a list somewhere covering these, but that is the most we need. In general, taken on their individual merits, they do not pass our criteria for inclusion. _wjemather^bigissue 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Other examples are Richard Reid (shoe bomber) and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. More info will become available as case progresses. Jokestress (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please address why this passes WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not sufficient, and those you mention clearly had lasting significance, Reid in particular. Should this have similar impact in future, which is highly unlikely given the circumstances and the fact it was the result of a sting operation, then it could be recreated then. Since we don't have the benefit of a crystal ball, as it stands we should delete. _wjemather^bigissue 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per notability: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." I have added some of the re-analysis of the event, and I am sure we will see many profiles on the suspect similar to the half-dozen notable biography examples already given above as precedents for keeping this. Jokestress (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite obviously re-analysis does not happen the following day in these cases, it happens much later. Please address the aforementioned policy concerns. _wjemather^bigissue 18:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since you also advocate merging/deleting Faisal Shahzad, Farooque Ahmed, Richard Reid, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi because "they do not pass our criteria for inclusion," it seems your arguments do not line up with Wikipedia policy and consensus on individuals involved in these notable incidents. Jokestress (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am advocating no such thing. Each case should be examined on its own merits and most importantly, recognising that they are not inherently notable. Reid in particular, has had exceptionally significant lasting impact as evidenced by authorities requiring airline passengers to remove their footwear while passing through security. We can not say anything remotely like that about Mohamud. _wjemather^bigissue 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is far too early for anyone to determine the significance of this incident. In numbers of dead, it could have exceeded that of the WTC and Pentagon attacks of 9/11/2001! And, do you not find it significant that the target city, Portland, is the only one who has opted out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, declining to cooperate with the FBI in such investigations? This is likely to change in the wake of Mohamud's actions. Eegorr (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Portland car bomb plot or something along those lines. The person's info in the "background" section. It could cover the plot as a whole. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also support a rename to something like 2010 Portland car bomb plot vs. wholesale deletion. Jokestress (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't care what the article is called. Sclt1127 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, I agree, the 2010 Portland car bomb plot is a good suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs)

• Rename to an article about the incident, which is what is notable about this person.  Sandstein  20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Renaming would only resolve WP:BLP1E. It would not address the fact that the incident itself fails WP:NOTNEWS. _wjemather^bigissue 20:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTNEWS is often abused, as it is in this case. Just because a subject receives news coverage, doesn't mean it is notable. But if it there's news coverage and the subject meets WP:GNG, it is notable. If we take a look at a similar attempt, like the Time Square attempted bombing, then we can determine that this will be a matter of discussion for some time to come. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I'm sure you have that wrong. If a subject passes GNG it is presumed to be notable provided that it does not fall foul of certain policies, of which WP:NOT is one. As for your assumptions regarding future discussion, as I said previously, there is no bar to recreation should that ever happen, but what matters is the current situation where there is no evidence of long term significance. _wjemather^bigissue 20:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, that's assuming it fails WP:NOTNEWS, which it doesn't. It states, "...routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia..." This case is not any of those examples outlined in WP:NOTNEWS. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, pick out the bit that obviously doesn't apply here – I do get tired of having to rebutt straw man arguments. So we're clear, of course the policy does apply: "...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This section is then covered in more depth by WP:EVENT, which states "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, ...) ...are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." _wjemather^bigissue 21:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please keep it civil and assume good faith? You should really calm down, this isn't the first time, nor the last time you'll meet someone with a differing opinion. And your cited quote from WP:EVENT only backs up my support. This is not "most crimes". Most crimes include armed robbery and attempted murder, not potential terrorist attacks in the U.S. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadly, potential terrorist attacks are a dime a dozen. They are not automatically or inherently notable and nor does the fact it happened in the US make it any closer to being notable. The issue is quite simple really. Where is the lasting or enduring significance? _wjemather^bigissue 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They are obviously not a "dime a dozen". And I only cited the fact that it was in the U.S. because it does make it more significant. The threat, in the words of the FBI agent in charge, "was very real". This is not a dime a dozen case. It is being covered extensively, which is "enduring significance". I don't wish to continue discussing this. From previous comments, you are obviously trying to bully and argue, not come to a clear consensus and/or compromise (which I proposed). Thank you. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Approximately 11,000 terrorist attacks occurred in 83 countries during 2009." Unfortunately, yes they are a dime a dozen. Having extensive coverage does not equal enduring significance. (P.S. Ad hominem accusations do nothing to further your case.) _wjemather^bigissue 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree w/Brian. WJE--if memory serves, this is not the first time that you have militated strongly for deletion of an article with overtones of possible terrorism. Using the same arguments. And, as here, learning that the consensus view differs from yours. Perhaps that is where the issue lies, and we would all benefit (and have fewer AfDs that fail to gain consensus support) if you would take to heart the consensus view of your fellow editors in this regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing I would benefit from is fewer snide and condescending remarks, but we both know that is your MO when dealing with any difference of opinion. _wjemather^bigissue 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. I am holding off on my vote until I can read more on the subject and determine whether it is most appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about the man, the incident, or both. However, I did want to voice that I agree with Brian Halvorsen's assessment about WP:NOTNEWS, both in that it is often misinterpreted, and that it is being done so in this case. It seems that whenever any indecent is remotely new or recent, there will always be a handful of users (no offense to anyone specific in this discussion) who cite this policy as a reason for deletion. It happened with Nidal Malik Hasan, it happened with Seung-Hui Cho, and it's happening now. Brian was criticized for emphasizing the sentence, "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." But I think this makes it very clear that this policy is meant to discourage every single minor item that appears in a newspaper from warranting a Wikipedia article, not something of this scale which, in my view, clearly passes WP:N. — Hunter Kahn 06:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If he's been in the news, if his name can be mentioned in discussing the history of a notable phenomenon (in this case, terrorist attack on US soil), then people want to know who he is and what becomes of him; and they should find such information in Wikipedia. He had the potential to be the first person to successfully carry out such an attack since 9/11; he matters. I disagree with calls to make it part of an article titled say, Portland Car Bomb Plot (since it's that event that makes him notable). Doing that would amount to double standard; across Wikipedia, countless personalities who gained popularity as a result of event(s)are profiled. For instance, Linda Tripp has an article in her name; why is she not merely mentioned in the article Lewinsky scandal? I propose that this discussion be closed and the article retained.--Dele1234 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)--Dele1234 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, agreeing with all the other reasons for "keep" listed above. --Travis Thurston+ 21:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. Would not object at all toprotest Renaming to 2010 Portland bomb plot or likewise. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - definitly agreeing with the Keep-side on this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But I think the article should stay under its current name.,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the burden of proof should be on those who want to keep it, and from what I see presented above, it hasn't been met yet. It's only vaguely terrorist related at best, in the sense that he wanted to be one but very clearly wasn't. In essence the story is really nothing more than a stupid 19 year old kid who tried to implement an idiotic idea, got caught, and will likely spend the next 20 years in federal prison because of it. No connection to established terrorist groups, no deaths, no property damage, just garden variety stupidity. Not worthy of inclusion. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Because I don't edit frequently enough to bother creating an account, and my IP address changes every couple of months, but thanks for the ad hominem, Epeefleche. Nice to see it being spread so liberally against the minority viewpoint. Apparently we are all terror lovin' agenda pushers because we dare suggest that this story - like many many others in which the media sells fear - might be over-hyped and not very notable in the grand scheme of things. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah. You appear to not gather what makes notablity, for purposes of the Project. What "the media sells", what you consider to be "over-hyped" by it, is what determines notability for the Project. Your personal POV that the media should not be reporting it, and is over-hyping it, is under the wp construct not determinative of whether an issue is notable. We rely on what the RSs report. Not on individual editors' personal views as to whether the RSs are making more of the issue than we feel they should.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. I believe a large part of the reason for WP:BLP1E, WP:NTEMP, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:N/CA, and WP:BREAKING is to counter-act instances where initial media coverage is grossly out of proportion with a person's or event's real long-term notability and relevance to an encyclopedia. In my opinion, this story is just that. I am aware that my viewpoint is in the minority right now. That does not mean I am pushing an agenda or misunderstand this process. It also does not mean I am wrong. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I disagree that it's nothing more than a stupid 19 year old kid getting caught. The FBI says that there was a real threat. The FBI knows of many hopeful's, but they singled this one out for stinging till the end because he was capable of executing his agenda. Also, the President had been briefed about the whole operation - yes, the President gets briefed about tonnes of stuff but certainly not about everyone known to want to carry out a terrorist attack (except of course the threat is real).--Dele1234 (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At this time this person's guilt has not yet been determined. Simply being charged for your first offense does not make someone notable. The event itself is barely notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person can still be notable if he is not guilty of a crime. Look at the Wikipedia entries for OJ Simpson and Donald Marshall, for instance. If the guy is found not guilty, then this article will still be notable, only it will require updating. Please keep in mind that "notability" is actually the name of an official policy at Wikipedia, with actual rules. It's not a matter of just saying "I don't think it's interesting, so it's not notable." When you nominate an article for deletion, you have to show that it demonstrably does not comply with the notability guidelines. In the case of this article, it has. — A lizard (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with A lizard. Whether he is guilty or not bears little (if at all) on whether he is notable; it is the nature of the coverage that is the key.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / consider rename Notability has been established with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. A title covering the incident, rather than the person, may be appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I inadvertently created a parallel article at 2010 Oregon bomb plot. Dawnseeker2000 01:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from the BLP1E issue, there is nothing to suggest that this isn't just another nutter working on his own on yet another non-notable terrorist plot which we shouldn't be giving prominence to. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY applies to vandalism on Wikipedia, not terrorists. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wholly aware. But it's exactly the same principle I'm applying here. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me. Why are you admittedly mis-using Wikipedia policies? Do you honestly believe that mis-using a policy enhances your point of view? Victor Victoria (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There are too many similar articles on Wikipedia for this one to be inappropriate. There are too many legitimate sources for this not to be notable. The nominator has done nothing to demonstrate this article's lack of notability as a matter of fact. Please noite that "notability" is not a matter of opinion. Wikipedia actually has rules for this sort of thing. Please read them before writing "delete" on this page. — A lizard (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS are regularly abused by users such as bigissue who have a problematic editing record of enforcing a POV that any coverage of suspected terrorists is "slanted" or "disturbing" , especially Islamic terrorists caught in the act of trying to blow things up. He also called for deletion of the very similar case of Lloyd R. Woodson which received international coverage of being caught with a large amount of arms, maps of army bases, and PLO-fashion headgear. These two rules need to be modified to discourage their use to predictably erase every likely terrorism incident which hits international headlines/ Agree with first entry that this is an entry of interest to many people, and relevant to the public, just like entries covering similar subjects of the government stopping terrorist attacks, e.g. by Faisal Shahzad, Farooque Ahmed, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi. AFD's like this are only part of a general environment bullying and intimidating editors who illuminate cases of alleged terrorism. Wjemather evidently agrees with this position on "POV terrorism edits" which explains what I suspect is his real motive, to undermine NPOV by surpressing that people like the portland bombing suspect are terrorists, rather that adding notable, reliable sources that state the "other points of view" that this fellow might not be a terrorist. [18] "I think it's time we take the POV terrorism edits to the next level. At least dispute resolution since it clear they will just continue to edit against consensus and have made some very disturbing and telling statements [1] he pretty much states his agenda and POV right there for all to see. Ridernyc (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC) My attention has only recently been drawn to articles in this area but it would appear that there is an ongoing problem with a handful of editors disregarding core policies in order to slant articles to their personal way of thinking." wjematherbigissue 00:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)" It's pretty clear which "handful of editors" is slanting articles to a distinctly minority and politically motivated view of "what terrorism?" when his idea of an "unacceptable" and "slanted personally" POV or a "very disturbing and telling statements" is simply that this Portland person has been caught, in the words of reliable sources, red handed by the FBI in an act of jihadist terrorism. This is hardly a baseless accusation, it is clear to see who is trying to hide obvious terrorists from view. How many more example does it take before the pattern is clear? Can an editor continually abuse afd like this without censure? Bachcell (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep personal attacks to a minimum. The editor who proposed deletion claimed wiki policies for support, thus please keep the discussion about wiki policies, and not ideology/religion.VR _talk 17:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see less name calling than questioning of motive here. It is interpretation of wiki policies that is in play, and motive is an important consideration to the extent that it colors such interpretation - especially when it runs so far against consensus. Eegorr (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - BLP1E is so overly cited it is no longer even funny. BLP1E only determines if we need a separate article for the individual players. So, that issue is easily resolved by renaming this as the bomb plot. NOTNEWS is also overly cited, as that really is just your everyday ordinary crap. Put it this way: if it makes the local paper once, that is NOTNEWS. If it makes say CNN (which the bomb plot has not only made their website but done so in what amounts to their mainpage) or other national media outlets in addition to your local news source, then we are removed from the ordinary, and thus removed from NOTNEWS (note I am not saying making it on CNN equals notability, as some things on national media outlets still qualifies as ordinary or would fail GNG as not everything there is really news). Here, I think the bomb plot has enough sources to pass GNG, and nothing but IAR is left to justify deletion. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The incident itself was notable. The belligerents however are not. Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk 17:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep/Snow Keep. The number one front page article in today's New York Times? Seems notable to me. Not even a close call. Agree with the vast majority of the above (out of 22!voters, only 3 !deletes, and one of those an IP who somehow found his way here for his second entry ever!) that do not see this as a !delete. Has all the earmarks of an article of lasting notability of recent events that are appropriate for wikipedia under blp1E and wp:notnews. Noms should read past the titles of those guidelines -- if the top stories in the Sunday NYT are not notable under those guidelines, then no events of recent vintage would be notable, which is clearly not the case. Whether it is renamed, or not (and we have two articles, one on the event and one on the incident, as w/the Christmas Day Bomber and Times Square Bomber, etc., can be thrashed out on the talk page and is not material to whether the article is kept IMHO -- and I don't care at the moment either way; certainly a good argument can be made that it is similar to the others, which have article for the people. Waste of time nomination. IMHO, of course. Difficult to understand nom's rationale for it, if one reads the guidelines and looks at the front-page coverage in major RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (largely off-topic response) Like your good friend Bachcell before you, your ad hominem remarks, both towards myself and the IP contributor (who may well be a regular contributor from a dynamic adress for all you know), are unwarranted. Your continuing failure to assume good faith of anyone you disagree with is disappointing to say the least. I think it would be best for all if you stuck solely to discussing the merits of the article instead of concerning yourself with attacking other contributors, and interjecting IMHO does not make it any more acceptable. You will just have to accept that my interpretation of the guidelines and policies remains as I have elucidated above, and of course it is patently obvious to anyone that I have "read past the titles". _wjemather^bigissue 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, you are the one making the ad hominem remark here. Asserting who is my "good friend". Second, I've commented only on your editing/noming. Third, what do you think the SPA template is for, if not for an editor making its second edit ever at an AfD? All it does is flag a possible issue for a closer -- why would you want to deny the closer that flag? Fourth, I've not failed to assume good faith. If you read my comment again, you will find no assertion of a failure of good faith on your part here -- rather, a failure to respect consensus on this issue, which if I recall correctly reflects a position you have taken in more than one AfD. I've not said here that your failure was one of good faith. Fifth, I am discussing the merits of your arguments, and not discussing you as a person--I'm sure that you are fine fellow or gal, who tips well, helps the elderly and blind across busy streets, and have never, ever stuck your chewed gum under the bottom of a middle school table.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (still off-topic) Your previous close interactions would make that self-evident and your comments speak for themselves, seeking to belittle the opinions of an anon who "somehow found his way here" and insinuating that I have not read the policies and guidelines. _wjemather^bigissue 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) Still an ad hominem (and curious synth) comment by you (as I've made none). 2) That's what the template is for--it's not an ad hominem comment. 3) If you have not read policies or guidelines, or read them and failed to understand them, or are not taking the consensus of your fellow editors to heart by repeatedly making the same non-consensus assertions as you seek to delete terrorism-related articles, that is not necessarily a reflection of your bad faith, but rather could be attributed to any number of other reasons. At the end of the day, though, when it just leads to waste-of-time landslide AfDs like this one, it is perhaps not the best use of the time of the editors of the Project, whatever the reason.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (very much still off-topic) Templating, while unnecessary in this case (have you read the associated essay?), is not the main issue. It's obvious this is going nowhere while you continue to play dumb. Oh, well. _wjemather^bigissue 23:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've already commented a bit above, but as I had said, I waited to vote until I could give some thought to whether Mohamed Osman Mohamud himself warranted an article, or whether an article focused specifically on the plot was more appropriate, or both. I've decided that I feel an article on the individual is the best course of action. If there were multiple arrests or suspects, or if it had been a successful bombing with victims, I would feel that a separate plot article would be appropriate. But since this was basically a one-man show, I feel that the entirety of the plot can be conveyed through the article on the individual, which would also allow for more of his background to be highlighted. And, for the reasons I cited above, I don't think this article at all violates WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E. — Hunter Kahn 22:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would just like to clarify my point from above, I am for the article being kept or renamed. I just proposed the rename as a possible compromise. I feel that the failed plot should be covered somewhere. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I’ve long said that there ought to be a rule that articles like this shouldn’t be started until one month after the news hits. That would be a check against knee-jerk biographies about articles of local interest—like a school board that allowed some sexual-abusing creep to keep his job (or whatever). But the deed is done in this case and—clearly—this act of attempted terrorism is of widespread interest in the English-speaking world and would have been created even if a one-month grace period were in place. Besides, I got a laugh out of the story when they were taking this guy down and he was kicking at the cops’ shins yelling “Allahu Akbar!” Greg L (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite. Our guidelines do suggest incubation for news related articles but there is really no way that is ever going to happen since they mostly get created by inexperienced contributors who are largely unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. Clearly this article will kept, at least in part because it is a prominent new story right now, but that is the way these discussions (especially in this subject area) seem to go at the moment. _wjemather^bigissue 23:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a flip side to this coin too, though. In the future, I'd suggest giving it a couple of days before you nominate it for AFD. That way you can determine whether the article is strong enough, and whether the news articles do die down after a short period of time. If so, and if you nominate it for AFD then, then your argument for deletion would probably be stronger. — Hunter Kahn 02:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I half-agree with this, in the sense that less than 48 hours after the first reports this story is already well below the fold on almost all of the major news sites. Monday's op-eds will point to the coming week's trend, one way or the other, and that will be a pretty good indicator of whether or not the story has legs. I suspect not, but consensus seems to be heading towards 'keep' anyway. I'd like to think that a few months from now people will look back and realize that this person/event isn't very notable after all, but in reality it will be so forgettable that nobody is even going to bother looking back. And so another 50kb of storage is wasted on irrelevant trivia. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with User:Hunter Kahn. If anything was a knee-jerk reaction it was this AfD. This news story got world-wide attention. It wasn’t even close. Moreover, it is time consuming for the community to address AfDs because arguments have to be quite keen on both sides (see the above hat statement). I recently saw an admin who took it upon himself to reverse a majority decision by citing how the minority’s logic was so very superior to the majority’s and then deleted the article. Then he went back and actually *read* the citations and familiarized himself with the facts after being assailed for his actions. The majority view here is overwhelming and based on a consistent, valid basis. I move to SNOWBALL. Greg L (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not kid ourselves. That kind of close in favour of an overwhelming minority regardless of the strength of argument is so infrequent it isn't worth mentioning. And it is far from a knee-jerk reaction to list a news story at AfD, it is very common procedure. The fact that this AfD is littered with "it's in the news" arguments just illustrates the problem. _wjemather^bigissue 08:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with the points made above by other users. He is a major figure in a major news story. -- Evans1982 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I highly doubt that the press will cease interest in Mohamud's story, as there will continue to be prosecution in the future. I mean, the Wikipedia article of other foiled terrorists (such as Shahzad etc.) all were kept after AFDs set up within a day of article creation. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename per previous comments. Klopek007 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This story on Wikipedia is already ready for significant updates as of a few hours ago, that's how rapidly evolving it is. It's a watershed in Somali-US relations, a low mark. We all know what Kristallnacht was, but do we remember the instigation, an assassination by Herschel Greenszpan, which I only know because of a very complete separate article that was a link in the Wiki article on the event Kristallnacht? Keep this name as a separate entry and link it to an article on the event. Kristallnacht can't make any sense whatsoever unless you view the rage at the time against what were felt to be foreign agents provacateurs operating in Germany. The truth was a sad and hopeless case of a stateless immigrant trapped by closing borders, and the suggestion that a gay relationship with a German diplomat that did not result in a visa may have triggered Greenszpan to kill the German diplomat, thus triggering Kristallnacht. In this case of a failed assassin, who triggers world events he had no intention of causing such as diplomatic crisis, hostile backlash, and retrenchment of US Security policy, Mohamud is already clearly part of the cascade of the US into deepening suspicion of radical Islam and war. I think this is the true fear of many of the calls to delete, however we delete history at our peril. 67.100.132.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Very, very interesting. I had to read this twice to understand where you were going with Kristallnacht. Your message point is powerful. You should register as a wikipedian. Greg L (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed- congratulations on the early invocation of Godwin's Law! tedder (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As the article on Goodwin’s Law states: “Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis.” The phenomenon occurs on Wikipedia, for example, when editors label those who would promote the International System of Units to absurd lengths (beyond how the real world works in astronomy for instance) as “SI-Nazis.” The I.P. editor is making a non-humorous and—I think—valid commentary on a potential hazard here and a parallel in history: that of a majority that seizes upon a reckless and despicable act by a single member of a minority and uses that act as a pretense for sweeping actions against the minority. Your comment, Tedder, seemed intended to be humorous but could be interpreted by some as both glib and deprecating to a thoughtful and serious observation by the I.P. Greg L (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was glib and deprecating, as Wikipedia is not a forum, and sweeping generalizations about history and Wikipedia's role on it would be better suited on a personal blog. tedder (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; that’s what I suspected. That’s your opinion as to what Wikipedia is and is not so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. In your post, you have a link in one of those I made it Blue so it must be True®™© stunts. Try reading and understanding what you link to next time. WP:NOTFORUM could not be clearer that it speaks to the issue of keeping our articles free of advocacy and opinion pieces, nor can our articles be used to self-promotion or advertising of commercial ventures. And commercial advertising has no place on individuals’ user pages, IMO. But this venue is not in articlespace. Nor is this a userpage. This is a venue where the sharing of thought and vigorous debate occurs. Moreover, the subject of the article in question pertains to terrorism. The I.P. editor was reminding others here about the value of looking at this subject in a big-picture, historical context while deciding whether it is sufficiently encyclopedic. Moreover, the I.P. editor didn’t once mention “Nazis”, s/he mentioned only about “Kristallnacht” so your invoking “Goodwin’s Law” and its reference to Nazism was unseemly and—as you say—glib and deprecating. In a discussion venue on this subject matter, the observations of the I.P. are perfectly appropriate. Since we are now quoting Wikipedia policies and linking to them, you might read up on Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. And you might keep your “glib and deprecating” (by your own admission) to yourself next time; it was unbecoming of a registered wikipedian. Greg L (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep He has become quite notable for his would-be actions, and the investigation and arrest. He is certainly as notable as Mechele Linehan, among others, known for "1 event". AlaskaMike (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to the incident. the person by himself isn't notable at all outside the of incident. Its the event that is notable.VR _talk 17:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, perhaps rename. It's absurd to even nominate or argue on this article- if it is worthy of keeping or worthy of deletion, it's hard to sort out until some time has passed. tedder (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note The creator of this article has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of banned user Grundle2600 (talk · contribs), though it looks clear, at least to me, that we're way past WP:CSD#G5 right now. Also, folks, please stop trying to evoke emotion by mentioning Nazism here and try to score brownie points; those who are are not contributing anything additional to the discussion and is disruptive. –MuZemike 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At this point, given the overwhelming community reaction to nom's AfD, it appears that this would be an opportune time to invoke SNOW, and close this early. I doubt nom will learn anything from a continued pile-on reflecting how non-consensus his views are. If he hasn't learned anything from the above input, which appears by his comments to be the case. And for the rest of the community, it is a classic waste of time to satisfy the desire of one non-consensus editor for further feedback on an issue where the conclusion is clear. Someone please close this merit-less AfD, and let the good editors return to useful and productive work building the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet - The point of this discussion is not to teach the "nom" anything. While if one does nothing but read the bold text, one might come to the conclusion that the discussion is long over. However, I'm hoping that the closing admin will be able to take the time to take all relevant (to the suitability of the article) comments at face value and be able to come to a clear decision, whatever that final decision may be. There is no need to rush this, and the outcome is not yet obvious. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course the outcome is obvious. It’s a landslide and the community consensus is sufficiently thoughtful that it doesn’t need second guessing from an admin. An admin is just another volunteer editor who the community granted access to extra tools. Nothing in that understanding says that admins are understood to be wise judges who sit in judgement as to whether a landslide consensus like this had reasoning he or she finds *suitable*. Dragging this out any further is just WP:BUREAU and needless wikidrama because of a knee-jerk reaction from a single editor who was sufficiently experienced that he should have known better as this attempted act of terrorism drew world-wide attention. Greg L (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take the senseless "Fear of Terrorism" out of the equation, and there is nothing notable about the event (nothing happened) or the suspect (who has not been found guilty.) There is no evidence of the event having an effect on future law enforcement tactics or methods that would possibly make it notable. Right now fear-mongers are doing their best to keep the story alive in the media, and from what I can see (based on various site's "most viewed stories") no one seems to care. A new article is not needed for every single successful law-enforcement sting, and this one's effect on the general public is similar to the local alcohol commission catching store clerks selling to minors. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With 33 editors having !voted, the landslide outcome is indeed obvious IMHO. Unless one is looking at the issue with Nelson's eye. Agree that the discussion should not be used to teach nom anything -- that would have been the only other reason one could posit to keep it open. We don't rely on individual editors' personal views as to whether what the RSs focus on is "senseless" or not. If the RSs cover a subject extensively, it is notable for our purposes. Period. To do otherwise crosses the line into applying our personal POVs to the issue of notability. We don't censor articles and delete them because we think the RSs' extensive coverage is senseless. The coverage of this matter has been extensive and international in scope. I find it difficult to imagine one saying that the result is not a landslide without hearing them giggle as they say it. Contrary to Uncle's "nobody seems to care" comment, 5K people viewed this article in the past two days. Not quite what one would expect from his selling to minors example. WP:SNOW is intended for circumstances such as this ("If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.").--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I agree. Uncle Milty: It’s “notable” (and encyclopedic) any time there is an attempted act of terrorism where the hoped-for result would be thousands of casualties amongst Christmas revelers and their children, and where news organizations from al Jazeera to the BBC and everyone between pick up the story. It’s certainly at least as notable and encyclopedic as the ninth episode of the second season of The Simpsons (“Itchy & Scratchy & Marge”). I must say that if admins really do step in and were tempted to second-guess an overwhelming community consensus and parse the *logic and merit* of the arguments used here, your opining that this incident is similar to the local alcohol commission catching store clerks selling to minors seriously undermined one of the few “delete” votes on this page. Greg L (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDEQ: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the justification for your !vote was a comparison between this and a local alcohol commission catching store clerks selling to minors and a misrepresentation that "nobody seems to care"--when in fact the article has had 5K hits in the last two days--I would say that on that basis the SNOW nature of this discussion is even more one-sided than the overwhelming !vote of nearly three dozen editors to this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, many keep !voters have provided little or no rationale at all for their position, so they should really be discounted. It will be for a neutral judge to determine the merits of the arguments, not GregL or Epeefleche. Although anything other than a keep close does seem unlikely, it is unnecessary to attempt to steer the discussion to an early conclusion. _wjemather^bigissue 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure… why not just count only the five “Delete” votes because only their arguments are sound and sane. Is that it? This AfD wastes the time of contributors from the community who could have been doing something better than to (*sigh*) and deal with what you’ve done. You should have full well known from ample prior experience what this outcome was going to be. Why not think a bit more before acting next time? Greg L (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"in fact"?? I was not aware that articles here had publicly-visible hit counters. What percentage of those exactly 5000 hits were from unique IPs? What percentage trace back to a small cave in Afghanistan? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- in fact. 3,900 just yesterday -- the first full (non-stub) day. I believe that when balancing the objective hit counter vs. your well-intentioned but unsubstantiated assumption (which you submitted as fact), it might be seen as somewhat more objective to give greater weight to the hit counter. That, coupled with the number of articles, the global scope of the articles, and the placement by such newspapers as the New York Times on their front page may serve to suggest a degree of interest in the matter somewhat more than your "nobody seems to care" assertion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link. I should have known that there would be a bot doing that. Just for a sense of scale, however, WikiLeaks had approximately 294,800 hits yesterday alone. Ronald Reagan had over 10,000. Not bad for a historical figure, I suppose. I stand by my assertion that this article is a story-of-the-week that will soon be eclipsed by the next missing blonde girl story. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just now noticed that you wrote this, Uncle: Take the senseless "Fear of Terrorism" out of the equation… Just pardon me all over the place for saying what precisely is on my mind, but “fear of terrorism” is not senseless. What you wrote is the perhaps the biggest absurdity I have ever seen written on Wikipedia. And frankly, it looks like the product of someone who is *working it hard* to be seen as a wise, unflappable Leader Of Men©™® who broods quietly off in the corner worrying about more important things as the little people run around like chickens with their heads cut off. Terrorism captures people’s interest because it evokes powerful emotions; that’s why the root of the word “terrorism” is “terror”. That much is just too obvious. Of course, maybe you weren’t trying to posture as Moses leading a frightened wikipedian community across turbulent waters in frightening times; maybe you wrote a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium purely because you really feel that way (it is senseless for people to fear terrorism). AGF would grant you that. Please advise: were you Special Forces in the military or something? Greg L (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW is premature I admit this article has slim chance of being deleted anytime in the next 30 days, but there are very valid issues being brought up and I dislike the attempts by you and a couple other people to drown out the dissent by repeatedly attacking dissenters' motivation without addressing their arguments. Yes, it has been well established that this story has a gazillion reliable sources, and yes, that is the primary criteria for inclusion. It is not, however, the only one. Nobody has suggested how this event is substantially different than the 11,000 reported terrorist incidents in 2009, other than the coverage. Opinions on how this event may be relevant in the future have tended towards the realm of Alien space bats. There have been a few thoughtful opinions from those who voted 'keep', but the only reason most have given is that "everybody is talking about it". That's not always enough, as shown by policies like WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:BREAKING, and that's why these sorts of things frequently end up in contentious AfD debates. There is room for improving the project here. It probably won't be solved in this discussion, but this may be a start. This process should be seen through, and dissenting opinion should be addressed, not shouted down by repeatedly pointing out the obvious extent of media coverage or number of votes. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm honestly getting a little perturbed by the "11,000 terrorist attacks in 2009" argument. It honestly strikes me as being something of a strawman. as I mentioned elsewhere where it was brought up, how many of those 11,000 are "lone nut with an AK" type incidents, vs. somebody trying to blow up an entire town centre involved in a religious celebration? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good question for which I do not have an answer. Let me rephrase my question, then. Why is this incident in Portland notable enough to have its own article while most of the ones on the List of terrorist incidents, 2010 don't? In fact, I'm now changing my vote. I no longer support full delete, as I believe the incident does warrant brief mention in the pre-established list of terrorist activities. And that list is pretty damning evidence that neither this event nor this person deserves their own entry. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree w/Bush. As to IP -- the above discussion is all about Uncle's rationale; his assertion without basis that "nobody cares", countervailing info, the guidelines and how they apply here, his views that this has as much coverage and interest as meaningless events (despite the fact that it is a front page of the NY Times story), etc. The proper approach has been followed, and application of the guidelines is the key -- nothing in the guidelines suggests your preferred digression away from "is this notable, with notability being measured by widespread coverage in RSs". Your preferred approach -- discussing and distinguishing this event from others -- is not the guideline. If you like, you can seek to change the guideline, but I don't see it as even requiring a response (though others have tendered one, or two). Let's stick with application of the guidelines, and we will get to a 90% agreement on the issue. If we're not there already.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I don't think we're there already. In fact, I think the list I just linked to clearly shows that this article is a huge deviation from the norm. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - attempts to delete articles like this that are clearly informative and useful to people wanting to find facts about this case shows everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Get over your arguments about policy, and start behaving with regard to what is useful to users of the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP and close as per WP:SNOW. Rename would also be fine, with simple redirect. Rorybowman (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notworthy. Renaming may be appropriate, deletion would not.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. "In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK" This event passes this test [19] [20] Edkollin (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and ideally rename to the incident. The article as it currently stands is about the incident, and the incident is indisputably notable. Pretty simple. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is notable for attempting to perpetrate a significant attack. Per Cube, it may be appropriate to re-center (Rename) the article around the event, while keeping a section on his background. However, I also think keeping the current focus is reasonable. Superm401 - Talk 02:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to incident. An attempted terrorist attack on a large crowd of people in an area where such events are not commonplace is notable. --Esprqii (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article should be kept as it is a high profile criminal plot with loads of coverage in RS as per WP:N/CA. whether it should be renamed can be discussed on the article talk page.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but consider renaming the article to "2010 Portland bomb plot" or similar. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FYI, Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque which documents a terrorist incident against a mosque in which a man has been sentenced for a hate crime has been recommended for deletion. It's been covered in a number of newspapers and in muslim blogs and media, as well as by Pam Geller, though that hasn't been added to the article. 17:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That article doesn't appear to be nominated for AFD at this time (although, now, I imagine it's inevitable that it will be). However, I personally don't think the two are comparable. At a glance, that appears to be more of a local news matter better in line with what WP:NOTNEWS seeks to prevent, not an incident like this Mohamud case that is of a much larger scale and affects many more people. — Hunter Kahn 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 100% agree with HK on that. The other article (aside from having a very unencyclopedic name) is WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:DOGBITESMAN, which I'll write an independant essay on one of these days). This article here, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Being *sentenced* for threatening a mosque ranks along the same lines as phone threats to colleges to shut down classes before a test is given in Common sense 101 class. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and would be filled to the gills if we had an article for every dude sentenced for making threats. The rules don’t change just because it was a threat against mosque used by Muslims who are feeling beleaguered due to a perceived backlash over terrorism in the news. This is true, just as rules don’t change for extraterrestrials circling Vega who feel under appreciated for their blueprints to the space-portal transportation device used in the movie Contact. Wikipedia is not to become a battleground for those with a strong sense of religious indignation and who want to make a point. The litmus test for articles is whether the item is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. I note one citation in “Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque”. There also is no evidence currently in the article that this news bit was widely picked up by news organizations across the English-speaking world. If such evidence exists, it needs to be put into the article. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Barely worth the effort to type "Keep," it's so obvious. IronDuke 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Comment I would say delete, obviously I would be a minority here, but hear me out. This case is one of hundreds in the FBIs files where information was traced to a person and acted on. This person is a 19 year old moron who thought it was cool to kill a bunch of people. He makes plans to connect himself with a terrorist cell, instead ties himself to an FBI agent. They toy with him a little, try to judge what he wants to do, they figure out said moron wants to blow things up, and they let him run himself right into a good old fashioned trap. The only reason this person is notable is that he is a moron, an apparently religious moron judging by the "God is great" shouting incident, and that all he actually ended up doing? NOT DOING A DAMN THING BUT MAKING HIMSELF LOOK LIKE A MORON TO THE WORLD. Intent does not make a person notable, otherwise every person who in the world who wanted to do something would be notable. If anything at all is shown by this case, is that the FBI is making inroads into POTENTIAL terrorists and that real ones still exist somewhere else, but not in this case. He wasnt anything, didnt actually do anything therefore no WP:EVENT unless you want to add it to the FBIs page as a job well done. In the end he couldnt even screw up something well, since he actually believed the agent when they told him that the cars windows were blocking the cell phone signal. For whats its worth, that is my opinion. I believe we as a community need to sit down and figure out the standards for cases like this because we seriously need a way to guard against sensationalism in the WIki and IMO this article is sensationalism. We will probably see more and more incidents for things like this and we need a standard to go by. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your vote, but it is not his intent that made him notable, that role belongs to the media who covered the story. No coverage, no notability. And thus to answer your final call, we do have a standard to go by for your "morons", and that is our notability guideline for people, which is basically if the media wants to cover it, well, then the person is notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That cannot be the case, since then every person who has ever been written in a newspaper would be notable enough for a Wiki article. I myself have been written up several times over the years for different things I have done, both good and bad, and I really dont believe I would qualify. If the media coverage alone makes it notable, then we would not have policies like WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E but we do. "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." He and others that are listed for very similar events are noted for only one thing, they were caught in FBI sting operations. The plots they were involved in were generated to catch them doing something, not ones they thought up on their own. Like I said, a "well done" to the FBI and put these people away, and when their in jail, no one will write about them anymore since they actually did nothing. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You quote BIO, but from your opening comments, I'm not sure you get it. It is not that every person covered in a newspaper is notable, hence NOTNEWS. But when you have repeated, in-depth coverage by say the national media, then bingo, you pass BIO (I would have explained this, BIO, in more detail originally, but honestly it gets tiring when there is a link that can explain it in all its glory and minutia). As to BLP1E, you may want to read how I !voted above. Though, one could argue that he is not a "low-profile individual" going by the coverage in the national media. As to you as a subject: did your deeds make the local paper or the national news?; was there in-depth coverage of your childhood?; was there in-depth coverage period about you, versus the event? If your deeds were covered in-depth, repeatedly, and by more than your small circulation local newspaper, then you too might pass BIO/NOTE. But if its like me where my name was regularly in the local paper during high school due to my participation in athletics and listings for honor roll, then that is what NOTNEWS is all about (same if your mentions were listings for say arrests). Aboutmovies (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and important.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Student_protests_in_London_2010#Occupations. (Non-admin closure) dmz 03:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCL occupation[edit]

UCL occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Student_protests_in_London_2010#Occupations, where the occupation of UCL is already covered. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Can't see that it is a legitimate search term despite mention in UCL article. _wjemather^bigissue 17:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 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 wrong forum. AfD is not for proposing mergers, see H:M#Proposing a merger. This discussion does not result in consensus for a merger.  Sandstein  08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean maritime border incidents[edit]

Korean maritime border incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

This article gives a list of the incidents along the Northern Limit Line, with a little background on each incident and a link to the incidents. Such a list already exists at the Northern Limit Line article, hence I am nominating this article to redirect to Northern Limit Line. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the intention is that the NLL describes the line, its geography and debated status, while this page will detail incidents along the NLL. Mztourist (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Details of the major incidents are given in their own articles. This is essentially a list article which duplicates the list at the Northern Limit Line article. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It only duplicates the list of NLL incidents because you expanded them. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a merge means. Victor Victoria (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The merge wasn't agreed before you went and did it unilaterally, then when it was reversed you tagged the page for deletion.Mztourist (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete and merge to NLL Just prior to coming to this AFD discussion, I recently edited the list at Northern Limit Line to provide a short summary of the major battles. I felt constrained to keep the summaries uber-short so as to not overlap Korean maritime border incidents more than it already does. I think the longer summaries present here could benefit NLL, so if we decide to delete, then we should merge it up to NLL. Hopefully that does not bloat the NLL section too much. If the article is kept, what will be our strategy for expanding it in a way that does not overlap NLL too much? Thoughts? -- Joren (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One option would be to not list or summarize the incidents at NLL, but make a brief statement and link to KMBI. I think bloating the NLL article is a real possibility otherwise. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2010

Endorse Xyl 54's crisp analysis above

Xyl 54 that was what I had done before Victor Victoria merged it with the NLL page. regards Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The chronology of serial events is more than a list of discrete incidents. It is a cumulative narrative. Each event in the unfolding story is re-told and re-visited during the course of subsequent DPKR-ROK naval clashes. This is verified by the several images which are now uploaded. These digitized photos show passers-by watching a large television screen with live broadcast and archived footage from the disputed area south of the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea. --Tenmei 07:06, 28 November 2010 and 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:This article is already the subject of a merge discussion which currently shows no consensus for the merger, (3 in favour, 4 against); The page has already been unilaterally blanked and redirected by the nominator, with the edit history "This article completely duplicates the other article", while at the same time the information it duplicated was deleted from the NLL article. Also, the nominator has yet to voice an opinion in the merge discussion, so I would regard the current nomination at best as making some kind of point, and at worst tendentious.

If a justification for the KMBI article is needed, it provides a framework, background and overview for a series of related disputes between the two Koreas which has been going on since the 90’s, and provides a summary of the various incidents.

If a vote is required, I vote to Keep. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this cogent phrase "framework, background and overview for a series of related disputes" in Xyl 54's diff here. Presented in list format and in other words, this scheme encompasses

• Conceptual framework +
• Operational definition +
• Overview (debate) = Korean maritime border incidents.--Tenmei (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete and merge to NLL We seem to have too many mini descriptions of NLL history all over the place. I just noticed this one had a major error, claiming the NLL was created in 1964. Reducing the number of similar articles will minimise work in keeping them all accurate and up to date, and this article does not seem essential. Rwendland (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It provides a page for the "Crab Wars" themselves, rather than redirecting to the cause of the Crab Wars. For example, you wouldn't go to "1970 FIFA World Cup qualification" for information about the "Football War", and if "Football War" directed there, it would be confusing and hard to find the relevant information. Additionally, if this current situation does break out into war moving forward, this page will be a good base to describe the minor skirmishes between the end of the Korean War and the potential future conflict. Zorgon (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mztourist and Zorgon. --nsaum75^{!Dígame¡‎} 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to Northern Limit Line, per normi. ༆ (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Xyl54; this article has the potential to be more comprehensive that the NLL article. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:07, 3 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. There is no obvious merge target. Anyone who wishes to work on an article on the report may contact me to get the content userfied or incubated. T. Canens (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy[edit]

EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Early Day Motions are of absolutely no importance whatsoever. Seriously. None. Check the Parliament website: "there is very little prospect of EDMs being debated". This might just warrant a footnote in an article on the Science & Technology Committee report on Homeopathy... if we had one. As far as I can see we don't. As far as I can see, this is the only EDM for which we have an article. The article itself is arguing the primary case for and against the committee's findings, under a title which is in any case wrong as the report is the more significant of the two topics. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, er, somewhere. An article on the report itself should probably exist, for example. The article does indeed appear not to be useful at all. There's useful refs there to get info from, if the author or someone is interested in putting the info into other articles - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This seems like micro-reporting. An article on the original report might be okay, but an article on the response to the report (and a long article too) seems like a little too much. The topic seems to be interesting and should have some WP coverage, but please make that for the general public (including us Americans, etc.) and not only for insiders, to whom only this article here would make any sense. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move or Merge. I can think of two sensible ways forward. One would be to mention both this and the original report this EDM objects to into the main Homeopathy article. The other would be to rename this to something like Science and Technology Committee Report on Homeopathy, refocus the article on to the report, and just include the EDM as a reaction. Either way, this current article is too much like a soapbox. I broadly agree with the point of view pushed in the article, but that's not what Wikipedia articles are for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving it to a name that says it's about the report itself would be good. Then, of course, it would need to be rewritten to be about the report. Any volunteers? - David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I that's the outcome, I'll do it if no-one else steps forward. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and substantially rewrite per above or delete per WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not the place for in-depth reporting on recent fringe political issues, and the article reads like advocacy for one point of view.  Sandstein  08:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prof babu joseph( retd./libertarian/Kerala)[edit]

Prof babu joseph( retd./libertarian/Kerala) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Notability is in question. I didn't want to speedy delete without consensus. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesnt meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:PROF.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - it has all the hallmarks of bollocks - badly spelled and capitalized words in the title and text, incomplete description, honorifics, lots of red links, and lack of real facts to define. Also fails per Sodabottle. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The two links are no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:56, 2 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. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources for this to pass the general notability guideline. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Killian[edit]

Earl Killian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

I came across this new article as the author started adding random links to it from other articles. Every attempt has been made to make this person look notable. I've removed some of the obvious attempts to imply notability by association (such as link to an comment he made on an NY Times article or him getting an honourable mention in an NY Times competition). The remaining content looks solid enough at first glance, but if you read it carefully and consider the sources, it simply does not add up to notability. Most of the sources are the subjects own website. Other sources are papers he has written, or brief acknowledgments in projects he has worked on, or mentions in lists of alumni and project workers.

There is not one independent source providing significant coverage about him as required by WP:Notability.

Ultimately, this guy is clearly an active political writer and computer scientist whose name crops up all over the place. But has failed to achieve notability in and of himself. GDallimore (Talk) 14:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —GDallimore (Talk) 14:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. An inventor who has 26 patents. Twenty-six. This, in itself, is HIGHLY NOTABLE. A patent is the best secondary resource possible since it's validation by the US government that a software method or process is a new and worthy addition to human progress, worthy of legal protection. In addition, Killian was the chief of software architecture at several prominent software firms, particularly MIPS. He's one of America's top computer scientists. He's mentioned in the second line of Wikipedia's article on Quantum Effect Devices as a co-founder. My bet is he doesn't like talking to reporters so maybe he's not quoted much in ComputerWorld, but that shouldn't be construed to mean he's not notable. Further reason: the firm of which he was a co-founder, Quantum Effect Devices, went public after only a few years, and was valued at over $2 billion according to the New York Times -- this is further evidence that Mr. Killian is not just some programmer, but a major force in the computer industry; few people can have such a powerful effect. Further evidence: Mr. Killian was one of a handful of computer scientists asked to participate in a roundtable discussion about industry trends in 1998 -- the discussion was covered in the journal Computer with an inline citation reference -- Mr. Killian's views were published in two pages; this is a prominent and respected journal within the computer industry.----Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 26 patents is not remotely notable and no evidence to support this highly dubious supposition has been provided. If it were notable, an independent source would have noted it. I, on the other hand, can provide evidence that I am correct: take a look at List of prolific inventors. He's not even close to being on the list. And being quoted in computer world would not make him notable either - being talked about by computer world might, but you have provided no evidence of this. GDallimore (Talk) 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I note that Quantum Effect Devices has no sources at all. Being a founder of a non-notable company hardly makes someone notable.GDallimore (Talk) 17:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note added two sources from New York Times regarding Quantum Effect Devices which, at one point, was worth several billion dollars.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And this is blatant canvassing. GDallimore (Talk) 17:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In all fairness I think persons in the software industry and elsewhere have a right to know when you're calling one of their chief scientists just "some guy" and when you're planning to nix his article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems a notable enough person for wikipedia to me. Who is to say some random sports figure "deserves" a page, and this person doesn't, because he is in a field which contributions are less well known, (and published about) for the average public. Mahjongg (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because he has no significant coverage in reliable sources? I thought that was a requirement of WP:Notability. GDallimore (Talk) 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. GDallimore (Talk) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that certain types of fields such as entertainment get excessive coverage while other worthy fields such as computer science get minimal coverage. This is a fair argument. It is fair to apply common sense and judgment and to be tolerant of fields where there typically is not much public interest, but which are important, such as computer science, in contrast to baseball.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Guidelines and policy dictate multiple, reliable, third-party sources as the baseline for notability. None of the sources provided show this. Ironholds (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. One reason I hate wikipedia is that there're people who come to a page, look into WP guidelines and say "hey it's not notable, can I delete it?". People come to wikipedia searching for information. It's extremely frustrating to find information deleted, especially when someone has put work into it previously. And this page is not about average Joe who only himself is interested in.1exec1 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you mind providing some kind of policy support for your position? Ironholds (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's Wikipedia's description of secondary sources: Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. In the Earl Killian article, the primary source is the inventor and the invention; but the patent office is one step removed -- it's like a judge, like a newspaper editor, it has to determine whether a given invention is new, worthy. The patent office has to make analytic and evaluative claims about the inventions to rule whether they are worthy of protection. So I think patents are clearly ideal examples of the best secondary sources that Wikipedia requires.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's seriously mixed up thinking. Patents are sources about an invention. They are not sources about an inventor. They do not provide significant coverage about an inventor. They do not support notability of a person on there own and cannot be the basis for an article about that person. As you say yourself, the role of the Patent Office is to assess a patent application as to whether the invention is new and iventive, not to say anything about the inventor. GDallimore (Talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil; comments such as "mixed up thinking" don't help this discussion. Please assume good faith. We are disagreeing about whether patents are acceptable secondary sources. You are saying patents are primary sources; I am saying that the patent (since it is done by an independent agency -- the USPTO -- which must make a ruling on whether a given application is worthy of a patent) is an acceptable secondary source since it's one step removed -- requiring an independent authority to render a decision. We have a matter of disagreement about this, essentially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's mixed up thinking is not being uncivil. It's a statement of fact that you have made a serious error. I did not say patents were primary sources. What I said is that patents say nothing at all about an inventor so cannot support notability of an inventor. They are documents about an invention. This is nothing to do with primary or secondary sources. GDallimore (Talk) 09:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is notable in several areas of the climate movement: (1) electric vehicles (board of directors of the Electric Auto Association), (2) policy, especially EVs and California regs, e.g. prolific policy blogging on Climate Progress, and (3) anti-coal organizing (advisory committee of CoalSwarm). Also originated the concept of organizing anti-coal activism around wiki software; his role described in Climate Hope, chap 10, p. 102Tednace (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there any significant coverage about Killian? There isn't any, so it still fails notability.

(1) only mentions his name, definitely not significant coverage.

(2) is a list of blog articles he has written, so self-published, not reliable and not providing significant coverage.

(3) only mentions his name, definitely not significant coverage.

(4) Your suggestion that he "originated the concept" of an activist wiki is laughable and not supported by the source. The source provides no significant coverage about Killian just name-dropping him and referring to a conversation the writer had with him. GDallimore (Talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note; Tednace appears to be a single purpose account with few or no edits outside of this AfD. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In assessing noteworthiness, key questions include: 1) What constitutes a reliable source? The Rock of Gibraltar among "reliable sources" (the New York Times), has been notoriously unreliable in recent memory, as it was when breathlessly publishing "W" & Co's fairy tales about WMDs in Iraq. 2) To whom is it notable? Just because an article about a person does not appear in a mainstream publication like People magazine does not imply that he or she lacks distinction. There are many people who are celebrities in their own fields but are unknown to the general public. This should not disqualify them from being considered notable; au contraire. Earning 26 patents is no small feat. I would like to have just one! Having submitted a patent application for review in 2006 -- only to learn that if I'm lucky it will come up for review in 2013, I think this achievement is spectacularly notable. saraw1 03:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroraz7 (talk • contribs)

The issue is not one of reliable sources, but that there are no secondary sources at all which give any significant coverage about him as a person. 26 patents is not a great achievement worthy of note, as I have already discussed and shown above. If it is worthy of note, where is the source noting it? GDallimore (Talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How do you explain your article on Arthur Paul Pedrick? A British inventor with over 150 patents. Why is Pedrick notable? According to your Wikipeidia article, second line, his patents were for useless insignificant inventions. That's why he's notable. So he's a curiosity, an eccentric. Well, I agree Mr. Pedrick belongs in Wikipedia, a creator of useless inventions, clearly you'd agree that Mr. Killian belongs too -- for creating 26 useful software inventions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OtherStuffExists is still not an argument. But in the case of Pedrick, the article is based on sources including a Reader's Digest book, a CIPA Journal article, and some BBC News articles. That's why he's notable enough for an article because seconary sources have noted him. GDallimore (Talk) 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal. I disagree there are no secondary sources at all. I continue to believe 26 patents is an impressive accomplishment which suggests strong notability and that patents are, in and of themselves, secondary sources. In addition, here are other prominent sources conferring notability:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Stanford University -- prominent mention of Killian joining and leaving the MIPS project--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- described Mr. Killian's endowment of Science scholarship (actual amount $500K btw but the article doesn't mention it)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Journal Computer -- roundtable conference; two-page article by Mr. Killian about industry trends 1998--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Who's Who in Computer Architecture -- Mr. Killian is mentioned prominently. Solid source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The New York Times -- describes Quantum Effect Devices being worth $2.3 billion in 2000. Mr. Killian was a co-founder of this firm several years earlier. Significant accomplishment. NY Times article --Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Clemson University -- whole section describing Mr. Killian's work on the S-1 Supercomputer--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mr. Killian published five papers on computer architecture and software issues. His article on Hardware/Software Instruction Set Configurability was cited by 28 other software scientists (citations are a secondary source -- his paper wouldn't have been cited if it was worthless or irrelevant). Here's a list of his publications List of publications.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's look at those sources. I've numbered them for ease of reference if you don't mind.

1. So he has been involved in a project. Mentioning his name is not a prominent mention adn certainly isn't significant coverage. There is no mention of what he actually contributed to the project, for one thing.
2. This one wasn't in the article originally. This one actually helps support notablity, I think. So we have one source so far.
3. So, he's written an article. So what? That's not a secondary source about him. I've published articles, too, as have many non-notable journalists.
4. No, he is not mentioned prominently. His name is mentioned (and nothing more) on a list of hundreds of other names.
5. There is no mention of Killian at all in this article. So it doesn't support notablity of him. There is nothing to suggest that Killian had anything to do with the success of the company. I find it interesting that the article dates from 2000, the height of the dot.com bubble when everyone was paying crazy prices for high-tech firms.
6. This is not a significant mention and gives nothing about what he actually contributed to the project. I'll quote the relevant bit: "One and a half years into the project Earl Killian joined in the midst of the switch to Pastel as the implementation language". It's also clearly not a reliable source as the author is looking for people to make corrections and one of the people who has apparently made corrections is Killian himself, so it's a partly self-published source as well.
7. Again, publishing papers does not make someone notable. That they are cited shows that they are interesting papers, but says absolutely nothing about Killian.

So, in total, we now have one (semi-)reliable secondary source. Can you find one more? That might establish notability. GDallimore (Talk) 10:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 28 citations to a paper is rather trivial. Patents can be hugely important, but many are for small, incremental discoveries. If they're important, the inventor is bound to have coverage beyond the patent applications. Despite the passionate defense, I don't see enough here to satisfy WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The more we go into the available sources, the more obvious it becomes that none of them provide significant coverage of Mr Killian, with only passing mentions of his name at best. The only exception is the MIT source, but we need multiple such sources for an article, not just one. Patents are irrelevant in this context as they also provide no coverage at all of the inventor. Miremare 12:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Patents are not secondary sources as required by both WP:N and WP:BIO - they are effectively self-published material regardless of the patent office's approval. Ergo, having a lot of patents is not anything related with notability unless secondary sources have commented on that. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with this remark: patents are in this respect very much like journal articles. They are primary sources, even though reviewers and editors have vetted the manuscript before it got accepted for publication. In these AfD discussions, we never establish notability based on number of publications or some such thing, but on the impact that those publications have had. (Such as by generating a couple of hundred citations). --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete patents are primary sources. They're written by the inventor. It would be like using someone's letter to the editor of a newspaper to confer notability. You need someone independent to talk about the significance of the patents in order to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Slight correction. Patents are almost NEVER written by the inventor but are essentially ghost-written by an agent or attorney based on information provided by the inventor. I'm not sure where that leaves them when it comes to primary or secondary sources and don't think it really matters since the only thing they provide reliable information about is that particular invention and shouldn't be used as sources for anything else. GDallimore (Talk) 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not true. I've two patents to my name; language in both is 90% the original text me and colleagues wrote with some discretion of company IP oversight. The other 10% is lawyers fine tuning the claims section. My understanding and reading other patents is that most of these are primarily written by the inventors with a bit of finalization by legal. But even if the lawyer is drafting all the text with information provided by the researcher, there is no transformative quality to this, and the patent text still remains a primary source to the inventors' names on it. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is it possible that a patent application could be rejected? If this is the case, which I believe it is, then the patent office when it approves a patent acts like a judge (a second source) verifying that a given invention is new, worthy, different, a creation adding to human capability, and therefore notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a person of this name -- likely the same person in at least some of them -- is mentioned in a number of books and publications: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], others. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wtmitchell, Boracay Bill, wow, you are amazing. How did you find those? Each reference above is an academic, researcher, or computer scientist who is acknowledging, citing, thanking or in some other way paying mindful respect to Mr. Killian's contributions. Each mention is a secondary source. These secondary sources have been added to the article. Thank you, Wtmitchell.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I already stated above, such citations only show notability if you have hundreds of them, at the very least. A couple of dozen? Every postdoc 3 years after the PhD has that. --Crusio (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal Where does it say that hundreds of citations are needed before they're considered notable? Each citation is a secondary source. It's not Mr. Killian. It's a second authority acknowledging Mr. Killian's work, and it meets the test of secondary source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Under the General Notability Guidelines, I cannot see any way that publishing papers and having them cited by others can establish notability. A citation simply does not give "significant coverage" of the author as I have repeatedly said in this discussion - this is not about primary and secondary sources, despite your insistence that having multiple secondary sources which simply mention his name is enough. Read the GNG and you'll see it really isn't. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) extends the notability guidelines for academics to give an opportunity for "highly cited" academics to achieve notability under very special circumstances. I'm new to that particular guideline myself but "highly cited" certainly appears to require a lot more than 20 or 30 citations. You need to start reading and understanding the guidelines in full (and not just cherry-picking words like "secondary sources" that you think support your arguments) or you're going to get nowhere with this discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal. Killian is not an academic; he's a computer scientist, a software architect. Even though he's not an academic, the fact that he's published countless papers in academic and scientific journals speaks to his notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←)

• Rebuttal. Here is a detailed reference in a published textbook.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

The challenge from Earl Killian, formerly an architect of the MIPS processors and at that time Chief Architect at Tensilica, was to explain the significant performance gap between ASICs and custom circuits designed in the same process generation. The relevance of the challenge was amplified by Andy Bechtolsheim, founder of Sun Microsystems and ubiquitous investor in the EDA industry. At a dinner talk at the 1999 International Symposium on Physical Design, Andy stated that the greatest near-term opportunity in CAD was to develop tools to bring the performance of ASIC circuits closer to that of custom designs. There seemed to be some synchronicity that two individuals so different in concern and character would be pre-occupied with the same problem. Intrigued by Earl and Andy's comments, the game was afoot. Earl Killian and other veterans of microprocessor design were helpful with clues as to the sources of the performance discrepancy: layout, circuit design, clocking methodology, and dynamic logic. -- Kurt Keutzer, 2003[1]

”

• This source is the author of a textbook on computer design talking in detail about Killian's contributions. Let's analyze the above reference in terms of your General Notability Guidelines:Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Comment Here's a detailed account by a published author describing a significant moment in the development of computer software. -- test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Comment. Keutzer is a reliable source; he wrote a textbook on ASIC design. The source is a textbook, not just a newspaper article or web cite. --> Closing the Gap Between ASIC & Custom, by David Chinnery and Kurt Keutzer -- test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Comment there are 80 references to Killian's work in the article so far; we disagree about whether many of these qualify as sources, primary or secondary, or whether patents qualify as sources -- still, 80. Patents. Acknowledgements. Papers cited. The pattern suggests a significant and respected player in the computer industry. -- test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Comment. Keutzer is independent of Killian. -- test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. Comment I'm not sure what this guideline means exactly, but the fact that Killian's papers are routinely cited in numerous publications, that at IEEE conferences he's usually a featured speaker, that he's prominently featured in this textbook head-to-head with the founder of Sun Microsystems and being given credit for spurring a development of significant improvements in computer processing regarding ASICS -- this works for me. -- test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardly significant. The author of the book is thanking Killian for giving him some ideas for places to start a research project. There's no significant coverage and no sign that Killian had any input into the project at all. To the contrary, the next paragraph of the book talks about how the author signed on graduate students to actually work on the project. GDallimore (Talk) 14:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The article suffers from a very high degree of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery; that's not a reason for deletion, but it does make it harder to find reasons to keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF: the only possible case is for criterion C1, but he has only one paper with a significant number of citations ("Hardware/software instruction set configurability for system-on-chip processors" with 73 in GS; patents aren't papers), and he does not appear from author ordering to be its primary author, so I don't see the substantial impact that criterion C1 describes. There's a better case for notability through his inventions, patents, and corporate activity, but that would be via WP:GNG, and the only reliable coverage I can find of this in Google news archive is a single story that mentions him only trivially. As for the references actually cited in the current version of our article: [1,9] are fine for verifiability but not useful for showing notability, [2-8] are not secondary sources, [10] appears to be a direct copy of a source equivalent to [1,9], [11-13] are not about Kilian, [14,21] is a vanity press, [15-20,22,23,55-80] are not secondary sources, [24-35,37-54] are not about Killian and mention him only trivially. [36] is actually nontrivial, and about Kilian, but lightweight; it's the only source that actually hints at notability, and if it weren't there, my delete opinion would be stronger. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal. Here's an additional secondary reference which describes Killian as "notable" in a respected secondary source publication, the EE Times:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1999, the EE Times reported that Mr. Killian was hired by Tensilica and was described as a "notable" and "MIPS and SGI veteran and multiple patent holder Earl Killian as chief architect."^[2]

• Delete - There is not enough secondary reference material to maintain a stand-alone Wikipedia biography article on the topic. Earl Killian paid a lawyer to write the text of the patents and publication of that text is guarenteed if the lawyer gets the patent office to allow the invention and Earl Killian pays the government fee that gets the material published. Citations to a patent would go towards making the patent Wikipedia notable, not Earl Killian. Even if Earl Killian is notable, the topic Earl Killian is not Wikipedia notable. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Crusio, David Eppstein. Ray^Talk 14:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• IAR Keep I work in this field. Looking at his work, jobs and the company he co-founded he's darn notable. There are clearly enough sources to write a reasonable article about him (there is one, but it has way too many cites). Does he meet WP:N? That's not clear. But if we were to create a WP:COMPUTER_ARCHITECT he'd meet any guidelines we'd set up for that. It's clear he's had a major impact on the field, biographical information is readily available and he's published a bit (some important works) and patented a lot (at least one of his patents appears to invent an idea I teach in class). I'm good. Hobit (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Founded a company that was sold for dot-com-boom Monopoly money that never shipped any product (and to a company that later dropped out of business). Worked on some really obscure famous computers. Has an armload of patents on things you've never heard of,and that you won't be able to explain even after reading the patent disclosures. Worked for a lot of famous obscure companies you've never heard of. "Thanked for explaining how his program worked" is weak -it's called documentation, programmers do that all the time. The guy who shaved 2 1/2 pounds off the 2010 Ford Focus is a hero of automotive engineering and probably has many papers published and cited too, but he didn't put a flivver in every garage and isn't generally notable outside his own industry. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Additional vote for Keep is located on the talk page of the Killian article at Talk:Earl Killian.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Hobit.JHatts (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: The patents themselves do absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability, per Wikipedia's guidelines. At most, they indicate that an invention is probably something that has probably not been patented before. They do not judge the inventor, filer, and they certainly don't indicate notability--actually, they don't even verify that the person had anything directly to do with the invention, merely that they are the one to have filed the patent. Many of the other sources don't meet our standards for significant coverage. And, of course, the bios on him in various companies/advisory boards not only don't establish notability, they shouldn't even be in the article because they don't meet WP:RS as self-published sources. The mentions of "thanks" in a number of articles definitely mean nothing in terms of notability. A few of the sources seem to be what we usually look for (Closing the gap between ASIC & custom (currently #37) and Understanding RISC microprocessors (currently #39) seem to be the best on a quick read through), but it seems to be not quite enough to establish notability. To be honest, it would be much easier to evaluate if all of the chaff was removed, then we could see more clearly exactly how much "significant" coverage (per Wikipedia's standards) there really is. If the article is not deleted, all of the patent links should be removed, all of the "Thanks to ..." should be removed, and all of the non-RS should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 3 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.