The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Rapture_of_the_Deep_Tour#2009 and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Purple 2009 Tour[edit]

Deep Purple 2009 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:CONCERT TOUR jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as whilst I don't see any evidence for or against WP:CONCERT TOUR here (since neither side of the argument presents any evidence for or against WP:Notability) I feel this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it's just a list of tour dates and not an encyclopedia entry on the subject matter. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the entire page is a duplicate of information in Rapture of the Deep Tour. The band have stated that their ongoing concerts since 2005 are still part of the tour relating to Rapture of the Deep. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rapture of the Deep Tour#2009, because I think it is roughly the same thing as is covered in this article. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late night anime[edit]

Late night anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The series has 1 source that doesn't show the notability of the topic. The series has 1 source in the article and a few others in the previous AfD that don't support the article. Furthermore, the article is chalked full of OR and finally it appears to be a WP:POVFORK from anime WP:UNDUEly emphasizing the importance of late night anime over other types without the sources to back it up. EDIT: There are a couple more sources in the previous AFD found, but they don't really demonstrate the notability of this getting a seperate article which is essentially a POVFORK even with the 2-3 other sources found. Furthermore, much of the info is still OR. Even with those sources they could not support an entire article and its likely at this point no new sources will be found, even if they were, there is no indiciation why from any of those sources Late night anime is so special that it needs such in depth coverage compared to anime in general.

EDIT: The article is also essentially a WP:NEOlogism which is normally not kept.∞陣内Jinnai 23:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even though I can fully understand (as a matter of personal fact) why this might be worthy of an article. Without some work to provide reliable sources it fails WP:OR and WP:V, not to mention WP:NEO as well. I can't agree that it's an WP:POVFORK without evidence to support that assertion, though. Regardless, there seems to have been a consensus in the previous AfD that if sources would be added to support the assertion this article should exist then it would be kept. They clearly haven't been, so the position should be re-considered. Aren't articles supposed to become better sourced, not worse? -Rushyo ^Talk 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but absolutely allow this to be userfied. There's no resources and without those (even though I can vouch that most of this is correct) this is just an original research essay. I tried finding things on the internet and while it's something that comes up with a ton of ghits, none of those hits are anything that could even begin to be used as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Changing vote to keep per sources found by Gwern. My search-fu must be off tonight as far as anime goes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Keep. Late-night anime is a crucial change in the history of anime, which to a great degree is responsible for the efflorescence of anime in the late '90s and '00s (and subsequent bubble popping, leading to the current otaku-centric trends as they are where the money is) since it provided a new demand for complex sophisticated series which catered more to adults (and critics, eg. a lot of stuff on Noitamina) rather than the standard kidfare of Pokemon or Sailor Moon; if the sources are inadequate, that is the fault of editors and not the topic - they are definitely there in Japan. For example, the Anime Encyclopedia's "Censorship and Localization" entry:

"Many of the short "TV series" sold to the American market began as late-night programs airing long past midnight, and can have content designed to match. Primetime television in Japan has become increasingly censorious since the mid-1990s, when controversial episodes of EVANGELION were broadcast without prior executive approval. The resultant timidity on the part of broadcasters has played into the hands of the late-night shows and cable networks, with shows such as GANTZ enjoying two distinct existences: one in a widely available but edited form and another i n a more graphic version requiring cable subscription or DVD rental. In the case of COWBOY BEBOP, the main story arc was only seen on WOWOW and DVDs-the version seen on terrestrial TV was missing 14 episodes."

Or look at this translation, of an interview with a veteran producer in the Mainichi Shimbun, whose intro talks almost entirely about late night anime in the same terms as above: "Midnight anime has given birth to a series of hit works from K-On to Madoka Magica. As anime programs are now disappearing from golden time slots, its presence has gained prominence. But since when did its history start?" etc. (Both are, it is hopefully needless to say, two monstrously popular series/franchises.) Nor is that the only Mainichi piece I could quote. As usual, I refer those who want more to my CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 08:44 4 December 2011 (GMT)

That doesn't mean it deserves its own article. There isn't much to say about it as its imo a POVFORK and Rushyo a WP:NEOlogism. There are a lot of items that changed anime industry that do not get their own special article, such as the Summer anime, adaptations of video games (especially visual novels) or the the reverse, the influence anime has had on video games, changes to western culture, the impact of CG, etc. Why? Not because you can't find anything about them because you can. It's because there isn't much to say that cannot be summarized in the main article instead of spinning it out and adding a bunch of OR and conjecture.∞陣内Jinnai 16:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not every article has to be huge. And it's clearly not a neologism, not that I know why you're calling an editor a neologism in the first place. --Gwern (contribs) 18:22 4 December 2011 (GMT)

Sorry if it sounded wrong, but i wasn't called the editor one. However it is one and it is unlikely to be of any length that cannot be better summarized under anime or history of anime. It also looks to me much like a POVFORK by promoting this type of anime time slot above others.∞陣内Jinnai 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of anime might be a reasonable target since the 1990s section is covertly discussing the late-night boom already. But did that need an AFD? --Gwern (contribs) 19:06 4 December 2011 (GMT)

Considering the last time it was kept because basically it was said sources would be placed in to show notability and the article has only gotten worse. It is chalked full of research, is a biased term (it talks about only the US while the article implies it shouldn't be geographic-centric, it is a probable neologism and a POVFORK. At this point it would be better to delete the almost completely unsourced article and start from scratch at another point and actually follow WP:SS instead blatantly ignoring it. That's why; the article shouldn't even exist. Even WP:IMPERFECT does not allow for biased articles to stay.∞陣内Jinnai 01:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gwern makes a good case. And whenever a channel was showing late night anime, it got coverage. Dream Focus 22:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gwern's arguments.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I fail to see how this article isn't of an unencyclopedian nature. It's an appropriate, significant topic. I also fail to see how this is original research since the term and concept clearly exists outside of this article. At worst, the article could use some work but it otherwise looks fine to me. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still violates NPOV.∞陣内Jinnai 18:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo de doo. You know that NPOV issues are not what AfD is for. --Gwern (contribs) 19:15 5 December 2011 (GMT)

The arguments thus far have been "well there's some info out there about this", but none have addressed the issues why this should exist as a seperate article.∞陣内Jinnai 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's really all you got out of my !vote, then I think I'm done here. You have something against the article and I don't know what, but it's not something my arguments can help with. --Gwern (contribs) 19:41 5 December 2011 (GMT)

My reasons for it are stated above. I acknowledge the subject may technically meet the GNG, but it violates a number of other policies and guidelines.∞陣内Jinnai 21:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Nowhere in WP:DEL#REASON is NPOV mentioned. Before nominating articles for deletion, consult these guidelines first in the future. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 21:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms are specifically though.∞陣内Jinnai 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yeah, and this isn't a neologism. You could've just looked at the first reference and see the term in existing sources: http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2011/11/19-1/japans-anime-broadcast-ethics-complaints-for-october-2011 --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Look up the definition of neologism. Just because a few sources use it doesn't make it mainstream. Find me a RS site (beyond an SPS blog or the like) whose primary audience isn't anime and manga or similar demographic and I'll withdraw that assertion.∞陣内Jinnai 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly a notable, even widespread concept on Japanese TV. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a bit torn on this one. While it's true the subject matter certainly belongs on Wikipedia, Jinnai makes a valid point: it may not be deserving of it's own article. Despite this, my !vote's going to be keep or merge, perhaps to Anime or Television in Japan. One look at the Japanese counterpart to this article shows me that there are sources out there to verify the content and establish it's notability, and we could use the sources listed there as a good starting place to do just that. Even if they're not enough to hold up an entire article on their own, they could at least be used to support merged content. But total deletion of the content just doesn't seem very wise to me. -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Goldfarb, Levy, Eran, Meiri & Co.. Per the consensus. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M. Seligman & Co.[edit]

M. Seligman & Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD, but a Non Notable Law firm that fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP; only claim to significance is it is the 15th largest Law firm in the country. Mtking ^(edits) 23:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - to Goldfarb, Levy, Eran, Meiri & Co.. These firms seem to have merged; the articles probably should too. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. alerntaively, merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Yaksar and per this link. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Yaksar. Given this article's stubbiness, the merge should add perhaps a single sentence to the equally stubby destination. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that there is enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pavlina[edit]

Steve Pavlina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable blogger. Orange Mike | Talk 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Would hardly say he's non-notable when his blog gets millions of visitors a month and has an Alexa rank of less than 5000. 130.88.176.246 (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Pnm (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Sourcing is a problem, but he's done a lot of interesting things, between leading Association of Shareware Professionals, the blog, the book Personal Development for Smart People, and his writing about sleep. 1 is almost significant coverage. 2 briefly covers his blog. A number of other books mention his work on sleep. – Pnm (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References seem to just about get him over the notability bar, particularly this one. —SW— ^confer 00:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He's the world's #1 self-development blogger (See Alexa - he's #1 in the "Self Help" Category, and #3 in the "Mental Health" Category - one higher than the American Psychological Association. o_O), an award-winning game programmer and published author (I've added a reference to Amazon.com for his book). I'll look for some more cites, but he's clearly notable and that's why this page survived the last two AFDs. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 04:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added 3 more cites. I'm not sure if they should be under references or sources though if someone wants to look at that, please. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 04:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the result of the first AfD was delete. – Pnm (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vikki Blows[edit]

Vikki Blows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

SD tag declined so bringing to AfD as being one of hundreds if not thousands of glamour models does not pass WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ENT, related SNGs, and the GNG. No reliable sources. No RS, appears adapted from the user-created Chickipedia page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. This one I'm going to echo Hullaballoo above, and go with a WP:TOOSOON as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:TOOSOON as discussed. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO --Katarighe (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Note that many of the 'news' sources she has appeared in share an owner. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MultiSpace[edit]

MultiSpace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable fringe science. No independent sources, seems to be part of an effort to promote the creator's book. Does not meet ((Non-notable fringe science. No independent sources, seems to be part of an effort to promote the creator's book. Does not meet WP:FRINGE. Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no secondary sources for this or the book. Only the author's own website. Chris857 (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete for all the same reasons as in the closely related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental model. It is possible for crank theories like this to be notable but this doesn't have the third-party sources that would show it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Google searches turned up no evidence of notability from independent sources, and extremely little chance that any will be found. Agree that the article is self-promotional in nature. Of zero encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable WP:FRINGE. The term with this meaning seems to occur only in the original book (there are other unrelated meanings of "multispace"). -- 202.124.75.11 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DaveApter (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Though the consensus here is to keep this article, I do agree with LoveUxoxo that we may have a problem maintaining such list articles and keeping them up to date. However, that issue is unlikely to be settled by one AFD. Perhaps a discussion on this issue at Wikiproject aviation or the village pump may be a good idea. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Airlines destinations[edit]

Czech Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The place for this is in the web site of the airline. Why should an encyclopedia give this kind of data? Or if particular, a summary of this could be moved to the main article Czech Airlines. Either way we dont need an exclusive encyclopedia article telling us where a particular airline could reach us. Those who need that data wont come here, they'll rather go to the airlines website for accurate info. And those who come to the article Czech Airlines would not wish to know these kinds of details. So in short this article serves no purpose. Austria156 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Standard type of article, as shown by a search and the project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have any of these lists? Randomly looking through them some have been updated in the past few months, some not in years, many don't have dates. When it's unrealistic to expect from the community the effort required to keep these lists up-to-date (and therefore useful in some way), accurate info would be better provided to the reader with an external link to the airline's website. So I think I agree with the nom in principle, maybe this isn't the place and maybe an effort should be made to get rid of all. I'm somewhat loathe to head in that direction considered all the work that was obviously done for these lists, but it really seems pointless. Every airline article I have read has the destinations already included. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a very standard Wikipedia list, of which these lists the broad community as a whole has built up and maintained and generally they are maintained very well. Suddenly advocating the removal of them by throwing up an AfD of one such list is out of line of seeking broad community consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not lose our focus: Is it/are they necessary? Do they serve any real purpose? If a standing convention is the only argument in favour, then is it not time that we consider changing it? And let us begin that change from here, from this page. Let us remove this article and suggest the removal of others too. Austria156 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to parent, while I declined the speedy, that was for solely procedural reasons. I don't find any sources showing any particular notability of an exhaustive list of destinations of this airline. It's possible it could be in some cases, but "This is done for others" is not a valid inclusion reason (as in the first two keeps). Instead, it must be shown that the subject of this article in particular is notable, and I can't find the amount of sourcing on this subject that would demonstrate that—my search for sources seems to demonstrate quite the opposite. This seems to be the definition of an indiscriminate list of information that would be better summarized in the parent than written out exhaustively in a standalone list. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to be I dont like it request but as a standard daughter article of parent airline it doesnt appear to be any different than others in the same cat, this is not the place to discuss all 300+ articles in the same category unless you tag all of them. It is not intended as a travel guide so it doesnt have to be up to date it is to show the extent of the airlines services so is clearly part of the description about Czech Airlines. The airline project has split this subject in to a daughter article when the list has become to large for the parent. In this case it is big enough to stand-alone. It may not be the best quality article but not a reason to delete. Note two destination list articles are featured lists so they clearly meets the list criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As noted on the article's talk page, this article was twice included in bulk AfD discussions covering all of the destination articles, in 2006 and 2007. Both times the consensus was to keep. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Otherwise we should delete all other airline destinations pages. As with many other sections of any article, splitting is a good idea to avoid including data that has the potential to become extremely large in the main page, and just let anyone interested in further insights to go to the secondary article. These pages are the perfect candidate for expansion and for providing information that cannot be thoroughly covered in the main article, i.e. the history of the route network, which is not to be confused with the history of the airline itself. I believe the ties Czechoslovakia once had with the USSR in particular and with the Communist Bloc in general in defining the airline's route network are worth mentioning here. BTW, thanks to MilborneOne for letting the community know about this nomination.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hawaiian717. Also, I see no discernible deletion rationale given above. WP:SNOWBALL may well be applicable. Haus^Talk 23:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if we delete one, we have to delete all which will probably ignite a huge edit war. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ofc. Speed74 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into parent Czech Airlines article. That article is only 10kB readable prose size, so splitting off this child article was way premature. The fact that in the future that might be necessary doesn't mean it should be done now, which splits up the presentation of information to the reader. The list can be formatted better and presented in 40% less space as well. The most potentially encyclopedic aspect to the current article is the unfortunately totally un-sourced historical destinations section, which is too bad. I'm totally in favor of including such information in Wikipedia, but I fail to see the reason that for this specific airline the encyclopedia is better with the split. Please remember that while many airlines have an associated destinations list many do NOT, many because they shouldn't, and the question here is should this specific list exist.

Regarding the statement that "no discernible deletion rationale given", I think it is quite the opposite. I do not see a single Keep !vote above that has a rational to keep based on policy or guide. This might be the moment I finally understand the point of the essay WP:OTHERSTUFF, because I always hated it before. It doesn't say its prohibited to make comparisons to other existing articles, the first thing I always do, but it is about judging an AfD on its specific merits. Merging this article into the parent does not mean or require anything be done to any other similar list (a straw man that I contributed to).

User:Seraphimblade questioned WP:NOTABILITY, and I think that is always the best argument for a Keep !vote, but no one has argued against him. Pan Am's historic route destinations? Obvious notable. For Czech Airlines this has not been shown. I think I disagree with him on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially in this case where the the airline's website doesn't have a list AFAIK, just a graphic. I believe this article should be merged back into the parent until a time it is appropriate to split based on either size (not close to being met) or content (not a single argument of notability above) per WP:SPLITTING. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--the article is long enough to stay on its own. Maybe we could merge it into Czech Airlines article, but I think that this is long enough to warrant keeping separate from its parent article. Also, it is standard practice to have airline destination list articles. If this article was shorter, ie you could read it while barely having to scroll up and down, then I would say merge. But since it's longer than that, I say Keep. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - After thinking about it more and reading some other comments here, I think it might make more sense to merge it, considering the parent article itself is not as long as others I've seen and this destination list would fit in just nicely (though we might want to reformat it as a collapsible table to save space). And besides, the WP guidelines say the "We've always done it this way" argument isn't a valid argument in a deletion discussion--Wikipedia guidelines trump everything else. I've changed my mind and now I believe it should be merged. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The closer of this discussion should be aware of the following comment: [1]. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying the relevant Wikiproject that the article is within the scope of is not in any manner canvassing and should always be encouraged. --Oakshade (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed there, Wikiprojects tend to be partisan. Maybe if it's a reputable one like MILHIST, but a lot tend to bloc-vote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you disagree with WP:AFD which encourages notifying the relevant projects. From WP:AFD:Notifying WikiProjects that support the page:

"WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD."

There was nothing un-neutral about the project notification in this case.

And your comment is a colossal attack on the good faith of all Wikiprojects. Please provide evidence that the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation or Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines have demonstrated a systemic practice of "bloc-voting." Members of Wikiprojects are much more knowledgeable than most on the subject and can provide better insight as to the validity of a stand-alone page. If you'd like to completely change WP:AFD to not only discourage notification of Wikiprojects of articles under their scope but to even ban them, you need to make your case on the AFD talk page, not try to change it and create your own "rule" in a single afd. --Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, why is it a bad thing to mention an AfD discussion on a WikiProject talk page? It attracts people who are part of the project to come and participate in the discussion. User:Oakshade has got it right on the dime, and he/she is making a good point. I can say for myself that if this AfD discussion hadn't been posted on the Wikiproject, I would never have commented here. —Compdude123 (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Seraphimblade, I don't know if they are "reputable" (that Aviation-project party MilborneOne threw last weekend was SICK and DISGUSTING). But my experience has been that when editors have come over to an AfD based on notices posted on the Aviation-project pages they have been slightly more critical of inclusion than average (probably a good thing). This AfD is running counter to the norm I believe. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Then I presume you're prepared to present the substantial coverage in reliable sources regarding the destinations of this airline, rather than the We've always done it this way argument? What I'm seeing here is the typical definition of ownership and a bloc "vote". If this article is justifiable, there are reliable sources that cover its subject in depth, if not, it is indefensible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He he. There are a good number of articles with no coverage at all that seem to stay up for no reason. In this case it is consensus/common practice to split the destinations list into a separate article to avoid the main article being too enlarged by the destinations list. So the only refs needed here are those that prove the destinations, for notability we can look back at the airline and I do believe Czech Airlines is notable. Speed74 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is encyclopedic information which is to large to practically fit in the parent article. —SW— ^confabulate 00:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also, this article use to have a lede but it was removed as a copyvio. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin Sadoh[edit]

Godwin Sadoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability or assertions of notability. No refs at all just own web-site. Article is just resume lists - looks like self promotion but the article has been around for some time  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stuartyeates. There is not even any non-list content in this article. —SW— ^yak 00:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Moonlight Resonance. m.o.p 05:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Wing Chung[edit]

Gan Wing Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no sufficient notability for an individual character. --Naiveandsilly (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion was not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 4. Snotbot  t • c »  23:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Moonlight Resonance - I can't find any reliable sources. I don't think Chinese wiki has an article on this character either. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Moonlight Resonance. This individual character is not notable enough for its own article. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 00:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Coffee Machine[edit]

Atomic Coffee Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contributor 118.210.115.248 = The genericist = Jack Grieve who wrote the article, is using the already protected trademark "Atomic" (Trademark holder: ^[1]) in Australia for his coffee machines made in Taiwan. His application was refused: ^[2]. This page is used as a matter of promotion and false claims as to the legal case and doesn't reflect the history of this coffee machine. The subject of the article seems to be wether or not one is allowed to manufacture these coffee machines nowadays and under which name they should be marketed. Page "Atomic_Coffee_Machine" also witnesses poor ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) 04:06, 30 October 2011‎— Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - none of your claims are valid reasons for deletion, except for the claim of promotion - and this Jack Grieve is not mentioned in the article, nor is any special mention of Australian brands. The article could use some better sourcing, but it's not overly promotional as you claim. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MikeWazowski, maybe i souldn't have deleted the link to his webpage before asking for deletion. (see history) The Source of the pictures is clearly labeled as sorrentinacoffee.com (see here: ^[3]). The same picture will be found on his Flickr account: ^[4] . Althought the name is not mentionned, the article clearly serves his purpose of promotion, Mr. Jack Grieve beeing the general manager of Sorrentinacoffee: ^[5] . It is a clearly a breach of the Soapbox policy. The article has a very legal angle which hasn't got its place on Wikipedia, and mainly present his personal views on the matter (Matter already discussed in a legal case in Australia see ipmonitor link above). Nitzkovic— Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As the editor in question has not touched the article in six months (and for a year before that) and other editors have been free to edit and modify it in the time since, your argument about breaching the soapbox policy is invalid. I stand by my original comments. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

118.210.115.248 last contributed on the 12th of september 2011. To me, that's 48 days. His entry was a comment on a specific Blog (another breach of Wikipedia POV policy) (see ^[6]). I am only stating the obvious. Nitzkovic — Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Of course, you have no proof of this - just baseless accusations from someone who appears (to me) to have their own conflict of interest in the matter. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I seriously question the motives of Nitzkovic, a single purpose editor who has only previously made edits to this single article and now wants to delete it. He claims that 118.210.115.248 is Jack Grieve, which goes against WP:OUTING, while offering no proof that this is the case. The nominator seems to have some kind of axe to grind and Wikipedia is not the place for that. To me the subject of the article looks notable enough to be kept. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No particular motive, no conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest look like this: See ^[7] (with many Registered sign). I personnaly don't understand how this Atomic_coffee_machine article can be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Read the text carefully. The purpose of the article seems to be that this machine can be manufacturered nowadays. (noone said the contrary). The rest of the article contains some rather personal views on the "generic" value of the word "Atomic" for these coffee machines. Where is the encyclopedic value of this article? Please explain to me why your argumentation is now concentrating on my motivation/interest? Seems to me that rather than discussing the matter, you would rather attack the person. And why is my point of view less valuable as a single purpose editor? Nitzkovic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why the following phrases are relevant on an article about a coffee machine which production stopped in 1989: "These patents expired many decades ago and are now in the public domain." and "Given the high demand for Atomic coffee makers, and that the various patents expired many decades ago, it was only natural that someone should make reproductions based on those patents. Many people believe that such reproductions are 'fake','imitation' of 'knock off' products, however understandable such a view may be, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of intellectual property law as it is generally recognized internationally: once a patent has expired there is nothing morally or legally wrong in any party deciding to manufacture a product based on that patent. Indeed this is the social pay-off of the patent legislation. In return for a fixed period monopoly on their invention the inventor agrees to publish the details of the invention in the public domain. When the patent expires all are free to exploit it." To me, it is only relevant to the business who would like to manufacture them nowadays... the same business who wrote this article, and let his mark on the pictures. Nitzkovic (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Nitzkovic[reply]

• Speedy keep Bad-faith nomination by a single purpose account who is apparently miffed that he can't insert a long-winded diatribe of his own in the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Hidden agenda behind deletion. Nitkovic is clearly biased has made many unsubstantiated claims concerning the supposed writer/s of the atomic coffee machine article. Having already deleted and re-written much of the article (somewhat poorly) he/she now seeks to remove the entire thing. The article is/was relevant and much of the material already removed by Nikovic seemed to be relevent and worthwhile. 180.181.122.185 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack! "The entire thing" as you call it had no relevance what so ever apart from advertising your business, making false claim. Even the pictures you provided have your webpage linked to it. Who do you want to fool? Nitzkovic (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain me that phrase: "The Robbiati design and patent registrations cover the Atomic shape". It doesn't make sense at all. a) How can someone cover an atomic shape (atomic mushroom??? or a nucleus???)? b) The coffee machine doesn't look like a mushroom or an atom, does it?. Mr. Robbiati covered his improvements (patent). The rest is a trademark problematic (atomic name). If someone can explain how someone can cover an atomic shape ^[8] in a patent, i would be very thankful.

Nitzkovic (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article has been fully-protected until 11-15-2011. Nobody can edit it whatsoever, except for admins. Per the policy, "A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection may be for a specified time, or may be indefinite.". It would be unwise to close this AfD prematurely while editors cannot improve the article to establish topic notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... it has been a week now. Where are the answers? "Atomic shape" was at the center of a Trademark battle in Australia (Jack Grieve (who started the article, and whose webpage address is still related to the picture of the article-> Advertising for free!) vs Irene Notaras). The sad thing beeing: There is no "Atomic shape". You need to differenciate what is a patent to what is a trademark. So easy and yet... Nitzkovic (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because I'm actually having difficulty grepping what the requester's argument is. It's certainly not based in Wikipedia policy. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as no support from anyone but nominator and no argument for deletion advanced (per WP:Speedy Keep). Note that I'm not arguing an argument hasn't been advanced, but that I can't figure out for the life of me how it relates to deletion. Also might be considered vexatious. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 4. Snotbot  t • c »  16:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, content dispute. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's been more than a month, and the only delete vote is from the nominator, who was a WP:SPA with a possible bad faith nomination. Can we get an admin to close this as a keep? It's been open for far too long. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cannot explain why this is nominated. Plenty of sources.

Also Comment: Should the title of the article be Atomic coffee machine, without caps? Tinton5 (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mike Cline is the only editor here who makes a fair argument for keeping, everything else is WP:ITSUSEFUL. I also can't see why someone would say "delete or rename". Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PM&R Residency Programs in the United States[edit]

PM&R Residency Programs in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Directory-type page. Prod was contested (I think by author) in 2009. Neutrality^talk 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly meets WP:NOTESAL notability criteria with these sources which enumerate PM&R programs as a group [2], [3], and the books contained in this google scholar search. Additionally, since the great majority of entries already have WP articles, inclusion is not indiscriminate. That said, individual entries should have citations verifying they indeed have these programs. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Rename to Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Programs in the United States as per standard naming conventions. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: m.o.p 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete, or Rename as per [[user:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]. When did we become a catalog of residency programs? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A useful encyclopedia entry to learn about PM&R residency programs in the United States, and a useful navigation aid per the listings in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Agree with renaming to Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Programs in the United States, as stated above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs)

• Keep Useful thing to have for the encyclopedia. This isn't some bit of nonsense like list of variety shops in the United States that sell fake dog poo. This is something useful to those who want to get an education, and which to know where they can find what they are trying to study. Wikipedia is a tool for education. Just rename it, as others have said. No sense using initials most people wouldn't know the meaning of. Dream Focus 16:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone's interested in merging, let me know, and I'll userfy with history for you for proper attribution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eilert Sundts gate[edit]

Eilert Sundts gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find any significant coverage for the street itself. SL93 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability not demonstrated. Geschichte (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - Non-notable street. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Selective merge and redirect per Stuartyeates. I looked in Gnews and generally, translating from Norwegian. Mostly real estate related articles, and even there, incidental mentions only. Yes, an expensive house on this street was recently sold--so what? Non-notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As a Norwegian, I haven't even heard of the street. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the person. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental model[edit]

Fundamental model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable fringe science. No independent sources, seems to be part of an effort to promote the creator's book. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable and mathematically incoherent original research, fails WP:FRINGE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Echoing David Eppstein in his entirety. Nothing in third-party sources whatsoever either. Theory of thought and MultiSpace should probably go when this one does (the former is currently PRODded, the latter had some problems with its PROD/PROD2 and eventually had that template removed by the article's creator). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Original research and fringe theory, as above comments have said. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as gobbledegook. It doesn't even reach the level of not even wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete echoing above users, fringe and non-notable.AerobicFox (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Associated images should also be deleted from Commons. —Ruud 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability from independent sources, and extremely little chance that any will be found. Agree that the article is self-promotional in nature. Of zero encyclopedic value. Agree that associated images also be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mila_Kunis#Personal_life and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Moore (sergeant)[edit]

Scott Moore (sergeant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Essentially WP:BLP1E. Article probably created by subject or someone closely affiliated with subject. Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think anyone who gets 4 million views on a youtube video should get an article on Wikipedia. This is more suitable for a mention on Mila Kunis (It actually is mentioned there. Perhaps move a couple more details from here to that page, then delete it. Millermk90 (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Although the above contributors are correct that one event does not automatically make someone notable, the WP:GNG is satisfied in this case, as the sources in the article demonstrate. Most of them are reliable and feature Scott Moore or his video as their subject, which clearly establishes notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This was all over the news for several days, both when it came out and when the date actually happened. He also started the trend of this, as he was the first on to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyboyy9 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Scottyboyy9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no notability outside of the one event. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Notable" for a single non-notable event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The three sentences on this in the Mila Kunis article seem appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nick-D is correct. The entry already there is completely sufficient. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He's only notable for one event. The only thing that could have potentially taken him out of this event or shown that he had lasting notability is the Teen Choice awards and he was only nominated. He didn't win, so still falls under WP:BLP1E. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete - ridiculous. Completely lacks any notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not in any way notable. Vincelord (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing vote to delete after reconsidering the WP:BLP1E rationale. The sources only establish notability for that one event, which is not enough for an article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the target of his attention; or delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nedumkallel[edit]

Nedumkallel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod, possible hoax. Unreferenced "Mediaval history" section not backed up by the bibliography - searches on the name Nedumkallel with the provided bibliography are showing no results so far; see [4] or [5] or [6]. Some sockpuppeting concerns with this one as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Web searches find directory listings, social media, and a scant few trivial mentions in trivial news pieces. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- If we allow this, we allow every family that existed in medieval times to have an article. Namely, all of them. Work on the caste articles for now, they need editors. Every family doesn't get an article... Maybe in 200 years, but not now. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 02:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Delete per nom. Nothing special about this family. Salih (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete -- Not notable company, lots of hoax and unreferenced. --Katarighe (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. Appears to be promotion of the family by a family member. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - brag piece by somebody about how cool his family is or was. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - This is not a notable family. Vincelord (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Whoop-tee-doo there's a family named "Nedumkallel" in Kerela. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is: Keep as a DAB page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Christianity[edit]

Conservative Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability of the topic is not established. Although there are millions of Christians who are conservative in some sense or another there does not seem to be one definite meaning of the expression "conservative Christianity." The different themes, for instance Christian right and Fundamentalist Christianity, should each have a separate article. BigJim707 (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or DAB or whatever, except keep, to save the reader from the confusion. For the life of me, I can not figure out what defines the concept on which the article is based. The text mixes conservative Catholics with conservative Protestants and then makes generalizations about the belief in the divinity of Jesus! The term Chalcedonian Christianity is missing from the article, of course. The underlying basis of the definitions in the article seem to be mostly unaware of the long forgotten field called Christian theology. And the term "conservative" usually has some type of political context such as voting Republican in the US and as someone said on the talk page this is pretty US oriented. And are there non-conservative Mormons? Does the article consider Mormons Christians? Are there non-Conservative Eastern Orthodox? Are all Eastern Orthodox conservative or some are not? How about Eastern Catholics? Are all non-Trinitarians non-conservative? Overall the basic tenet of the definition of the term on which the article is based seems to be unaware of the beliefs of Christian denominations worldwide and uses a very simplistic brush to paint many people the same color. The overall concept seems to have been derived from watching some TV evangelists and forming opinions and concepts based on that. A pretty confused concept which is pretty much "an invention" as a whole and no basis for an article for it. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Conservatism as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original synthesis. Turn into disambiguation page per suggestion below. Changing my vote yet again, this time to keep - see below. StAnselm (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christian right, which is probably what people are looking for if they search on "conservative Christianity." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Turn into DAB per Mark's suggestion below –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tho we imagine we know it when we see it, "Conservative Christianity" is not a single, clearly defined movement or tradition, unlike Liberal Christianity, the article in reaction to which this one was created in good faith.[7][8] Scope here has drifted from Conservative movements in contemporary American Protestant Christianity (perhaps duplicative of the article Christian right) to include origins of Christianity, and (relevant, but at disproportionate length) Traditionalist Catholicism (with "Conservative Catholicism" being equivalent to "Catholicism", apparently).
  I expect for this article to be kept, someone would need to:
  1. Determine what this article is actually about, based presumably on what in this article is not already covered in another article (otherwise this is a WP:POVFORK),
  2. retitle accordingly, lest this article be forever WP:COATRACKed,
  3. merge any well-sourced but off-topic matter to the relevant articles,
  4. resume editing article within new scope.

Otherwise, since conservative typically implies politics, redirect to Christian right (or whatever better target is found) as an aid to searches. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of an absolute determination but regarding "Determine what this article is actually about" I think I have done that for myself at least: it is about confusion. But there is already an article on that. History2007 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Christian right - I have found a few sources which mention Conservative Christianity, but it often seems to be interchangeable with the Christian right. Unless a source can be found which differentiates between the two, we only need one article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. On the plus side, the article is well written, well sourced, well thought out, and does define the term as the author sees it. On the other hand, it feels like the term is defined, with the sources, as a little bit skewed by the author's own view - in short, there appears to be some bias problems in there. I cannot justify a delete !vote for a little bit of bias, however, let alone even a weak keep, when the large pool of available editors could do some nice work on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve While I don't agree that the article is well sourced presently, there are ample sources to fulfill the notability requirement. This is just the plain fact of the matter. And this coverage is independent of Christian Right.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is to be improved what does Conservative Christianity mean in Northern Ireland or in England? In Northern Ireland is it the Catholics or the Protestants who are the conservatives? In England is it the antidisestablishmentarians who are conservatives or those who want to go back to Rome? -- PBS (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is right. And may I mention a country called Greece where most of the Christian population is pretty left leaning in political terms but the religious views of Greek Orthodox Church is far from what might be called liberal? And which pigeonhole does the "conservative concept" place those who show up at the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria? Then there is the minor issue of a few other Christians, say the Russian Orthodox Church, and Chinese Christians of course.... History2007 (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Request incubation If this article is deleted I request that a copy be deposited in the WPConservatism incubator. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christian Right. Many sources use it as a synonym for Christian Right, and those that don't, state that the Christian Right is the contemporary political advocate of conservative Christianity or that Conservative Christianity is the bedrock of the Christian Right. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christian Right (without prejudice) and incubate, per request above. There needs to be a decision made about how to prevent forking on this topic. Christian fundamentalism seems to be on a historical moment in Protestantism; Christian Right on the contemporary social conservative movement. What is this exactly? Is it advisable and historical to connect various streams and trends of theologically conservative Christianity in one article? If so, how is that to be differentiated from other search terms. I'm not adverse to the idea, there just needs to be some work done to keep the search terms accurate and room for differentiation of A from B from C from D from E (since there are probably other parallel topics that I haven't mentioned here). Carrite (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See my comments on the talk page of the article, but basically History2007 has summed up my point of view. DO not redirect it as the redirect are to equally American concentric articles that almost certainly need moving or deleting. This whole area is whack a rat. -- PBS (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as requested above. The article "Christian Right" makes it clear that it is being discussed as a US-centric concept, and it is better a reader be sent somewhere possibly relevant to their search term rather than sent nowhere at all. If an article on the broader/universal/theological aspect of liberalism and conservatism within Christian theology appears then we can discuss then whether "Conservative Christianity" should redirect there or to "Christian Right".AerobicFox (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and improve. I strongly oppose redirect to Christian right, as that term has political context and here it is about values, it would be very deceiving. In my life I met lots of people using this term in exact meaning how it is defined in here and redirect to Christian right would cause semantic havoc.

Christian right is a term used in the United States to describe "right-wing" Christian political groups

Conservative Christianity (also called traditional Christianity) is a term applied to a number of groups or movements seen as giving priority to traditional Christian beliefs and practices.--Stephfo (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC) One more note - I think some people are confusing term Conservative Christianity with Christian Conservatives ({often initial capital letter}of or pertaining to the Conservative party.); a fortiori stronger reason for keeping this page. --Stephfo (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: IMHO, the context as described in this article is used also in documentary about Bonhoeffer [9] (9min:18s) when describing his family roots who were anything but political Christian right. Also compare "His Christocentric approach appealed to conservative, confession-minded Protestants; while his commitment to social justice as a cardinal responsibility of Christianity appealed to liberal Protestants." in WP article about him. Your reasoning would imply that "His ...approach appealed to "Christian Right" what sounds as clear nonsense to me in given context, I apologize for any inconvenience.--Stephfo (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a difference between conservative Christianity and Christian conservatism. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps turning this into a disambiguation page would be a good idea? It could link to Christian fundamentalism, Christian Right, Traditionalist Catholic and related pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. I am changing my vote to support this. Looking at the incoming links - which as things stand are in need of disambiguation - most are not to the Christian right at all. In fact, most are to the original subject of the article - a theologically orthodox Christianity that rejects the beliefs Liberal Christianity. Whatever the failings of the article previously, this is a notable subject, and in need of an article by itself. Hence, I am changing my vote to keep. StAnselm (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly created the disambiguation page, but feel free to revert if the old version of the page can be improved during this AFD. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Mark. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a fabulous idea!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the only problem is that a large number of the links will be difficult to disambiguate. StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be over-thinking this. a WP:DAB for this subject shouldn't be more than 3 or 4 articles. For instance, Confessing Movement is not a reasonable DAB for Conservative Christianity—it might be suited for List of traditionalist Christian sects or Sprawling omnibus list of religious groups considered in some way "conservative", but someone searching Conservative Christianity isn't looking for an article on a specific sect. And if the DAB is changed into a list article, the WP:SCOPE problem returns.
I still favor a Redirect to Christian Right since not many other things are actually called "Conservative Christianity" (Greeley and Hout's coinage notwithstanding). Prior to the DAB, this article was an (effectively) unsourced rumination, and wasn't been improved (despite a several days' notice in a multiple delsort lists and WikiProjects), so nothing would be lost with a Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that I could help :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Turn into disambiguation page: Poorly defined topic that overlaps with several pre-existing articles. A confusing mish-mash of several divergent movements from Traditional Catholicism to Fundamentalist Protestantism with little else in common except that they are in some way "conservative". Worse, the word "conservative" is ambiguous here as it sometimes apparently means religiously conservative, and at other times apparently means politically conservative. This ambiguity is also present in the sources used, as well as in the pool of potential sources out there. A disambiguation page would enable the reader to select among the various options based on which meanings they have in mind. I can't see how the article can be improved to the point where it represents a single coherent topic that does not almost entirely overlap with other existing articles. If there is some reason why a dismbiguation page is not possible, the material in this article should be deleted or merged into exsisting articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this disambiguation is causing exactly what is described in following terms The Truth about Conservative Christians:

Many of us make facile talk about conservative Christians while having vague ideas of who they are. Now we have no excuse. Greeley and Hout tell us exactly who they are

Pundits and political operatives have produced an enormous amount of nonsense in recent years about conservative Protestants.--Stephfo (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can say Greeley and Hout own this term (even tho they use the word truth). As mentioned earlier, this article currently describes "Conservative Catholics" essentially as pious Catholics. Pious, unworldly "conservative, confession-minded Protestants" are essentially Protestants. However, for most readers the highly political "Christian right" are also "conservatives", perhaps moreso. Until there is a (verifiable) consensus bigger than Greeley and Hout on what the term conservative christian means, attempts to limit this exact term are unencyclopedic soapboxing. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment hopefully those who think disambiguation is the solution are willing to help fix the 282 incoming links to this new disambig. --JaGa^talk 19:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them are difficult, and this is making me lean back towards having the article. For example, one of the links is from Canonical criticism, which I created. The link is in a quote in which James Barr argues that the vision of a post-critical era "is the conservative dream." Conservative in this sense is clearly the subject of this article. One the other hand, it should probably be delinked anyway per MOS:QUOTE, which says "as much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes." StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, maybe you just invented a new saying about Wiki-decisions anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth - I've changed my vote yet again. StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As the nominator I think the new DAB page is a great idea, better than deletion. Readers will learn something about the different ways the expression is used and then be directed to the topic they are interested in. BigJim707 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a nominator for deletion? DAB is providing all nuance meanings except the most semantically reasonable: "Conservative Christianity (also called traditional Christianity) is a term applied to a number of groups or movements seen as giving priority to traditional Christian beliefs and practices."--Stephfo (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that is the most logical meaning of the two words, however that was not the theme of the original article -- nor does it seem like the most common use of the phrase. BigJim707 (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree, but don't see the improvement. Instead of linking to the most common usage of this term, this DAB has become (not counting the link to Christian right) a list of Christian sects that some editors think can reasonably be called "conservative". That's not what a WP:DAB is for, and even by list article standards this is very WP:OR.
I'm boldly removing references to particular sects that may be considered "conservative" and early Christianities—those belong in two separate (and potentially contentious) list articles. Christian right and Traditionalism (religion) are the only reasonable redirect targets I can find. (And that 2nd one is a stretch.) / edg ☺ ☭ 16:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed Evangelicalism, a sect typically considered "conservative" but not entirely nor essentially so. However, I have added a See also for Christian fundamentalism because the movement is considered historically a reaction Liberal Christianity (the article in reaction to which this one was created). Not adding The Fundamentals, a really classic example of christian religious conservatism, but not a reasonable DAB and too specific for the See also section. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see [in DAB] the meaning obviously used at the very minimum in documentary about Bonhoeffer (and this is in my case actually the most frequently used meaning I personally come across) when describing his roots and then I naturally oppose the DAB and suggest to return to the original article and improve it as much as possible wrt. reasonable objections raised. If conservative is in political context "The term [that] has since been used to describe a wide range of views" then I do not see why it is a problem in Christian context to have article describing a wide range of views. In the documentary, the context was obviously applied to [Bonhoeffer's family] seen as giving priority to traditional Christian beliefs and practices, such as, for example, attending Church services. They obviously had nothing to do with "The Christian right", let alone "in U.S. politics" and definitely not anything to do with orthodox doctrines or other views often condemned as heretical by Protestant churches. Yet these two are currently the only options to explain this term.--Stephfo (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly bugs me that traditional Protestants who eschew worldly concerns are invisible while the Religious Right gets all the press. The problem as I see it is the broad term Conservative Christianity is not owned by them, nor does it really define any distinct movement, tradition or group. If, for example, someone refers to "old-fashioned Christianity" or "authentic Christianity", same problem. The exploratory (and unsourced) attempt to create a description in this article was producing a community-written position paper, not an encyclopedia article.

The good thing about have a DAB for this is if someone like Greeley and Hout gets wider acceptance for this definition, it can be linked, rather than debated for priority over a more well-established meaning (e.g. Christian right. regrettably). / edg ☺ ☭ 19:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion shows how TV-centric this definition is. May I suggest a look at this page and its classification as "conservative Christian or not" based on the article? Let us see which category that falls into. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it does not qualify, for reason that the article is about Russian Orthodox Church, an institutional Church that is one branch within Christianity. The members of these Church might be conservative Christians as well as liberal Christians, but mere membership in Orthodox Church per se will definitely not make them conservative Christians, IMHO. Expression conservative Christians is about values, not institutional category.--Stephfo (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The views of the members of that church and Greek Orthodox Church are very, very uniform. They are "Orthodox" because they adhere to the rules pretty orthodoxly. The fact is that there are a pile of "Christians" around the world who do not fit the dichotomy which the definition proposes. You have beliefs {A, B, C, D} which characterize group I and beliefs {X, Y, Z} which characterize group II. Now these people have beliefs {A, X, C} which breaks the attributes used for categorization. It "does not qualify" means that the definition is basically a US-based TV-driven definition, derived from specific religio-political concepts in which there is far more uniformity in the belief-attributes of each group. Think of it this way: Being in a specific belief category means that the people in that category must resonate. Can a prominent member of the Russian Orthodox Church show up, hug and resonate with Jerry Falwell on TV? Only when Hell freezes over. The definition is flawed. History2007 (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're expressing your self in very abstract terms, now try to move to analogical term "conservative" in political context and try to outline the difference that should justify keeping that term, bearing in mind the statements "Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were. The term has since been used to describe a wide range of views." in context of what you just presented (group I and ... group II). Where you see the difference to keep that term and remove this one? Pls. explain. Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Abstract terms? Moi? Next I am going to get accused of having been an abstract thinker in a past life... Who would have thought... But seriously, the long and short of it is that the page mixes theological beliefs and political views. In the US TV-based cases there are inherent relationship between the two: Falwell's crowd do not like socialism. But there are people whose theological views are similar to the theological views of the Falwell crowd, but are socialists, e.g. the leftovers of the Russian socialists who are still Christian. So they do not fit in the dichotomy. They would agree with the Falwell crowd theologically, but they could never appear as friends on TV. So the page is not a theological belief issue, is a theologio-political issue restricted to the US. History2007 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any inconvenience, but the argument "the leftovers of the Russian socialists who are still Christian" seems to be suspicious to the highest degree. Are you trying to propose that Russian socialists have been and still are Christian? Who in particular? Since when they have been Christian? Can you name some particular you have in mind? And what it has to do with term conservative Christians? Pls. explain--Stephfo (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Are there no Christians in Russia who are socialists? Enough said. In any case, try to put Sergei Bulgakov, his accusers and supporters and the Falwell people into a comparative discussion and you will start to see the complexity of the issues. But enough said. But his books The Orthodox Church ISBN 0881410519 and The Lamb of God ISBN 0802827799 have interesting theology, in case you want to look into that. But enough said here. History2007 (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that article, the word "socialist" is used only once, without any references. --Stephfo (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you can add this there. But really, this is an obvious issue if one searches and studies it. So this goes back to the point of the article being unaware of theological or world religion facts beyond TV. But I must really stop now. I am not going to watch this page any more. Should not have even voted in the first place. Took too much time. History2007 (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add. "Are there no Christians in Russia who are socialists? FYI: What sources say: "but whether one could possibly call him a 'Christian socialist' after 1907 is doubtful". --Stephfo (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DAB Clearly there is much confusion stemming from the ambiguity of the word 'conservative' to mean either 'politically right-wing' or 'traditionally-minded' (among serveral other interpretations). Each of these meanings could apply to Christians, and there is worthwhile material to be covered. DaveApter (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- It is unfortunate that some one has chosen to convert this to a dabpage before the AFD is closed. The AFD originally related to [page]. There is clearly confusion over the use of the term. I regard myself as a conservative Christian, meaning that I hold to the traditional beliefs of the church, in my case evangelical ones, in contrast to liberal christianity. I happen also to be a Conservative politically, but that is different. A member of the Liberal Party could be a conservative evangelical or an athiest. A political conservative could in the religious context be a consrevative evangelical, a liberal christian, an atheist, a Muslim, etc. However ther is also a difference between being a conservative evangelical and a fundamentalist. Some fundamentalists will claim that the earth is flat, because they find Biblical verses that appear to imply that. I do not go along with such literalist nonsense. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Use as a disambiguation page. Portillo (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus among most experienced editors is that this is a case of WP:1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. The "keep" opinions mostly do not approach the issue from the perspective of our inclusion policies and guidelines, and are consequently given less weight.  Sandstein  21:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Fitzgerald[edit]

Kate Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Subject of article notable only because of suicide and events surrounding it. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the first AfD for this article. Previous AfD was for a fictional character of the same name. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 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))

• Delete I originally put a prod2 with "sad as this story is, it's a classical case of BLP1E. In addition, the article reads more like an attack piece on the Savages and The Communications Clinic". This still holds. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only did the subject of this article play an important, and cited, role in Ireland during the US Election but she was also active in Irish political life. I have just added citations confirming this. I've looked at this article and if anything it's being far too kind about the role of The Communications Clinic. There are many places on the internet which are far more straightforward. 89.101.59.188 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)— 89.101.59.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This young woman had a promising future in Irish public life. In addition, the manner in which the paper has handled her article has become a matter of public discussion in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodin (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Nodin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• If that is true, then there could conceivably be an article on the handling of the article, it doesn't make Fitzgerald notable, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable, but the article can be improved. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you mind explaining why you think that this does not fall under WP:BLP1E? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a big thing in the Irish newspapers. Not for a day, but for a prolonged period. For the rest, see the statements op 89.101 and MoyrossLady. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding too it, on the name "Kate Fitzgerald" you get a 100.000 internet hits and 102 Google News hits. Especially the Google News hits are remarkable, due to the fact that Google News its focus on the USA. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I get 9 GNews hits (using "Kate Fitzgerald"), 4 of them about other persons with the same name and all about the one event. Searching the web, although 99,000 results are indicated, they boil down to 620 hits if you scroll to the end. Several of those are for a UMass professor and an actress of the same name, among several others. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact is that the case is still hot, with another article today in the Irish Independent [10]. There is enough media coverage to assume notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrator should note that User:Night of the Big Wind has been following my deletion nominations after I added a notability tag to article he created, and has been cautioned to desist. His "keep" is not a good-faith contribution. User reported to AN/I.[11]ScottyBerg (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The page feels a little bit like a memorial page, and there are the issues compounded by WP:BLP1E. As an aside, I recognize that BLP1E notes living persons (which, regretfully, Ms. Fitzgerald is no longer), but the situation that remains is that she is only notable for one event. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I really hate the idea that she's been branded a liar with no evidence to support that. Maybe it's true, but the IT should not apologise to the employer without telling us exactly why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meemeep (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Meemeep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - for next few weeks subject of multiple national newspaper articles. subject of prime time national TV interview (RTE 1, 3 Dec) and of national radio interviews (Newstalk). Subject of this article is linked with senior national figures in public life in Ireland, possibly leading to a much larger story revolving around the behaviour and ethical conflicts of a dominant PR company that both advises many national politicians from all parties and also runs the national broadcaster. MoyrossLADY (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events' and 'While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information'. -Rushyo ^Talk 00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it is premature to delete this article when it looks like it may be the start of a large national scandal concerning Irish PR, Politics and Media. If nothing alights in the next few weeks then delete. MoyrossLADY (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E which specifically deals with this case. Any notability as a matter of media handling or other such events may or may not be deserving of their own articles. Outside the single event does not appear to me (as a relatively uninterested third-party) to have WP:N having considered the arguments noted above and the content of article itself. -Rushyo ^Talk 00:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that technically what's applicable is WP:1E, which is pretty much the same as BLP1E. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Utterly trivial. Not notable during life, and not ntable for circumstances of her depth. Minor media issue. conceivably worth a dsentence in the article on the Irish Times. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Kate was not only a major player in the Irish politics scene, but the events surrounding her suicide and the media response to it are of major importance to an Irish audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg85 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She certainly was not a "major player" and the "major importance" is hyperbole. She was not notable before her death. — O'Dea (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The information contained here is a valuable resource for those looking for information not otherwise available on a significant occurrence in Ireland. CatInDeHat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.10.31 (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not unavailable elsewhere. The media have reported it. — O'Dea (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kate's death has triggered worthwhile debate on suicide in Ireland. ciarawalshe — Ciarawalshe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - Falls under WP:BLP1E, and unfortunately the E is her suicide. Tragic case but not notable. Snappy (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nobody deserves to be killed twice nor to be the target of tittle-tattle. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: What about renaming it to Death of Kate Fitzgerald? Her parents have just been on TV talking about depression and suicide in The Brendan O'Connor Show on national television so she has caused debate on these topics. [12]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.241 (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia's notability criteria state "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" - we have the IT, the Independent, Broadsheet.ie and too many blogs to count, not including radio and tv interviews with her family. This story has hit a nerve with the Irish public and has contributed towards a greater discussion of suicide and depression.

In my opinion it's important on that basis and also because it's making many people take a closer look at the independence and ethics of our media. The story is still unfolding and may have over-arching effects for the Irish Times and the CC. Keep it for everyone who's searching for information about this story and can no longer trust that articles haven't been re-edited on request by one of the parties. I understand the issues with WP:1E but it seems to me that Kate Fitzgerald's name is so tied up with the discussion to remain relevant. CV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.30.246 (talk • contribs) — 89.101.30.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Unless somebody can prove why this article is false, there is NO reason for it to be removed. It falls very nicely under Wikipedia criteria. This story has been reported by multiple newspapers including RTE and TG4. This is in no way a minor incident. In Ireland it has been near the most shared story on facebook and twitter. It has already made a huge change on the view towards suicide in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.36.148 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — 86.40.36.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Oh WOW! It's on FACEBOOK and TWITTER! It must be notable then. Please note that perhaps this "incident" may have had effects on thinking in Ireland, but that does not yet mean that the biography of this person meets our inclusion guidelines. However, as so often with recent events, very few people manage to take some distance and realize that three months from now, this will likely have been forgotten (except, unfortunately, for the people close to the deceased person). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As with most articles on wikipedia. Many start from news articles that afterwhile leave the media and make home on wikipedia for those who need to find out who this person was and why the debate started. The most important thing to note is this is an important event in Irish history with regards to suicide. Oh wow...you seemed to have missed RTE, TG4, The Irish Times, Sunday times etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.232.66 (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note that this is actually a first deletion nomination for this subject, previously deleted article "Kate Fitzgerald" dealt with a fictional character. I have no opinion here other than to say it's a pretty close call on the basis of One Event, vs. extensive publicity. Honest people may differ as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unfortunately there has been an effort by one of the parties involved to close down press coverage of the issue. This entry provides an authoritative review of events and it is important that users wishing to learn about the issue or chronology of events have access to this information. Additionally, deletion of this article would run the risk of appearing to be censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.91.190 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — 109.78.91.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. WP is not the news archive. - Nabla (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest speedy close at keep, because the "discussion" is getting sour. Nominator is hunting down every IP as being a SPA and insulting others to get the article away. Better close this and start all over again in a week or two. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Almost none of the "keep" !votes are based in some policy and don't go beyond WP:ILIKEIT (with only few exceptions like yourself). In contrast, there are several well-argued, policy-based "delete" !votes. A "delete" close is not excluded here (closures are based on policy, not on numbers of votes) and a speedy close as "keep" would therefore be totally inappropriate, whatever the problems between you and the nom. As an aside, it is completely appropriate to tag SPA editors. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Since I started this article, this case has received considerably more attention, with Kate Fitzgerald's parents appearing on the most widely-watched tv programme last Saturday. In this morning's Irish Times, the editor took the unusual step of writing an article under his own name justifying his role in this. This article has been greatly improved since I started it, particularly in regard to her notability, but it seems that one or two editors are using this discussion to make attacks on anybody who doesn't agree that it should be deleted. I think it should be kept, but I also think that the suggestion above of renaming it 'Death of Kate Fitzgerald' seems like a good compromise. Fyodor Dostoevsky (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that challenging knee-jerk "it's in the news so it must be notable" votes is the same as attacking "anybody who doesn't agree that it should be deleted". Please, let's keep this discussion rational. You yourself are now saying that perhaps this article should be renamed, which is not something that would be necessary if this person was notable without any doubt. I have said it before and I repeat: the event may be notable (I have no opinion on that at this point), the person is not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of "keep"s have been from IP spa's, the most I have seen in a long time. This is indicative of some kind of outside canvassing. While the article is now enlarged, with much attributed to a wordpress blog, one can't escape the fact that the notability of this person is directly related to her suicide. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just as I suspected, there has been off-wiki attention focused on the underlying article and this deletion proposal. See [13]. This would explain the intense interest from non-registered users. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? It is not illegal! As long as they see this procedure as a vote, I is more then likely that most of there comments are useless for the discussion due to lack of arguments. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one's saying it's "illegal." It's customary to tag SPAs, and this AfD is infested with them. That's why the tag exists. I am glad, however, that you acknowledge that their comments are useless and lack arguments of substance.ScottyBerg (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not too big to admit mistakes :-) Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentAs I mentioned above, this story is being closed down in the Irish media by a powerful PR consultancy. People are therefore understandably suspicious of how this 'delete' nomination came about and whether it is valid or sinister in origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.110.39 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And so much for WP:AGF... This delete nomination simply "came about" because this biography does not meet our inclusion criteria. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but that is your personal opinion. I disagree with that. It is the second case of bullying by American that leads to the suicide of an young Irish woman in a short time. See Suicide of Phoebe Prince. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not really a good example. Where's the biography of Phoebe Prince? Yet another case where perhaps the event was notable, but not the person. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is, because last night they screened a documentary about the case on the Irish national TV. Besides that, it was already suggested to move the article to Death of Kate Fitzgerald (Suicide of Kate Fitzgerald looks a better title) but it was you that rejected that too... Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did I reject that??? I've stated multiple times above that the event may be notable, but the person is not. Of course, a strong case can be made to merge articles like "Death of Phoebe Prince" and "Death of Kate Fitzgerald", but with all those people here thinking that we're making a newspaper, I know a hopeless cause if I see one. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just read back, my friend. I don't envy the closing administrator to dig through this mud of bad faith, personal attacks, called in friends and other misery to find the realistic arguments. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Before posting my last comment, I read all of my previous comments twice. I just now read them a third time. I don't see any comment where I opposed moving some of the material in this biography to an article about the event (whether that be called "death of" or "suicide of"). Apart from that, I agree with your comment about the poor closing admin :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Guillaume Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — This is WP:BLP1E. Not a notable individual. Not notable before this single event, and not afterwards. — O'Dea (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a very simple issue. Kate Fitzgerald was the youngest ever leader of the democrats abroad in Ireland, this alone qualifies here under a notable figure in Ireland.

Secondly, The article Ms.Fitzgerald wrote sparked huge debate on freedom of the press and free speech in Ireland. This again is enough to qualify her to have an article on Wikipedia. Thirdly, Her death has begun a conversation that is extremely important to hundreds of people a year in Ireland. The way Ireland deals with Suicide is extremely important. The only reason this should be deleted is if you have no interest in American Politics, Freedom of speech and suicide awareness. If these do not interest you, if you believe these things are not notable, then I can understand your lack of appreciation for this article. Just from the fact that so many people fail to understand the importance is more argument for this piece to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.36.148 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That she was a functionary in an American organization does not confer notability. Political organizers are not notable. There is no evidence that she has created any freedom of speech debate. Suicide awareness has already been increasing in Ireland in the past few years: this case did not initiate that; it has merely provided a fresh burst of discussion in the media because her story emerged because a newspaper article she wrote before her death. Finally, you cannot argue that the fact that people do not regard her as notable is proof that a Wikipedia article is needed to teach them otherwise. That is an absurd argument. — O'Dea (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Warning — Please note that editor 86.40.36.148 has entered three KEEP votes in this discussion. Two of those should be subtracted from the tally. To editor 86.40.36.148: please do not attempt to queer the discussion by multiple votes. One man, one vote. — O'Dea (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a discussion, not a vote.

• Democrats abroad was nearly defunct before she started. If you think that Democrats abroad is an unimportant part of Irish society, then yes, you would believe this is not notable. Having this article here will educate you otherwise. If you believe there is no evidence, I suggest you read this article again and that this article should include the ongoing media coverage of this issue. I have never seen suicide awareness get so much publicity, can you tell about a similar incident that stayed in the media for weeks? Not being able to comprehend the importance of this particular death on suicide awareness would suggest a great need for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.36.148 (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability outside of one event has not been shown. I really mean no disrepect, but this point is relevant - if the subject was still alive, this article would not have been written. WP:1E applies. I do not see that 'keeping the public informed' and similar arguments are relevant. Colonel Tom 11:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sadly because any person's death as a result of bullying is a tragic event but this article as it stands and with the current title fails WP:1E. Most of the press coverage seems to me to be about the bullying aspect and not Kate's life and as such if there is an appropriate article then Kate should be mentioned (possibly to quite a lot of detail) in an article about bullying and/or people who have committed suicide becasue of bullying. 62.25.109.201 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite the lede as a sumary of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jane Siberry. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (gossip) 18:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Trilogy[edit]

New York City Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Should be deleted or redirected to Jane Siberry. Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jane Siberry - the album is not notable in itself and an article on the artist exists. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to musician; fails to meet our standards for notability of recordings. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above Stuartyeates (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. It's worth noting that I originally created this, but that was a long time ago when our content standards and practices were still being made up as we went along, and it hasn't really been on my radar much since; if I were doing these now, I'd just redirect it right off the bat (or not even bother to create it in the first place). Each of the individual albums already has its own article, and can be reffed up to current standards easily; the box set is really just a packaging thing which warrants being mentioned in the relevant articles but doesn't really need its own separate page by current wikistandards. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merengue (software)[edit]

Merengue (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found zero significant coverage. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as, rather clearly, fails WP:N -Rushyo ^Talk 18:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that it fails WP:N. Didn't see any good sources. Millermk90 (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly not notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. I dug through all the various Google searches and couldn't find a thing. It's not notable. Maybe it will be someday but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not time for this yet; all considered, it seems that it would be pretty hard to get yet another CMS in here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow delete: Lacking reliable sources to make it notable. Mattg82 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Oakville, Ontario#Public elementary schools. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (state) 18:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain R. Wilson Public School[edit]

Captain R. Wilson Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Elementary/middle school with no claim of notability, thus fails WP:ORG. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Oakville,_Ontario#Education. I did a search and apart from the typical school entries (official page, government listing, "how good is this school in X district" pages, etc), there wasn't anything to show that this school is notable at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Non-notable school. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per usual practice according to precedent. (See recent discussions at WT:WPSCH. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: If this is closed as redirect, please remember to add the ((R from school)) template to the redirect page.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. Edison (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of schools in Oakville, Ontario#Public elementary schools as the best target. Not exactly a conflict of interest, but I am the creator of the Robert Wilson (ship captain) article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Whpq and others. Note that the article's originator is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Toronto2503. PKT(alk) 15:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Nano[edit]

Jack Nano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only sources are primary, and article is written like an ad. Only other mentions online are on forums and by sellers. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree, I couldn't find any secondary sources, either. Lacking reliable independent secondary sources, the topic clearly fails WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did some heavy editing of the article to try to take out the most unencyclopeic and promotional content and I have to say that there's absolutely no notability to this. It's basically a pair of shoes named after a cartoon character that the stores have created. While the shoes might sell well, that doesn't in itself give the brand notability. I wasn't able to find anything on the internet that proved that this is anything other than a brand that sells decently well enough. It might become notable in the future, but it certainly isn't right now. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Merge/Redirect content into the company's article C. & J. Clark. --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if we're gonna redirect, why wouldn't we redirect to Nickelodeon, the producer of the show. I would assume that more people are searching looking for that then the shoe. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From what I found on the internet, I don't think this is a character that Nickelodeon actually made. It seems more like it's a series of commercials that are similar to tiny episodes, but were created by Clarks and played quite often on the UK Nickelodeon. Nickelodeon might have had a hand in this at some point in time, but Jack Nano seems to be more associated with Clarks than with Nickelodeon.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Additional. I did a little more digging and it seems that this is most likely a character that Nickelodeon might have helped with and heavily promoted, but is still owned by Clarks. Everything I found refers to it more as a Clarks shoe character that shows or was hosted on Nickelodeon than an actual Nick show. [14], [15][16] The first link goes to the page of the person who designed the Jack Nano webpage that used to be hosted on the UK Nick page and he describes it as a Clarks character. The second link is to the Youtube Clark channel which refers to it in a possesive manner. The third link is to a random forum site that confirms that it was only a set of commercials, never a TV show. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Ahh, ok. In that case, a redirect is fine by me. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 03:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable at all. No point in redirecting, as the character is not mentioned in either of the articles suggested as redirect targets, and is not significant enough to need mentioning there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Swimming[edit]

Air Swimming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An activity of some college students, of questional notability. Loggerjack (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MADEUP. Lugnuts (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG with a lack significant coverage of independent reliable sources. Appears to be a phenomena for one school with sources on school website and school newspaper.—Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that this article seems WP:MADEUP, and if it is a real thing (which I really don't think it is), it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. Millermk90 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely going with WP:MADEUP - by the original definition of the guideline, no less ("made up in school one day"). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:VANITY (it's likely that the creator is one of these two students). Jrcla2 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eastfield Cricket Club[edit]

Eastfield Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable local club that doesn't pass WP:CRIN and does not have significant coverage (or indeed any coverage) in independent reliable sources, so also does not pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can find no sources which strongly establish notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can find no sources which weakly establish notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social-circles network model[edit]

Social-circles network model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about an academic paper citing the same academic paper. Fails WP:N on basis of no significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This makes my brain hurt. I can't imagine that this is a useful encyclopedia article, but I'll leave that ultimate determination to others. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient references to it for notability. This is essentially an article about a single academic papers, and I think such articles should be very strongly discouraged except for the truly famous, and the criteria for being famous is being discussed from a historical point of view in relating to the paper itself, not merely the subject. (For example, many of Einstein's papers would qualify, as the historical development of his ideas as reflected in them have been discussed in multiple scientific bios of him.) This is of course nowhere near it. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's done is done[edit]

What's done is done (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was proposed to be deleted. I just thoguht I might be better to include the whole community for opinions, incase the issue is with the articles' current situation, not with the concept itself.--Coin945 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this saying deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. It is a common phrase and i bet you have all used/heard it at least once. The stub provides information on the origin (Macbeth) and provides enough information to permit it's expansion by other editors. ~ benzband (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article does correctly give the information about this expression, which some people might be interested in. I think it passes existing WP standards, although not the original ideal of an encyclopedia. BigJim707 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a notable phrase, just from common experience, and it doesn't really need more citations (WP:BLUE). I think that as a common phrase it's good to have a little bit on origins/meaning. Millermk90 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because WP:NOTDICDEF. I enjoy reading dictionaries, but Wiktionary and Wikipedia are separate projects. This entry, with its meaning and etymology, belongs over there. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 02:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note

1. There is no changing something; it's finished or final. For example, I forgot to include my dividend income in my tax return but what's done is done—I've already mailed the form. This expression uses done in the sense of “ended” or “settled,” a usage dating from the first half of the 1400s. (also in [17])
2. [18]
3. This phrase and others like it find their way in many languages and many cultures. When Queen Esther finds out that the king had already signed the documents for the destruction of the Jewish people, she is realistic in that there is nothing one can do regarding what has been done, but you can still try to do something to divert the consequences (Esther 8:8). Shakespeare had the same idea when he wrote “Things without all remedy should be without regard. What's done is done” (Shakespeare Macbeth III. ii. 12).
4. [19]
5. [20]
6. In particular, Lady Macbeth's 'what's done, is done' suggests an eerie connection with the opening of Macbeth's soliloquy in Act 1 scene 7, in which he contemplates Duncan's murder: 'If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well / It .

--Coin945 (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• According to WP:NOTDIC, a dictionary definition is "primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." (emphasis mine) So what we have here is the one-sentence lead about usage, a section on the meaning, a section on the history, and the creator has linked some more usage and definitions above. You see where I'm going with this? Sorry, but delete. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Dictionary definitions talk about a word/term/phrase's history? I personally find that hard to believe. That sounds more like an etymology website (which in itself can warrant an encyclopedic article - usage, history, meaning etc.).--Coin945 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Think about it this way. If you're trying to write an article about a word or term (say, "what's up"), what would you write about? There really are only so many thing you can say, and having an etymology is evidence that the article is just explaining the word. Now, for articles like truthiness, it seems that would be a dictionary def also. However, it those cases the word or idea itself has been covered by third-party sources. To complete that analogy, I don't know of many New York Times columns written about the social impact of the term "what's up". Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the article now?--Coin945 (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient encyclopedic information, as will i think be the case for many such phrases. With material like this, the functions of an encyclopedia and a dictionary overlap. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baby shower. Consensus is that we should not have this article. Whether and how much to merge to baby shower is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  12:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy shower[edit]

Puppy shower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was proposed to be deleted. I just thoguht I might be better to include the whole community for opinions, incase the issue is with the articles' current situation, not with the concept itself.--Coin945 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible redirect to baby shower. It's not an unheard of concept, so it might be worth a one sentence mention on the baby shower article, but only one sentence. It's basically the same thing but surrounding a puppy, so it's not like there needs to be much expansion on the subject. I'm kind of ambivalent on the redirect, so if anyone has an argument against it, I'm willing to be persuaded. I wasn't able to find anything that would be considered a reliable source to show that the term is notable, which is my biggest issue. Most of the ghits I found (and there were many) that was actually about a puppy shower were links to store websites and dozens of blogs and youtube videos. I'm not against the idea of deleting it, if it comes to that. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• I'm going to go with delete here. A redirecto to baby shower doesn't even seem like it could conceivably work, though maybe a brief blurb therein about this is worth a mention. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is documented in numerous books about dogs. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The PROD was removed and since my deletion rationale went with it, I'll repeat here. Wikipedia is not for dictionary definitions. At present, the article is nothing more then a definition. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 03:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The article's current state is not really the point. The point is if the article is encyclopedic or not.--Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Err, why isn't the article's current state the point? We are nominating this article for deletion, not the general idea or an idea of what the article might look like in the future...Oh, and wth does "encyclopedic" mean? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 09:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the whole philosophy of Wikipedia - someone puts up a stub article, which yes, may very well be just a dic def, and then others with more knowledge come along and build on it? So yes, I think that, and have always assumed that AfD's were about an concept's sum possibility as an encyclopedic article.--Coin945 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds nice, but even stubs need to follow WP policies. At present, (note that at this AfD I'm not judging a future article) this article is just a definition and nothing else. Now, in the future, I do think that there is the potential that puppy showers could have a great article. It would take a lot of sources, and not just passing mentions like you linked below, but I don't think the topic is totally worthless at all. Again though, let me say that I'm not judging what the article could be but what it is right now. If the article was rewritten before the AfD was up, then I would judge that. But if we tried to comment on articles at AfD based on "possibility"...well...that really wouldn't work. Everyone would have a different view of how an article might look one day, and how would we apply our policies without being able to see what we're judging? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THe thing is... well, if I knew that the article stood a chance, I would have been crazily editing the article to edit it up to a better standard. I expect the sum total of the current article and a list of possible sources to be enough to decide if the article has encyclopedic merit. What's the point of me wasting all this time using every single source i can find for the article only to be deleted. If I know the article has no chance no matter what I do, I wont be wasting my time. Now that I know that the article has some possible encyclopedic merit, I may choose to furiously edit the article with other edits. But without you saying that this concept is encyclopedic, I never would've done that. This is why I think it important to, right from the start, decide if the concept deserves its own encyclopedia article.--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting time? BS. We're all arguing over one line of text on an online encyclopedia. We can't waste much more time then that. ;) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Touché... but do you at least see where I'm coming from?--Coin945 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ok, sorry about that^. Couldn't resist =P. Anyway, remember that just because the article is deleted doesn't mean you've lost your work. You can easily copy it now, or ask an admin to undelete it and move it too your userspace where you can work on it for as long or as little as you like. Now, you've got some decent stuff below, but we'll need more then just that. The Gazette reads like a blog, and it wouldn't last if that was it, and just saying that Millie (Bush?) got one really doesn't mean much in terms of establishing notability. The books are better, but even then an argument could be made for deletion because "its only passing mentions/blurbs" etc. Anything else you got? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well..... no.. at least I don't think so.... there may very well be sources out there that that justify this article's existence. I have only included a few that I collected after a quick search. But point taken.

P.S. the whole thing with Millie is basically this: Millie is the nickname of Bush's dog (aka "the white house dog", or "the first dog" - like "the first lady"). Her puppies were given to family members of Bush's family and as a result a puppy shower was held in her homour. That's pretty much it. Not much, I know, but it seems like the concept has ben acknowledged by people high places. That's why I kept it in.--Coin945 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note It was written about in The Gazette, per [21], White House/Bush connection at [22], and also: [23], [24], [25]--Coin945 (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Colonel Warden says "The topic is documented in numerous books". Well, the concept is mentioned in several books, but I can find no substantial coverage except as a marketing ploy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've edited the article. Any thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete / merge as non-notable neolgism. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to baby shower. The concept of a puppy shower has not been shown to be notable enough for its own article. —SW— ^confer 00:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion about merging can be continued on the appropriate talk pages. –MuZemike 05:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May-December relationship[edit]

May-December relationship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was proposed to be deleted. I just thoguht I might be better to include the whole community for opinions, in case the issue is with the articles' current situation, not with the concept itself.--Coin945 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable neologism. Loggerjack (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pet WP:NOTDIC. Bazonka (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships, as May-December romance already redirects to that target. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that since May-December relationship was created today, in response to a request for article creation, it is irrelevant that May-December romance points elsewhere. That redirection does not reflect a decision on the part of the redirector that this article was an innappropriate target for redirection, as this article didn't exist when the redirection was created. Geo Swan (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, redirect - as SO points out, that's what the other term redirects to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I am frankly surprised to see this called a "non-notable neologism". Neologisms are newly invented terms. A term invented over 700 years ago can hardly be called a neologism. As for non-notable, I am sure dozen of Masters and PhD theses have been written about the term.

  I am trying to write my comment in a way that will be least embarrassing to those who were unaware that this is one of the oldest and most notable idioms in the English language. But I encourage the closing administrator to discount the opinions of the participants here who voiced a delete opinion, who were unaware this is one of the oldest and most notable idioms in the English language. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships. Neither article is very long. The Chaucer material in particular would complement what's there. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but what does the length of the articles have to do with it? While these two topics are related, they are distinct. Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's not really enough material for a standalone May-December article at present. If you can dig up more, I'd reconsider my lvote. Also, rename as Age disparity in personal relationships, as it also discusses marriage (definitely not the same as sex). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note Check these out. After stuffing these sources (and maybe more) into the article, it should be fine:
      1. On a February 1995 Jenny Jones Show program about May-December relationships, the producers arranged for a nineteen- year-old black woman go on a date with a forty-six-year-old white man so as to stretch the boundaries of the topic to include interracial dating.,
      2. As for teen boys, she says, May-December relationships with older women do occur, but these often involve condoms because the older women demand them.,
      3. May–December relationships seem to provide instant recognition and affirmation by peers, with few detractors among the broader LGBT community. Older men have to be willing to be mentors and not sexual partners, regardless of their attraction.
      4. Of all May/December relationships, however, a mentorship is the one least likely to last: Sugar Baby eventually outgrows Daddy, and even rebels against his teachings as a form of manipulation. Their break-up is likely to be stormy ,
      5. Now you may be asking the obvious question, what about the May-December relationships where the man is older. Well, most studies conclude that this is a more successful match. Personally, I think it has to do with maturity levels. ,
      6. Moreover, the “anything goes” atmosphere of these districts provided effective cover for the May-December relationships that blossomed among middle- and upper-class women and men during the cabaret era. ,
      7. May-December relationships have a low incidence of separation and divorce. It seems as though there is a very individualistic investment of personalities in such a relationship that separates it from marriages of people in the same age ...,
      8. Little more than a decade (before 1962), Lolita would have been a bizarre improbability, since May-December relationships were regarded as vaguely improper. Romance between aging Ezio Pinza and Mary Martin in South Pacific was probably somewhat...,
      9. Not all May-December relationships (those with a large age gap) are bad; some are actually genuine. Not all of them are based on control. ,
      10. Undeniably, economic advantage plays a part in May- December relationships. But it's not the only dynamic. My friend Michael, 26, moderates an electronic mailing list for "mature men." He's attracted to "Santas," guys in their 70s. .
      11. [www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CC8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FEntertainment%2Fdemi-moore-ashton-kutcher-tough-road-december-relationships%2Fstory%3Fid%3D11707817&ctbm=nws&ctbs=ar%3A1&ei=Y5LcTrujJoqCmQW7rI3RCw&usg=AFQjCNEKO6pBxD8MWxBapytpLq69-Nb9NA&sig2=gIT4I1UUqXE1hYIbrl_uaQ "Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher have been the poster couple for healthy older- women May-December relationships," said Ian Kerner, a sex therapist in private...],
      12. Such “May-December” relationships became a common feature in Hepburn's movies. In nearly half of her films, her romantic partners were more than 20 years her senior--Coin945 (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is just demonstrating usage of the term. We already have an article on the topic of age disparity in sexual relationships. And your own list of sources demonstrates that this is not a distinct topic - any way I could imagine splitting it out would be "woman is young, man is old," per Chaucer, but in your sources we see the term applied to relationships where the woman is older and to male-male relationships. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have convinced me. There is no way to differentiate between the two concepts. They are one in the same. I support a merge.--Coin945 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Roscelese I agree with you that the references Coin945 has marshalled here don't demonstrate that "May-December relationships" is a distinct topic from "Age disparity in relationships". But I suggest that this is because while these references would be useful in the Age disparity article they don't belong here, as a May-December relationship, in its original meaning, is one where the elderly partner is a fool who cannot imagine their young partner being unfaithful, even though the young partner is unrepentantly unfaithful. Happy relationships between partners with an age disparity are not May-December relationships; unhappy relationships where the older partner is not deceived about the younger partners infidelity are not May-December relationships; unhappy relationships where the younger partner is sexually unsatisfied, but is not unfaithful are not May-December relationships. Arguably relationships where the younger partner is the unfaithful partner, but they feel guilt and remorse over their infidelity are not really May-December relationships either. You may suggest this is a narrow topic. And I would respond it is a topic that has hundreds of years of sholarly and other high-brow commentary on it, and this makes it notable.

  Should this preclude a merge and redirection? Hell yes! Merging related but distinct topics can be quite disruptive. It erodes the usefulness of several of the features that make wikipedia articles more valuable than plain old world-wide-web pages.

  So long as these topics remain in their separate articles I can choose to put one of them on my watchlist, and leave the other one off. If I am only interested in one of these topics, but the articles are merged, I am going to get a lot of "false positives" on my watchlist. I am going to be advised the article has been changed, only to find, when I check, that the change related to the other topic -- the one I am not interested in.

  Merging related but distinct topics also seriously erodes the usefulness of the "what links here" button. When articles are focussed on a single topic, then the articles that link to them, which are shown to you when you click on "what links here", also have some kind of genuine relation to the topic of the article. But when we agree to shoehorn several related but distinct topics into a single article we can no longer count on the links shown by "what links here" having a useful relationship to what brought us to that article in the first place. Geo Swan (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The definition in the article ("A May-December relationship is one in which the age difference between the two adults is wide enough to risk social disapproval") differs substntially from that in the above paragraph. Does this suggest that the phrase is not sufficiently well-defined to merit an encyclopedia article? It appears that if the article is to survive it needs some substantial tightening up. PamD 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well sourced, referenced, discussed in significant commentary in numerous secondary sources and academic and literature sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships. No one doubts that the terms exists and is used in verifiable sources, but we're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Different terms meanigng the same things should be described in the same article.This article is just an WP:EXAMPLEFARM of uses of the term, nothing more.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (to Age disparity in sexual relationships) or keep. These relationships have been discussed in more then enough reliable sources, and so it becomes more then just a dictionary definition. I entirely agree with Geo Swan in saying that there's no way this is a neologism, and even less a non-notable one. However, I also tend to agree with Yaksar's "different terms" comment, hence the merge first. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- In my opinion the topic of May - December relationships is related to, but distinct from the topic of Age disparity in sexual relationships. In my opinion some of the material introduced into this article, since the ((afd)) nomination belongs more properly in Age disparity in sexual relationships. My understanding of "May - December relationships" is narrower than that used in some of the recent uses.

  Prior to the ((afd)) the article cited a BBC comedy entitled "May December". I think I may have seen one episode, or part of one episode, of this series. If so it clearly didn't qualify as a "May - December relationship" as the concept was used by the original 13th Century poets.

  In those original stories December was a pompous, deluded fool, incapable of imagining that his young wife was cuckolding him, and in those original stories May, while young, was capable of unapologetic deceit in her cuckolding of her foolish old husband. In my opinion, references to modern stories where the elderly partner is not a deluded old fool, and the younger partner isn't a determinedly and unapologetically unfaithful betrayer may as well go into other articles on infidelity, not in the article about "May - December relationships".

  In my opinion the original stories merit coverage in this article; critical commentary on the original stories merits coverage in this article; modern stories that faithful reflect the foolhardiness of the elderly lover, and the unapologetic infidelity of the unfaithful partner merit coverage in this article. And all other references should go in other articles. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs considerable development, both addition and subtraction. The concentration upon the recent references is a little ridiculous; there are hundreds of literary examples--a suitable variety should be added. The tile is correct. Age Disparity in Relationships is very very broad, and deals more with the Real world; this deals more with fiction. It could possibly be called Age disparity in sexual relationships in Fiction, but that's going the long way about: there's a common english phrase, and this is it. Geo asked me to comment, and I decided to write mine without look at his, and so I did until the end of the preceding sentence. I see he has said somewhat the same thing, though my understand of it is a little broader than his: it has developed somewhat between the middle ages and the 20th century: it does not necessarily imply the older man being a fool. In a broad sense, it's one of the classic themes in literature. That television should trivialize it is hardly surprising, but the whole range of meaning needs to be discussed. It's time we took this sort of topic seriously. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note In regards to this clarified definition, I suggest we dig for more sources by narrowing the search terms. Apparently (due to the concept being clarified by GeoSwan etc.) I don't actually know that much about May-December relationships but I'll start the ball rolling with this. --Coin945 (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. "may december" cuckold at GoogleBooks
2. May-December Romance at TV Tropes (for what its worth... :P) - lol!! "Generally, the man is the "December" (elder) and the woman is the "May" (younger), though it can happen the other way around. May lead to cases of Ugly Guy, Hot Wife if the years haven't been kind to him."
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]

• Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships, as this is simply a poorly written example farm on the same topic. —SW— ^babble 00:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Bengali, University of Karachi[edit]

Department of Bengali, University of Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks notability as a department. Only the top few, truly world-class departments at a handful of universities have their own wikipedia articles. Should be merged with University of Karachi or deleted. I will bundle the other similar articles. This discussion has largely already been had, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Department_of_Sociology,_University_of_Karachi.—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 14:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bundled these additional articles:

• Department of Education, University of Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Department of International Relations, University of Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Department of Persian, University of Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Student life at the University of Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 14:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all; non-notable individual departments, unlikely search terms. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy delete. I'm sure there are some departments on the Subcontinent worthy of an article, but not these ones. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 02:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I am agree with Manicjedi as well you may delete it.--Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all In some cases we would redirect these articles to University of Karachi, but that's not necessary or helpful here. The university article is normally where someone would look anyhow for information about these departments. It is most unlikely that someone would begin their search term with "department of..." which could apply to thousands of universities. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not that made up. This appears to be a variation of the pediddle game me and my brothers played as kids. However, this variant is unverifiable so we can't have an article on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pop Pop Game[edit]

The Pop Pop Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my first prod was removed. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no sources and no proof of notability. This should really be speedied. --McDoobAU93 16:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you think you can stretch one of the reasons to cover this, be my guest ;) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MADEUP, defefinitely. I agree that this should have been speedied, and think that anyone who wants to should do that at any time, I am sure there will be no one who argues that this is notable. Millermk90 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Working off of WP:MADEUP as well. Not much more can be said that doesn't duplicate what's above; this said, I'd like to call WP:SNOW at this point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second WP:SNOW. --McDoobAU93 05:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Don't be too quick to use WP:MADEUP... oh wait, look at the creator's username. Speedy. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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