The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable company lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Company is founded by NYTimes reviewed writer who has been profiled in dozens of national and international newspapers and magazines. A feature documentary of the company is on Bebe Zeva, who is a 17-year-old model who was profiled in Seventeen Magazine and Teen Vogue this month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Churchhands (talk • contribs)
Delete Founded by so-and-so and did a documentary about so-and-so (even if these so-and-sos are in fact notable, which it's not clear they are) doesn't make a firm notable EEng (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks gnews and ghits. The "Thought Catalog" source likely does not establish notability, both of the companies founders contribute there. (It's also somewhat unclear what their editorial policies are.) The second source does cover the subject, but the third appears to simply be some sort of directory listing. Being associated with famous people does not transfer notability. OSbornarfcontribs. 00:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OSborn inter alia. A husband and wife pair of writers newly turned to films. I quote from Tao Lin's article here - "An article in The Atlantic described Lin as having a "staggering" knack for self-promotion" and "Another reviewer described it (Shoplifting from American Apparel) as "a vehicle...for self-promotion." (My brackets.) Thought Catalog does say in its About section, "Our content is always vetted and (most of the time) edited." I've just read through that transcript, and my first thought was to wonder if they had read it through themselves. (I recommend reading it, if you can manage to. I found it quite interesting, and decided as a result of my reading not to offer my good wishes for future success as I often do at AfD. I think it would be a waste of time.) If this achieves notability, I think a miracle will have happened. BTW, I have doubts about the notability of Megan Boyle - whose subject has had poems etc published in rather non-notable looking places, and whose debut collection is to be published by her husband's publishing venture. (Isn't that nice?) I'm just considering whether to CSD or AfD it. Tao Lin looks to have a better case for article status (if only for a review of his second book...). Peridon (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable film company that fails WP:CORP. Qworty (talk) 04:32, 2 February 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.
No reliable sources found to verify claims in article. Non-notable prank call with numerous unconfirmable statements of facts about origins. Linkspam magnet. Jokestress (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sourcing found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never known a prank call to make a valid entry in Wikipedia. What's next, an article for "Is your refrigerator running?" -- Cactusjump (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt this is notable, needs more reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2(Contact) 18:17, 2 February 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.
Unsourced list of dubious importance. Found on today's log as a redlink AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary duplicate of same list on their site. Being a government site it technically isn't a copyvio, but neither is that a convincing reason to copy it here too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 31 January 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.
Delete Not notable, with lots of odd claims on the page (like that he is 90 feet tall and holds the record for most broken racquets in a week). Ravendrop (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, strange page though, written by a fan KnowIG (talk) 21:46, 5 February 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.
Non-notable author of self-published poetry books and a novel published by self-publishing firm Hirst Books Corvus cornixtalk 22:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Lacks Ghits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete author with no notable works. See also related AFD for Life Begins at 40 (Novel). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all news stories on GNews are about a different person with the same name, a NN athlete. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible DELETE. Really awful case of WP:WG, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPS, WP:SPAM, and WP:SPA. What you've got here is a guy who pays vanity presses to print his work, then goes around the Internet, including Wikipedia, trying to masquerade as a legitimately published author, in order to try to get attention for himself and his conventionally unpublishable work. There is a related AfD about the same guy [1] going on right now--editors having to use their valuable time to try to get this guy's self-promotional projects scrubbed off our encyclopedia. Delete and salt, please. Qworty (talk) 02:25, 3 February 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.
Delete per WP:BK. Hirst may or may not be a self-publishing firm, but their site makes it pretty clear they aren't exactly picky: "whatever your book, we would like to publish it". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That site is no longer used. The "self publihing" imprint is now ::100 PublishingTraken (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reagardless of whether it is self-published, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish this as a notable book. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs better source material, and is non-notable. Perhaps over time if this novel gains significance (*cough*) it can be revisited... Cactusjump (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible DELETE. Really awful case of WP:WG, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPS, WP:SPAM, and WP:SPA. What you've got here is a guy who pays vanity presses to print his work, then goes around the Internet, including Wikipedia, trying to masquerade as a legitimately published author, in order to try to get attention for himself and his conventionally unpublishable work. There is a related AfD about the same guy [2] going on right now--editors having to use their valuable time to try to get this guy's self-promotional projects scrubbed off our encyclopedia. Delete and salt, please. Qworty (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page has just been brought to my attention. I wrote this book, but I did not write this article or the other that is under discussion. I am, however, very flattered that someone did. That said, you're probably right. Since the general opinion seems to be that the book is not yet notable enough to have an entry, then perhaps it should be deleted. I would, however, just like to set a few facts straight, since some comments here are stating opinions as fact based largely on assumption. Hirst Books is not a vanity printer. Despite the fact that they used to have an open submission policy in their first year of running, no author was required to put cash up front (as is the case with all vanity/self-publishing firms) and not every submitted work was accepted. I can back this up by the honest admission that I self-published my first two books, partly to try and get some work out there and partly because the second was a charity project, through what might be called a 'vanity press' and the system is totally different. Hirst Publishing is, admittedly, a new firm, and has undergone some radical changes over the past few years which might have led to some confusion to their status as a publisher. What probably marks them out so significantly from vanity publishers is that, for the foreseeable future, they are planning to take on no new authors aside from those with whom deals have already been made, most of whom are relatively well-known TV stars, whose agents, let us not forget, will know better than to print their work with a disreputable press. The self-publishing imprint, 100 Books, operates as a TOTALLY separate company. But if people do wish to pay to have their work printed with them, there shouldn't be any shame in that - they offer a good service. And, although I wouldn't dare put myself in the same league, it might be worth mentioning that William Wordsworth and William Blake were both self-published. If this article needs to be deleted, please delete it. You have no complaint from me. But please let's not get drawn into sniping based so largely on conjecture.Folkbeard (talk) 12:36, 4 February 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.
Delete First it is not a manga (which has a very specific definition) and second, this is nothing more than spam. The only thing that saves it from G11 speedy deletion is that it isn't blatant, though it is pretty close. —Farix (t | c) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 04:02, 4 February 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.
WP policy says that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think that's a good policy in general. I also think that it should be considered more when the word in question is not used much in English and when its meaning is not clear, as in the case here when the first sentence says it means "white people" and the second says it does not refer to any racial group. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment or tirade It is a reflection of the pride and/or narcissism of "white people" that we like to read about how much other people hate us. It makes us feel important. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know the article wasn't added by a Sioux? —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. However I think it is mostly white people who will be reading the article. I don't think that Sioux need to go to WP to find out the meanings of words in their own language. Jaque Hammer (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woah! Nowhere in Wikipedia policy is there an allowance to anticipate the ethnicity of the readership. That's really uncalled for. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
I thought it was a fair observation. Check out the article White people and its related template. Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just white people. Almost everyone tends to be terribly interested in something someone says to insult them. Borock (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if possible, merge into e.g. Oglala Lakota. I see no evidence for standalone notability or importance of this word/concept. GregorB (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term "wasichu" comes up in 5,270 published books through Google books and gets 17,700 google results over all—it's well represented in secondary, published sources. "Wasichu" is more commonplace than "wasi'chu," so a name change might be appropriate. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary Someone65 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The word is part of popular culture - I can easily find more references for its usage. Category:Ethnic and religious slurs demonstrates that the article has good company. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Reasonably sourced article on a notable ethnic slur. Not even close to a simple dicdef, and notablity is met by the sources in the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing is a good start, and there appears to be more complexity to the term than simply being race xs nasty term for race y, as many of our slur articles boil down to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP seems to have a tradition to keep articles on ethnic slurs. This seems to be because they give some insight into social history. Another factor might be that this is something WP is able to do better than other sources, since we anonymous editors can't be fired or sued. :-) Borock (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a rebuttal to the WP:WAXy repetition of WP:DICT: See Gaijin. If you choose to point exactly where in relation to the line between dictionary and encyclopedia this article is, and why, and why content could not be added to make it more encyclopedic, go right ahead, we're still waiting. Otherwise you are just throwing acronyms at the wall and hoping one sticks. Anarchangel (talk) 22:55, 6 February 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. While the argument that PORNBIO is met has not been defeated, this is not a debating society and there is consensus that the article should be deleted having considered the technical PORNBIO pass. There is also concern that the PORNBIO guideline may be too loose, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. As is customary, !votes from unregistered users have been given reduced weight.
I have carefully considered this closure and will not be amending it; feel free to go to DRV if you disagree with it. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable porn performer. The article has already been deleted seven times before, but has been recreated since the subject performed in one of 15 scenes recently nominated for the less-than-well-known "Best Three-Way Sex Scene (G/G/B)" award given by AVN, her second such distinction. The article still has no reliable sourcing and no verifiable biographical content; the subject still fails the GNG, as noted in the initial AFD. AVN nominations are handed out profligately -- the current list runs 75 pages -- and no longer constitute a valid proxy for the level of independent coverge that establishes notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete The article doesn't seem to have sources that meet WP:N, I don't think the nominations are significant enough for WP:PORNBIO, and I can't find sources other than press releases. Hobit (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP PORNBIO with 2 nominations, and she ist really famous, has a lot scenes on all notable Internetsite (Brazzers, Bangbros, Reality Kings). Just look at Brazzers, she is one of the most famous actresses there. --Hixteilchen (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSignificant coverage in reliable sources is conspicuously absent. AVN nominations can't establish notability by themselves. Chester Markel (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is not the sole criteria that may be considered. What IS required is that the awards and nominations set by PORNBIO are properly verifiable. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Topic-specific notability guidance is intended as a surrogate for the general notability guideline, to avoid the needless deletion of articles on topics that are notable per the GNG, simply because no one has yet performed the research necessary to identify significant coverage by reliable sources. For instance, if any reliable source establishes that someone was a United States senator serving a single term beginning in 1950, it may reasonably be assumed without further evidence that they are notable because significant coverage will exist, even if finding it requires the use of offline sources such as microfilmed newspapers. However, to the extent that the text of WP:PORNBIO declares notability for people who will probably never meet the GNG, it does not represent a consensus of the community. That's not surprising, since the authorship of WP:PORNBIO disproportionately represents users with an editorial interest in the subject matter, rather than a neutral cross-section of the community. Chester Markel (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting minority viewpoint, but not per "existing" consensus, as the the GNG and SNGs are not mutually exlusionary and are instead intended to be mutually supportive. This is why the GNG is not policy and has failed repeated efforts to make it so... specially as both majority consensus and existing guideline allows that notability may be established without a topic having significant coverage, just so long as long as the notability assertion is verifiable. Verifiability is not required to itself be significant coverage, and notability is not popularity. Of course, your interesting argument seems to assume that one could never find sources speaking toward porn stars... or that repeated and continued coverage of porn stars in porn genre sources does not meet the GNG. However, if you feel it or any SNG might disproportionately represent the wishes of only those users with an editorial interest in the subject matter, hold an RFC to eliminate PORNBIO as a guideline and let's then get all porn stars and porn related articles off of Wikipedia.... and then we can work to remove any SNG whose topic is of interest to the editors who edit those articles. Of course, and while Wikipedia is for the readers and not the editors... censorship begins at home. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I make no assumption "that one could never find sources speaking toward porn stars." It's obviously possible for porn actors/actresses to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. Jenna Jameson, for instance, clearly does. However, at least as you interpret it, WP:PORNBIO is clearly skewed, since it would confer notability upon each and every person who may have appeared for only two minutes in a one hundred person orgy, if the scene had "won a well-known award." The alternative construction of the WP:PORNBIO, that only personally receiving a well-known award would qualify someone for inclusion in Wikipedia is certainly plausible, but I assume for the sake of argument that the guideline really is as ridiculous as you claim. Moreover, the argument that SNGs must play second fiddle to the general notability guideline is not one of my own invention, as similar sentiments have been expressed by respected editors and admins who have contributed extensively to Wikipedia:
The value of SNGs is to provide reasonable presumptions that the GNG can be fulfilled. Using them to trump the GNG runs against the very basis of the notability principle and the basic content principles from which it arises. --Vassyana (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC) [3][reply]
The SNGs are meant to describe cases where GNG-accepted coverage can likely be found given time and resources for editors to find them (based on past experience and consensus), but not to evade showing notability via the GNG indefinitely. It is not overriding the GNG, only a means to show notability is met if there is no obvious GNG at the immediate time. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC) [4][reply]
Your attempt to questionably construe WP:PORNBIO, then use your view of this SNG as a means to force myriad biographies of NN porn performers who will probably never meet the GNG down our throats is deplorable. Chester Markel (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
?? The de-fanged PORNBIO states two or more awards in different years and does not specifically discount an award if it was for group efforts. So is your use of "deplorable" being used toward me personally, toward my recognition that PORNBIO is flawed, or toward my comments that the GNG and SNGs are intended to be mutually supportive and not mutually exclusionary? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes PORNBIO. I interpret scene awards as awards to the perfomers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's useful to note that, on the relatively infrequent occasions when a nominated scene has its own identifying title, that AVN typically does not list performer names -- another indication that the performer names are listed to identify the scene, rather than as the award recipients. For example, item 40 on the 2009 AVN awards list, as announced by AVN [5]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She was nominated for an AVN Award for multiple years--Johnsmith877 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the claim then that group awards provide notability to all in the group? That seems possible, but I don't know that WP:PORNBIO makes that clear enough to be a black-and-white issue... Hobit (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concept is reflected in other notability criteria where members of certain groups may be recognized for their contributions to that group causing that group to win a notable award. If there was no contribution to the group effort, there would be no award. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
btw, thanks for the longer note on my talk page. I'm just not sure that two group nominations are really the bar we should have, nor that that's what PORNBIO says. That said your arguments are perfectly reasonable and valid and based on the !vote your view will likely take the day here... Hobit (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, group-scene awards aren't "significant" enough to establish notability, as the contribution made to the scene by each individual is relatively minor. Many believe that WP:PORNBIO needs some tightening, and discounting group-scene awards would be a good start. Epbr123 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order to create as wide a consensus for such as possible, it might perhaps better to discuss over at PORNBIO the removing of or reconsideration of or clarification of "notable porn awards", rather doing so one AFD at a time. And with its deconstruction, we might also work toward PORNBIO being eventually removed and then all porn stars removed from Wikipedia entirely if their notability is dependent only upon winning an award (group or individual) notable to only that one narrow genre. Such awards should be seen to be just as self-serving as the Oscars... an award for members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences that are awarded by Academy members themselves in a glorified and self-serving back-slapping vanity. But until such time as PORNBIO specifically states that awarded eforts of group members for their contribution to group efforts do not count, we need to treat all guidelines dealing with group efforts as evenly as possible. One can imagine the furor over at WP:ATH if someone tried to make it that winning a pennant was not to be considered notable for a baseball player simply because it was based upon an recipient's contribution to a group... but at least there, that award is dependent on statistics showing that the group actually beat out all other competition IN a competition... and is not based on some arbitrary genre popularity.Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable porn model. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...another vote to eliminate PORNBIO as a guideline! Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pornbio is as worthless as this bio - its all about promo writers and the AVI awards - imo -this person is unworthy of a page at wikipedia - pornbio is a valueless criteria and I reject it completely as a reason to keep anything on the project. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not imo - WP:SNG - I am only speaking for myself and in regards to this single worthless notability guideline. If pornbio supports the hosting of people of such limited note and only in a promotional manner then pornbio also needs deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument applies to any SNG that allows notability to be established though verifiability of an assertion. PORNBIO was once far more comprehensive, but it has eroded quite a bit. At one time being featured in a nationally and internationally recognized publication (Playboy) was one of the common sense notability criteria of PORNBIO... and even as it that portion was discussed and removed, strong arguments were made that in a genre magazine read by millions even outside the genre, it should at least be seen as meeting the GNG. The currently shrunk and far less comprehensive PORNBIO does not address notability for group efforts. As other more comprehensive SNGs specifically DO allow notability for an award given in recognition for a group effort, and as PORNBIO is essentially deprecated, there is no reason any more for its existance. And as there will then be no acceptable manner by which participants in such a narrow genre can be found notable within that genre, except through am insistance that these genre participants can only be notability if that notability exists outside their genre, the removing it as an SNG will then allow a purge of all porn-related content from Wikipedia. And as children can read Wikipedia, a little careful censorship should be encouraged.... And in a related note, we should give grave consideration of a rewrite of the policy statements made under WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:NOTPORN could be added. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 04:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Porn is not a narrow, endangered genre. It's the foundation of the internet! --WTFITS (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the genre is not endangered... but the use of weakened genre criteria to determine notability of the genre for Wikipedia is. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Err. barely meets "pornbio" ("multiple nominations" = 2), and that rule is already dubious, as discussed above. There not much to go on in the article. Most of it is unattributed, some attributed to IAFD, IMDB, and AFDB. AFDB has some bare stats, IAFD has basically zero info, IMDB even gets her name wrong (or we've got it wrong, or we've missed an alias or three...) Are these reliable sources then? The award nom pages give zero info, other than the fact of her nomination, presumably included just to meet the rule we're talking about. So, what we do have is: that she was nominated, and she is highly rated on Brazzers, duly cited. That's not a bio, and I strongly doubt it can become one. This can maybe be made an entry on a list of nominees for certain awards, and that's about it. --WTFITS (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, which itself reads like an AVN biopage, the only thing this woman receives recognition for in her porn work is sex with multiple partners. Of course as Brazzers is rating one of their own, it is not exactly independent as a citation. If the awards from AVN for group actions do not confer notability to the group members for their recognized contributions, then the article should be modified to address the group scene(s) found notable by the awards, and not be about just one individual who actions contributed to the scene being so awarded. More to the point, if the latest version of PORNBIO and its current lack of clarity are being seen as dubious in application to the field it is alleged to represent, then it should go. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here and in other comments above. If you're saying we should wait for the rules to be updated before deleting the article, that is wrong. This is because we are not governed by statute, and it is especially important to bear this point in mind when we're talking about borderline cases of the rule in question. If you're saying that we're setting a bad precedent here, and that this would lead to a purge of porn biographies that deserve to be on Wikipedia, that is also wrong. This is because this article hardly deserves to be called a biography. --WTFITS (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am fairly certain that there was an old discussion regarding this and the ridiculously retarded guideline that is WP:PORNBIO. IIRC, it drew the notability line at excluding nominees for group awards. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less what the wiki-porno project people have to say on the matter, quite honestly. I believe there were discussions in a more...credible...location, such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Pornbio is weak enough as it is, extending it to cover all participants in gangbang scenes is too much of a stretch, IMO. My delete call stands. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the people at the "credible" Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) nearly blocked the porn project's proposal to toughen pornbio in 2009 [7]. The most recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) about group porn scenes didn't get enough input to form a consensus [8]. Epbr123 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I see that latter discussion mentions a similar AfD where PORNBIO was met, but basic inclusion criteria were clearly not. This resulted in a deletion, and quite rightly so. --WTFITS (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there someone that could checkuser the single edit IP addresses to see if they have accounts? Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 7 February 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.
Notability has not been established for this music festival. As far as I can tell, this festival started as backyard party and grew to...something. Apparently, some notable bands played at the festival, but that doesn't establish the notability of the festival itself. In the end, there isn't enough sourcing to show notability. The entire article is original research and mostly unverifiable. GrapedApe (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No source is provided testifying to the claim of notability of this "DIY" backyard festival. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I found this and [9] representing some local coverage. That's not enough to establish this as a notable music festival. -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started this article, and I may as as well also state that I was involved in the organisation of the festival. I can see that it is a candidate for deletion in line with wikipedia's current applicable notability criteria. In starting the article I had hoped that it would grow, sources would be added as event reviews, etc. were published. That didn't quite happen and even I don't feel I can put in a particularly strong claim of notability. Munkyfest was quite well known amongst certain circles, and part of a much wider scene involving many people. It received little media coverage, but then we didn't particularly court such attention. In fact, this sort of event will often not, by its nature, receive enough coverage to achieve "notability". Such scenes (defined by wiktionary as "A social environment consisting of a large informal, vague group of people with a uniting interest") will therefore be under-represented in something like Wikipedia, and that strikes me as a bit of a shame. I just thought I should make that point.Tubefurnace (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - I just noticed that the festival is "NPOV." Now sure how a backyard music festival can represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." --GrapedApe (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above "Comment from nominator" is not relevant to the deletion request. That one phrase may not make sense, or need more explanation. By all means edit that phrase out, or flag it up as requiring verification or explanation. This page is to debate deletion of the article on the grounds of its subject's notability. Tubefurnace (talk) 21:28, 5 February 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.
neologism. Cites included all used in reference to a campaign by the same organisation They do not indicate that it is a term commonly used, rather that it is a campaign slogan. As such it isn't notable. Escape Orbit(Talk) 20:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The sources provided support only the existence of an organization by that name, not that the term is widely used. Therefore fails WP:NOTE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:29, 30 January 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.
Delete Not notable enough for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, based on WP:PEOPLE and WP:GNG. I agree with the nominator that it appears that this page was a memorial by a family member. As with any other evangelist, McGee did not lead people to salvation because he thought that it would bring him worldly fame, and it is fair to say that he has received an eternal recognition more important than getting a page during Wikipedia's brief existence in the beginning 1/3rd of the 21st century. Mandsford 21:30, 30 January 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.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, June 2058 lunar eclipse is not encyclopedic, even though it is virtually certain that a lunar eclipse will occur in that month. Ideal gas equation (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ideal gas equation's comparisons to future tropical storms and citing of the crystal ball policy are inapplicable when debating articles about future eclipses. We know nothing at all about the specific characteristics of future tropical storms. On the other hand, we know about future eclipses with a high degree of detail, and encyclopedic coverage of future eclipses is possible, and is the practice on Wikipedia and in the astronomy literature. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as essentially a rehash of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2069 lunar eclipse and various other lunar eclipse AfD's (which the nominator may not have seen). I recommend either AfD'ing all of them or letting them be. —Soap— 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328 — because there's plenty of literature about this future eclipse, it's quite a suitable topic for an article. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every so often we get an AfD for an eclipse based on WP:CRYSTAL; I'm sure this is not the last one either. Unlike Harrison Ford's next movie or the next expected changes to the Dow Jones index components, the June 2058 lunar eclipse is no more a prediction than the June 1955 one. Both are a scientific certainty, requiring no speculation on the author's part. WP:CRYSTAL was written to prevent speculation, not to bar us from writing about anything that hasn't technically already occurred. We can still debate the notability of each of those eclipses, but as we no longer use crystal balls to predict eclipses, we should also stop using this inappropriate reason to bring such articles to AfD. Owen×☎ 00:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's been a half dozen delete nominations on solar and lunar eclipse articles in the last few years I've helped expand them on Wikipedia. None have been deleted. The solar eclipse articles are now completed from 1900-2100, and lunar eclipses from 1950-2050, and hopefully I'll have some time to expand them as I have time. This eclipse event specifically is important for being a central lunar eclipse, so that's why it exists now, but isn't very fleshed out. My main interest has been in seeing all the different eclipse cycles, and how they repeat and change over time. The hyperlink nature of the web, and wikipedia makes this a powerful way to bring out the relations. Its true all the information is on the NASA sites, but they are straight computational output, rather than relational. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, see WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball--Shizhao (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Comparing a highly predictable astronomical event to a highly chaotic weather event is comparing apples and oranges. I don't believe WP:CRYSTAL applies here because the "event is notable and almost certain to take place."—RJH (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. On almost certain, I remember reading somewhere computations of positional astronomy in the solar system breaks down after about 10 million years, due to the accumulation of small errors. (i.e. You can't prove the moon won't be flung out of orbit in a 100 million years due to an (un)lucky resonance!) So anyway, a mere 50 year prediction can reasonably be called almost certain. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the nominator has some reason to believe the laws of physics will change in the next 50 years. The crystal ball argument is spurious. This event will happen. There is zero reason to delete this and related articles. -Atmoz (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - the event is verifiable and is as close to 100% certainty of occurance as makes no difference. Nothing 'crystal' about it. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's 99.9999% certain, it's called certain, not almost. --DS - fax 11:26, 4 February 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.
Album by a band recently determined at AfD to not be notable. No evidence that this album is somehow notable independent of the group. (Prod removed because of what appears to be simple hounding.) Onorem♠Dil 18:08, 30 January 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 After sources were added, the question remained of whether WP:CRYSTAL applies. To the extent that construction and completion of the very long skywalk(s) is a future event, the policy wording is "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Consensus is that meets that criterion. Mandsford 14:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if WP:CRYSTAL applies here. There seem to be many sources talking about this project. Even if it doesn't happen, it could still have a WP article for a project that was planned but failed to take off. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now references have been added. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor article but would appear to meet WP:GNG by being covered in reliable sources. Note that WP:CRYSTAL refers only to unverifiable speculation as being inappropriate - since this is neither, it meets that as well. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 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, SpartazHumbug! 18:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Alzarian16. -- Joaquin008(talk) 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is sourced, passes WP:GNG and, as Alzarian16 pointed out, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. --Oakshade (talk) 19:09, 5 February 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.
Non-notable biographical article. No significant persistent coverage of this shooting as required by WP:VICTIM. Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 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.
non notable self published book WuhWuzDat 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish I could vote keep, but I simply can't find any information on it. Originator of article is WP:SPA, and possiblethe author of the book. The content is an exact copy of [10]. Are official summaries of books counted as copy vio? Summary notes indicate that because the book is for sale, it must be notible. However, that is not the case for Wikipedia. I have been unable to find a single review for this book by any WP:RS. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent copyvio, but non-notable anyway. Vanity-press or equivalent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The plot is a copyvio and I have removed it. There are no sources to establish this as a notable work. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 31 January 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. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non encyclopedic POV essay WuhWuzDat 16:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A piece of original research combined with dubious synthesis that reads like a high school student's sociology essay (and not a very good one at that). Emeraude (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's obviously more to do, but I think we have enough of a start to keep it now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search (supplemented by common sense) shows that this is a notable topic discussed in depth in numerous reliable sources for decades. Shortcomings in this article by a brand new user should be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The Topic is not up for deletion, this article is. WuhWuzDat 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The article can be improved by normal editing, which is always preferable to deletion when dealing with a clearly notable topic. I have greeted and encouraged the new user. That's better, in my view, than the bite of an AfD on the user's first effort.Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is indeed up for deletion. If the article has problems, it can be worked with. AFD determines if a topic is notable enough to have an article on it. DreamFocus 10:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the prime misunderstanding that many inclusionists have. AfD is not "Topics for deletion". It is "Articles for deletion". If there is an article out there on Michael Jackson and its content consists solely of "I hate Michael Jackson, he's stupid.", then that article should be deleted, even if its topic could potentially have a good article written about it. There's no reason that Wikipedia needs to have terrible articles remain for years (and by terrible, I mean articles that would require a 100% rewrite to have any chance of being a useful article, not articles that just need a little work). If you want to improve the article, then that's great, but if you just want to vote to keep it around and then leave it in its current state, then that's not a viable solution to the problem. SnottyWonggab 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have the speedy deletion process for articles which are obviously too flawed and that should be used for the "I hate Michael Jackson, he's stupid." type of article — G10 or A7. The problem with the article before us is a failure to follow the process detailed at WP:BEFORE. This tells us:
If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing.
Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered.
...make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist.
If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case ...
If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
These and other policies such as WP:IMPERFECT repeatedly state that we should be tolerant of such poor work and try to fix articles rather than deleting them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about WP:BEFORE remains, but I just want to point out that our CSD criteria do not cover all cases of "obviously too flawed" articles. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, there's a big difference between an article that is imperfect and needs some help, and an article where the only solution is to rewrite from scratch and ditch 100% of the content that is currently in the article. One of these is covered by WP:IMPERFECT, the other is not (and is not necessarily covered by any CSD criteria in all cases). On an article where the only solution is to rewrite from scratch, WP:BEFORE doesn't require anyone to rewrite it from scratch instead of nominating it for deletion. It's not anyone's responsibility except the creator of the article (or anyone else with a strong desire to see the article remain on WP). WP:Delete the junk is a popular essay which expresses this sentiment. SnottyWongexpress 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are discussing the topic. It is a notable topic. Title should probably be "Working parent." Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It's an important topic and is referenced and supported with research. It's not a personal essay, and is certainly not boring! It's a great point of departure for others to continue editing. Three votes for keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickpea.mama (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A valid topic, but there's nothing in here worth keeping. If a valid article be written in its place, the new article should have absolutely nothing from the current version, so there's no benefit to having the current text remain available. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyttend. None of the material here can be used to "seed" a good version. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate that we have a new contributor who is not familiar with how to write in the encyclopedic style. I'm afraid that those who are saying "keep", simply because it seems like a dynamite idea for an article, aren't doing the article's creator any favors. Nominating it for deletion, is far kinder than rewriting this beyond recognition without debate. To some extent, this issue is covered in latchkey kid, so no great loss if this is deleted. Not surprisingly, this has been dealt with before with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working moms and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working mums, and the problem has been an inability to write about this as if one was contributing to the World Book Encyclopedia rather than to Parents (magazine). We have a vague article with the bizarre, "WTF?" title of double burden, and it's just as bad as this one. Until someone can write a good article about the topic, I say create working parent as a redirect to latchkey kid. There's nothing here that needs to be preserved in the event it's redirected. Mandsford 22:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article latchkey kid is obviously about the children but this article is about the parents in such a situation. These are not the same topic.
Keep It is easy to improve the article and it is our explicit policy to do so, given the notability of the topic. I have added a book devoted to the topic as a source and there are many more for us to summarise. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like a personal essay or school report, not a Wikipedia article. Besides that, the term "working parents" is pretty self-explanatory, and discussing its role in society or the world can only be based on opinion and thesis. I can argue that all parents are working parents. Thus, if the points can be argued, it's opinion, not fact. -- Cactusjump (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addl Comment Looking at the article again, the title is actually misleading, as the article discusses stay-at-home parents, not working parents as defined in the introduction. -- Cactusjump (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is odd. This is about stay at home parents, but then an editor added in a bit about working parents. [11] Either one will appear in numerous books and news articles, so it isn't a problem. DreamFocus 10:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite The topic is clearly notable. Click Google Books search at the top of the AFD, and you see books written about this, with the term "working parents" in their title even. But as the article currently is, is basically crap. It'd need to be rewritten. Also, is it about "working parents" or "stay at home parents"? DreamFocus 10:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I've grasped the concept of a "notable topic". I understand the Wikipedia policies on notable people, notable companies, notable places, notable books etc - these are all concrete, tangible things. But a notable topic? And even if the concept of a notable topic is a valid one, "Working Parents" makes a great title/topic for a sociological journal article or book but not necessarily an encyclopaedia article. Emeraude (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not restricted to people, places or other narrow categories. The nutshell for the guideline says "Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.". WP:NOT does not forbid articles about sociology and so we're good. Note also that the essence of a general encyclopedia is that it covers all topics - the full cycle of knowledge. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colonel Warden has taken the time to make a substantial rewrite of the article on 1 February, all for the better. I think that it's pretty well agreed that the topic is notable, and that it really hasn't been covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. In that the initial objections have been taken care of, I hope that persons who originally favored deletion will judge the page by the improvements. I commend Warden for taking the initiative on this one. Mandsford 13:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Colonel Warden has been kind enough to rewrite the entire article from scratch, rendering all of the discussion above as completely useless (since the discussion was about a completely different article). However, CW's version is now essentially a one-sentence dictionary definition of what a working parent is, followed by a much more substantive dictionary definition of maternity and paternity leave (which, of course, is already covered at Parental leave). Somehow I don't think we're any better off. I think this article is best deleted and re-created when someone has the time to actually create a real article that discusses the significance of working parents with respect to the impact on their children, etc. SnottyWongconfabulate 18:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with above comment, I am voting again for deletion with the article as it has been re-edited. The article is now even more insignificant, since it is simply a dictionary definition. - Cactusjump (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added something. The cultural aspects of this, and how societies have changed because of both parents working, is well documented in thousands of books. I added in a bit to make it more than just a definition. Get things started. DreamFocus 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the concept of a working parent has significantly changed over time from the industrial age to the nuclear family to present. The title probably should not be plural, "Working parent" instead. The notable usage of the phrase itself should note why the phrase was employed as historically it was simply understood a family was led by a man who worked and he had a wife and children who stayed at home. America helped change all that as people could step out of their caste and go for the American Dream.71.139.13.248 (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:WP:DICTDEF + a few random (and rather tangential) facts ≠ encyclopaedic article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rome wasn't built in a day, and Colonel W and Dream Focus, like the rest of us, do this in the limited amount of spare time at their disposal. Unless the topic is so ridiculous that no amount of work would make a worthwhile article, fixing is always encouraged. It's not just a gripe with the "don't bother trying, delete" attitude; I have no use for the inclusionist equivalent of "keep- someone, but not I, will fix it". I disagree a lot with Colonel Warden, but I respect him for practicing what he preaches. Where something is going in the right direction, I say let it keep going. Mandsford 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But then Rome won't be built by giving it a name and throwing a few random rocks around -- it needs a solid systematic foundation (hence "sources address the subject directly in detail") -- which is what is lacking here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And one problem with reflexively 'rescuing' DICTDEFs is that they actually often make for bad article titles (generally because they are colloquialisms and/or overly-specific instantiations of wider phenomena), and mis-focused articles. In this case, the more encyclopaedic topic would probably be Employment and parenting (or possibly Employment and families), with a lead sentence of something like:
The effect of employment on parenting (a phenomenon also known as having working parents) has been the subject of considerable sociological study.
Comment: I can still argue that all parents are working parents, and that this definition is inaccurate. Parents who are the main child-care providers (a.k.a. "stay at home" parents) also work (housework, transportation, organization of meals, etc.) and can therefore also be called "working parents." You could speculate that only parents who have withheld all responsibilities in the child's life (ie. "deadbeat parents") are not "working parents." It's an arguable phrase and can not be based on facts. - Cactusjump (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few random facts and a definition masquerading as an article.--Yaksar(let's chat) 04:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep viable topic, current article sucks somewhat less than a blank page. --WTFITS (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A common term, I'm surprised that a comprehensive article isn't on the page. The refs demonstrate notability so I can't see the article getting deleted. Perhaps the problem is that it isn't a common term in the US. In the UK its two a penny references in news, book, frankly everywhere, hohum. Szzuk (talk) 21:16, 7 February 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. As is customary, less weight has been given to the comments of brand new accounts or those who appear to have shown up only to participate in this debate. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, there looks to be ample references (14). But, on closer inspection, the substantial sources are from himself (for example the article in http://oddstruments.com is based on an article in his http://www.aahalearning.com that he wrote). The person does seem to have a reasonable degree of verifiable professional success, and family members who are notable. But, I don't see substantial coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. Rob (talk) 16:51, 30 January 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.
Comment: the following was left on my talk page, and I'm copying it here: --Rob (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rob, thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for your comments. It is my belief that my first article about Dr Bruce Copley is no ordinary listing because the noteworthy and verifiable achievements span a 40 year period in the fields of sport(tennis), medicine, science, education, research, music and international business consulting. As a newcomer to the Wikipedia team (somewhat overwhelmed by the complex rules and policies) and someone who wants to actively make a significant contribution to the stated aims and objectives of this extraordinary source of information, I do have many questions which I hope you can help me with. Re the issue with multiple, reliable and verifiable sources:
1. Dr Copley has had significant collaborations with high profile people and associations listed on Wikipedia such as the International Tennis Federation, Prof Philip Tobias, Amy Biehl Foundation, Common Purpose, Dr Peter Block, Dr Leo Buscaglia, South African Broadcasting Corporation(SABC), South African Tennis Federation and many more. On his website there are quotes from many of these people and instances, and sometimes videos and photos showing their participation, as well as reprints from articles. Does this not constitute reliable and verifiable and independent proof, even though this material is displayed on Dr Copley's website?
2. If links to this material are not acceptable because they are hosted on Dr Copley's website, what kind of links would be acceptable? Would reference to blog entries, direct correspondence (letters and emails), citings in books, magazines, interviews be ok?
3. Besides the validity of the 2 out of the 14 links which are questioned, are the other links acceptable?
4. Dr Copley says that he can provide me with many more appropriate sources than the 14 links currently in the article. Would you advise me to do this?
ChrisStefan (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Photos or videos showing an association really don't count. Quotes only count if published in a 3rd party source. As far as reprints go, if he was covered in a reliable 3rd party source, that's reprinted on his site, you could provide a citation, and include a convenience link to his site. However, it must still be possible for people to obtain a copy (online or offline) without relying on Copley himself. I would also point out, you do have some reliable sources, but they're not really about Bruce Copley. Vanity Fair is the kind of reliable source you need. However, there is nothing in Vanity Fair that mentions Bruce Copley. Also, mere "associations" typically don't confer notability. So, even if the Vanity Fair article had a passing mention of Bruce Copley (which it does not), that wouldn't be enough. An article in Vanity Fair that is principally about Bruce Copley would help establish notability. As for getting more source from Bruce Copley: we actually discourage people, and those close to them, promoting themselves on Wikipedia. It seems you and Bruce Copley are treating this as a C.V. or resume, to convince an employer he's qualified. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that writes about people *after* others have written about them. You've shown evidence that Copley may deserve to be written about independently, but have not shown that happening. You and Bruce Copley should understand, Wikipedia articles aren't made by, or made for, or in consultation with the subjects. If the article is kept, he'll have no say whatsoever in what goes in it, and may regret it existed. Finally, a reason you're having trouble understanding the requirements of an article, is jumped into Wikipedia making a new article about someone close to you. Editors should start editing various articles, and learn how things work. If you want to pop in to make a fiend's article, you'll find little success. Sorry. You're welcome very much to be here, and to contribute, but you'll find no success in promoting somebody you know. --Rob (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I am addressing these concerns and will respond soon.ChrisStefan (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to criticisms:
I have extensively edited the content of the article and have included links to multiple verifiable, reliable and independent sources.
Issue: Substantial source is attributable to Dr Copley himself:
I removed the contentious link to Dr Copley's discovery of Fire in the Didgeridoo and replaced it with a reliable, verifiable and independent reference, because of the criticism that the source used isn't reliable since it contains content that was supplied by Dr Copley himself and is present on his own website. However, even though it is no longer really necessary, I want to refer you to the Wikipedia guide about reliable sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published by experts in the field, so long as:
the material is not unduly self-serving;
The information in this source pertains almost exclusively to the discovery of fire in the didgeridoo and it would seem strange if Dr Copley was not at least mentioned as the person who discovered this
it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
No such claims are made here
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
No such claims are made here
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
There can be no reasonable doubt about this claim even though it is extraordinary
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This is just one of numerous sources on which Dr Copley's article is based.
Issue: Multiple independent verifiable and reliable sources:
The following sources are undeniably reliable, independent and verifiable and specifically confirms Dr Copley's notability:
2 - Rhodes Alumni Accolades,
4 - Dr Copley's PhD,
5 - Citation in Phillip Tobias's book Into the Past,
7 - The New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine,
8 - International Tennis Federation research articles,
9, 10 - International Biographical Publications,
11 - Manser's book Circus,
12 - South African Journal of Natural Science,
13 - British Association Medal Winners;
14 - International Who's who in Tennis;
15 - Dr Copley's book Scientific Tennis,
17 - Contributions to Somatotyping work with colleagues,
19 - Free Spirit SABC TV Series about Didgeridoo,
20 - report on Official Sony World Cup Soccer website,
23 - Rainbow Rhythm SABC TV series,
24 - SKF Sweden Magazine Article,
25 - Dr Edwin Hawthorne: Bruce Copley on Holistic Leadership,
26 - Amy Biehl Foundation and Dr Copley,
27 - Symphonia created video of Two day event with Dr Peter Block and Dr Copley,
28 - African Speakers Bureau Listing,
30 - Sun Valley Community School Project
The reference (#18) to the reprint on Dr Copley's website, from the Australian Didgeridoo & Co Magazine, meets the criteria of independent verifiability and reliability. If people want to see the article they don't need to get this from Dr Copley's website but are free to write to this magazine directly.
Issue: Associations with notable people and instances:
Dr Copley isn't simply associated with these instances and persons, he has had significant verifiable collaboration with them in his professional capacity. Nobody has to take Dr Copley's word for this, or the videos, quotes or other source material on his website - independent references confirming this have now been supplied. It is also possible to verify all this by contacting these people themselves - offline or online.
Issue: Discouraging people who know each other from writing about each other:
I understand the need for objectivity since this is an encyclopedia. But 'discourage' doesn't mean 'disallow'. And in this case, 'knowing my subject' simply means 'knowing what he does'. You cannot write about someone if you know nothing about what that person does - whatever your sources may be. I believe my association with Dr Copley over the last 4 years actually qualifies me for writing about what he does, more than it disqualifies me. Furthermore this criticism is much more applicable to persons who write about themselves, if you look in the Wikipedia guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#Can_I_start_an_article_about_myself_or_my_company. There is no bias in my report about Dr Copley - these are all verifiable facts. If anybody can prove that these facts are made up or skewed, then there might be an argument about my ineligibility to write this. I don't think it is enough, or even a pertinent argument, to point out that I know Dr Copley and his work well and therefore 'shouldn't' be the one collating this information about him. Quite the converse, I would say.
Issue: Treating this as a CV or resume:
I am not attempting to 'promote' Dr Copley or find employment for him, instead I am trying to 'inform' the community of this notable person. The community would be worse off if this information is not collated here. Dr Copley deserves a Wikipedia entry and people deserve to be notified of him. His achievements are notable, different and sustained over a long period of time and obviously qualifies him as a notable personage. The issue here is not notability, but a technical issue concerning the existence of third-party sources. This I have now addressed by adding multiple references to such reliable independent sources. I as well as the subject of the article are fully aware that we do not own the article and that 'negative' information might be published over which we have no control. I won't be the one to try and prevent the addition of negative content as long as it is verifiable and from a reliable source.
ChrisStefan (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh dear. Lots of special pleading already. Well, I guess I'll jump in here. The nom's points are all basically correct: (1) There's no WP:RS – Youtube and web flotsam are not acceptable sources, (2) the points argued above by ChrisStefan do not go toward notability, e.g. his PhD diploma is nothing more than WP:EXISTENCE and does not make him notable, (3) the article tries to stitch together lots of piecemeal items to hopefully qualify him collectively for notable status (he has a PhD, he did circus research, he has notable relatives, he showed a musical instruments can catch on fire, etc.) Note again, what the article calls "international recognition" (Dr Copley's feats with the Australian Didgeridoo have received international recognition) sources to the subject's own website, which re-sources an extremely obscure magazine. I've made a good-faith attempt to find sources, but the best I could see were some trivial mentions, e.g. "Bruce Copley, who has been teaching pupils to play the vuvuzela, advised using baby oil to reduce friction" was the sum-total of mention in a Sunday Times article. Sorry, but this fellow is a country mile from notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Question What are the top two or three sources, and how do they constitute substantial, independent, and reliable coverage? --Rob (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mass of primary sources, unverifiable and likely-trivial sources, and obvious vanity scams such as the International Biographical Centre cluttering the reference list make it impossible to determine whether there is any real notability here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Rob's Question: These top sources meet the criteria and are immediately verifiable:
British Association Medal: [12]
ITF Publications [13]
SKF Sweden Article [14]
Sony website [15]
Amy Biehl Foundation [16]
Full Circle Magazine [17]
The Australian Didgeridoo, Free Spirit, Series 8, Episode 5, SABC 3 national broadcast, March 2006, Produced by Shoot the Breeze Productions. We contacted the SABC and they gave us an electronic listing number which can be used to request this material from them: OP30-86587 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] @ Agricola44:
Your statement about YouTube is a lie and indicates either bias or ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links:
"There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines. Linking to such sites is often discouraged due to misuse. Copyright is of particular concern. Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established if the link is used as a source ."
The article uses 4 references to YouTube links, all of which do not have copyright issues:
Discovery of Rainbow Vuvuzela - this link is informational and simply supportive of the other references for the Rainbow Vuvuzela, and can be removed if need be
Symphonia and Peter Block Workshop - this video is uploaded by a reliable corporation and the content is incontestably reliable and shows Dr Copley working together with Dr Peter Block
Recordings of Songs sung by Lauren Copley - these links are not videos but sound-recordings and if there is an authentic problem with the reason for their inclusion, then they can be removed from this article.
A Ph.D is one of the highest tertiary qualifications and could never be a diploma. Dr Copley's Ph.D IS notable at least for the reason that his supervisor is a very famous academic and scientist, who also referenced Dr Copley's own work in one of his books.
The sources are not piecemeal but rather proof of achievements in many different and varied fields, something which very few other Wikipedia entries have. He didn't just study circus performers, he is credited with seminal research on them. This is the quote from Manser's book (should we include this in the article?) "Of Medical Interest: A study unique in the West and probably in the world is that of the morphology, physiology, etc of circus performers such as is being conducted by Dr Bruce Copley of Rhodes University, South Africa. - A.N. Manser: Circus".
Apart from the reprint on Dr Copley's website there is reference to Dr Copley's activities with the Didgeridoo in other international publications such as the SKF Sweden article.
You accuse Dr Copley of trivial mention in a source which we did not even reference ourselves - please show how this constitutes valid criticism?
Comment. You can argue as strenuously as you like that a PhD and some Youtube videos etc make one notable, but that's a losing proposition. As David said, reliable secondary sources are needed (see WP:RS). If such cannot be found (I could only find the trivial one mentioned above), this article is sure to be deleted. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The PhD done under a world-renowned expert, and the YouTube videos proving close professional association with notable personages contribute to proof of notability and it is strange that you do not acknowledge this. I would be hesitant to accept an opinion on this by someone who thinks a PhD is a diploma and who makes absolutely certain statements about the invalidity of YouTube videos as valid sources, said statements turning out to be false. I have already listed many secondary independent sources confirming Dr Copley's notability, no need to do your own research and to report it as containing 'trivial mention' (which is highly debatable by the way). You have also not responded to the other comments raised in response to your criticisms.ChrisStefan (talk)
Why do you mention this? Here is a quote from your reference: Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits. Are you saying Dr Copley is claiming notability solely by association with family members?ChrisStefan (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mention it because only a couple of lines up you wrote "close professional association with notable personages contribute to proof of notability", a clear example of the "argument to avoid" that NOTINHERITED talks about. But I am tired of the filibustering here, so I am going to stop responding. My delete opinion stands. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your reference closely. Unless I am mistaken somehow, I cannot see that it specifies that this is a clear example of what to avoid. In addition I read the following at the top of the reference: "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below)." I want to point out that you have not responded to all my requests below for you to verify your earlier blanket criticisms. Let me also respectfully remind you that your delete opinion is useless without justification since this is not a vote.
ChrisStefan (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, it you who does not understand how this process works. The burden of proof lies with those who would keep this article to demonstrate notability through sources, not with David or anyone else to respond to the minutiae of your prolix pleading. The "sources" as they currently exist are entirely inadequate, as are your arguments for notability e.g. "videos proving close professional association with notable personages contribute to proof of notability". Sorry, but not. Policies with respect to a case like this are very clear. Unless you stop pleading and find real sources, you're going to be very disappointed with the outcome of this process. Like David, I will now stop responding and will observe from the sideline as this discussion runs its course. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
With equal respect, I point out to you that you are once again mistaken - the burden of proof obviously ALSO lies with every person involved in this discussion, to be able to backup the statements they make. My 'prolix pleading' consists of addressing the criticisms as completely as possible, one by one, and requiring justification from you for them if need be - which you and the other users advocating deletion have mostly failed to supply. If you say things like "numerous unverifiable sources" or "most of the sources are primary" and I counter with something like "this is not true, here are the sources which are verifiable and independent, please show how YOUR STATEMENT is true by listing those sources" then the burden of proof lies WITH YOU if you want your statements to carry weight in this discussion. As I have already shown in detail, we have supplied numerous real verifiable and independent sources which incontestably verifies the notable activities stated in the article. I have also shown that the videos in this instance are acceptable sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Even without the videos there are enough independent verifiable sources to justify inclusion of this article.08:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs)
@ David Eppstein:
Please identify the 'mass' of primary sources used, by which I assume you mean sources created by the subject himself,
I don't agree that there are numerous unverifiable sources - as shown there are instead numerous verifiable ones.
Please define 'trivial' sources, as I understand it, if sources are reliable, verifiable and relevant then they should be adequate.
Thank you for making us aware that the biographical sources are questionable, we agree and have removed them from the article.
ChrisStefan (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "primary sources" I mean: papers published by Copley, lists of papers published by Copley, web sites controlled by Copley or by his organization, alumni newsletter entries that appear to have been written by Copley and published as-is by the newsletter, etc. Which is to say, most of the sources. We need secondary sources, things written by other people, not things written by the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Copley's PhD, tennis book and list of publications are references to statements that he has made significant contributions in that field. The content of the alumni entry is not the issue at all, the intent there is to proof that Dr Copley is a Rhodes alumnus - if you care to read the article properly. There is only one website 'controlled' by Dr Copley which is his own. One or two sites have independently published something written by Dr Copley, or interviews with Dr Copley which by their nature are reports of what was said by Dr Copley - nothing sinister in that. Please prove your extraordinary claim that 'most' of the sources are sources controlled by Dr Copley or are publishing things written by Dr Copley, by listing these sources one by one.ChrisStefan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
While it is important to verify primary sources, it is my opinion that the unique contribution Dr. Copley has made over 40 years are worth knowing about.The golden thread that links all his various achievements, is the one of being a leader in the field of holistic education.Dr. Copley's personal academic achievements laid the foundation for a career as an educator and leader that adds to society as a whole.His unique contribution is emphasized by the references to various fields, which is an affirmation of the impact of his work on a larger scale.
````Lynette Steele — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynette Steele (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Lynette Steele (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
When somebody creates a brand new account, for the sole purpose of bolstering one side in a dispute, and uses the thinking/terminology/attitude of the only other user with the same position, it's obvious that's a sock puppet, which may be blocked by an admin, if the behaviour continues. --Rob (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, Wikipedia was an open forum in which anybody is welcome to air their views, even unregistered or first-time users, and I would advise you to be careful with probably unfounded allegations. On your talk page I said the following: "(I) would very much like your and other's opinions on whether the guidelines have been met and if not, how to do so." Since this is process is not a vote but a consideration of arguments, and since the objective here is to create an article that complies with Wikipedia policies, I myself have no fear of whomever decides to share their thoughts, whatever they may be.ChrisStefan (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:DUCK. Would you not admit that the one and only edit of a brand-new account that happens to make a detailed defense of the subject is suspicious? Even your own account is basically devoted to the special purpose of managing this particular article. These are the sorts of facts that further a perception of WP:COI. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It is not suspicious given that the creator as well as the subject of the article are both aware that only arguments and not testimonials are what count during this process. I would in fact call it "paranoia" on your part. As for my own account, I can only restate my intention to contribute to this amazing communal effort towards cataloging significant information. The statements in this, my first article, are factual with verifiable sources. This is what this person did and is doing, this is who he collaborated with, this is what people say about him. And, are you seriously accusing all newcomers involved with only one article, of being 'suspicious'? ChrisStefan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this puffery as there is no policy reason to keep it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. From Puffery: "Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views, such that no reasonable person would take them literally". Every statement in this article (achievements, activities, associations etc.) is objective, factual and verifiable and is meant to be taken literally. Please show instances where this is not the case in order to backup your claim.ChrisStefan (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead makes a great example of puffery, especially "He is the founder of the company AAHA Learning[1] whose stated aim is to re-ignite people's passion for learning through the application of holistic principles and practices". The one citation provided in the lead is to aahalearning.com, controlled by the person it promotes. Saying somebody re-ignites passion is not an example of objectivity. --Rob (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not state that the company re-ignites people's passion for learning etc. I write that it is the stated aim of the company to reignite people's passion for learning, and I provide a link to the company pages so people can verify for themselves that this is the aim of the company. I make no mention about my own belief whether that aim is truthful or not. So it is a totally objective, verifiable statement. It is an extraordinary and notable aim, but why is it 'puffery'? Also, from WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." There are references mentioned elsewhere in the article (ex. 24, 27) in which people attest relating to the truth of this aim as experienced by themselves. Once again, in these cases we do not say that this is a fact, only that other people are reporting this to be true for themselves.ChrisStefan (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of creating an article that impeccably satisfies Wikipedia's policies, I am inviting everyone who advocates deletion of this article to please point out those links in the article which are acceptable to you according to the requirements of notability, reliability, verifiability, independence and relevance. All I want is the number of the reference, then I will check the remaining references and see what can be done about them. If you think the article should be deleted please read the "Alternatives to Deletion" policy from WP:DEL where the following is stated: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."ChrisStefan (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All quiet on the Western Front?ChrisStefan (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zero. That's the number of references that establish notability. Find a new source, or this will be deleted. If the correct type of sources is not provided, there is nothing you can do to fix this. Don't worry about editing the article or making more arguments until you get the proper sources. If the required sources do not exist, then there's nothing else you can do to save the article. You're correct that a fixable article should be fixed, not deleted. But, without the proper sources, this isn't fixable. --Rob (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The person who nominated this page for deletion says that not 1 of the 34 sources meets the Wikipedia requirements.
In light of this statement and the responses of the other users who advocate deletion,
I ask the community to seriously consider the possibility of personal bias.
Do these persons own the necessary qualifications of being open and fair-minded?
As shown clearly in the discussions above, the various criticisms have been addressed completely
but not once did the critics admit that any of these responses were adequate and that their own
arguments were incorrect when this was clearly shown to be so.
Instead most of them opted out of further discussion without changing their stance about deletion
or backing this up with valid argument.
The reason for this must be that their minds have been made up from the start and
no amount of reasonable argument is going to change it.
Once again: There are already numerous notable sources in this article meeting the Wikipedia criteria.
For instance the ITF website, which is the website of the
controlling body of International Tennis. The list of publications referenced are independently collated and published by the ITF. The list shows an amazing contribution of high-quality research articles by a tennis scientist that is unmatched by anybody else, ever. This achievement was a world first in the 70's and now,
31 years later, it still is! But this same website is also referenced as being a notable source for
tennis players who have Wikipedia entries (just one example: John_Yuill_(tennis) whose claim to notability is
that he won two doubles titles in his career. Such an achievement is considered notable enough to warrant
inclusion in Wikipedia, even though that feat has been achieved and surpassed by countless other people.
Yet Rob and the others believe that the same ITF website is not considered a notable source
for proof of an exceptional and unmatched contribution?
The British Association Medal is one of the highest research awards which it is possible to award in South Africa.
You are seriously saying this reference is not a notable source? The SABC, who independently approached Dr Copley
to feature him in their programmes because of his unique achievments, is not a notable source? The SKF Sweden magazine interview? Etc. etc.
The aim here is to create an article that meets the Wikipedia criteria.
To this end I am currently filing a request for informal mediation with the Mediation Cabal before attempting a formal request from the Mediation Committee. Also, since I am not writing this article on my computer in the middle of the night underneath my
bed with a blanket over my head and a hooded torch, there are many people in my life who are
aware that I am writing this article. Some of them have already indicated that they might like to
join this discussion to air their own views objectively.
I am now openly inviting all of them, the entire Wikipedia community, friends, enemies, anybody else,
to feel free to make objective pragmatic suggestions with the aim of creating a Wikipedia article
that impeccably complies with the Wikipedia guidelines, and to also invite their acquaintances to do so.
ChrisStefan (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an observer of the lengthy and charged discussions on this topic,
My Questions for clarification as follows: 1. From the references cited it is clear that many meet the Wikipedia criteria of noteworthiness, reliablility, independence and verifiability...I would like to know why this is being ignored? 2. Would this not impact negatively on users of Wikipedia? 3. How credible is Wikipedia when in a discussion forum like this, deletion is being advocated by major role players whose comments and reasoning do not appear to be aligned with Wikipedia's clearly stated and admirable goals and listing criteria?Sfuma (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)— Sfuma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wow, how difficult should it be to record history. The sources provided undoubtedly proofs to be verifiable, defnitely notable, surely independent and reliable. If this individual needs to provide greater clarity for some scholars, I suggest that an extension be allowed to do so as it is important for several different disciplines to take note of these valuable contributions. I checked several sources and I am happy that it complies to the 4 thrusts mentioned above. Perhaps the various fields of expertise add to the confusion for some. Yours in developing knowledge and noteworthy contributions.
EdwinHawthorn (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)— EdwinHawthorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have made the following response to this accusation:
"I am not creating multiple accounts for myself. I am using two computers at different locations to make posts as the user ChrisStefan only. I notice that there is a tool called "checkuser" WP:CHECK which can be used to obtain technical evidence related to this charge, and I have no objection to this tool being used to clear up these allegations, in fact I welcome this. It is a recorded fact that openly I invite people to make objective pragmatic contributions to the discussion - I have not asked anybody for personal support. The user Rob refuses to consider the actual arguments submitted and instead fixates on categorizing people into suspicious (according to him) "for" or "against" camps." In a request for mediation I have already asked the community to consider bad-faith on the part of this user - maybe this allegation provides further proof of this. ChrisStefan (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also demonstrating bad-faith by the user Rob on the discussion page of Sharlto Copley because of this user's biased deletion of relevant information on that page. ChrisStefan (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My response is not based on Copley’s sport and academic achievements though they clearly had a significant influence on his understanding of performance excellence as well as the pitfalls of competition as they might influence the relationships of community members on all levels. My view is from an individual and collective competence development perspective as I encounter as a business advisor of occupation. I find the article novel. If an academic article debating a specific issue is submitted, it should depart from a thorough literature review not to reinvent the wheel. The candidate must either add or deviate from the outcome of such a thoroughly referenced review to add to the body of knowledge. If a person forms the source of the article based on achievements breaking the stereotypes and moulds of confinement, I view the listed references from that perspective against the background of failed interventions over time. I am of opinion based on the outcome of my study mission interventions that most development attempts fail in isolation as the inventors became prisoners of their disciplines exploring the territory from a single perspective building learning maps on halfistic truths. I find from the work of Copley a fresh and critical difference much needed to solve various people and organisational development dilemmas. In my own terminology I define the organisation and its people as a Work Place Community which will stay a pseudo arrangement unless diversity op values and feelings are exposed and penetrated and real understanding and respect are fostered. There exist a vast amount of literature and development interventions on Team Building, but very little on community building in the work place. There exist a subtle but critical difference between team and community and Copley provides a specific insight into practical ways of building workplace communities. That and his insights on the field of holistic intelligence and the inter-connectivity of everything as illustrated by the hologram I consider of fundamental importance to real learning From what I see in the article this could be a prominent and much needed building block. It is not based on following the rules of business but re-writing them. I therefore consider this article as notable and important and would vote for it not to be removed. I do not like the inclusion of achievements of family members as they are not necessary to establish credibility of the main subject, on the contrary I think they might jeopardise the integrity of the article unintentionally in that it might provoke personal alienation of the main subject. I consider it as "noise, but focussing on the "main event" I did not allow this to influence my judgement. Dr Deon Mushavi Huysamen — Mushavihuysamen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Mushavihuysamen (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC) — Mushavihuysamen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
My previous response was primarily based on the worthiness of the content of the article based on my field experience on the terrain, but obviously that will depend on where you view it from to some extent. As far as the removal from the platform is concerned based on the rules of Wikipedia, I cannot find enough substance to support deletion. The independant references are enough in my opinion and arguments on some of their value falls outside the boundaries of acceptance as far as I am concerned. The value of a diamond lies in what is cut away and if those references under debate are deleted, the article stays valid and noteworthy. Without going into a debate on the trees in the forest which drew critisism I find the forest worthy of staying. The arguments above are not substantial to comply with deletion. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushavihuysamen (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Mushavihuysamen (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is posted on the article's dicussion page and seems to be meant for this page, so I copy it here: ChrisStefan (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Copley is known to many. Some may say with unwanted results and others claim powerful benefits. Certainly his impact is way above avarage as his accompanying references indicate. What remains easy to reference, is that Copley continues to make a marked impact socially. Whether that be in the sports or the human development arena. I have checked the references supplied and they are both plentiful and credible. For this reason I feel that his listing is warranted and should remain. I believe comment on his ability to make fire with a didgeridoo and sound is controversial and possibly not appropriate in the space provided, as insufficient scientific accompaniment exists at this time. Myview2 (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC) — Myview2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete I am somewhat uncertain about this 'creating' fire business. Some of what I find about it appears to suggest that the rhythm and note create the ember, some to suggest that an ember placed inside with kindling can be made to flame. The latter sounds the most likely to me, but so what? You can blow on an ember with kindling and get it alight. The whole article is promotional. Refs? I'll start with the Rhodes accolades. I read a few of them as well as Copley's, and decided they probably were all PR. They sound like PR, anyway. The itftennis one is a list of articles by all sorts of people. The AfriOceans Warriors one is a brief mention. So is the amybiehl ref. Sun Valley is a gallery of pictures with no real explanation. I can't comment on fevacasters as I refuse to install Flash on this machine. The leadership365 one is a better mention, but wordpress is not exactly a reliable source any more than blogspot is. Like Wikipedia, anyone can post there. (But unlike Wikipedia, things are not subject to a small army of monitors...) We get a lot of motivational speakers here at AfD, though not many are multi-instrumentalists. I too am a multi-instrumentalist, but haven't tried a vuvuzela (from what I heard during the World Cup I'm not sure I want to), and with the price of didgeridoos I wouldn't particularly want to set fire to one (unless I was using the fire technique rather than termites to make one - termites are more than scarce here). While I think there could be notability in the subject, I don't feel the article shows it sufficiently. It would definitely need a complete rewrite to avoid the largely promotional tone. Peridon (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The value of a diamond lies in what is cut away" - OK. You have the bits cut away and I'll have the diamond... Peridon (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Peridon You pretend to have done the research and to have examined the sources and the articleclosely, but on closer inspection it is clear that your comments are inaccurate and even false.
Fire Didge: Ember placed in kindling has to be present. However there are very particular conditions which must exist before a fire can be started in a didge. You can blow as hard as you want and with whatever rhythm, but unless you do it at one particular note the fire will not start. It took a lot of work by Dr Copley to discover this and has not been done by anybody else before. I wonder what Edison would have made of your comment "so what" if you had made it when he finally discovered the material that works as a filament for his lightbulb. (He might have wished that he had discovered the revolver instead.)
Re Rhodes Alumni: Once again, the Rhodes 'accolades' on this page have nothing to do with any promotional effort, this source is used solely to prove beyond doubt the biographical fact that Dr Copley is a Rhodes alumnus.
ITF tennis articles: By "all sorts of people" you are referring to notable tennis scientists. This is a list independently collected by the world's governing body of tennis, and if you read the article and the comments above you would see why Dr Copley's contributions here are remarkable and unmatched since the 70's up to the present day.
The Afri-Oceans Warriors: Brief mention? Hmm... twice of Dr Copley plus once of his son Donovan, plus photo showing participation and organisation of this key event. Also, this is a supporting source used with three other sources which together serve to prove a particular claim incontestably and completely.
Amy Biehl Foundation: The Amy Biehl mention which you call 'brief' is actually an entire page with photos and quotes and reports about a learningshop hosted by Dr Copley with the Amy Biehl Foundation, which they say is the first of its kind for their staff.
Sun Valley Primary School Gallery: There is a saying 'a picture is worth a thousand words' but in this case it seems more are needed. The statement in the article where the source is used might give us a clue though ... yes! The pictures are independent and reliable proof of participation in a community project! Mystery solved.
Wordpress blog: This reference is undeniably reliable and a simple internet search can easily verify the worth of this author. I have now done this work by including a link to this author's company website.
Notability of the article: From WP:NOTE "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and they therefore require articles to be 'notable' enough for inclusion, which means it should have been 'noted' to a significant degree by enough independent, reliable and verifiable sources". Also, have you read the argument above about how this page compares to other Wikipedia pages?
Promotional tone: All the statements are factual and totally independently verifiable by reliable sources. Sometimes, that which is 'extraordinary' might appear to be 'promotional' to some people. As an example, please indicate to us how to rewrite the following sentence into a less 'promotional' sounding statement without losing information or falsifying it: "Dr Copley was awarded the prestigious British Association Silver Medal in 1982 for outstanding Scientific Research[12] and was the first Sports scientist to receive this award".
I welcome your comments to my comments about your comments. ChrisStefan (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Participating in a community project and being a Rhodes alumnus are not of themselves notable. The 'brief mentions' are in reports of events. They do not look to me like coverage of Copley as a person. Comparison with other pages doesn't come in - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. 'So what?' was because no significance is shown for this 'discovery'. The use of tungsten in light bulbs was important. Are we expected to go around lighting fires with didgeridoos? Does it have a moral message? Is it good for building teamwork? Or is it a party trick? I don't know. I can't see any reason why anyone would want to start a fire in a didgeridoo. "The pictures are independent" - they tell us nothing. Words like 'prestigious' (and 'passionate') are usually regarded as peacock terms. I will grant possible notability in the sports field - but volume is not notable. The claim of the book being 'prescribed' needs a citation. Who prescribed it? Was it used? Back to the didge: "It took a lot of work by Dr Copley to discover this and has not been done by anybody else before." Has anyone done it since? Has anyone really tried? Peridon (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Peridon: Re didgeridoo. I am a passionate musician and I welcome opportunities to find out about innovations in the industry all over the world. I find it inspiring when people make an effort to push boundaries, no matter what shape or form, as long as no harm is done to other people or the planet. I can't understand why WP would go to such pains to prevent this bit of so-called trivia from being visible to people who might just find it interesting? Whilst I think you are quite a humorous well meaning person, I feel uncomfortable with the fact that you seem to be speaking on behalf of the rest of the planet's population when you use the word "we". In other words, speak for yourself.41.133.243.26 (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)— 41.133.243.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non notable person WuhWuzDat 16:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the nominator's three word argument that this is a "non notable person", the article asserts notability, saying he was a freedom fighter in the 1857 uprising in India, a revolutionary, and that he spent 14 years in Britain pleading the Indian cause. A Google search confirms that this is all true, and that he was a notable figure in Indian history as attested by many reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One just has to look at the gbooks link that comes with the nomination to assess notability. Cullen328 has also sourced the article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE would have indicated notability, as has been determined. The subject for the article is noteworthy and reliably sourcable as same. - The BushrangerOne ping only 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article a bit, and added some references. Cullen328 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable even if he was an Indian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article claims the subject was a diplomat for the independent state of Satara and a key figure in the Indian Rebellion of 1857, both of which are supported by reliable sources. As such the subject seems to be notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:04, 5 February 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.
Delete - a shopping mall just like dozens, if not hundreeds, of others in Florida. There isn't a single thing in the article that indicates how the shopping center is/was any different from the others, and a quick Googling doesn't indicate it as having anything notable about it either. Being mentioned in the Aventure Guide does not notability provide. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the article? It has eight secondary sources already, and plenty more in the Google News link. This is hardly an ordinary shopping center; it was already in foreclosure in 1997, meaning it had an atypically short life as a viable retail outlet. It was almost torn down for a Wal-Mart but Wal-Mart couldn't get the approval. The county tried to hit up the mall owners to pay for road improvement. Do those sound like everyday occurrences to you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, yes they do. The short life is a little eyebrow-raising, but people here crusade against Wal-Mart every time they seek an approval; and virtually every county here requires commercial developments that increase road traffic to pay for road improvements (turn lanes, traffic signals, and the like). Given precedent though I'm willing to change my !vote to Neutral. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's been a while... I originally prodded the article back in 2007, put it up for AfD when prod was contested – but I can't recall why I withdrew the AfD. Anyways, I still see nothing that significant in the subject, which seems to be covered mainly by very local sources, but I defer to the recommendation of Ten Pound Hammer, who knows a thing or two about shopping malls. --Ohconfucius¡digame! 01:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If TPH says its notable, it is. And it is; there is sufficient coverage of it out there.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several reliable sources describing the mall. Dough4872 05:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This artical has survived 3 previous attemps at deletion, although it is far from a good artical there are many more bad articals on WP that deserve deletion before this one.Peacekeeper 1234 14:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
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. Or more precisely, not-delete. Redirecting is an available option at usual editorial discretion. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after the close: Three of the keep votes below were sockpuppeting on behalf of Bell Pottinger, as a result the article has now been redirected. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Person with little or no notability outside of his company (which already has an article). Article has been redirected to the company article no less than 3 times, but an SPA keeps reverting this WuhWuzDat 16:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. References provided focus on the businesses and professional affiliations of the subject, rather than the subject himself. Respectfully, Cind.amuse 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Article does not read as promotional and the references at first sight look solid. However several are simply to directories of one sort or another, or to articles about another businessman or a firm which tangentially mention Langmead. The only two cites focussing on him are the two rich list entries, which IMO are too brief to support a separate article. Redirect to Natures Way Foods and include info on Langmead there. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 17:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incorrect to say there is a 'lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources'. The sources are the Financial Times, the Sunday Times, Management Today and Press Enterprise. Although it is true that he is well-known because of his company Natures Way Foods, he and not his company was listed in the Sunday Times rich list twice and he and not his company was listed in Management Today's top entrepreneurs listing twice. Since the deletion tag was added, I have entered an additional citation for the Management Today listings. The article fulfils all notibility criteria and as I say, his listings in the Sunday Times and Management Today are about him and not his company. Martinj1973 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)— Martinj1973 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I've carried out my own research on Robert Langmead and there is a good argument for keeping this article, mainly due to the number of major newspapers reporting his business achievements. These references don’t just mention Natures Way Foods, they focus on Langmead’s business achievements and entrepreneurship, for which he is highly regarded within UK business circles. Biggleswiki (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having looked at this article, it seems to be well-sourced and it written from a neutral point of view. The article from Management Today, "Britain's Top 100 Entrepreneurs 2007: Family Fortunes", places Robert Langmead at number 44 and establishes his notibility as an entrepreneur. Diginerd84 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The citation above, in its entireity, reads as follows: "44. DAVID & ROBERT LANGMEAD - Natures Way Foods. As the newest functional food fashion, vitamin and mineral-rich seeds and pulses could take the prepared fresh produce sector by storm. And Natures Way Foods and Langmead Farms are leading the charge. The Langmead family, led by David and Robert, has extensive farming interests in the Chichester area, supplying prepared salads and fresh produce. It counts Tesco, Sainsbury and Morrisons among its customers. Natures Way Foods made £2.8m profit on £72.5m sales in 2004-05." While the source is impeccable for reliability, I just don't feel the content is rich enough to justify an entire article separate from that for the company. WP:BIO says: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. I do feel this citation on its own is trivial - it's hardly an in-depth biography! Whether the other trivial sources, put together with this, are sufficient to confer notability, is a matter for the closing admin! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 14:34, 1 February 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable list only cited to the primary source and attacking in nature. I suggest - speedy delete.Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the subject of the article failing to meet WP:GNG .... does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, G10(attack), tagged as such. WuhWuzDat 16:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, implicitly violates BLP for so many people. I agree with others that this should be speedy delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 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.
This list was prodded almost two years ago; the prod was removed by the page author with a promise to expand the list, which has not happened, at all. The list draws some of its data from a potentially unreliable source (scramble.nl), but there is no way to tell which data comes from where. In addition, the list is by its own admission incomplete and unlikely to become complete. As it is, the page is a very, very long list of "X crashed at Y" without any details. I'd argue this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:AIRCRASH; the author's assertion in response to the prod that "information like this is indeed of interest for every aircraft type" is fallacious, as Wikipedia is not a directory of aircraft crashes. Now, List of combat losses of the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 would be a notable, verifiable and intriguing topic, but a list that simply lists every single crash of the type isn't something that should be on Wikipedia. The BushrangerOne ping only 15:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:AIRCRASH. On top of that this list is of virtually no use to any reader as the refs are not indicated for any individual loss, so none can be verified, additionally the lack of any details makes it pointless. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For above reasons; further, to make this a really worthwhile reference would take an almost full-time-job dedication, which I don't have time for, and as I'd realised - it would probably require in large part original research. I do like the combat losses idea, however. 2Q (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Ahunt Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 1 February 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.
Following a clarification of WP:CRIN, it was decided cricketers who had played in World Cricket League Division Five or higher were notable. Lei has not played in the World Cricket League nor has he played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket, so per WP:CRIN and by extension WP:ATH he is non-notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query why is this article being challenged again after it survived last time. Silent Billy (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:CRIC have clarified their notability guidelines, in line with WP:ATH so as to rule better on very minor "internationals" at such a low level of the sport.—User:MDCollins (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player hasn't played in WCL5 or above (per nom) so doesn't meet WP:CRIN. He doesn't meet WP:ATH as, being an amateur, has not played at the highest level. No indication of any reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.—User:MDCollins (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He doesn't seem to have played at a level that would confer notability. – PeeJay 13:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, there is some spotty third-party coverage here and here, but not really enough to build a verifiable article on him yet. Lankiveil(speak to me) 01:17, 6 February 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.
Topic that has little information and no reason to be a standalone article. Should be either deleted or merged into Dragon Quest as per article criteria. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the concerns by Jonathan Hardin. If we have enough information as development progresses, we will restore this article. DarthSjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge + redirect Previous merge discussion occured about 2 years ago shortley after announcement, that did have consensus to stay the status quo. Essentially though since then nothing has emerged from the game except rumours and crystal balling. In fact the original annoucnment and the basis for the article is essentially that the game is planned to be out for the wii, when and if it will happen is still unknown and still with uncertainty. I dont think deletion is entirely prudent, but i do think the material from the page would be best suited on the main series page rather than its own stand alone article for this time. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Doesn't have enough content to keep separate. Examples of good unreleased games would be Kingdom Hearts III and Kirby (2011 video game). Mario Kart 3DS barely has enough to warrant a split article, but has a better chance then this one. All the sources are years old, and there is no indication that more will appear other then "We want this game to come out" stuff. Blake(Talk·Edits) 03:18, 7 February 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. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a cast member from a 2000 season of The Real World. None of his post-Real World activities mentioned in the article are sourced, nor would qualify him for notability if they were. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to respective Real World season per nom. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dominus saw my vote right above Gene's and thought it was Gene's, not seeing my signature all the way at the right. :-)
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. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, this chap is quite evidently a "Scientific" crackpot who believes in Russian time-machine and perpetual motion devices etc.. That's verified - mainly from his own website. However, despite extensive talk page discussion, there is simply no evidence (secondary sources) that he's notable at all. We can verify he exists and that he holds these views, but so what? We could redirect to one of his theories, but a merger has been resisted on the talk page. So, unless someone can find strong secondary evidence to support notability, this should probably be deleted. Scott Mac 15:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He get coverage on blogs etc. And he may even be well-known (?) in certain conspiracy theory circles. But these theories and the people putting them forward tend to be very fleeting. Tomorrow there will be a new theory and a new person putting it forwards. WP:N requires that notability be permanent. Will anyone remember or care about this person in 50 years ? The answer is: most likely not. Travelbird (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete "Notability" is always a problematic concept when comes to crackpots like Bearden, in that NO, he has not contributed anything noteworthy; however, I think educating people about folks like him is a very useful application of Wikipedia. A short stroll through Google or Youtube will show you that Bearden is a major player in the world of "Free energy" (see, for example this, this and this). Yes, it's clear to anyone with a science background that this guy's a nut, but a lot of people take him seriously and it's good to have a place to go where they can learn the truth. One could argue to delete his article and just keep the MEG article, but I believe it's important to view his claims about the MEG in the context of his other crazy claims. Veering slightly OT, I'll add that when Wikipedia first came out, my prediction was that it would quickly fill with articles fully supporting free energy, UFO abductions, the lunar landing hoax, etc, and I feel that fact that all of those topics (and this one) are actually covered with proper skepticism is a great tribute to the success and a vital application of the model.Prebys (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep or delete on the basis of "educating people". What we need is reliable secondary sourcing indicating his significance as an individual. We need the article to tell us why he matters, and not just what he believes. This discussion will hinge on whether independent sourcing shows his notability - that and that alone.--Scott Mac 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Motionless electromagnetic generator. There's barely enough reliable secondary sources available on Bearden to justify a paragraph or so there. Get rid of all the "Bearden claims X" material sourced to Bearden's own websites, papers, and books. If someone wants to "warn" people about Bearden, base it on published 3rd party criticism, or open a website. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete People should not be censored because of their believes, however unorthodox those believes may be. As stated below, Tom Bearden is an important part of the free energy movement and as such he deserves a mention on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia becomes too mainstream it will share the same fate as everything else mainstream in this world, it will loose its meaning. No one has the right to dictate what is knowledge and what is not, provide people with as much information as possible and allow people to choose that for themselves. Removing this entry would push Bearden and the free energy movement further into obscurity, and to do that because you do not subscribe to the same universe would be your fault not his. Inflexible preconceptions have kept humanity from realizing its full potential for too long. Look at the case of Nikola Tesla, the man was deemed a crackpot by the mainstream scientific community and that led to his name vanishing from mainstream science and his contributions to humanity being ascribed to other, more conforming, individuals or not mentioned at all. What state would humanity be in today if it wasn't for Tesla and people, some would call "on the fringe", like him? If the catholic church had its way we would still be in the dark ages, if that doesn't help you see light I don't know what will. Having said all this, I hope someone with more knowledge of Tom Bearden, his life and his work/claims comes along and turns this article into something more than the same old accusations people who do not live in streams have tired of hearing. A. Freeman 09:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to MEG per WP:BIO (and spirit of WP:BLP1E lack of independent notability. Despite talk-page promises that there are sources attesting to notability of this person himself apart from just being someone involved in a notable field or device, none appear to have been provided. He may be lots of things to lots of people and have the potential to...develop or become important in his field according to independent sources, but according to WP:RS at this time, does not appear to be. Promising-future-notable people and not-yet-discovered geniuses are out of scope for WP. We really are a mainstream publication, or at least strictly require reasonably mainstream or at least independent sources. DMacks (talk) 03:26, 7 February 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.
I propose either a deletion or merger of the Apollo Creed article, given that the page is about a secondary character, which has been tagged as possibly not notable since August 2010, and has numerous problems, including but not limited to trivia, lack of references, and original research. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough sources around to have a decently-referenced article here, and this is a major character from a very notable film series.--Michig (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is by no means a minor character but clearly a major and significant character in a series of very successful films. The nominator should instead add references, and edit out the trivia and original research, instead of trying to delete the article. Thats what WP:BEFORE calls for. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I look at the results of the Template:Find, there are sources and good ones. The article can be improved.--Crazy runner (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that there is no List of Rocky characters, and the two supporting character stand-alone articles (Apollo Creed and Mickey Goldmill) have major problems. As I noted in my proposal, merger is acceptable as well. Also, we must ask what makes Apollo Creed more notable than Buster Baxter, for example. Apollo was a supporting character in 4 movies, with mainly trivial popular culture references listed. Buster Baxter, besides being one of the main supporting characters in a long running TV show and book series, also hosted his own show. Now I am not saying Buster Baxter should have his own article again, but we must make sure that general notability is applied evenly and not only for fan favourites. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major character in one of the most important series in the history of film. The Rocky series has whole books written about it, not to mention a ridiculous amount of reviews and cultural criticism, so verifiability os not in question. I agree with you about Buster Baxter, but that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As soon as I saw the name of the article I knew who it was. There's only one Apollo Creed. Nipsonanomhmata(Talk) 03:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is notable enough for an WP article--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing in the article is currently poor but treatment in critical literature like this and this show that sources exist to establish notability and provide for improvement. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major and well-covered recurring character in multiple notable films, and one who has actually achieved a real-world notability. While acknowledging that yes, the article will benefit from cleanup and sourcing, that fact that an incredible amount of sources are available[18][19][20] to do just that would seem more a reason to fix it rather than delete it because it has not yet been done. And in an interesting sidebar: If this were an article on an actual person, the plethora of available sources would indicate that notability was not the least in doubt. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 31 January 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. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting incorrectly-structured nomination by User:Deletefeader, who proposes nomination for deletion as impermissible POVFORK. The user is correct, and the article violates Wikipedia's BLP policy. THF (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you be more explicit as to which parts you think violate WP:NPOV and the WP:BLP policy? It seems to me that the information is all referenced and not particularly pointed. I did not find any specific claims in the article's talk page either. Francis Bond (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article violates NPOV: every single source (save two cited once each) is left-wing, and several are partisan sources inappropriate for a BLP (and indeed, were rejected as sources in the existing biography articles). If the Kochs were liberal, rather than conservative, a one-sided article like this would have been speedy-deleted. THF (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're acting as if the article cites all DNCC press releases instead of The New York Times, The New Yorker, and NPR. These are perfectly adequate sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Jane Mayer piece from the New Yorker is essentially a DNCC press release; it is wildly slanted, and has been extensively refuted (though the refutations aren't mentioned in the article). The New York Times article is an op-ed by Frank Rich. The NPR piece is a quote from an anonymous Democratic consultant. So I disagree. THF (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THF, it is interesting that you deem the above sources POV, while yourself --> inserting this National Review --> article at Charles G. Koch by Kimberly Dennis (fmr executive director of the Philanthropy Roundtable) - a group that has received $ 19,200 from the Koch Family Foundation and who praises Charles Koch's Charitable Foundation --> link. Thus, should we presume that this is indicative of what you view as an acceptable and unbiased news source on the matter? Because such clarity would be helpful as we move forward in this discussion. Redthoreau-- (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have some more spamming of your political organization website to do, or do you wish to WP:HARASS me some more by following me to multiple articles and AFDs in retaliation for deleting your spamming? Please stop violating WP:BATTLE. THF (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich, untrue and WP:NPA - but I don't expect you to start following decorum now. For the record I am not "following" you, I edited the Koch articles as early as September 13, 2010 - they've also been on my watch list since that time. Now, seeing that you did not respond to the substance of my question, I will assume that National Review writers whose organizations receive funds from the Koch brothers - is your idea of a neutral news source on the Koch Brother’s political activities. At least now we are all on the same page, and your 'reasoning' exposed for what it is. Redthoreau-- (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get a better understanding of the neutrality problems, you need to compare earlier versions to the current incarnation, as the editorial process has already been started on this article [21]. Bonewah (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator), since, as prior discussion on the talk page indicates, the only arguments for deletion are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Claims that the article is a fork are worthless without specifying what article it is supposed to be a fork of. I would though countenance a possible merge to an article about the role of people like the Kochs and Richard Mellon Scaife etc in funding and promoting American conservative institutions; see the Significance section of the article. (Such an article should exist anyway, for the broader topic, but I'm not sure if there is one, or what it would be called.) Rd232talk 14:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Merge to Koch family (without prejudice to WP:SUMMARY-style spinoff if one day necessary), per Phil Bridger's suggestion. Rd232talk 00:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic, as attested by reliable sources; any synth/NPOV/BLP problems can be fixed through normal editing. Works better as a separate article than as sections in the articles on each of the individuals. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAlmost all the information here is a repeat of what is in the numerous other Koch related articles. Id be happy to change my view if someone can show me a significant amount of information which is appropriate to this article, inappropriate for other Koch articles and neutral, reliably sourced and not OR. Thats the real problem, the parts of this article that comply with the basic rules of Wikipedia are duplicates of other articles, the parts that do not comply with the basic rules of wikipedia have no business in any article. Bonewah (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have a problem with Political activities of Fred Koch, Political activities of Charles Koch and Political activities of David Koch? No? Well just consider this a merger of those articles - a merger which makes a lot of sense because of the overlap and interconnections. If necessary we could even give it the (infinitely clumsier) name Political activities of Fred Koch, Charles Koch and David Koch or perhaps Political activities of Koch Industries and its owners. Alternatively, perhaps you could suggest a merge target for the wider topic of funders of the US conservative movement; perhaps something in the direction of Funding of the conservative movement in the United States. Rd232talk 18:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those Political activities of X Koch articles would only make sense if the main X Koch article would be too large if the information were included there. This is standard WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:SPINOUT policy. None of the other Koch articles are unwieldy or overwhelmed by the inclusion of political activities and, as I said, I dont see any information that would be appropriate in this article but not elsewhere. A fairly basic requirement if you want to create a sub-article is to prove that the sub-article has some value, do that please, prove that this article fills some role that cant be adequately filled by a simple sub-section of one or more of the other Koch articles. Bonewah (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you're really not listening, are you? The topic under consideration is the overlapping political activities of 3 individuals, the corporation they owned, and several foundations they set up. That topic as a whole cannot be housed at any individual biography; at the company; or at the foundation page (because a lot of the activity wasn't through the foundations). Nor can the topic be properly understood by having bits of it spread over a number of other articles, same as the NYSE cannot be understood merely through references to it in NYSE-listed companies - it needs its own article. Rd232talk 21:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I really am listening and your just hand waving to avoid the question: what information specifically do you think should be in this article that can not be adequately handled in the other Koch articles? Not vague "political activites" or "information", specifics, because if such a thing exists in that article now, I dont see it. Bonewah (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really do any better than direct you to the Blind men and an elephant parable. This topic cannot be handled properly by insisting it remain split up into parts; the whole is rather more than the sum of its parts. An encyclopedia is not just a random jumble of facts; they are arranged by topic in order to provide context to the reader, and this is a topic. As I've noted above, it may be that this topic can be adequately handled within an article on a still wider topic (funding of US conservative movements), but that possibility doesn't seem to interest anyone who wants this deleted. Rd232talk 00:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what parts are split up? What is it you think should be included? You keep talking about facts in the abstract, but steadfastly refuse to say specifically you think needs to be included. As it stands now, this article is nothing more than a cut and paste job of other Koch articles and you cant or wont say how that will change. How about we userfy this article until you have had a chance to fill in all the information you wont specify here? Bonewah (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said "3 individuals, the corporation they owned, and several foundations they set up." - those are the parts split up. RedThoreau's new sources give an indication of how the article might begin to develop (it's only days old), and certainly show that it's a valid topic. As I said before, the article on the NYSE is not redundant because articles on NYSE-listed companies mention it in their articles. Rd232talk 09:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Huge BLP problems, mostly because there are only minimal sources, the vast majority of them partisan sources or op-eds. Merge the little content that is salvageable, well-sourced and complying with NPOV into the articles on the individuals, where it belongs (and making sure that it does overwhelm the existing content). Pantherskin (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a perfectly valid topic, it's only just been created qua topic, as opposed to bits scattered around in different places. Rd232talk 18:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A rather unconstructive comment as I am clearly not suggesting to censor content that is reliably sourced and notable. But content that violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:ATTACK needs to be removed respectively deleted. That is not censorship, but enforcement of core policies. Pantherskin (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you're not actually specifying what content breaches these policies you allude to or why that means the article needs deleting rather than the disputed content, WP:NOTCENSORED sprang to mind, as a political variant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Remember that AFD is not a vote, and you need to (a) provide reasons to justify deletion of the article and (b) show that those reasons actually apply in this case. Rd232talk 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would actually be helpful if you would refrain from attempts to derail this Afd by throwing the usual WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCENSORED around. What is so difficult to understand about "Huge BLP problems, mostly because there are only minimal sources, the vast majority of them partisan sources or op-eds"?? In fact, this article should not only be deleted but the article creator be warned or blocked for some time, given the blatant disregard for our BLP policy and the attempt to abuse Wikipedia as soapboax and vehicle for attack pages. Pantherskin (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful you refrained from waving BLP as a delete argument when it isn't; and whilst some of the sourcing is currently not great, none of the facts are actually disputed. In any case poor current sourcing is not a reason for deletion; lack of notability is. And for example RedThoreau has just listed a bunch more sources on the topic. Rd232talk 12:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a lot of acronym listing (and quasi-WP:Wikilawyering), but not much specific rationale of how these various policies are being violated. A possible solution could be to rename the article Political activities of the Koch Brothers or Political activities of the Koch Brothers (David & Charles) as they seem to be the real issue here. There are scores of sources that discuss the political advocacy and financial largess that has been donated by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch known colloquially as the "Koch Brothers" (although yes they have 2 other brothers Bill & Frederick who are not involved in large scale political advocacy). There of course should be an article on the political work of the two "Koch brothers". As for sources, below are just a few that discuss the "Koch Brothers" as a notable and influential political entity ...
Keep I asked for some more detail above, and it appears that the claims for violation of WP:NPOV and problems with WP:BLP are based on the opinion that sources such as the New York Times are unreliable, which is not convincing. I am also concerned by canvassing and discussions on the talk page by User:MBMadmirer who has a clear conflict of interest. See, for example:
Comment. Even though some of the sources are reliable, "connecting the dots" (asserting that all the statements are related) may be a WP:SYN violation. It also had been starting to resemble a WP:COATRACK. Still, I still believe that some article may be appropriate here, even if none of the current content would be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 17:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only SYNTH, but also a clear POVfork, since the material which is reasonable for individual articles is already in those articles, and this is a home for material which was barred from the other articles by WP policies and consensus. Jane Mayer's opinion piece is now covered in about ten articles - there is absolutely no need for this article on WP. Also note that charges of criminal activity can not be sourced to an opinion piece per WP:BLP. The only proper cource is therefore deletion and salting of this article. Collect (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listing policies you would like to prove your point is not the same as proving it: eg what on earth is the novel conclusion which violates WP:SYN? And what is this obsession with a single one of the sources used (Mayer)? I've recently added several academic sources, and if people were less keen to delete I'm sure more good sources would turn up. Rd232talk 03:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:NPOV is not a valid reason to delete a event article. Fixing biased event articles can only be done by adding information from the other side, not by deleting information, so both, not neither, viewpoints can be properly represented. The information on article also cannot be put on other articles for the same reason the World War articles cannot be shoved in to the articles about Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, etc. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Koch family. It has been clearly demonstrated that this topic has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which are by no means all left-wing sources, even according to the US political spectrum that has its centre well to the right of most of the world. For example Bloomberg ("The Koch family has been linked to conservative politics since the days of founder Fred Koch, who helped found the John Birch Society, which campaigned against communism in U.S. politics during the 1950s") and Forbes can hardly be said to be on the left, with Michael Bloomberg and Steve Forbes both being Republicans. Having said all that, I don't see why this needs to be a separate article from the one that we already have on the family. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea! I think it didn't occur to me before partly because the current Koch family article is basically a glorified disambiguation page, and it should clearly be more than that. Koch Family Foundations might well be best merged into that too. Rd232talk 00:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: I have not seen a reason for deletion; that's not the solution to editing problems. It's valuable, notable information. guanxi (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the information, including that you just added, is from sources of questionable reliability. Much of it was removed from the individual articles for failing verifiability, not just for inappropriateness. The accurate part of what you wrote is not a reason to keep. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I don't think the article should be deleted, but that much of the material presently in the article is clear WP:BLP violations, and should be removed quickly. I hesitate to do so while the AfD is in progress, but it is suggested by policy. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete, nothing but one gigantic POV fork. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously a fork article. Does not make sense to merge, since this article is made up primarily of content in the Koch Brothers articles. Truthsort (talk) 19:09, 7 February 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 Speedily deleted (by someone else) under G7 after original author blanked the page. Mandsford 21:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No established notability. Doesn't seem to be covered in sources other than random web pages, blog entries and youtube videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshio Yamaguchi (talk • contribs) 13:31, 30 January 2011
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.
Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. This BLP has remained unsourced for 3.5 years, if someone can add reliable sources that are more than trivial mentions and are independent of the subject to the article I'll withdraw this nomination. J04n(talk page) 13:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources found.--Michig (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Meets WP:BAND ctiteria # 11. Corrected citations. One review in Exclaim![22] stating a stand-out track on a various artists compilation: is that enough? Exclaim! is approved per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites. Tour in Europe (per photo): can't comment; didn't search for that. Argolin (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim of rotation in the article is not supported by the reference provided. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:06, 31 January 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.
No significant coverage in secondary sources. This person's supposed notability apparently rests on them having gone to Canada, been accused of things, and then been deported from Canada. That the accusations were made (and accepted by a court) seems tolerably well documented in reliable sources, but only a single search result for news coverage of that indicates a lack of widespread notability. Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to make this news item something worth keeping in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 31 January 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.
Lesser known Newspeak term, with no effort to prove notability. Believe it to be largely non-notable, from google searches. Sadads (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing sets this particular word apart from the rest. The topic as such is covered well in Newspeak. If we really wanted to, we could have a list of all newspeak terms, but having a page on every single one violates WP not a dictionary - and that includes fictional languages. Travelbird (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two references. Technology like this is being developed, some of it already out there, and some reliable sources are making the comparison to Facecrime. DreamFocus 11:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. DreamFocus 11:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Newspeak words -- no indication of 'significant coverage' beyond direct discussion of Orwell's work. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Newspeak words. There's no substantial application of this that cannot be described simply in that list.--Yaksar(let's chat) 01:29, 5 February 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.
Keep article totally fails to assert importance but it does look like a film version is in the works, thus passing WP:BK. Can be deleted if film ends up not being made. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:36, 31 January 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.
RedirectStygia (Conan) and Stygia to Hyborian Age. Plausible search term, and Robert E. Howard's fictional universe has enough notability (e.g. multiple derivatives works of fiction, from books, graphic novels, movies to TV series to computer games have made use of it) for its own article (though it could certainly use more sources).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree. Stygian was and is still barely a disambiguation page (I had to add Stygian Cove to give it more than one link with the word "Stygian" in it, and and the Graeae, aka the Stygian Witches of Clash of the Titans, to pad it some more). There are few actual articles that link to Stygian or Stygia. There are, however, many links to Stygia (Conan). The only non-Conan link to Stygia is at Glasya and refers to the Dungeons and Dragons layer of Hell which doesn't have its own article. The Glasya article itself does not pass any notability guideline and is about some obscure D&D non-player character, and the Stygia it meant to link to does not deserve mention in any disambiguation page. All in all, the only "Stygia" that has more than two links in the Wikipedia mainspace is the Conan one, thus Stygia should redirect to whereever Stygia (Conan) will be redirecting.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a merge rather than an outright deletion. Hyborian Age, as suggested above, would be a good target to merge it to. —Paul A (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stygia is a major nation within the fictional Hyborian world. Its geography and politics are extremely influential in many, if not most, of the Conan stories. The subject needs to be expanded, and the article needs better sourcing, but that is not a reason to delete. Dolovis (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there is nothing in the article that suggests that the sources exist or that even there is enouhgh useful information to keep it as a seperate article. If we want we can certainly merge it into the main Conan Universe page, Sadads (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to agree with this assessment. I really wanted to say keep myself but looking for sources, I couldn't find anything of significance. I really thought it wouldn't be hard to find some scholarly articles about Robert E. Howard's fictional universe but it proved to be surprisingly difficult. As per WP:V, without explicit sources, it's not worth a separate article at the moment, so the most logical course of action is to work on improving Hyborian Age until there's enough sourced material to warrant a split.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 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. NW(Talk) 02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List with unsourced claims that certain people support a certain theory. WP:OR, WP:BLP plus the fact that it is highly questionable if this list has sustained notability needed should the world not come to and end in 2012. And if is does - well I guess that's mute point as Wikipedia would no longer exist anyway. Travelbird (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Part way through this debate, user Zenji changed his username name to Accurate Nuanced Clear. See [23].
.......................................
Response from page-starter:
Notability of article increases massively if predicted 'changes' DO NOT occur. Because list will then be a publicly referencable list of people who made claims that turned out to be false. And if they DO occur, then notability is obvious.
These claims are now a major part of public discourse and are having widespread psychological effects.
Is this page more notable than these other wikipedia lists?:
I feel your trite statement about the 'mute point' (sic) about wikipedia not existing if "the world came to an end" may indicate a personal distaste for the subject that may have more to do with your desire to delete the page, than any logical reasons.
Delete - So wrong on so many levels. Organizing people based on an opinion of a future event seems to be a very weak method of categorization. Second, there is no 3rd party, reliable source provided that identifies these people as "2012 adherents" anyways, just the personal research/opinion of the article creator, which is not permissible per original research concerns. Finally, only 2 of the people on the list seem to be notable in their own right (Jenkins and Melchizedek), have Wikipedia articles at all. This is just a flawed premise all-around. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading in this week's Newsweek about George Lucas supposedly being a notable person who believes that the world is going to end in '12, I was expecting a list of adherents. This is just a list of people who have written books to capitalize on the 2012 fad, and I imagine they're socking away their earnings into IRAs and high-yield investments that won't mature for five or more years. Mandsford 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic. Not notable. Original research. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I saw this at WP:RfF, and agreed with another editor there that at the very least this article ought to have more inline cites to support inclusion in the list. That wasn't done, and anyway it wouldn't have helped any with the bigger problem of meeting notability requirements. There just aren't enough noteworthy people on this list for it to be of much encyclopedic interest. (And I must say that I am if anything counter-swayed by the tone and content of the argument presented by the article's creator on this page). WikiDao☯ 03:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is Original Research, based on Primary Sources, to lump together different people with different beliefs, based on their books, and then label them all as "Adherents". Adherents of what? It seems that they are all talking about different things: pole shifts, orion prophecy, awakening, etc. Any of these folks that are notable should have their various views presented at 2012 phenomenon, if at all. First Light (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ARTICLE IS ONLY A STARTER: It needs people to add names to it. Isn't that the way wikipedia works?
NOTABLE ENOUGH FOR THE REST OF WIKIPEDIA: Most of the names on the list are considered notable enough to be put in bibliography of "The 2012 phenomenon". It also has OTHER names apart from these.
LIST NOT CREATED TO PROMOTE ANY AGENDA. I am a science major at a university that's part of the Australian equivalent of the 'Ivy League'. I did NOT put this list up here because I believe in their views.. I've only heard snippets of the claims and I'm agnostic' on it. But I know it is notable because it is having a major effect on the publlic consciousness:
NOTABILITY and related: This phenomenon is starting to have major psychological consequences on people. Take a look at the 6th paragraph of this post on a 'new age' site. 'Getting angry and disillusioned that certain aspects of this 'prophecy' is not coming true, a young teenager who believes in the phenomenon says:"I feel a strong urge to smash somebodies face right now... Hopefully it will hit the right person."'
Such a list will allow the public to check back on the claims of these people after the event
Suggested improvements and essence of my keep-argument[edit]
Somebody suggested to enhance the referencing by adding a quote from each 'adherant' that sums up their views, with an inline citation that refers to the page numbers in the book (or other source).
However frankly I don't have the interest to develop the article any further right now.
I only added it as a public service - because I can see the affect that belief in this phenomenon is having on people. This makes it notable.
If you delete it, I won't be back back to recreate an improved version - I just don't care enough, frankly.
And to be honest, the amount of energy people seem to be willing to put into destroying something rather than creating something - as well as the timed I've wasted defending something I think is obviously 'notable' - is a bit disillusioning.
If you do keep it, I may add the references referred to above later - but I can't promise anything..
However I do think it's notable enough to be improved, rather than deleted.
Bottom line. if you care about the accountability of public information, vote to keep it: it's in the public interest for a transparent list of people making these claims to be created while it's still easy to create such a list. Such a list can then be referred to LATER, WHEN IT MIGHT NOT BE SO EASY TO FIND REFERENCES TO THEIR STATEMENTS.
Acknowledgment You may be right, my contempt for the Y2K/2012/Chicken Little authors may be affecting things. I think it's fair to say, too, that we may be complaining about the title of the article which and our disappointment at finding something other than what we were expecting. For my part, this carries over to an needlessly sarcastic description of your work, and for that, I apologize. I don't want to discourage a new contributor. I understand a little bit better what you are aiming for, and I can see the encyclopedic value. We know vaguely that some people believe, or are claiming that they believe, that something bad is going to happen in 2012, though we laugh it off and don't take the time to ask what they say it's supposed to be. In the U.S., it ranges from Obama being re-elected to the election of President Palin. You might want to do what they call "userfying" your work until it has the appearance that you would want it to have. The way you would do it would be to create an article entitled User:Zenji/List of 2012 adherents and working on it in your own time, without anyone hitting the delete button. Generally, posting an incomplete article or a work in progress is a risky proposition. There was a time when one person would start an idea and others would happen upon it and edit it to add their own information, but Wikipedia became a victim of its own success-- people began taking it seriously, and the standards for high concept articles became higher, and it's no longer the bulletin board that it once was. Try the userfy thing; it's the way most of us create new articles, simply because we've had our own bad experiences here. Mandsford 14:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 phenomenon to the extent any of the material really belongs there (and if it doesn't belong there, it doesn't belong anywhere). The article's creator is wasting everyone's time. EEng (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Eeng that is a personal attack of the exact sort that prevents people returning to contribute to wikipedia.
Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Part way through this debate, user Zenji changed his username name to Accurate Nuanced Clear. See [24].
No, it was a carefully considered statement about your behavior, not about you. Your creation of the article may have been naive, but by now you've had plenty of time to review relevant policies and guidelines, yet continue to assert arguments which make no sense in light of them, such are your idea [25] that WP should act as a repository of various people's publiic positions for later reference. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and read (or re-read) WP:N and WP:ATA before adding more comments to this or any other deletion debate. EEng (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. This is not Twitter so cut it out with the silly @ stuff.[reply]
Comment I agree that the names and authors of the books mentioned in the article (by Caruson, Crowther, Geryl, Jenkins's three additional books, Melchizedek, Peterson, and Ratinck) can be added to 2012 phenomenon#References, and this can be accomplished without a merger discussion. The 2012 phenomenon article is excellent, although, at 69KB busting at the seams. There are other topics that have not yet been covered, such as persons who are followers (which would be my definition of "adherents") rather than leaders of the 2012 thing. What I'm inferring here is something along the lines of observing specifics about what bestselling authors are predicting, on or around December 23, 2012, some of whom are identifying other specific dates in the manner of The Amazing Criswell. As I've said earlier, it's better to craft and perfect new articles in userspace. For my part, I try to avoid the "L word" in titles. Mandsford 14:09, 2 February 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.
Self-promotion article created by User:Teamdennison . Local politician. Google shows almost exclusively hits for this person's own website. Fails WP:POLITICIANTravelbird (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. His candidacy in the general election does not make him notable. Snappy (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Snappy stated the article fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. What the hell is with the Blueshirts. There have been a good few articles about FG councillors who are running for election all of whom fail the necessary criterea. Exiledone (talk) 13:33, 4 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am listing this as another editor wasn't able to list this properly on AfD. The reason for the PROD was "fails the general notability guideline" Travelbird (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, colleges of all sorts are notable. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe high schools are generally considered to be de facto notable and as a college this would be notable. OSbornarfcontribs. 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While California has some relatively low state accreditation standards for colleges, this still appears to be a real institution. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the original nominator (not sure what went wrong with Twinkle, sorry). This college fails WP:ORG, only local sources even mention it, and even then, only in passing. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "this place is real"; it's "this place is notable", and this college is not notable. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 04:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I understand the consensus for schools, it says that degree-granting institutions of higher learning are generally considered notable. However, this is not a degree-granting institution; it is a two-year college that only grants an associate of arts, and that AA is (by the article's own admission) mostly of use in transferring to colleges within this one's narrow circle of affiliated institutions. Basically this is a private, non-accredited junior college. It is only a "candidate" for accreditation by a religious accrediting agency, rather than actually accredited, and it is allowed to operate only because California has very loose standards for religious colleges. --MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accreditation is not a necessary qualification for documenting an educational institution in a Wikipedia article, but a very quick look at the website for the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools indicated that this school has been accredited since 2007. Apparently it had not yet attained accreditation back when the last substantial editing occurred. (What happened to wP:BEFORE?) --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A real, substantial school, and it's gotten repeated coverage in its local media, at least[26]. I don't see how it would benefit Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of education to exclude verifiable information about institutions like this one.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reasonings given by OrLady & Arxiloxos. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:21, 2 February 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 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.
Amateur/semi-pro team that does not appear to meet WP:ORG. (Quite frankly, the league in which it competes might not either, but that's a discussion for another day.) Almost nonexistent coverage in WP:RS. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Kinut/c 09:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Social club.--Grahame (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by the looks of it, probably a step above being a mere social club (competing in a national tournament, albeit one of minimal notability), but the nominator is correct that there isn't really enough reliable coverage of the club for an article. Lankiveil(speak to me) 07:29, 5 February 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.
Non-notable. Google searches find very little - mostly directory type information and social networking sites. The referenced CNN article consists of a single quote from her and nothing more. No significant coverage anywhere. noq (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. No substantial coverage actually about the subject in WP:RS to warrant a WP:BLP. Also apparent WP:COI, as creation of this article is the only edit by User:Gabbyrevilla. --Kinut/c 09:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure if this is the same person. But even if it is, it's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 31 January 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.
Prod contented, thus listed here. Non-notable book with no indication that it's even close to passing WP:NOTBOOKTravelbird (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BK. No WP:RS containing information, commentary, etc., to indicate WP:GNG is met. --Kinut/c 09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK. Appears to be vanity-press or similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:32, 31 January 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.
I contested the prod here myself because I think AfD would work better in this case. I'm not even sure this is a real person, as Googling for his name and the title of his supposed debut EP only comes back to this article. In addition, the Awards section is full of charts that don't exist (Billboard Best Unsigned Ep, Billboard Hot Charts 200; and the Grammys do not have a category called Best Male Song). Has anyone seen my sled? ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was inclined to let the prod run its course, but this works too. As far as I can tell from Googling around, this article is a hoax. Requests to the author for sources have gone unacknowledged. Even the initial edit summary is suspicious: "I've added the real and verified biography about international songwriter/singer recording artist Jose Huerta." Artists with two Grammy nominations have some kind of web presence, such as a listing on the Grammy site. As stated above, several of the music awards do not exist, and I can't find any reference that the "I Like That Web" award exists either. Finally, the only link in the article is to http://www.josehuerta.info/, which contains only the individual's name and a Twitter widget. I originally tagged this article for speedy deletion as a hoax, and unless the author is immediately forthcoming with sources that we've all somehow missed, this ought to be deleted. Zachlipton (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. And no, it's just coincidence that User:Bornthisway2011 created this article and the subject (according to his Twitter account) really really really likes the Lady Gaga song Born This Way... Facepalm. --Kinut/c 09:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete really blatant hoax, right down to claiming to be on nonexistant charts. It doesn't get much more blatant than that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought when I tagged this for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, but the closing admin declined speedy, so here we are. Zachlipton (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:30, 4 February 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.
There is some sourcing here, but despite that, most of the sources are not to reliable sources, and there isn't much here which really explains what makes him notable. Corvus cornixtalk 07:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and formatted some others. Several references are to SFgate.com, the web site of the San Francisco Chronicle, a daily newspaper. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Also covered by SFWeekly ([27]), but in terms of reliable sources we only have a handful of local newspaper articles.--Michig (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC) See comment below - enough coverage identified now for an article.--Michig (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and formatted others. Several references are to Internet Movie Database, the motion picture industry standard for documenting soundtrack contributions and Allmusic, the music industry standard for documenting musical albums.--Miriam Ashby (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither imdb nor allmusic is a reliable source. Corvus cornixtalk 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Allmusic is a reliable source for its bios, reviews, and chart positions (which are sourced from Billboard). Since Jon Bernson appears to be, to all intents and purposes, Ray's Vast Basement, the bio and review there constitute signficant coverage in a reliable source. Added to the other coverage, I think that's sufficient.--Michig (talk) 20:15, 31 January 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.
Apparently fails WP:WEB (trivial sources found), article is largely original research and essay-ish. [CharlieEchoTango] 06:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only third-party sources we could really find were an article from TechCrunch and a short piece by BusinessInsider. Despite being part of AOL, I agree it fails WP:WEB.[citation needed]– GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 06:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify for the IP who added the citation needed tag:
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I already stated that the only two good independent sources that I found were the TechCrunch article and the short BusinessInsider article. Google News didn't return anything.
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. If you find one, let me know. However, I've seen no mention of one and it seems unlikely that it would.
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.). I've also seen no evidence of this.
Comment. A search for Yedda+AOL turns up considerably more: more than 100 hits at Google News[28], including a number of articles about AOL's 2007 purchase of the Israeli company that originally developed this, e.g.[29][30][31][32]--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A trivial service until proven otherwise. Shii(tock) 13:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability questionable at best, topped off with a nasty little POV rant about how it isn't as good as it used to be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not really sure that'll fly. One of the books has a short section mentioning yedda, whereas the others all seem to be either mistaken results or brief mentions of the link. The majority of the Google hits seem to be either primary source stuff (from AOL/Yedda/etc.), or brief mentions in other things. The sheer number of Google Book or Google hits can't really be taken as evidence of notability. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 15:35, 31 January 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. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced stub, dicdef. Deprodded with a "needs more love" rationale in September but I don't think it's fixable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This has potential but at the moment it's just a dictdef. Travelbird (talk)
Delete as WP:DICDEF, without prejudice to WP:HEY or recreation as sourced content about the concept of extravagance (i.e., as a literary/religious theme?). Note: at the moment, extravagant redirects to eccentricity (behavior) and might be a reasonable target for this as well, but the content regarding extravagance there is essentially just a dicdef as well. --Kinut/c 10:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is our policy to keep short articles with potential - they are called stubs. Our dictionary policy explains at length that shortness is not proper grounds for considering an article to be a dictionary definition. And, as for TPH's extravagant claim that the article cannot possibly be improved, please don't get me started. The rest is the argument to avoid of WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would appear to be a notable subject, though the article is not what it could be ... but as CW says, that is not reason for deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just a dictionary definition, it now mentions more of it. It was one of the seven deadly sins! Something taught to people for centuries is notable. The article has been edited with some improvements. [33] Google news search shows politicians and queens shunning "extravagance" and criticizing different political parties for it. [34] Perhaps some sources can be found from there. DreamFocus 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction I took a look at this claim that "extravagance" in anything like our modern sense was ever a deadly sin. What I found ratified WP:DICTDEF wisdom: we shouldn't try to be lexicographers here, we're amateurs, and our intuitions are relatively useless. I immediately found three scholarly references making it quite clear that the Latin luxuria of Pope Gregory's and Dante's time is far better glossed as "lust" or "lechery", rather than wastefulness, indulgence in luxury or spendthrift habits. Yakushima (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for the Article Rescue Squadron to review. SnottyWongtalk 18:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time that it can be shown that an article can be written on the subject that is more than a standard dictionary entry. SnottyWongtalk 18:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary entry policy has already been rebutted but, as you still seem to misunderstand and misuse it, please note the following passages which clarify this further:
"One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article, and stubs are often poorly written."
"Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary articles are short, and that short article and dictionary article are therefore equivalent.
"Note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length."
So, to use the WP:DICDEF policy, it is not relevant to comment on the length of the article. You must instead show that the topic is a purely lexical one, being only about the word as a particular piece of language, rather than being about the topic which the word denotes. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as it currently exists, discusses nothing other than the word's lexical use. There may or may not be an opportunity to expand the article beyond that, but that is immaterial because the article in its current state is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and dictionary definitions do not belong on Wikipedia. SnottyWongcomment 21:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article already does more than discuss the lexical meaning of a particular word. For example, it tells us that classical authors condemned it as vice. You were perhaps confused by some references to their language but these are matters of translation, given that they wrote in Latin and Greek. In using a variety of different words to reference the topic, the article demonstrates that it is not concerned with a particular one but with the topic which is behind these various words. In any case, we have moved on to a modern psychological view too and so the article continues to develop.
Correction "... it tells us that classical authors condemned it as vice." Actually not. ItThe source cited doesn't say that high spending on luxury is sinful per se, only that it lends itself to vice or (in the case of allowing one's daughters to dress finely, possibly seeming to be prostitutes) to the perception of vice. In general, I take a dim view of trying to translate the terms of ancient texts as if they had precise modern equivalents, especially with value-laden terms subject to cultural change -- it reflects a terribly naive view of how language works, for one thing. And when amateurs weigh in to do it, we get the confusion of "luxuria" (lechery) with latterday "luxury", which has already led to dressing this article with a graphic that wasn't even relevant. Yakushima (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:WP:DICTDEF + random irrelevant detail ≠ encyclopaedic article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICTDEF has been exhaustively refuted above. Please do not cite this policy without reading and understanding it. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not conflate wikt:tendentious with wikt:exhaustive. "A goat is a four-legged quadruped. [Famous person] owned a goat.[citation]" is not an encyclopaedic article. Neither is this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your example does not seem to serve your argument as goat is a blue link. Your position seems to be to deny the validity of any stub. This guideline states "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which — though providing some useful information — is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and which is capable of expansion.". Do you contend that all stubs should be deleted? If not, please explain how this case differs from other stubs. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(personal attack deleted) my example should have stated ..."If goat only said 'A goat is a four-legged...'" Satisfied? Of course this in no way changes my blindingly obvious point, (personal attack deleted). No CW, it does not provide "some useful information" -- it is, as I said, simply a WP:DICTDEF, with a random irrelevant detail tacked on. It provides its reader nothing "useful", the only 'use' of it is to provide an excuse for not deleting the article. Did I state that "all stubs should be deleted?" NO!(personal attack deleted). Are all stubs of the type "WP:DICTDEF + random irrelevant detail"? No they are not. Do some stubs, that are not of that type, provide "some useful information" Yes they do. Did anything I said indicate to anybody (personal attack deleted) that I advocated that "all stubs should be deleted?" Of course it bleeding well didn't! So why did you bother with such a (personal attack deleted) misrepresentation of my comment? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Caution Careful, there, Hrafn. You let him get your goat. As it were. Stick to the facts. For example: did the Colonel in fact exhaustively refute the argument for deletion from WP:NOTDICT? Actually, he only cited one point from it: a stub isn't automatically a virtual dictionary entry. Did the article contain, as you claim, only lexical information about "extravagance"? Actually not -- it contained commentary on the classics in which the gloss of "extravagance" might be so loose as to suggest that those ancient words (really: the concepts they possibly denoted) deserve full Wikipedia article treatment far more than "extravagance" ever could in English Wikipedia. "Extravagance" can also apply to claims -- in fact, the Colonel has already used it that way in this very discussion, above -- but where does discussion of such extravagance appear in the article itself? Nowhere. By taking this tack, you show why we have WP:NOTDICT in the first place -- if a word has some general applicability, it might denote a concept, but it's not (ipso facto) a topic. If one wants to discuss extravagance in its full generality, that's potentially a lexical topic, but if so, it should be done in lexical resources -- e.g., Wiktionary -- not Wikipedia. Yakushima (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Careless, there Yakushima -- addition of obscure (to the point of irrelevance) semantic trivia does not make it either (i) any less a DICTDEF, (ii) "some useful information" or (iii) an encyclopaedic article. If some poor alien read Wikipedia to find out what "Extravagance" is, they would find out that the most important things about it are (i) it was once considered to be one of the deadly sins & (ii) that it is the name given for one of the (endpoints of the) scales on the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire. Said alien would be hopelessly confused. This editor is confused as to why anybody considers this to be the foundation of anything (personal attack deleted). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty careless of you to not notice, in the above, that I'm quite in agreement with your position, simply opposed to your debating tactics. Again: show how the Keep-voters are persistently wrong in the facts, both about the topic and the guidelines. Positing some "poor alien" takes the discussion into realms of the imagination, and is rhetorically flimsy. A "poor alien" wouldn't be possessed our our common sense, and it's common sense that should tell anyone that this is a dictionary topic, not an encyclopedic one. Yakushima (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for positing an inadequate tabula rosa and employing inadequate rhetorical skills. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion I have removed your "unsourced negative comments" about Colonel Warden and about me, per WP:AFDEQ. I have replaced them with notations to that effect, per my proposal that such deletions should always be noted in AfD debates.[35]Yakushima (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden: kindly cease and desist misrepresenting my comments.
Yakushima: kindly cease and desist refactoring my comments.
No, Hrafn, I won't. See Articles for deletion/Maintenance; Refactoring the discussion thread: "It is appropriate to redact personal attacks which are irrelevant to the facts of the discussion. The general format is to replace the offensive language with (personal attack deleted)." Is there some reason why you (and you, too, CW) think you're exempt from WP:AFDM and WP:AFDEQ in cases like these? Kindly supply those reasons on the Talk page of this AfD, if so. Yakushima (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This proposal I am shocked on. This is one of the original seven deadly sins. I am convinced there is a ton of material on this is hard copy - specifically from historians. The meaning of this original sin compared to what it was replaced with (lust) is vastly different. Is the article currently a stub? Sure. However, I am sure that there is plenty of room for expansion if someone has access to a library. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction "This is one of the original seven deadly sins." Actually not. I immediately found three scholarly sources glossing the "luxuria" of Bosch's time as "lust" or "lechery". The English translation of Bosch's "luxuria" was given as "extravagance", but the original Dutch was "wellust" -- basically, "lust". See current Seven Deadly Sins for the references I've added. As for the Bosch illustration, it's been removed as irrelevant. Yakushima (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTDICT, and my comments above on factual errors in the arguments of those voting Keep. Yakushima (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have edited the article to remove references to extravagance having been one of the Seven Deadly Sins. As far as I can tell, "luxuria", when it was on that list as such, always meant sexual excess, not profligate and conspicuous consumption or "luxury". Please read the sources cited at Seven Deadly Sins, for verification. Yakushima (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see a case here for an article Extravagance (psychology). [36] It seems to have particular technical meanings (not necessarily identical, though) in more than one personality inventory (Temperament and Character Inventory is one that I've identified). And it apparently has notable genetic correlates. For now, the part of this article discussing one (but only one) psychological measure of extravagance will be replaced by a brief reference to the term's use in measuring Novelty seeking. Yakushima (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, now it turns out that Greek "tryphé" is a pretty specifically Ptolemaic concept referring not just to our idea of "extravagance" but also "magnificence" in the service of political ends, together with a kind of gauzy femininity.[37] Hm, doesn't sound much like that time my little brother bought a sports car he couldn't afford. So much for the idea that a single translated word can represent the same topic. I'd say tryphé might deserve its own article. But "extravagance"? It's just a word in English. Yakushima (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's widely established that this particular article lacks much... but what I haven't seen in skimming the above discussion is what an encyclopedic article on extravagance should become. Looking through the first few pages of the Google Scholar results, I see a number of papers on widely divergent topics which explore the concept of extravagance in some field or another. Of course, there are also a ton of false positives where extravagance seems entirely peripheral to the topic of the paper. The above statement by Yakushima is quite incorrect--extravagance is no more "just a word in English" than love is. Nor do I think the keep arguments hinge around obscure or arcane theological uses. "Extravagance" in Wikipedia should land somewhere sensible which discusses the topic in an encyclopedic manner, including a wikt link. There is nothing inherently wrong with the current article which prevents it from evolving into that. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you "haven't seen in skimming the above discussion [...] what an encyclopedic article on extravagance should become," it's because those who are voting Keep haven't been supplying anything. If you "see a number of papers on widely divergent topics which explore the concept of extravagance in some field or another," it's very likely because (a) they are using it in some specialized sense (e.g., Derridean extravagance, file under "Derrida" and the like) or (b) the real topic isn't "extravagance" but another topic entirely (file under that topic in Wikipedia.) As I edit the article, checking sources, mainly I discover that its purported facts don't check out, or they are about specialized terminology, and the article gets ever smaller. "Luxuria" didn't mean "extravagance" in Hieronymous Bosch's time -- so, out goes his Seven Deadly Sins painting as an illustration and the claim that "extravagance" was one of the Seven Deadly Sins. "tryphé" as a Ptolemaic concept seems to have rather pronounced political semantics, and the Roman reaction to "tryphé" might have been partly a republic's propaganda response to Ptolemaic excesses. Wikipedia already has psychology articles covering the sense of "extravagance" used in the study of novelty-seeking. The "extravagance" article can hardly be anything but all the things one might say about the use of the word (a dictionary's legitimate role), or foreign language words that are supposedly direct translations -- in which case one should cite RS by exports purporting that the concepts are equivalent. It might turn out, for example, that "Derridean extravagance" is some concept so far removed from our normal sense of "extravagance" as to deserve a separate article with a section saying why it doesn't mean "extravagance". As it is, most of the things that have been said so far in this article are, in some way, wrong or off the point. What's correct? Is extravagance "unrestrained excess"? Sure. But is there anything one can't do too much of, or have too much of? Is there any excess that can't be unrestrained? Do we add something to this article about astronomy if some astronomer happens to describe a supernova as "an extravagant stellar display"? Given that one can have too much of anything, what don't we talk about in this article? Love, by contrast, is a feeling, it excludes other concepts. It's not an object, or an action, and it can preclude other feelings. Yakushima (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have created Tryphé. It has just survived one speedy delete attempt. Tag it as you wish, but I think it's an actual encyclopedic topic, and one that goes beyond mere "extravagance". And I have accordingly moved the text describing Tryphé to Tryphé, while leaving a wikilink as a "see also" entry. Yakushima (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is the last resort, and should only be considered after rejecting the possibility that the article can be improved. The dicdefs we should be removing are only the ones that are not capable of being expanded. If they are capable of expansion, they should be regarded as the beginnings of an article, that will benefit anyone who comes along to continue them. I've said elsewhere that I consider almost any common noun that has more than a few occurrences in English capable of being an article for the thing it describes (assuming the thing is of any notability, of course, which is usually but not always the case). This will be true of abstract as well as concrete topics--few English words for abstract topics are complete synonyms. I fail to see the merit of the argument that it overlaps other subjects--essentially everything overlaps other subjects. People have discussed this as a specific concept, and therefore it is capable of being made into an article. Papers on " widely divergent topics which explore the concept of extravagance in some field or another," do justify an article. That the sources could have used other language and been written about a slightly different subject does not invalidatethat the did actually write about this one, DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. If you in fact "consider almost any common noun that has more than a few occurrences in English capable of being an article for the thing it describes", why not start the articles commonness, occurrences, capability (disambig page), article (disambig page), description (tech term for rhetorical device), all of which are used in that claim or are common nouns derived from them? Yakushima (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that nearly all of the content of this article that was there at the time of this deletion nomination, and that has been added since, has been removed by an editor who !voted "delete" above. How can we have a proper informed discussion when the article that we are supposed to be discussing is gutted in this way, meaning that anyone commenting has to spend ages digging around in the article history? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I decided to time myself in "digging around in the article history", to determine how [long] it would take to find [out] how it looked before AfD nomination. From noting the date of AfD posting above, from start to finish, it took about one minute to get to this: [38]. And I was moving slowly. From there you can move forward through the edits, see my edit summaries in context, and square them with the account I give above (since I commented on every major step oi the process of putting this article on a diet.) That's a smallish fraction (maybe 10-20%) of the total time it should take to consider all the arguments and evidence presented above. If you find that smallish fraction an insuperable barrier, I'm sure there are easier AfDs you could be working on instead. Yakushima (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that User:Yakushima's actions in re this topic started directly after this angry outburst elsewhere. My impression is that these actions of removing sourced content from this article and creating the content fork of tryphé are disruption contrary to WP:POINT and WP:HARASS. It could all be coincidence, of course, but I mention the possibility so that you may be fully informed without having to dig further into the edit histories. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. CW indicates WP:POINT. The first sentence of that guideline starts "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied ..." But--I'm not angry about that here. Quite the contrary. Is WP:DICT "being applied" here? No guideline/policy is being applied here until the admin closes the AfD, so there's nothing for me to be angry about. Unless CW believes he's applying policy. But last I checked, he wasn't an admin on Wikipedia. (OK: I was angry at the way CW was personally attacked above, and was also angered when the attacker reverted my edits--which were all made per relevant guidelines. But that's not what CW is talking about here, I'm sure.) CW also indicates WP:HARASS. That starts with "[h]arassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons ...." Excuse me, can anyone here tell who is the target of this harassment CW thinks he sees? CW? Sure, maybe the editor who personally attacked CW above was guilty of WP:HARASS, because he was definitely offensive -- check this AfDs edit history if you're interested. But surely CW should then be thankful that I cited policy in edits to revert those attacks. So is CW accusing me of harassing him in some way? He needs to show precisely where I've done that. CW further points to what he calls an "angry outburst." I invite you all to go look not only at that edit, and the whole AfD discussion it concluded, but also at how the admin closed that AfD: in favor of the argument summarized in precisely the comment CW calls an "angry outburst." Last I checked, angry outbursts brought censure from admins, not agreement. Now, CW may have a point about a possible violation of WP:CONTENTFORK. One might say that the POV I'm supposedly pushing is that tryphé is so much more than mere extravagance that it really has no place in extravagance, except perhaps where I left it: wikilinked in the See Also section. Yet, despite remarking several times about my opinion on tryphé, nobody here has argued otherwise (not even CW). I invite you all to look at tryphé for yourselves and see if you think it's an encyclopedic topic. Then come back to extravagance and ask yourselves: don't you think there might be some semantic extravagance ("unrestrained excess") in any claim that tryphé is a mere subtopic of extravagance? (Uh-oh, now we have to add something to extravagance because we found yet another use for the mere word: in semantics. See how this works, people? See why we have WP:NOTDICT?) Yakushima (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is against policy, but having a point in mind while improving Wikipedia doesn't seemed to be frowned upon anywhere. IMNSHO, here are the improvements I've made to Wikipedia in the course of this AfD:
tryphé -- a new article about a fascinating historical topic.
Removed simplistic discussion of tryphé from extravagance.
Removed a factual error -- the claim that luxuria meant "extravagance", and that it was one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Corrected the caption on the luxuria inset from the Hieronymous Bosch painting about the Seven Deadly Sins to reflect the above correction.
It's not clear exactly what personality-inventory psychologists mean with their various measures (possible incommensurable) of what they call "extravagance", so leaving a mere pointer to the fact that psychologists measure some such thing (which might not correspond very closely to the vernacular sense) was also an improvement.
And if all those improvements made it quite clear that the article before and during this AfD didn't ever really have much more content that a dictionary definition, that's also an improvement to the article: the distracting underbrush is cleared, and if what remains passes WP:N (somehow -- get to work people, if you really believe that!), the real work can start.
P.P.S. Insinuation of a charge ofWP:POINTand WP:HARASS by CW, however (who admits he can't prove any such thing, and apparently discourages other people from investigating, implying he's pretty much summarized the case against me) .... well, CW, what's the applicable policy about such insinuations? Anyone else here want to guess? Yakushima (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've edited the article to provide (perhaps only as a suggestion, mind you) a draft introductory paragraph for the introduction to the full-fledged article that might grow out of this stub, if the article passes AfD. I hope this addresses some of the complaints above, about the deletions and slimming-down I've done during AfD, all of which I think were at least appropriate -- where they were not actually required -- under the various relevant guidelines and policies. Yakushima (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run-of-the-mill dicdef, per others. Note that I have indeed read through Mr. Warden's fevered responses to this, and reject them completely, so please no "OMG U DON"T UNDERSTAND DICDEF" responses. Thanks. This is just a common English word, there's really nothing to say about it beyond what it means, and trying to puff up the article length with examples of extravagance is a pretty hollow/shallow rescue attempt. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer DICTDEF, artifically inflated with some random examples not really related to eachother.--Yaksar(let's chat) 20:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the apparent default-consensus meaning of the term for purposes of writing this article (i.e., excessive spending), "extravagance" has been around since at least 1727,[39]. So there's been plenty of time to see it emerge as a general-purpose and as a special-purpose encyclopedia topic. Accordingly, I've just done some Google book searches on "encyclopedia" plus "extravagance" plus one each of the supposed categories: "ethics", "finance", "economics" and "psychology". I haven't looked at every book that came up, but so far I have yet to see any Google-accessible encyclopedia volume that lists an actual article devoted to extravagance. They all seem to use it as, well, a word in English. That is to say, they use it as if the reader is supposed to either understand it immediately or look it up in another kind of reference work whose name starts with a D, not an E. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course, but I still don't get why you'd have an article on extravagance any more than you'd have an article on, say, thinness (which redirects to the health condition of being underweight), or plenitude (which redirects to an obscure metaphysical concept: the Plenitude principle). And it appears I'm in good company with compilers of encyclopedias over the last several hundred years. Yakushima (talk) 10:20, 8 February 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.
There are thousands upon thousands of similar stories across the world, every year, nothing special about this one. MalleusFatuorum 05:06, 30 January 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. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being an associate professor, publishing prolifically, and best-paper and department-level awards are not among the criteria of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No recommendation for now, but he does actually appear to meet WP:PROF as a full professor and department chair (per [40]). I haven't looked fully at the sources, but a quick check seems to show he's been quoted/written about in USA Today, among others, and is on the editorial board for Journal of Financial Markets (though I can't immediately figure out in what capacity). Sourcing still needs to be there to satisfy WP:BLP, of course. --Kinut/c 10:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither being a full professor nor being a department chair are among the WP:PROF criteria. In either case, to pass WP:PROF by academic rank or by administrative position, something stronger is needed: either being a distinguished professor or named chair, or being the head of a whole university. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. Google scholar finds five papers with over 100 citations each, and one of his papers is the second hit for "stealth trading". That's enough to convince me that he's making a significant impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 30 January 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.
Contested PROD. Original reasoning was "Non-notable, fails WP:GNG". As well, I can find no significant coverage that would establish the notability of this book. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BK. No information, commentary, etc., in WP:RS to show that WP:GNG is met. --Kinut/c 10:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet WP:BK, author does not appear to be notable at present, and book is published by a vanity press. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 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.
Strong Keep. I'd arge that being an officially designated U.S. nuclear weapon confers notability. And a very quick Google turns up sources; was this done before the nom? The stub is a mess though, but that can be dealt with without going to AfD... - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, also, the "W41" appears to have been the subject of Deepwater Horizon conspiracy theories, too. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being a production-level nuclear weapon is notability enough, but the conspiracy theories add that yummy wiki-flavor (flavour for the benefit of the folks on the other end of the pond). Could use some expansion, but AfD is not for cleanup. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A nuclear weapons program that was around for years, is notable. This isn't just a couple of guys hammering out some scrap metal in their garage. This is something quite major! Article now has references. DreamFocus 12:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger. Sources seem to establish notability. SnottyWongconfabulate 19:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger and DreamFocus. Nuclear weapons are notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Number built 0", so no, not "a production-level nuclear weapon". A cancelled warhead for a cancelled missile system, lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:54, 3 February 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.
This is a list of things related to a specific event, however this knowledge is merely trivia and serves no real purpose (other than trivia value). Films related to the JFK assassination, books based on Pearl Harbor, any of these things are irrelevant trivia. This article parallels discussions such as those. Perhaps some of this content would be better merged into the 9/11 article. Either way, this article is not worth keeping as much of it is subjectively worded in the first place (WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithink215 (talk • contribs) — Ithink215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: We have cultural reference pages to JFK's assassination, and nobody has made anything of it as yet. This article should be kept. It's not trivia, it documents how 9/11 has affected pop culture.--Editor510drop us a line, mate 16:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP has lots of "Whatever in culture" articles. This is more worthy than most, and well sourced as well. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Completely inadequate deletion rationale by the nom. Merely saying "this is trivia" is an opinion, not an argument; WP:OC is a guideline regarding categories, not article content; and if you think "some of this content would be better merged into the 9/11 article" that rather undercuts your opinion that it's all "irrelevant trivia." The subject matter of a work of fiction is a defining element of it, and the depictions of a subject in fiction are highly relevant to that subject. So either way you look at it, it's not trivia, provided it's a substantive depiction and not merely a mention (Young Mr. Lincoln = substantive depiction. "In episode #305 of Will & Grace, Jack sarcastically calls Will 'Honest Abe'" = insubstantial mention.) postdlf (talk) 13:05, 31 January 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.
Founding a company and being a successful CEO is not, of itself, sufficient to address the WP:BIO criteria. There is a lack of sources to demonstrate the significant impact in an encyclopaedic sense and these seem unlikely to be found in the near future, considering the article history. PROD contested, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepShort: Meets WP:BIO. Long: Founder of a relatively large multinational & multi-industry consulting corporation which employs over 7,000 people,[41] listed in the OMX Helsinki and independently quoted[42] as the world leader in its field, Mr. Pöyry is the subject of a 400-page full-color memoirs-style biography[43] written by Prof. em. Raimo Seppälä, and a celebrated Finnish businessperson, internationally recognized[44] in the pulp and paper industry. Thesetwo on-line source are a good starting point, but an extensive wiki-article could be written based on the book, available in the most public libraries in Finland. He never received vuorineuvos, but would have probably been eligible. Quote: "Despite losing his father at a young age and sustaining difficult injuries during the War, Pöyry led a long and unbelievably eventful career from a trainee of a Swedish paper mill to the top, to the demanding world-wide paper mill planning duties." --hydrox (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't find in WP:BIO that "Founding a company and being a successful CEO is not, of itself, sufficient". Since Howard Brennan is notable, the standards are looser than would seem to apply here. Here is a Finnish to English google translation of the advertisement for the biography (I had to use a Google cache, I don't know how long the cache is available) here. The subtitle "Jaakko Pöyry's a long way to Sodankylä to six continents" shows the man is famous world-wide. Unscintillating (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would have been clearer to point to the WP:GNG criteria. The point being made is that there is no WP:CEO type definition of what makes corporate execs notable, the general criteria must be satisfied. As a book has been added since nomination, significant impact can be judged based on that as a verifiable source. Fæ (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWonggab 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hydrox's sources above are pretty compelling. Hopefully some of them can be actually added to the article in the near future. SnottyWonggab 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Successful business founder, who gets coverage for his accomplishments. DreamFocus 10:40, 2 February 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 with leave to speedy renominate Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a page on the song "I'm Broken". There is zero reason for a separate entry that only details info for one version of the single. L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:26, 16 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 January 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, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:11, 30 January 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A page on this song already exists. There is no need for a separate page containing info on the single only L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:23, 16 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 January 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, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:10, 30 January 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a blatant advertisement & does present itself at being notability. The few references they article does link don't appear to notable ore reliable resources. Article was originally in on Kantonus's userpage, they requested it be moved into the mainspace & as soon as user had enough edits to move into main space, moved it, even though movereq was clearly showing that it was mainspace material. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢ 07:11, 16 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Google News search shows plenty of results. I don't see a problem with notability. De-advert the language and trim it down as needed. The version history is really unnecessary. --Pnm (talk) 04:11, 28 January 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, NW(Talk) 02:40, 30 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:GNG, though this is a borderline case. His claims to fame are, in no particular order, being a passenger on Flight 93; having what seems to be a semi-professional minor rugby competition named after him; and being portrayed in a few documentaries about Flight 93. However, merely being a victim of an airline hijacking does not itself confer notability. Even if the rugby competition is deemed notable (I do not, at this moment in time, have an opinion one way or the other), it doesn't "transfer" notability to him (to put it in reverse, if I'm a friend of the very notable Jimbo Wales, and me and my buddies play a game of Quake 3 Arena and call it, with Mr. Wales' blessing, "The Jimbo Wales Honorary Invitational", our little competition does not become notable). And simply being portrayed in documentaries doesn't bestow notability, either - the movies are about Flight 93, not Mr. Bingham flying on Flight 93. As far as his rugby career is concerned, he does not seem to meet the criteria listed in WP:ATHLETE for rugby union players, as the San Francisco Fog are not a first class rugby union team, and do not seem to have participated in full-pro competition - but that should probably be confirmed by somebody more knowledgable about rugby union than I. Regardless of final outcome, the article definitely needs a rewrite, as the glurge-factor is currently off the charts - and if it's determined that he does, in fact, meet the WP:ATHLETE guidelines, the article should be appropriately restructured to cover Mark Bingham the rugby union player first, and Mark Bingham the guy with the PR firm who flew on Flight 93 second. Badger Drink (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he sails past the WP:GNG. Your waffling about fictitious gaming events is wholly irrelevant - someone having an event named after them does add to their notability. He is still noted to this month: "In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the compelling story of Mark Bingham, the gay rugby player who helped bring down United Airlines Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, captured headlines. Arizona Sen. John McCain, in a 2008 interview with the Blade, cited Bingham as one of his gay heroes."[45]Fences&Windows 03:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Someone having an event named after them does add to their notability" - no, it doesn't. Coorelation is not causation. It's a good indicator that there may be something notable about them, but this is hardly a guarantee of anything. At most, it may warrant a redirect from Mark Bingham to the rugby tournament, if said tournament passes WP:N. And you're saying that if John McCain namedrops somebody, they're automatically notable? Nonsense. Badger Drink (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although Wikipedia is not a memorial, Bingham was one of only a few passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 to capture the public's attention in a major way (others include Todd Beamer and Jeremy Glick). Hundreds of Google Books hits attest to this. I don't mean to portray Bingham as a "victim" per se (which might be seen as belittling his heroic efforts, along with other passengers, to thwart the hijackers), but he literally was a victim of the hijacking, and he does qualify as notable under WP:VICTIM: "The victim, consistent with WP:BLP1E, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." Bingham's notability is not as a rugby player, not as a PR executive, but as a 9/11 hero, and he is definitely notable for that. --Metropolitan90(talk) 04:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over two thousand people were "literally" victims of the hijacking. I'm not sure how Bingham can be reconciled with WP:BLP1E. A lot of books have lists of the people killed in the hijackings, and the few spot-checks I made from the link you provided seem to confirm this. Badger Drink (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most of those people did not receive persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources that devoted significant attention to their role. Let's look at some potential sources. This article from The Advocate is seven pages long and devoted to portraying Bingham as the "Person of the Year". This book, Critical Perspectives on 9/11, is 176 pages long, and almost 9 pages of that is devoted to Bingham's experience. Here is a syndicated Associated Press article devoted to Bingham. In fact, an entire book was published titled Hero of Flight 93: Mark Bingham. The coverage given to Bingham in reliable sources goes far beyond treating him as just someone on the list of victims killed on 9/11. See WP:1E which says, "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." Bingham easily passes the "Howard Brennan test". --Metropolitan90(talk) 07:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just to emphasize something: Bingham was not just "a passenger on Flight 93". He is believed to have been one of the passengers who attacked the hijackers and thus prevented them from crashing the plane into the United States Capitol or another major landmark building. That's why he is often called a hero. --Metropolitan90(talk) 08:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, over two thousand people were "literally" victims of 9/11. However, no more than a handful of those people are still household names ten years hence, about whom we can write genuinely and reliably sourced encyclopedia articles that rely not just on one single "Victims of 9/11" blurb in The New York Times, but on broad and sustained coverage in a variety of sources; Bingham is one of that handful. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - He's the subject of the highest award in LGBT rugby, the Bingham cup; he's consistently rated in top 100 lists in Advocate, Out, and other such media; he's literally the chief subject of a new national park; and he was the protagonist in a major Hollywood film. I don't know how much more notable a dead amateur athlete can be. He was not just a witness; he was the man who saved thousands off lives. His name continue to appear in reliable sources through today, almost ten years after his death. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 25 January 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, NW(Talk) 02:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I originally PRODded this for other issues, but deprodded it after the original issues seemed to be fixed. After further consideration, I think the notability is questionable enough to warrant AfD discussion. There is a possibleconflict of interest here on the part of the original author, based on hit #9 in this Google search, where, although the link no longer works, the page title matches the article name and the username in the URL matches the author of the article. Several claims in the article are uncited and questionable at best, and I think that overall, he's just not notable enough. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two inventions seem to be his and genuine - and I have heard of the Surfbike (which as I live on a wide flat sand beached coast and have never even in wild moments wanted to surf may mean something...). As to his sporting achievements, I pass the buck to those interested in sport. Peridon (talk)
Weak Delete - Not much coverage about him that I could find. There is this article. His kayak variant was pitched on the Canadian Dragon's Den, and he was a semi-finalist in the 2007 IDM DEsign Awards. If there were some more coverage, this would be enough to push it to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 17 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google has now removed the link that I referenced in my deletion rationale above, probably due to it being a dead link. For future reference, it consisted of a link to a Twitter account under the same username as the author of this article (as evidenced by the URL), and the title of the page, which on Twitter is the user's name that they have entered into their profile, matched the title of this article. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed seems to be self-promotion. The inventions as such are not especially notable, and much less so is the inventor of them. Travelbird (talk) 09:10, 30 January 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the Web site's claims, this does not seem to be a real organization at all. No Chinese Wikipedia article. More suspiciously, both the English[46] and the Chinese Web site[47] contain very little actual information. I am not convinced that this is a real school, and even if it is, I am not sure I see its notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:54, 15 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 22 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their English language website seems to be http://www.get.org.tw/ndi/e_ndi/index.htm which does have a lot of info. They get a mention a a Taiwanese government site here and on the website of the Brazilian representative office (the de facto embassy) here which indicates that this school is genuine. As higher education institution are usually considered notable, we should probably keep this one as well. Travelbird (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a non-notable publishing company which has had little or no coverage in reliable third-party sources. The article itself is completely unreferenced. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organisation per WP:ORG. No coverage in reliable secondary sources. The last AfD a couple of months ago was closed as No Concensus due to a handful of !votes which seemingly did not consider the notability of the company to be an issue of relevance. However, there weren't any secondary sources available then, and there still aren't now (just check with the links above.) Unsurprisingly, in the intervening two months, the article has continued to sit there completely unreferenced, because adding references is impossible when no sources exist. There is no scope for an encyclopedic article on this topic so there is no way to improve the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:01, 15 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 22 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to their own website they specialize "in the innovative on-demand publishing model" which means they are nothing else than a fancy copy-shop that also may do a bit of promotion on the side. They print whatever you send them for a fee. This doesn't pass WP:CORP. Travelbird (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. It does assert notability by claiming "it has steadily grown its catalogue and its profile", but without specifics and better yet reliable sources backing it up, it's essentially a meaningless statement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:04, 31 January 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.
Only one source, no notability besides a queen staying there. Minimal hits on Google, almost none reputable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be part of the Balmoral Estate though the article does not say so. Not notable in its own right, though it probably deserves mention under that entry (though not in this form). AJHingston (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have its own page on that site [48], however, nor is it searchable on the site directly or using the A-Z index. I'd still favour including it in the Balmoral entry with a redirect. Lots of parts of, say, Windsor Castle or the Tower of London are notable, and some qualify for their own entry, but it is usually best to keep them within the main entry unless they have a significance other than that accorded to the property itself. So far as I can see, at Balmoral the Queen and guests sometimes stay in the Castle, sometimes in the Lodge, and I'm not clear what notability the Lodge has beyond that. But I admit I've never been invited to stay and am not claiming direct knowledge! It may be of great architectural merit or some dramatic events may have occurred there. AJHingston (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Balmoral Estate. Debatable as to whether this would be notable in its own right, but as it's part of a wider subject that is notable, coupled with the fact that there's only a small amount of encyclopaedic information itself, Balmoral Estate seems to be the best place to put the verifiable information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. There is a section about the estate (albeit a messy one), so we could put a paragraph into that section quite easily. I think there's a good case to split Balmoral Estate into its own article anyway, but that's a separate debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:50, 23 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now with no prejudice against later re-creation. Generally I would say that any place a member of the royal family stay frequently is inherently notable. However there isn't really enough in the article to warrant a separate one for the moment. If some expert has more information at a later stage the article can be spun-off from Balmoral Estate again. Travelbird (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very notable! This Lodge has been at the center of the stories in the Royalist press. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either OR or (more likely) a copyright violation Travelbird (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to County Cavan. Looks like it was copypasted from somewhere, but also, I couldn't find much info about it other than it being part of the aforementioned county. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with a view to merging a related but non-plagiarised section into County Cavan in the future. Heggyhomolit (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the writer of the page that is getting all this attention... I have not contributed to this site before. The article is and abbreviated version of a paper I completed as part of my MA in history. It is pasted. It is accurate and it is not anyones work other than my own... There are no other articles on this area I believe I am the only one to do so. I believe as such it should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Cúl Ghear (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is your own work, OK - so long as it hasn't been published. (If it had, you'd need to release copyright.) However, it cites no references. So long as you can reference to outside sources, I'll go for a keep. If you can't reference it, it'll probably have to go. It could be put on WikiResearch (or something like that) where original research is welcomed. Cite Leo Swan and whatever else you used. Find other stuff. Look at WP:RS to see what's good and what isn't. If not sure, ask. Peridon (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the same token, if it's a paper you wrote for your class, it doesn't belong here anyway; that's a violation of WP:NOTESSAY. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can I also add that the article would need to be completely rewritten to comply with WP guidelines. It would also need to be renamed to just "Magherintemple" with the Irish translation added to the first line of the opening paragraph. Heggyhomolit (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish 'translation' is probably the original and 'Magherintemple' an anglicisation (not a translation - machaire or machair is low grassland, and Teampaill is as likely to come straight from a shared source in Latin 'templum' as it is to come from English). There should be a redirect from the Irish form when this is sorted out. Peridon (talk) 11:52, 24 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overly detailed article for an insignificant place. Snappy (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again delete if you must... I will reference this article when i have time. As far as being an insignificant place "Snappy" what exactly does that mean?
Peridon, s far as the names Magherintemple and Machaire an Teampaill both are in use. Machaire roughly means in English a plateaux or a level place on a hill or mountain. A low grassy meadow is Maigh usually anglisised as Moy May or Magh.
The article is well researched and it is correct. If another editor wishes to amend it to meet guidelines for submission that is grand. Is mise le gach meas An Cúl Ghear — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Cúl Ghear (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 February 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. Anyone who thinks the content might be mergeable can contact me and I'll sort them out. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Now merged and redirected. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a thesis? A bald assertion doesn't make it so. Indeed, it isn't a thesis at all. It's an encyclopaedia article that would be, in a traditional encyclopaedia, under the title Painting, environmental concerns of or some such. Indeed, that's pretty much the very title that title it is under in at least one other encyclopaedia (Forbes 1998) harv error: no target: CITEREFForbes1998 (help). Moreover, I can look up "paints; health, safety, and environmental factors related to" in the index of (Seidel 2007) harv error: no target: CITEREFSeidel2007 (help), a third encyclopaedia, and find that that subject is in volume 18 pages 74 to 75, as a sub-topic of paint. We even have an equivalent sub-topic here, paint#Dangers (a section title that we could improve, learning from a more comprehensive encyclopaedia), for which these two would be quite ordinary break-out sub-articles, as Wikipedia often has, as we aim to reach the same level of coverage as is already in the encyclopaedias we are attempting to provide free content alternatives to.
I do wonder sometimes whether some people at AFD have a full grasp of what encyclopaedias contain and what we are aiming for in writing one that is intended to be as comprehensive as other existing encyclopaedias. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different to environmental issues with paint? They seem to be dealing with the exact same subject except in a different order. A simple merger (since there's a small amount in one article that isn't in the other) seems in order, with no deletion required. Which direction the merger should go is a matter of naming conventions. And, as noted above, this subject is quite evidently encyclopaedic.
The idea that this subject is a heretofore undocumented subject is simply laughable, given how easy it is to find encyclopaedias covering this topic, and bespeaks of yet another unresearched deletion nomination by TenPoundHammer, alas. I'm guessing that this is, like Erpert's equally laughable idea that this is a thesis, another egregious misapplication of the original research policy as a magic catch-all based upon no actual looking to see whether indeed the world does document a subject, and borne not of the application of our content and deletion policies but of some foolish idea that encyclopaedia articles have single-word titles and that stubs and start-class articles are somehow complete and comprehensive explanations of a subject, that can be taken at face value and used as the sole indicators of the coverage or extent of a subject by the encyclopaedia writers who are supposed to be looking at Wikipedia from the point of view of writing and improving our many incomplete articles, which includes a fairly basic step of looking to see what we are aiming for.
Forbes, Stewart (1998). "Environmental Issues in Metal Finishing and Industrial Coatings". In Stellman, Jeanne Mager (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety: Chemical, industries and occupations (4th ed.). International Labour Organization. ISBN9789221098164.
Seidel, Arza, ed. (2007). Encyclopedia of chemical technology. Vol. 27 (5th ed.). Wiley-Interscience. ISBN9780471484967. ((cite encyclopedia)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
Keep. A notable topic. The article is a bit of a how to guide and it needs a huge cleanup but these are not reasons for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the third article of this type that the nominator has put up for deletion. See other discussions at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agriculture and the environment]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water and the environment. All these articles fill a gap in the WP hierarchy of articles. There are a large number of articles of this type. They form a useful continuum for the reader. They form a hierarcy as follows:
Topic -> -> Topic and the environment -> Environmental issues with topic
Environment -> -> Sustainability of topic
Merge - Unsourced OR which should have been titled How to paint in an environmentally friendly manner. Also, obviously a content fork of Environmental issues with paint. Any sourced, non-how-to information can be merged, the rest should be deleted. SnottyWongprattle 15:55, 29 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was originally called green painting. Its written as a how to guide at the moment, so needs to be rewritten. It needs to quote various sources for the suggest method of reducing the effects of paint on the environment. A possible merge can be discussed after the article has been referenced and written properly. DreamFocus 02:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why both this article andEnvironmental issues with paint are both required? What is the intended difference in scope between these two articles? Seems like a textbook content fork to me. Choose one title and merge them. SnottyWongconfabulate 19:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read both articles. This one is far longer, and it would look out of place if merged there. Just remain it. Its about reducing environmental impact of painting. DreamFocus 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read both articles. They are both about the exact same topic. That one is longer than the other is immaterial. Like I said, pick one to keep and merge them. Doesn't matter if it's this one (the longer one) or the other one. There is absolutely no reason to have two articles on the same topic. It's like having Red and The color red and Human perception of red light all as separate articles. No one is trying to "destroy" information here, so you can calm down. We're just saying: put it all together in one article. SnottyWonggossip 21:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The how-to portion is welcome at Appropedia, a wiki of sustainability and appropriate technology topics. --Teratornis (talk) 02:00, 31 January 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. lifebaka++ 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This dam and the 29 below are all planned, non-existent dams in Iran. They are not under construction or complete. The articles were created in April 2010 with several being PROD'd citing WP:CRYSTALBALL and were subsequently de-PROD'd by their creator. The creator's reasoning is cited here among other places. Part of the problem is, eight months later, the articles remain tagged-stubs. Aside from failing under CRYSTALBALL, these planned dams lack the notability for stand-alones and can, if not already, be sufficiently covered in List of power stations in Iran. Whether these dams will be built isn't a sure thing. Articles on dams, with the exception of a few very controversial, usually aren't started until construction begins; similar to when one would create an article for a music album. Next to each dam article, I placed a source to the developer's website.--NortyNort(Holla) 03:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can they possibly be merged? I don't see any sufficiency to keep them individually, but perhaps together they could warrant an article. Shadowjams (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims"
AND
"For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources.
Put the ((notability)) tag on the article to alert other editors.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the ((expert-subject)) tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online."
Is it only me who sees that there is something terribly wrong with putting deletion tag on the articles according to the Wikipedia guidelines or is it really the case? All articles have proper official references and since dams are large projects with far reaching effects, these separate articles have been created to allow for expansion. There are many articles on wikipedia which took more than 8 months for their expansion. So this time line is basically not a reason for deletion. These articles can not be merged with the list of powerplants article since that is a list type article and when I created, it was a list. It has been cluttered now, which I am thinking to clean up in order for it to remain a list class article. Anyways Iran is one of biggest dam building nations on planet earth, to the extent of damaging their local ecology. May be the person who has put the deletion tag should instead put his/her energy to expand the articles instead of obliterating them. Deletion is easy, creation is not. --Irooniqermez (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the articles have been tagged with ((notability)) since April 2010 but that isn't the main reason they should be deleted, rather WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTABILITY. Each article does have a reference, albeit they just go to the IWPCO main page instead of directly to the project. We know they are planned but we don't know if they will be constructed or when they will be constructed. Not every dam goes as planned because of funding, opposition, etc. Until then, they are non-existent planned dams. Iran is a big dam builder in the world and if the dams are collectively controversial, they all can be placed in List of power stations in Iran or List of dams in Iran with a relative blurb. Every dam also has some sort of impact on the environment. List of power stations in Iran is still list-class and already contains the information each stub contains. Once construction begins on a specific dam or it is specifically the topic of "sufficiently wide interest" then stand-alone articles can be created. Right now, we just have 30 potential perma-stubs on "unverifiable speculation" regarding whether they will be constructed in the near future or future. Good enough for inclusion in a list but not a stand-alone article. Some context: in the vast majority of cases, if a notable music artist stated they were planning a new album, would an article be made on it on that point?--NortyNort(Holla) 09:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Music albums are a bit different from dams, do you not agree? You still have not answered why you have tagged deletion under notability and crystalball, despite the rules clearly say that deletion is only to be considered if the articles are not referenced. Many dams are on wikipedia which have never been built and there is no intentions to build them. As for these dams work on some of them in these 8 months might have started. Have you checked to prove the contrary? I guess not. Tagging for deletion seems to be easier than searching for references. You just want to delete them by hook or crook. As I said, you might get away destroying the articles. But you can not destroy the knowledge generally. Relative blurbs do not have any place in a respected encyclopedia. Only referenced data has. Sufficiently wide interest? And let me guess, you are the one who is deciding that, right? --Irooniqermez (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to get the articles deleted "hook or crook". I also agree albums are different then dams, I was just trying to put the notability in context. We know these dams are planned and I commented on the referencing above as well. There are articles on proposed dams on Wikipedia, and some probably aren't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. A good example of a proposed dam that is notable enough for a stand-alone article is the Belo Monte Dam. Notice the international attention or "sufficiently wide interest" that specific dam has received from sources, even those independent of the subject. Those references and notable attention are essentially "the one who is deciding", not me. I couldn't find this referencing on the proposed dams above. I am not trying to "destroy the knowledge" and didn't say it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I just believe the articles shouldn't be stand-alones. I also gave suggestions for incorporating the same information within the stubs into a list. If it is more then a blurb, then whatever. I sense an undertone in your language that I am pro-Iranian dam or something of that sort. I hope that is not the case and if so, I will refrain from this discussion here at AfD.--NortyNort(Holla) 03:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You accused me of prejudice. I can also reciprocate and accuse you of Anti-Iranian sentiment. But I will not. I just expanded and updated your lead deletion article as an example of how you have not done anything to improve the articles instead of proposing to delete them. As per above mentioned rules, you are on the side of err. Furthermore, I am not going to be held hostage to this irrational situation. I created a list of power plants in Iran for Wikipedia investing my PRECIOUS time since there were none in English Wikipedia. Translating is not an easy job, and to my folly I had assumed English Wikipedia users would in the interest of knowledge appreciate it. But that was a foolish decision on my part and since they are now open source work, I can not delete them, but if I could go back in time, I would have never created them. Arrogance I do not like. You people want to delete it, instead of improving it. Then go ahead and do it. Why you are bothering me? If you can not contribute and construct then there are only two things left to do on Wikipedia, ie deletion and destruction. As for this deletion list, I will not contribute anymore. I am not responsible for all the articles on Wikipedia. The whole idea of Wikipedia is based on community improvement of articles. The responsible member of this community where ever and whenever sees a deficiency in an article does her/his best to improve it. Holding hostage the initiator of the article by putting deletion tags is childish and immature. As for me, this is the end of conversation and I am not concerned with this matter anymore. Certainly, these deletion tags have not been put to improve the quality of articles or Wikipedia as a whole as clearly demonstrated by my expansion of above mentioned article. I hope you understand my extreme frustration with your actions.--Irooniqermez (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor creates an article, it is their job as the creator initially to establish notability and reference it properly. Other editors can help in this effort and often do here especially with new editors. Did I not put a direct reference next to each article above? It is difficult if hardly anything is in English or the project is bilateral and has several names. Creating 30 "assembly line" stubs on proposed dams and placing the same general reference to the developer's home page for each isn't a good way to denote an article's notability. If I did the same, I would not be surprised if someone nominated them for deletion. I try and improve dam articles all the time, usually when they are in the news, under construction or I find interest, etc. I also do not speak or read Persian as with the Azad Dam references. Most editors on the English Wikipedia don't. Google translate didn't even do a good job with the Azad Dam references, it translated it as the "Water dam". The way I had to connect the two was with the MW capacity and location. The Azad Dam was also more than likely under construction when the article was created which wasn't researched or mentioned at the time. I am sure your translations are helpful, albeit those 30 stubs didn't require Persian translation. I apologize for any seemingly harsh language but I feel you are taking too much offense to this. I also think we are all using our precious time here and it is universally appreciated.
After some understandle confusion here with the Aras Watershed Dam and Persian references added to the Azad Dam, idicating it is under construction, I no longer support the deletion of those two.--NortyNort(Holla) 02:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete all. Short unsourced stubs without indication of notability. The link to IWPCO general website [[49]], which says nothing about concrete projects, is not sufficient and does not account as a reference. To establish notability reliable sources with precise references are needed. During eight months there has been no attempts to fix these problems, so deletion seems to be justified. Beagel (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Azad Dam which has significantly improved. Beagel (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Aras Watershed Dam now a redirect.--NortyNort(Holla) 03:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per NortyNort and Beagel. Johnfos (talk) 04:32, 26 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of power stations in Iran as possible search terms. Or merge into a new List of proposed dams in Iran or List of proposed power stations in Iran. -Atmoz (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cut Down All the Trees and Name the Streets After Them[edit]
Delete but no harm in tossing up a redirect to Manipulator (album) just in case someone searches for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 22 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:26, 30 January 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.
No evidence that this is a notable theme... just a list of things that mentioned elms. Listcruft, like a bad "in popular culture" list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Listcruft plus failure to meet general notability guidelines. Shadowjams (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable trivia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with nominator. Article as nominated [50] appears set only for self-promotion of an otherwise non-notable film. To quote the article, "Operation R.E.L.P was released in limited quantities and has only had two public showings. As it was a not-for-profit production, the film was never sold. However, a one-off limited edition version was created, but only distributed amongst the production crew.". In searching, we find it had no distribution, only two public screenings, and no reliable sources speaking toward the film. Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable film, no coverage in WP:RS. --Kinut/c 09:23, 24 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two public showings and no physical release? Geez. I've literally made more notable movies in my backyard. And that's even assuming this even exists. Not on IMDB or even on Google ("Did you mean Operation Repo?"). The names in the article are pretty unlikely too... Kaiser Wilhelm von Shakespertin? Woof Woof and Co? Sounds like a hoax and/or just kids messing around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 31 January 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.
Way too specific. None of these is notable. Sources don't seem to back up them being "lentic". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of these man-made lakes were a created by the people of Maharashtra working under the Indian Famine Codes to avert a major famine in 1973 in Maharashtra. Working on these projects created employment for many jobless people allowing them to purchase food and in effect reduced deaths from starvation. The article has potential to be improved substantially. Numerous sources already exist, many more can be added. Perhaps someday we will have a separate article for each man-made water body. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified an IP editor who made me aware of this article via his personal narration of the events leading to the building of these reservoirs. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:30, 29 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- These bodies were mainly constructed during the drought of early 1970s and provided a guarateed income to rural people in the drought stricken areas. Since then these reservoirs with stagnant waters have come under attack for spreading malaria. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
These bodies are much smaller than reservoirs created by placing a dam on a river. The word in Marathi language for lentic water is "Pazar Talav" which translates as Pazar = Drip and Talav = lake, tank or reservoir. Some reports describe them as percolation tanks.[51] So these can not be lumped together with the conventional dam reservoirs. A personal observation: since most Wikipedians familiar with Maharashtra are probably young and in their twenties and from the urban areas,and therefore to them the history and geography of rural part may as well be that of an alien planet.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:05, 30 January 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. Tending towards delete, but not quite there. There is much doubt that PORNBIO is a sustainable guideline. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO; no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guidelines. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. CAVR is not a notable award [52], let alone a "well-known" one, and the "nomination" amounts to little more than receiving six votes in an online poll [53]. No significant reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had previously been deleted as an expired PROD at Keeani Lei (pornographic actress). Might meet PORNBIO if one includes the FAME nomination HW deleted diff and/or her nomination for the 2010 AVN Awards' Best All-Girl Group Sex Scene, which doesn't appear to have been added to the article. However, meeting PORNBIO means meeting that in addition to meeting WP:BASIC, and I couldn't find evidence of that after trying web, GB, GS, GN, LEXIS NEXIS with her various names. A passing mention in "Romantic Signs in Pornography" by Eric Maroney page 22 in Woman in Mind Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring 2008), published by the Women’s Studies Program at Southern Connecticut State University was about it. Might be some coverage of her in print adult or skateboarding magazines whose content is not on the web, and might have been on G4 (TV channel), but somebody would have to find and cite them exactly. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The FAME nomination was removed about a year ago under the details for WP:PORNBIO [54], which refers specifically to FAME when noting that only final-round nominations are covered by that guideline. This was merely a preliminary "nomination," excluded by the guideline itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One might also see that in considering the creation of a properly sourced BLP, the mention on the FAME nomination might be reasonable to include in the article as a peer recognition from her industry, and we editors may simply exclude that sourced bit of information from our thoughts when assesing overall notability. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Шизомби may be confusing the subject with Kaylani Lei with respect to the 2010 nomination. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. She passes PORNBIO then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. She passes the "additional criteria" of PORNBIO but "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (emphasis in original). On the basis of evidence at hand, she fails to meet the "basic criteria" WP:BASIC though, and thus fails WP:Notability (people). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:08, 30 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fan cruft of a non-notable "actress." Carrite (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets PORNBIO as Шизомби pointed out. Multiple year nominations of AVN Award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts.SPNic (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Passes PORNBIO with AVN nominations in multiple years. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article subject has not been nominated for awards in multiple years. The subject has appeared in scenes which were nominated for awards in different years. These awards are not classified by AVN as going to the performers, but fall into a different classification. PORNBIO no longer enjoys clear consensus support, due to the indiscriminate mode in which "industry awards" are showered around among interested/interrelated parties, and if it is to be applied at all it should be limited to those awards/nominations which unambiguously go to particular performers -- in the case of AVN Awards, those classified by AVN itself as being for "Performers" or for "Acting"," not to any name that appears on the 75-page laundry list of nominations. [55]Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"These awards are not classified by AVN as going to the performers, but fall into a different classification." I have to agree. The number of pages is somewhat irrelevant, particularly given the large margins and font. More relevant perhaps is that there's about 154 awards compared to the Oscars' 29 or so (more if including scientific and technical, but still less than 50). AVN's Best Retail Store (West) had 21 nominees, possibly others have more. The most the Oscars seem to have is 10, for Best Picture, but most have less than 5. I suppose an award with even more categories and nominees could conceivably still be notable, provided it gets the kind of coverage one would expect a notable award would get. The AVN award is of some note, but exactly how many RS (other than AVN itself) report all the nominees and/or winners and/or on the awards show itself? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try a different argument then... Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." (emph. mine) The AVN awards are notable in and of themselves as they've been referred to as the "Oscars of porn" by CBS news, Reuters and the Globe and Mail, among other news organizations. Since it is clear that she has received multiple nominations, I can't see how she fails ANYBIO... Tabercil (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yet CBS, Reuters, and the Globe and Mail don't report the noms or winners of the AVN awards, do they? Perhaps not so well-known. One might as well say barnstars are the Oscars of Wikipedia. Anyway, as pointed out above: (1) Lei didn't get any nominations. She was in scenes that were nominated. By this logic, James Franco, Natalie Portman, etc. are nominees for Best Picture Award. (2) the additional criteria under which ANYBIO falls states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." "Meeting" ANYBIO, PORNBIO, etc. is not the end of discussion. It's a starting point for it. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... a starting point that through numerous discussion over many years by many editors has come to create a consensual agreement as to what constitutes an acceptable notability for that genre, and thus for meriting inclusion in Wikipedia. Yes, mainstream reliable sources do not generally report on porn stars. Yes, reliable porn sources do not generally report on mainstream actors. Guideline encourages that sources be considered in context to what is being sourced. If/when WP:PORNBIO is changed to eliminate that consensual agreement, this individual and assertions of notability can be revisted and reconsidered. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is still open? Well, as long as it is... I acknowledge that the few MSM RS that have called the AVN Awards the "Oscars of porn" don't have to back their claim up with evidence, nor are they obliged to report on the awards. After all, it's been a longstanding policy that WP does not require something to be true, though one would think that if the AVN Awards were the Oscars of porn, that multiple RS within the porn industry (other than AVN itself) would be regularly reporting on the AVN nominees, winners, and awards show. That doesn't seem to be the case. It's not clear to me the extent to which AVN magazine/AVN.com itself even reports on the AVN Awards. avnawards.avn.com doesn't appear to go back further than 2010 [56]. There are official DVDs of some of the older programs, and out-of-print VHS of some of the others.
With regard to the nominees and winners of the "Best All-Girl Couples Sex Scene", it's apparent that they are the scenes and not the actresses in the scenes (unless you have a RS to suggest otherwise?). The award is not called the "Best Group of Actresses in an All-Girl Couples Sex Scene," in which case I believe I'd be agreeing with you on that point. The nominees in each category are in grey text; Keani Lei was not nominated for "Best All-Girl Couples Sex Scene" - because she is an actress; she is not a sex scene any more than JM Productions is (which, like her, is in the smaller red text listed under the nominee "The Violation of Kylie Ireland" in grey). Similarly, The Jeffersons: a XXX Parody, Video Team, and Metro Media are not nominees for Best Actor, they're just listed under the nominee, Ace. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you're splitting hairs here. Let's look at a similar mainstream example: The MTV Movie Awards and Teen Choice Awards both have awards for "Best Kiss"/"Choice Movie Liplock", which is very much a scene specific award. Those awards are clearly mentioned in the articles for the various actors who were nominated for them (e.g., Sean Penn). Tabercil (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not splitting hairs. "But look at how Wikipedia handles this other award" is not an argument. But as it happens, those other articles appear to be handling that other award correctly, since it appears MTV chose to give its award to the actors. AVN chose to give its award to the scene. Who are we to dispute their choices? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to note that, on the relatively infrequent occasions when a nominated scene has its own identifying title, that AVN typically does not list performer names -- another indication that the performer names are listed to identify the scene, rather than as the award recipients. For example, item 40 on the 2009 AVN awards list, as announced by AVN [57]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per demonstrated meeting of the aplicable notability guideline. Awards notable to that genre, show notability TO that genre, even if to no other genres... and that an award is given to a group for the recognized actions of members of that group, does not denigrate that award. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline application of already dubious PORNBIO rule. This biography is sourced from her own website and an interview she did with "Xcitement magazine". The other two references have no info; they're just to the fact of the nominations debated above, added to the article in order to meet the rule in question. Other than that, we got nothing. This is not a suitable basis for a biography here. --WTFITS (talk) 05:40, 7 February 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. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this was previously deleted by strong consensus in 2009 and I see no real improvement in the article. most of it is directly from the Estonian foreign affairs website [58]. which says there are no embassies, no agreements whatsoever, there has been no leader visits. two way trade stands at less than 10 million euro. yes Estonia helped with the Pakistani earthquakes but sending 2 people and donating 64,000 EUR is a very small contribution to overall efforts. There is almost no third party coverage of actual bilateral relations. those wanting to keep must show evidence of actual significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Pakistan's relations with many (though not all) of the world's nations are important, there doesn't seem to be either co-operation or hostility between these two. "In 2009 Pakistan was ranked as Estonia’s 77th export partner and 37th import partner" says quite a bit about this. As LibStar points out, there are no embassies, agreements, or historical background. I think 64,000 Euro works out to a little less than $50,000 in U.S. dollars. I think that the author has made some great contributions on Pakistani topics, and at 170,000,000 people and some nukes, Pakistan is larger and tougher than most Westerners realize. However, there's nothing much to say here that can't be said in one of the foreign relations articles. Mandsford 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
€ 64,000 is 87 027.2 U.S. dollars. --Sander Säde 15:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I got that one backward, € 1 = $1.33 rather than $1 = € 1.33 (using the exchange rate I was looking at). If it had just been $87,028.00 I might have said keep.... Mandsford 23:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, it may be borderline notable, but the article can be re-created if/when there are better sources and topics. Just one article view in January 2011 before today speaks for itself. --Sander Säde 15:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When these articles first came up, I did the math and the number of combinations of sovereign states (not to mention the bru ha ha over the rest) was quite unmanageable. Is there an alternate location to consolidate basic diplomatic/economic information between states? So:
when recognized each other
embassies/missions
annual trade volume
on sentence on any current developments
This would be helpful as the objection here is going to be that useful information is being deleted. Knowing relations are not significant is as informative as knowing they are. We will have a more constructive discussion here if we focus on where the information belongs specifically, that is, this should be a "merge" discussion, not a "delete" discussion. We might even set a precedent for handling these low priority relationships. I do agree that the relationship is not substantive enough for a dedicated article. Now that "X–Y relations" articles are here to stay, we should have some guidelines for when a relationship merits an article and when basic information on a relationship belongs in an alternate location (and what/where that specifically is). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, those x and y relationships that aren't notable are referred to in the articles called "Foreign relations of x" and "Foreign relations of y". You, or anyone else, can merge some of the information to the F.R.O. of Estonia or F.R.O. of Pakistan article, or both. I don't think that there's ever been a time when these were not "here to stay". I think people assume that that LibStar wants to delete all x-y relations articles, which is not the case. Finally, there have been poorly managed discussions before, back in 2009, that solved nothing. Only those people who regularly look at the "Centralized discussion" box at the top of the deletion log page were ever aware of them, and none of the AfD Forum participants were ever told about them until they'd gone along for awhile, so the two groups did not communicate. At that point, one of the Centralized guys would say "close your discussion until we're done talking" and the AfD guys would say "no, don't think so, we're working here". Nobody likes to be told to shut up. Maybe if one of the Centralized Discussion dudes wants to include folks like me and LibStar, Biruturol, Norton, etc. at their next party, "we" might work something out. Until then, it's a case-by-case thing. Mandsford 14:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Mandsford for your kind words. yes I do not believe all bilaterals to be non notable. just wish people spent more time on more notable combinations. we tried in the past to come up with some guidelines but some people just want to keep all bilaterals so it didn't go anywhere. LibStar (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
are you suggesting redirect? if so you can't redirect to 2 articles. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a recreation of a previously deleted page with no improvement to its virtual dictionary-entry content. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the author - The entire content of this article was in fact copied from the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs webpage on Estonia-Pakistan relations, which readers can read from Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Estonia-Pakistan relations. Certainly, if the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs consider this relationship worthy of notability then I can not see, why not Wikipedia sees such relationship worthy of notability. It is also noteworthy that the Ministry has not created any bilateral relations page with other major OIC countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh and Nigeria, and with any OPEC country. I will choose to abstain from any voting this time. (Jalal0 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
the fact that the Estonian foreign ministry does not cover other nations is irrelevant. All articles are assessed on its merit. Foreign affairs websites are a form of primary source. Lifting content from one website is hardly advancing notability. As per WP:GNG this article lacks third party coverage in multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 25 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argument 1: Based on the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists policy, I suggest the page be kept. Comparision to the Estonia – Sri Lanka relations be made. Consider the fact that in 2007, bilateral trade between Sri Lank and Estonia was less than 2million Euros, whereas Pakistan-Estonia trade was nearly 9million Euros. A significant difference in favour of Pakistan.
Argument 2 I had initially included quite plenty of information in the original page. A lot of information had in fact be deleted by other members, to make the relationship look insignificant. Moderators are requested to read detailed information from this link: [59] It will be apparent that there is more information then whats currently displayed on the Wikipedia page.
Argument 3 Pakistan current policy is focussing to gain Free Trade Agreement with European Union. Based on this policy, Pakistan is even trying to maintain good diplomatic relations with European microstates such as Liechtenstein. See P.R. No. 172/2007, Date: 28/06/2007, PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS BY AMBASSADOR AT LIECHTENSTEIN. Estonia too, though a small country, is still a member of the European Union, and therefore Pakistan values such relationship.
your arguments fail to show how there is significant coverage that is required to satisfy WP:N or WP:GNG. Nobody has found any third party sources, you keep citing the one primary source. Lastly saying that relations with Liechenstein somehow makes Estonia-Pakistan notable is pure synthesis. LibStar (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
similarly, Pakistan-Paraguay was recently deleted because of lack of third party coverage, the same standard should apply here. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were several other reasons as well behind the deletion of Pakistan-Paraguay relations page. Lets not count on one-sided truth. (Jalal0 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
What is the rationale behind choosing which page to merge this article with? (Jalal0 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment In this case, the article was written by an editor who has made many good contributions about topics related to Pakistan. The naming protocol on the nation x and nation y articles goes alphabetically, rather than by which nation is larger. If something like this is solved by a redirect, not necessarily a bad idea, better that it redirect to the foreign relations of the more powerful state. Mandsford 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing beyond arbitrary data here, Wikipedia is not an almanac. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 8 February 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. Article hasn't been touched during the last week when Arielmoonchild33 promised to improve it. Will userfy on request. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources used do not support family background or biographic facts. This is not a notable person. Main editors are Arielmoonchild33 and Volvo144deluxe. One is likely the sock puppet of the other and the article's subject/agent. Please see their edit histories for ongoing creation of article variants. RebekahThorn (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE ARTICLE Sources do support family background and biographic facts. This is a notable person and family. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE this is not a notable person. This person is trying to gain the notability he lacks using Wikipedia for his private purposes. The events cited to support his notability are not notable at all. Erymata (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Erymata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete "This institution verified that prof. Alfred Freddy Krupa de Tarnawa is descended from the Ashina of Khazaria Royal Clan in an unbroken male line" - here we go again (more royal descendants...). I might get into trouble for saying that since he is "the administrator of the Ashina of Khazaria DNA Project at Family Tree DNA" they probably would. Then again, I mightn't. Two other articles related to this subject have very recently been speedied and I wouldn't disagree with the same happening here. His grandfather seems to have possibly been of note - enough to have a street named for him (although here in the UK that often happens to people who served on the local town council for 20 or 30 years without getting kicked off - and never doing anything much except turn up for meetings). However, the notability of his ancestors is irrelevant. I can't (well, I might be able to considering this) check out the Croat and Serb references, but here's one in English: "In 1995, Alfred Freddy Krupa graduated with a Master of Fine Arts in Painting at the Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb, Croatia.[13]" And what is reference 13? It's www.visit-croatia.co.uk/zagreb/ which is fine if you are thinking of visiting Zagreb, but says absolutely nothing about Krupa. References are supposed to back up the claims in the article, not give a tourist guide to a city. Another is to the English home page for the Tokyo Gakugei University. Are Krupa and his scholarship mentioned? Well, what do you expect? Ancestor Hunt is another. That's one of those places where you can find a coat of arms for your surname. They do say "Just select a surname to view a coat of arms but please remember, coats of arms are for fun and most family coat of arms were assigned to THAT one particular family, not a surname in general", which is more than some such sites do and I give them credit for that. A-K finishes with Krohn. (De Tarnawa isn't there either, so I can't see the point of this reference at all.) Oh, wait... It's about the municipality of Kamanje - but that site doesn't appear to list municipalities. The Portaloko reference appears (it is in Croat) to be about Juraj Baldani. Then we have an advertising site for Zürich, and finally one at www.karlovacdanas.com in what could be Croat that does mention him as administrator of iGENEA. I hope that someone will analyse the Croat based sites, to save me having to wade in. Good luck... Peridon (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To correct the above, the karlovacdanas article does refer to the alleged descent from the Ashina dynasty, but I can't say how reliable this site is. Nor can I say how notable can be descent from a dynasty of a land that was conquered in the 960s CE (by Sviatoslav I of Kiev. Peridon (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The karlovacdanas site seems to have articles like "Scientifically proven: a love affair with the parent assists in his career!." --RebekahThorn (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, how can they tell that he is descended in an unbroken male line? By records, maybe - but by DNA I doubt it. Anyway, how could they tell that the males were all offspring of legitimate unions even if the DNA chain worked? And how many other people might be in the same position too? Peridon (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you ask, in genetic genealogy it is recommended that you test multiple cousins who share the lineage. For example, if you think you are the direct descendant of Dirk Gently then you test, but you also test 4th, 7th, and 10th cousins who also should descend from Dirk Gently. The prof is in both the genealogical records and the DNA test. Without genealogical records? Pah. One could prove that Alfred Krupa, Sr. and Alfred Krupa, Jr. were related by testing one of AK,Jr's 1st cousins. --RebekahThorn (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read in that article, one can determine shared ancestry (and from reading elsewhere have found that surname and ancestry don't always match, even with Kohens...), but can one say specifically who the ancestor was? For example, someone might be shown to share ancestry with a group, as with the Phoenician ancestry in Malta, but can one be shown to descend from a dynasty from a thousand years ago rather than just from the Khazar people that they ruled and presumably were a part of (Khazars being a Turkic tribe in origin - how distinct were they genetically as opposed to politically and, for part of their history, religiously? (I must confess an interest here - I have a character who can recognise his descendants after hundreds of generations, and I've just seen a way for him to be able to do it. Wouldn't work for normal people, though...) Peridon (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important To Read I feel that I must put this answer here because I don't know where else to put it. Sources do support family background and biographic facts. This is a notable person and family that is under attack. I see that Rebekeh Thorn has led this attack against the Krupa family and that you Thorn say that you are concerned and that a group of you want to take anything about the Krupa's off of Wikipedia. Why are you out for blood? Why are you so angry? Folks, it seems that she has a motive for deleting these articles. Why does Rebekah Thorn have the right to get anything deleted. She is just a person out there with an opinion. Thorn take your stuff out of your sandbox and stop directing people to read it. Stand up and verify what you have written. Are you afraid that the Krupa articles will diminish your own? Thorn, I put the challange out to you to take your own article and put it up for review. It has been in the sandbox since 2006 I believe. Thorn has deliberatly gone after this article and any with the name Krupa. She has succeeded by using her own contacts and devices in the other two articles. Rebekah Thorn, I am not a sock puppet for anyone. I am supposed to have the time I need to rewrite, but that chance was not given to me. You had my articles deleted and now you are trying again. This woman is going to get away with having another verified and documented article deleted, if she is not stopped. If she succeeds, this is censorship. Wikipedia people, don't let this happen. And Peridon you stated "I've found a quite good way of getting rid of them is by demolishing their case - I've made a start at the AfD. Peridon (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Censorship is not what it is all about and who made both of you God and any of your group (according to you Thorn there is a group of you) so what chance does this article have or any other with the name Krupa in it to stay up. Thank you Thorn and anyone else coming forth and destroying freedom - (you are making a mockery of Wikipedia - everyone can write an article - right - welcome to the new controlled razor shark infested waters of non-freedom writing - and intolerance and prejudice. Hats off to the know it alls and I hope I broke every rule in the book because according to you Thorn you are out to take down anything regarding Krupa and that is just wrong. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do support family background and biographic facts. This is a notable person and family. Bring back what Wikipedia is supposed to be.
Comment My remark about 'getting rid' was in connection with the continual reposting of articles that did not fit Wikipedia's standards. "you are making a mockery of Wikipedia - everyone can write an article" - yes, everyone can so long as it fits with Wikipedia's standards. I do not consider that this one does. I have never come across RebekahThorn before this, but I have just viewed her contributions and there has only been one other case of her contributing at AfD - and that was to vote Keep. "This woman is going to get away with having another verified and documented article deleted, if she is not stopped." Can you quote evidence of this career of deletionism? Verified? By whom? Documented? Unless the rest of the Croat documents are better than the English ones, no. If you want to enable people to gain more info on Zagreb, you put double square brackets around the name, and that links to the Wikipedia article. You don't put in a reference to a tourist site and leave the main claim in the sentence unreferenced. As to references - one of the references concerning Baldani does mention a Krupa. This is most certainly Alfred Krupa the elder, on whom he wrote in 1985 - ten years before the current subject "graduated with a Master of Fine Arts in Painting". The article does not say that he was a noted child prodigy, so I feel safe in assuming it to be the grandfather. I also feel that the grandfather might be notable enough for an article. Peridon (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledgement One of the other nominations is mine. I think though the objection is to my long history of tracking IP address edits to articles and revising as appropriate. It makes it gosh darn hard for the legions to change text to fit their pundits. --RebekahThorn (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Offer If the art and Croatian experts think that Alfred Krupa, Sr. is notable enough for an article, I would be more than happy to edit a basic stub with valid sources. I would doubtless put it on my watch list and trim out anything that was unsourced or did not pertain to the life and art of Alfred Krupa, Sr. --RebekahThorn (talk) 17:45, 24 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of making the article more wiki applicable. I would like time to do it so please do not delete. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issue. Firstly this band's only results in google are self-created pages such as myspace, secondly this article appears to be self-written in the form of an advertisement by a person affiliated with this band Heggyhomolit (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent recreation. This article has been deleted several times in the recent past, only to be recreated by the same user. The article reads like an advertisement, and the only thing about them which comes close to them having notability is stating that an album is "critically acclaimed." However, there is no verification of this, and I highly doubt there is the possibility for it. --23 Benson (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. And I can find no critical acclaim for the album that is supposedly critically acclaimed. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I accept the above criticism and have updated The Credo (Band) page to include references to independent album reviews and record label sites to make it comparable to Wikipedia entries for similar progressive rock bands. --FrankenGene (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — FrankenGene (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per original arguement. See WP:BAND Criteria point 1; references fail to meet requirements. Sorry lads but WP is not a source for music promotion. Heggyhomolit (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be a locally referenced, if small, band. They've got a lot of output and have some good linked sources. Klar Distribution (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not an arguement. The article does not meet WP guidelines, see WP:BAND. Heggyhomolit (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've reviewed the added sourcing and remain unconvinced that this meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are many bands that have entries in the progressive rock category in Wikipedia that are no more well known or more poorly referenced eg. Ark (UK Band), Arena (Band), DeeExpus, Frost*, and that's only getting to 'F'. This entry is a work in progress and it will improve further in the coming few months as I track down more information. It is not intended as an advert, and will happily change any wording found to be objectionable. -- --FrankenGene (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC) -— FrankenGene (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Generally, the state of other articles is not germane to this discussion. You are welcome and encouraged to improve the referencing in those articles or nominate them for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, generally maybe, but specifically I must respectfully disagree. I have accepted that the original article was very poor and warranted deletion. The updated article is now as good or better than many other entries under the progressive rock band category. Furthermore, this band is at least as well known as many others in the category and deserves to be listed amongst its peers. I argue that comparison with other similar articles is valid in these circumstances so as to demonstrate fair and equitable treatment. Otherwise, how are we to tell the difference between reasonable deletions and malicious ones, especially when notability and reference criteria have an element of subjectivity to them. Lastly, to the commenter who sought to diminish my arguments by appending my editing statistics to the end of my previous post, poor show. I have been following progressive rock for more than thirty years and know a little about the subject, that is what should matter, and not the frequency of my editing. -- --FrankenGene (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You really should be assuming good fath, with regard to other editors. This AfD was not created as an act of malicious intent, rather the act of patrolling a page, and making an informed decision on the matter. To quote WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, "plenty of articles exist that probably should not." You really shouldn't be taking into account the content of other articles in your reasoning for keeping or deleting this article. This AfD is about Credo, not any other article. --23 Benson (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The point is that it does not meet one point of criteria on WP:BAND. These guidelines are there to ensure that the servers are not flooded with articles merely written to promote something or someone and will ulimately have no encyclopaedic purpose. Please read the following which is criterion 1 from WP:BAND:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
The only references provided are of a trivial nature. The other 11 criteria are not met in this case. Heggyhomolit (talk) 23:54, 29 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and no other indication of meeting the criteria at WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. For a group appearently active for nearly two decades there's surprisingly little of... well, anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:10, 31 January 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 Withdrawn. (WP:NAC) The article is so changed since the initial nomination that the original nomination statement no longer applies. Subsequent decisions should be taken only with regard to the new state of the article. Withdrawing per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Fleet Command (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article tries to make up a fictional brand called "Windows Live Office". There is no such thing as "Windows Live Office" (and this article also fails to provide a source to that effect) and therefore this forgery of brand names is direct violation of laws. You needn't worry about this articles contents: They are already included in Windows Live Skydrive and Office Web Apps. Fleet Command (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: An editor has moved the original article to Office Web Apps on SkyDrive, in an attempt to address the nominations concern but has created new concerns, discussed below. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There may not have been a "Windows Live Office", but there was Microsoft Office Live which seems to be the actual subject of this sources cited in this article. Pending any explanation from other editors as to why this separate article might be appropriate, I'd suggest a redirect.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Well, I don't oppose with redirect but I don't know what is the good of a redirect either. It is definitely not a plausible typo, you see. As for the contents, they should go, per Wikipedia:Content forking. Fleet Command (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to look under the "Related articles" section of WP:CONTENTFORK. Just because two or more articles contain a significant amount of information in common with one another, does not make it content fork. --Damaster98 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and here comes the main contributor of the article! You are wrong, dear sir! That would only be valid if you hadn't made up this funny fake name. But since the name is fake, the relation is also fake. The contents aren't related at all; they are exactly the same. Fleet Command (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you seem surprised seeing that part of the instructions to nominate an AfD is to inform the creator of the article of the AfD nomination, and you did this yourself. My contribution here is just as important as any other authors. Back on topic, you cannot assert that just because the article title is not the "official branding", the actual subject of the article does not exist. In fact, if you had read the articles Office Web Apps and Windows Live Office, you'd notice the relationships AND differences between the two. The contents that are different between the two are outlined in my point below.
I'm not disagreeing with you that the title "Windows Live Office" is not the actual branding used by Microsoft to brand http://office.live.com . However, this service definitely exist and as such should not warrant an AfD for the article. I'm open for discussion for an alternative naming of the article. -Damaster98 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not surprised. Second, I don't care what other articles have to say as long as there is not a source. After all, you wrote much of the other articles. Fleet Command (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the other articles (such as Office Web Apps) have references contained within. They are fact-based and have been sourced. Judging by your comment (throughout this entire conversation), I'm under the impression that you are prejudicing that everything I contribute on Wikipedia are non-sourced and are "made up" by myself. It would be great if you take a read of those other articles first before saying "there is not a source". Thank you. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not prejudiced. It is just a matter of WP:NPOV of your point of view as well as what I wrote below. Fleet Command (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or Rename. There's a few things the requestor's request above had been misleading:
While it may not be referred to as "Windows Live Office" by Microsoft, the exact same service the article being referred to is often branded as "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" [60]. This service definitely exist on http://office.live.com and is not a "made-up" service. It is listed as a separate service than SkyDrive on http://home.live.com/allservice (notice "Office" has its individual entry). As such, the most we should do is to rename the article. This is a discussion about the naming of the article, and definitely not a reason for AfD.
Office Web Apps refers to the technology underlying Windows Live Office. Office Web Apps by itself is a standalone product that can come as an add-on with Microsoft SharePoint Server to be individually installed on enterprise servers, or hosted as part of SharePoint Online. In both of these cases, these have nothing to do with Windows Live. In particular, the "Features" section of the current Windows Live Office article mentions features that are in no way mentioned in the Office Web Apps article due to the fact that they are unique to the Windows Live-specific service (e.g. Hotmail integration).
In addition, Windows Live Office is the service that is replacing Office Live Workspace - not Windows Live SkyDrive or any other service. As such, the "History" section of the article is specific to the Windows Live Office article, and this content is not covered by any other articles, and would be inappropriate to be included within any other articles.
As such, this is definitely not a case of content fork, and does not meeting any of the reasons for deletion on the WP:DEL policy. Reiterating myself, the reasons the requestor had raised should be at most about the naming of the article, and definitely does not contribute to the reason for AfD. --Damaster98 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't expect the main contributor of the article to vote otherwise! Still, what you say is pure nonsense that you made up! Where is your source? You have none. You made all these up! The fact is that the sources only mention two brand names: SkyDrive and Office Web Apps. There is no Windows Live Office. You also keep saying "as mentioned earlier". You made a terrible mistake mentioning those unreferenced nonsense earlier. Fleet Command (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources had been given in my points above, and within the articles themselves. Take a read of the Office Web Apps article, paragraph two and you'd find information about point 2a) above, and the source as well. Office Web Apps (the technology) in itself does not offer features such as version control, integration with Hotmail, security/login via Windows Live ID, or co-authoring/collaboration with other Windows Live users. These features are only available as part of the Windows Live Office (http://office.live.com) service, or you may call it "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive", and not available as part of Office Web Apps for the enterprise, or Office Web Apps on SharePoint Online, Office 365...etc. --Damaster98 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hosted individually by various business via Microsoft SharePoint Server or Microsoft SharePoint Online
Each "service" is built upon the "technology" and adds its unique feature sets and functionalities. Thus it is inappropriate to say that the "service" is the same as the underlying "technology" (i.e. Windows Live Office (or whatever you want to call it) - the service - is not the same as Office Web Apps - the underlying technology). --Damaster98 (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you stopped repeating your own personal opinion and introduced a real source, call me. Fleet Command (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not see I've provided sources in everything I've said above? Take a read of this: Office Web Apps platform comparison overview - Microsoft Technet which was already referenced within the Office Web Apps article. If you would go about and do some research YOURSELF (and I honestly do not think it's too much effort given that there are already references within the articles themselves) that would be great. It would be great if you could be more specific exactly what sources you need (and don't say everything - there's enough links in the comments I've provided above). Your reply had been completely ignorant of what I have taken time and effort to write above. Here's a few more sources that I am repeating here for your convenience: [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] If you want more please be more specific as to what you need explained or "sourced". I'd be utterly disappointed if you reply with another ignorant response without thoroughly reading any of the sources I have provided above. I'm trying to have a constructive discussion here and judging by your ignorant and offensive attitude I cannot foresee that happening. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source to confirm that there is anything called "Windows Live Office". None of those sources confirm what you say about the service and the underlying technology as well as a mandate for something being missing in the middle that your fictitious Windows Live Office has to fulfill. Simply put: There is a web application called Office Web Apps that creates and edits office files, while there are web applications like SkyDrive, SharePoint and Workspace that interface with those files. The relation between these two group of services is akin to the relationship between Microsoft Office and Windows Explorer. Fleet Command (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact your sources say that "Windows Live SkyDrive" and not some fictitious thing "is a part of Microsoft's Windows Live service that allow users to upload their Microsoft Office documents to a computing cloud and share them with other users. Users can also create, view and edit Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote documents from a web browser using the integrated Office Web Apps. The service utilizes Windows Live ID to limit access to the documents the user has uploaded, allowing them to keep the documents private, share with contacts, or make the files public." Fleet Command (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said above, I agree with you that the naming of the article is incorrect, as it is not officially branded "Windows Live Office". You're right, reiterating what you said, there is a web application called Office Web Apps that creates and edits office files, and there's services like SkyDrive that provides cloud storage for these files. However, there's also another layer in between the web application (Office Web Apps) and cloud storage (SkyDrive) - and that's the web service located at http://office.live.com - and this service manages and organises these office files - and this is what this article (regardless of the naming) is about. One cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "SkyDrive", because as I have sourced using http://home.live.com/allservices and http://explore.live.com, Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office" (i.e. http://office.live.com) from "SkyDrive" (http://skydrive.live.com). One also cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "Office Web Apps", as Office Web Apps (the web application) is also used by other web services like Docs.com (i.e. http://docs.com) or Facebook Messages (source: [71][72]) which are not associated with the web service located at http://office.live.com - as there are no integration between them at all - the "Office Web Apps" on Docs.com and Facebook Messages cannot be accessed via http://office.live.com or SkyDrive. There needs to be an article about the web service located in between the web application (Office Web Apps) and cloud storage (SkyDrive) - an article about the thing that's located at http://office.live.com. Whether you'd like to call it "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" as officially branded by Microsoft or anything else that's fine, but an article needs to exist to describe this service. --Damaster98 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're going in circles.
You start a lot of your sentences with "You cannot say". But in all those cases, I can say and in fact I do say so.
You keep saying "there's also another layer in between the web application (Office Web Apps) and cloud storage (SkyDrive)" but I don't think so, don't believe so, don't see it in your sources and have no idea why you think there should be one such layer (and even if there is, why it should be exposed to user.)
Sometimes you speak outright against sources and yourself! You have thrice used the the term "underlying technology" in this discussion, but each time to refer to different things! And so it happens that these "underlying" things are all exposed to user (= not underlying) via the web browser! In addition, whereas you referred to Office Web Apps as an underlying technology, Microsoft refers to it as a Silverlight-based application.
Look, if you would like to just repeat yourself, you are welcome but I won't repeat myself again.
The "You" in "You cannot say" is not specifically directly at you, or any particular individual. I apologise for the misunderstanding and have corrected it to read "One cannot say" in my response above. However, in your response when you said "I don't think so, don't believe so" - this is purely your own personal opinion and just because you don't think so doesn't mean it doesn't exist (and I have sourced everything I have said in my response). I feel that you are very slow in understanding the subject matter and concepts here, and hence why we're going in circles. You say you don't think there's a layer between SkyDrive and Office Web Apps, then just answer one question - what is that service located at http://office.live.com? It is not "SkyDrive" (as Microsoft clearly distinguishes it from http://skydrive.live.com), and it's more than "Office Web Apps" (as it offers additional features like version history and integration with Hotmail - something not offered in other "Office Web Apps"-based services like Docs.com). Here's the three layers:
- Office Web Apps - creates and edit office files
- http://office.live.com - allow users to manage office files (i.e. manage document version history...etc.)
- SkyDrive - cloud storage to store office and other files
And I apologize for not understanding that "you" means "one". Now please provide source for every instance of "one cannot say"; because you are not a reliable source for what one can say or cannot say!
Your sources say:
• Office Web Apps - Creates and edit office files
• SkyDrive - A cloud storage to store office and other files and allows users to manage office files (i.e. manage document version history...etc.)
• http://office.live.com - Your sources do not say anything. How do you know it is not just a humble shortcut to SkyDrive? (After all, you are not creating separate articles for hotmail.com and mail.live.com).
You need to be able to read better FleetCommand - we're going in circles because of your failure to read what I wrote. Every sentence that began with "One cannot say" have a proper rationale AND source following on. I'll put it in table format if that helps you easier to comprehend:
Statement
Rationale
Source
1. One cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "SkyDrive"
2. One also cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "Office Web Apps"
Because Office Web Apps (the web application) is also used by other web services like Docs.com (i.e. http://docs.com) or Facebook Messages. These other services (Docs.com, Facebook Messages) which also use Office Web Apps are not associated with http://office.live.com - there is no integration between them at all - the "Office Web Apps" on Docs.com and Facebook Messages cannot be accessed via http://office.live.com or SkyDrive.
I think statement #1 above quite clearly addresses your concern that "http://office.live.com is not a humble shortcut to SkyDrive". In fact, your analogy to Hotmail is totally incorrect - http://hotmail.com redirects to http://mail.live.com - they are the same thing, whereas if you go to http://office.live.com and http://skydrive.live.com they are totally different. One clearly reads "Office - Windows Live" as the title of the site, and the latter reads "SkyDrive - Windows Live" as the title of the site. --Damaster98 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Office: View, edit, and share Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote documents from almost anywhere using Microsoft Office Web Apps on SkyDrive. Learn more.
The source distinguishes two services: Office Web Apps and SkyDrive; no mention of a third service. Clicking on the word "Learn more" takes you to your next source. (Read below.)
explore.live.com/office-web-apps: On title bar, the word "Office" is highlighted, while the large title on the middle reads: "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive". As you can see, office refers to Office Web Apps. If that is not enough, the distinguishes two services:
Get Started: Get online with Windows Live SkyDrive, then upload your Microsoft Office files and share them with others. Create or edit Office files online even if you don’t have Office on your PC.
Work from virtually anywhere With Office Web Apps, you can work on your Microsoft Office files virtually anywhere there's an Internet connection. Access your Office files in SkyDrive from supported web browsers.
You said: Because Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office" from "SkyDrive". But as you see, Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office Web Apps" from "SkyDrive"!
right|110pxNext, you said: "One also cannot say that the web service located at http://office.live.com is simply "Office Web Apps"" because other services also host Office Web Apps! But have you forgotten that besides other web service providers, Windows Live also host Office Web Apps?! If that is not enough, see the included screenshot of Microsoft Word Web App: The URL reads cid-0ee0f5c6f873726f.office.live.com/view.aspx
You have not realized three things:
That URLs are merely access helpers and do not constrain web services. Even in Wikipedia, there are sometimes multiple URLs to one thing. For instance File:Bing logo.svg can be accessed via [76] or [77] or [78] or [79]. Likewise, the same thing on SkyDrive can be accessed from two different URLs. For example: [80] (office.live.com) and [81] (skydrive.live.com)
In Wikipedia, Verifiability is what matters not Original Research made from one's own point of view. In other word: One is not authorized to write something in Wikipedia for which one provides a "Rationale" column in table! The fact that you are forced to invent a fictitious title like "Windows Live Office" is enough evidence that what you write is synthesis of published material that advances a position and therefore not allowed in Wikipedia.
That every article in Wikipedia must be notable (received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources); otherwise it is merged or deleted. The subject "that specific copy of Office Live App that is integrated in Windows Live SkyDrive" is specifically not notable, hence it is merged into Windows Live SkyDrive and Office Web App.
No, FleetCommand. On both home.live.com/allservices and explore.live.com/office-web-apps, as you yourself have quoted above on both instances, "Office" here refers to "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" (as one thing), which is the service located at office.live.com. You're taking your own personal interpretation here and trying interpret that as simply "Office Web Apps" neglecting the entire title as a whole.
As such, Statement #1 above means Microsoft specifically distinguishes "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive (office.live.com)" from "Windows Live SkyDrive".
Next, you say "But have you forgotten that besides other web service providers, Windows Live also host Office Web Apps?". There you have it - Windows Live host Office Web Apps, Docs.com also host Office Web Apps, Facebook Messages will also host Office Web Apps, and enterprises can also host Office Web Apps on their own SharePoint servers. As such "Office Web Apps" is a browser-based application hosted by multiple services, and hence "Office Web Apps" is not the same as "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive (office.live.com)", they're two separate layers as supported and sourced by Statement #2 above. Your screenshot merely proves the point that it is a screenshot of Word Web App from "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive (office.live.com)" - I can similarly show a screenshot of Word Web App on Docs.com.
In response to your three things:
1. I am perfectly aware of this, and as such the URL itself is not used a source for Statement #1 above. Rather, I have used official Microsoft-owned websites as sources to demonstrate the point stated by Statement #1 above.
2. Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability, No Original Research or Synthesis applies to "all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception". It does not apply to discussion pages such as this one where I am simply trying to explain concepts, rather than using it as sources or references in the actual article itself. As such other than the article title "Windows Live Office" which I admit is incorrectly titled, there is nothing in the actual article Windows Live Office that attributes to Original Research or Synthesis. As such, I'm happy for the dispute against the naming of the article, however the notability of the article is what should be discussed here (which leads to point 3 below).
3. I have demonstrated notability of the article (i.e. the topic "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive") in my response to Pnm below. I am happy to include these into the article itself at a later time.
Furthermore, I am disgusted by the fact that when you wrote "The fact that you are forced to invent a fictitious title like Windows Live Office is enough evidence that what you write is synthesis of published material that advances a position", you are asserting that just because I incorrectly named one article title that everything else I write on Wikipedia is a result of synthesis. Generalisation much FleetCommand? --Damaster98 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. What? Are you under the impression that Windows Live Office is not an article? Or are you under the impression only because AFD is not an article, you can use as many original research here as you like to secure a KEEP verdict and then leave the article as is?
3. Yes, thanks for proving notability. (Although one can argue that you proved the notability of SkyDrive not "Windows Live Office", per last sentence of WP:NTEMP, but I don't.) However, still the issue of the fake brand name is not resolved. It is fake and must be removed. Where the content goes does not concern me for the time being; although I probably come along and argue for it to be merged to SkyDrive because of contextual similarity, overlap and article size.
1. I stand corrected and there are no contradiction in my statements. You need to understand that "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" is "office.live.com". They are same thing and it is the topic we're discussing about. "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive", or "office.live.com" (whichever way you prefer to call it), remains a different layer from "Windows Live SkyDrive (skydrive.live.com)" and "Office Web Apps". This is demonstrated and well-supported by sources indicated in Statement 1 and Statement 2 in the table I provided above.
2. First of all, I have always recognised Windows Live Office is an article, and as I've said before, there are no original research nor synthesis within that article. Your accusation of "synthesis" is directed at the "Rationale" column in the table I gave above, within this "discussion" namespace. Please understand that in a "discussion page" like this, the Wikipedia policy "Synthesis" do not apply. No reliable secondary source is ever going to read "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive is notable on Wikipedia" - you always have to support your argument using synthesis of primary and secondary sources. A common example of using synthesis on "discussion pages" is to use the number of Google hits to support a position. To make it clear to administrators - there are no original research nor synthesis in the Windows Live Office article namespace.
3. Since the requestor for this AfD has agreed that notability of the article in question has been established, I think we should be at a position to close this AfD. As evidenced by the sources I have given below to Pnm, the reliable secondary sources specifically relates to "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" (the topic in question), not other instances of "Office Web Apps" (such as those on Docs.com or SharePoint) nor "Windows Live SkyDrive". From FleetCommand's response above, the requestor of this AfD agreed that this is only a matter of changing the naming of the article and I have no objections to this suggestion.
1. You STILL have not realized that URLs are means to an end, not web applications. You still say office.live.com is this or office.live.com is that, despite that fact that I clearly showed that what you find on office.live.com is sometimes SkyDrive ([[82]) and sometimes Office Web Apps ([83]) and despite the fact office.live.com plays no part in your article. Honestly, what are you driving at?
2. ...Or are you under the impression only because AFD is not an article, you can use as many original research here as you like to secure a KEEP verdict and then leave the article as is?...
3. Wrong! You didn't solve the problem; you just made it worse. Now, unreferenced nonsenses like "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive provides the same basic functionality as Windows Live SkyDrive" fill the article. Sourced statements are even worse. Statement "this service also currently offers 25GB, with a maximum upload file size of 50MB" has a source but that source contradicts the statement outright. (The source, which must be retrieved through Web Archive, talks about SkyDrive.) I once thought that the article must be deleted because its contents are merely Content forking. But now, I think it must be deleted because it is pure nonsense. Even if it is corrected I still do not see why Office Web Apps and Office Web Apps on SkyDrive should have separate articles of their own.
4. You have failed to understand one last thing: Notability, content forking and all other policies here are also means to accomplish Wikipedia's mission: To provide our readers with accurate and reliable information about significant subjects in the most effective manner. What you did is in conflict with this mission.
1. What are you driving at? Your inability to comprehend is unbelievable. I will not waste time anymore trying to explain to you that "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive" is "office.live.com" - the topic in discussion, which is distinct from "Office Web Apps" and "Windows Live SkyDrive" as supported by Statements 1 and 2 in the table above. We're going in circles because of your inability to comprehend what I wrote above. I have provided sufficient explanation above for anyone to understand.
2. The synthesis I have provided on this AfD namespace are simply used to support Statements 1 and 2 above, which are in turn used to support my argument. I do not foresee Statements 1 and 2 above to be published within the actual Article namespace in discussion (neither is anything else discussed here). Now, WP:NOR states that "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources". The Article in discussion here does not contain any of such original research or synthesis, and as such does not violate Wikipedia policy.
3. First, I have not made a change to the article. Second, so you think it must be deleted? Since when is this about what you think? Third, Office Web Apps and Office Web Apps on SkyDrive should have separate articles of their own because of a well sourced-supported Statement 2 in the table above.
4. Your accusation of Conflict of Interest is completely ungrounded, and I take that with utmost offense. A friendly reminder per WP:Conflict of interest that please "do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute."
Come now, dear Damaster98, give it a rest. All this juvenile vilification only destroys your excellent reputation in Wikipedia. And what would you get in return? An article that says Office Web Apps on SkyDrive is integrated in Hotmail and uses Office Web Apps! Until now, we've settled our previous disputes in a very friendly manner. Can't we just get along without calling each other names and taking offense? And what would you lose if this article gets deleted? All its contents are already on Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have not called you nor anyone names. Second, you have launched a series of false accusations against me personally (including but not limited the accusation of COI above), and it is within my right to defend myself. Let's set that record straight. --Damaster98 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Office Web Apps or another similar article if one exists, otherwise, DeleteWikiManOne (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windows Live SkyDrive#Windows_Live_Office. The it exists / it doesn't exist argument is tedious to follow and somewhat irrelevant. Where are the reliable, secondary sources? The only one mentioned above was eWeek article, and it doesn't mention Windows Live. There aren't any reliable secondary sources in Windows Live Office which are post-transition from Office Live Workspace. This WindowsITPro article says the replacement for Office Live Workspace was Office Web Apps integration in SkyDrive, and http://explore.live.com/office-web-apps calls the service "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive." The topic is Office Web Apps on SkyDrive, and lacks reliable sources to substantiate its notability on its own. --Pnm (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to locate and include additional reliable secondary sources into the article. --Damaster98 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd change my recommendation if you provide sources here which demonstrate notability. --Pnm (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some reliable secondary sources to support the notability of "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive":
Notice that all articles specifically talks about "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive", rather that other services which also uses "Office Web Apps" such as Docs.com or the SharePoint version which can be self-hosted by enterprises.
Please let me know if there are additional sources that you'd like me to provide to demonstrate notability. Thanks! --Damaster98 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A I'm satisfied with Telegraph and eWeek. (PC Mag is unsubstantial; the others are probably not reliable sources.) --Pnm (talk) 02:33, 31 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources located by Damaster98. --Pnm (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Objection: The article now talks nonsense. Now, unreferenced nonsenses like "Office Web Apps on SkyDrive provides the same basic functionality as Windows Live SkyDrive" fill the article. Sourced statements are even worse. Statement "this service also currently offers 25GB, with a maximum upload file size of 50MB" has a source but that source contradicts the statement outright. (The source, which must be retrieved through Web Archive, talks about SkyDrive.) These two are just examples. Almost the entire article (except History section) is like that. Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add the "ref-improve" or "cleanup" tag. These are not reasons for an AfD. --Damaster98 (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the clarification. I updated the nomination to reflect the new concern. The new concern is that the article now reads:
"This service [Office Web Apps on SkyDrive] provides the ability to: [~snip~] Allow users to share the documents and have multiple users simultaneously co-author Excel and OneNote documents directly within the web browser using Office Web Apps"!
In which way does that sentence you've quoted above meets CSD:G1? --Damaster98 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences do not meet CSD; articles do! (I'm not nitpicking; get the technical point.) The sentence above, like the rest of the article, is patent nonsense. It says: "Office Web Apps uses Office Web Apps"! So does the rest of the article. It says: Office Web Apps on SkyDrive is integrated in Hotmail! "The service also integrates with Microsoft Office 2010 where users may save their files directly onto Windows Live SkyDrive." How can Office Web Apps on SkyDrive be integrated into Office? (Wow! Office getting "integrated" into Office!) And the result of this integration is that Office 2010 can now upload to SkyDrive? Don't you think it is actually SkyDrive that is "integrated" into Office 2010?
All these nonsense would have made perfect sense if you hadn't changed your philosophy of 3-layered-model and the article was still named "Windows Live Office". (Although, no such thing as "Windows Live Office" exist.)
The article doesn't remotely meet CSD G1. --Pnm (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! It far surpasses patent nonsense and falls within the purview of ultra-patent nonsense! It says Office Web Apps on SkyDrive lets you upload to Hotmail, uses Office Web Apps and is integrated into Microsoft Office 2010! Obviously, you should read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense.
All references to liveside.net in the article has been replaced. FYI I do not own liveside.net nor did I publish any of the references. Deadlinks have also been replaced with working links. As such there is no longer the issue of Wikipedia:Verfiability (self-published sources).
The issue of Verifiability is still not resolved. Now, the article outright fails verification. For example "Hence similar to SkyDrive, this service also currently offers 25GB, with a maximum upload file size of 50 MB" is not stated in your source. Your source says "SkyDrive" and not Office Web Apps on SkyDrive, provides such storage. Even if we assume that you are right, then the issue of WP:CONTENTFORKING comes up yet once again. As another example, Paul Thurrot has never said that the same copy of Office Web Apps that is hosted on SkyDrive is the one that is also hosted on Hotmail. Fleet Command (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Windows Live Office is a valid search term so keeping as a redirect is logical. —MikeAllen 10:06, 2 February 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. Assertions of Fogelnest's notability were not backed up by specific sources, weakening keep arguments. Assertions about the article's authorship have been ignored. lifebaka++ 00:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article needs to be improved, but 138 Gnews hits, many of them non-trivial indicates notability. Dewritech (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author blanked the page in this edit. The article was eligible for a speedy delete per G7 at that point. Perhaps, rather than restoring the edits and nominating for deletion, as the proposer did, it would make more sense to revert the reversion of the blanking and add (((db-blanked))) to the top of the article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article needs work, and I'm not sure how notable being the pres of a national legal org is, but I'm in doubt enough to say keep for now.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:21, 30 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, page reads like a short resume; Wikipedia is not a directory of people who have had careers. Abductive (reasoning) 14:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of the unreferenced BLP. The only thing I can find was this that says he played one of the years mentioned in the article but doesn't even say if he played in a game. J04n(talk page) 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the above ((findsources)) searches, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 26 January 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, Dusti*poke* 02:19, 30 January 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.
No indication that this particular speech is notable in its own right, since the only source is a singular blog post. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and come up with a better name for this very notable and controversial speech by Bill Cosby, which I remember clearly. When I Google with the search terms "Bill Cosby NAACP speech controversy", I see numerous articles in reliable sources discussing this speech. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "blog post" mentioned above was a lengthy article by Ta-Nehisi Coates, a senior editor at The Atlantic . That's a reliable source, because he's a professional journalist writing for a major publication. Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous reliable sources found even when searching for "Pound Cake Speech." PeRshGo (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable references, including books. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This speech was discussed on many TV shows and in many magazine articles. It was talked about in books and it sparked responses in essays. Whole books were written solely in response, such as Is Cosby Right? by Michael Eric Dyson. Some of the source I found in a quick search:
These would help flesh out the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proquest shows 34 hits from newspaper articles. It seems noteworthy. Will Bebacktalk 06:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a pretty famous speechJmm6f488 (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Binksternet shows there are plenty of reliable sources to support notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:02, 4 February 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. Tikiwont (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A massive crystal ball if I ever saw one. So much speculation its beyond believe. It doesn't even have a record label behind it, not track-listing, an unconfirmed titled, its been in production since 2006/07 and has no confirmed release date. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 05:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The few bits of information I can find (including the article refs--btw, the second one links to a blog's comment section) are too outdated to pass WP:V. Starting Never is more like it. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:22, 23 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nina Sky is no longer signed to this label and has since come out with other albums, so this will never come out. WP:CRYSTALNate•(chatter) 05:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominating user did not succeed in stating his reasons, so nomination may be defective. However, there are no third party sources confirming notability, and the magazine seems to be defunct, as most recent content on its web site dates to 2008. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:45, 23 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no sources in article meeting WP:V. Icalanise (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Doesn't appear to have ever really gotten off the ground. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by policy this page should be deleted, but in this case we could wait two more days to see that she doesnt win the Aussie Open title (as doing so would allow her to pass.) Mayumashu (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree lets wait a couple of days before we have to go and ask someone to put it back KnowIG (talk) 16:26, 27 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to this she's entered the junior championship, not the main tournament. According to this she lost the semi-finals of that tournament. She may become notable in the future, but that is a case of WP:CRYSTALTravelbird (talk) 08:57, 30 January 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 Speedy delete per A10. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:31, 30 January 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.
Facepalm. --Kinu t/c 09:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
