< 30 March	1 April >

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7) by NawlinWiki. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invite Media Ltd[edit]

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

Article is unreferenced, provides no proof of notability, and is promotional. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 31 March 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. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Five Four[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article about a retail store of questionable notability. Article creator may possibly be the Head of online operations for the company, based on the username. No significant claims of notability, little significant coverage in independent third party news publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article, not notable, no third-party references. - SudoGhost (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references, no real claim to notability even, and given that the article has been deleted four previous times since 2007, I suspect these problems are never going to be solved. The re-creations are purely promotional and probably will continue to be created, so might as well salt this topic too. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:53, 3 April 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. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LST-766[edit]

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

The one source cited in this article does not seem to be significant coverage, and the subject seems to be unremarkable. Furthermore, the text of the article is exactly the same as the source. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the subject matter of this article is significant, and should be retained. In support of this, I would offer the following arguments:
1. The subject matter is culturally important. World War II was one of the most significant points of American history. It is also an incredibly large topic; too large in fact, to be entirely covered by traditional history books. This is part of was makes Wikipedia so special, it doesn't have to eliminate topics simply due to space limitations. We have a limited number of WWII vets still with us who can contribute a living history, but every day we lose more and more of these men and women. One could say that the existence of any one LST was insignificant, but this ignores the fact that it was important to many thousands of people. Overall, LST were a large part of the war in the Pacific. Individually, the specific ships are important to the men who served on them; the men who stormed these islands; the families of the men who served; and any researcher who might be trying to document some as-of-yet unimagined aspect of the war.
2. There is a broad heading listing all US Navy LSTs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_LSTs) The existence of this list suggests that the Wikipedia project is making an attempt to document the details of each individual ship on the list. Similar details have already been preserved about a number of these ships. I'm not sure why this would be any different.

Forgive me if I originally complicated this matter by including text in the article too close to the cited source. I have gone back to the article and substantially re-written it using original language. I have also documented the content with additional references. I hope you will allow this article to stand as amended.
Thank you,Aboklage (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to nominate this for deletion, I have seen 1000's of other articles like this being created in the past, so why should this one be delated and all other kept? Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two above arguments fall under WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, respectively. Just because other articles like this have been created, doesn't make them worthy of inclusion.RadManCF ☢ open frequency 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article utilizes public domain material published by the US Government. Wp:ships has determined that each individual LST is notable enough for it's own article in 99% of the cases. This article should be moved to USS LST-766 (but not during this AFD) and once it is there will be plenty of incoming links so that it will no longer be an orphan. Brad (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ships is not a policy or guideline, and the source cited strikes me as WP:ROUTINE coverage. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:SHIPS convention is that ships over 100ft long / 100 ton(ne)s in weight are inherently notable. Commissioned naval ships also have such inherent notability. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A large enough ship to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article now has three sources - the vessel is also mentioned in The U.S. Coast Guard in World War II and U.S. Coast Guard Cutters and Craft of World War II (though the latter is not viewable in GB), two non-government, dead-tree sources. Parsecboy (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - possibly a dissenting voice though in many matters of historical warships I would probably be of a like mind to my fellow editors above, but at the moment the article doesn't actually make a claim for notability in the lede and I can understand why someone would put it forward for deletion. The MILHIST project guideline is that commissioned vessels are probably notable because it is likely that sufficient independent coverage of the vessel exists (my paraphrasing and emphasis). Being a Briton I will take others word that the works cited are sufficient. I will edit the article to put it into context, and probably make it a bit leaner in the process.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: being both a commissioned warship (though the name is certainly lacking) and having been awarded a battle star is notable enough for an article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SHIP conventions. —Diiscool (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per conventions and long standing practice. Benea (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a commissioned warship with adequate documentation. QED.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles on ships like this are very much needed. Whilst this article could be improved by adding more information from other sources, it is still good enough to stand alone.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the keep !votes above seem to give a policy/guideline based reason to keep. They all rest on, at best, WP:SHIP and WP:MILHIST conventions. Wikiproject conventions != policy or guideline. Policies and guidelines have been decided upon by the entire community. Wikiproject conventions are decided upon by a small subset of the community that has a strong affinity for the subject matter involved. Since policies and guidelines are decided upon by the community as a whole, there is input from people without a strong affinity for the subject matter. IMO, basing AfD arguments on Wikiproject conventions seems like a backdoor for allowing fancruft and the like to be included in the encyclopedia. A few arguments rest on the fact that this ship was awarded a battle star. Remember that notability is not inherited. From my understanding of the battle star, arguing that any ship that has been awarded a battle star is like arguing that anyone who has received the vietnam service award is notable. Everything else seems to be WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSINTERESTING, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case, several users have pointed out that this vessel has significant coverage in reliable sources. That is also the reason I am !voting keep - because this ship is covered as a topic of interest in its own right by both the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and by the U.S. Coast Guard historian's website. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which point are you saying "That is not the case" to? I would argue that inclusion in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is WP:ROUTINE coverage in this case, and the USCG historian is not independent of the subject. !votes like Toddy1's "Articles on ships like this are very much needed" are WP:ILIKEIT. Including articles on individual landing craft seems like cruft to me. The quality of this article's sourcing has certainly improved since I nominated the article for deletion, but is still questionable, IMO. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to dispute the notability convention, then a single AfD is not really the way to go about it. An argument based on extensive consensus is indeed a policy/guideline-based !vote, even if the participation in consensus was limited only to editors interested in the subject matter (which, really, is all we can reasonably expect). There is nothing mundane about a battle star (and, FYI, my argument "rest" upon this award), nor is DANFS coverage routine. Your definition of "cruft" seems to really fly in the face of the definition of the vast majority of editors who have bothered to voice an opinion. Essentially, it really sounds like you are the one making an argument not based in policy, essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and why that would be is totally beyond me anyway, unless it's an argument toward WP:OTHERSTUFF). bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:RadManCF has chosen to single out my view, I will respond. My point of view is the Wikipedia exists to be a useful source of reference. Maybe you disagree? Good quality information on individual ships is useful, and therefore articles on them should be encouraged. It is likely that the overwhelming majority editors who have contributed to this discussion in favour of keeping this article see things with a wider perspective.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I don't like this article, because it conflicts with my understanding of policy. I don't disagree that there is a consensus behind the conventions that are being used to support the keep votes, I am arguing that those keep votes are less valid because the conventions that they are not policies or guidelines, and as I understand the relevant policies/ guidelines, this article was questionable, at the time of nomination. I do feel that the sourcing has improved. I should have mentioned WP:NOTDIR above also, as the article to me seems very much like a directory entry (I thought the NOTDIR reasoning was implicit in my previous arguments, but I guess not). As to the mundanity of a battle star, perhaps that's a matter of personal opinion (as an aside, to allow you to gauge my standards of mundanity, I feel that high school valadictorians are rather unimpressive, as the subject matter in high school is not that difficult, they only had to successfully regurgitate everything they were told in order to attain that status, and lastly, the shear number of them.) I realize that I'm using the word Cruft outside its usual context (minutae of detail about Pokemon or similar phenomena, written like an entry in a fan magazine) , and I should point out that I never gave my working definition of cruft, so here you go: 1. Article's subject is of questionable significance/importance/notability on it's own. 2. interest in the subject is mostly confined to a certain group of people. 3. the article contains an excessive level of detail that would interest few people outside of the aforementioned group. Some examples that I feel meet these criteria would include: articles on individual bus routes, articles on individual pokemon, most articles on esoteric programing languages, just to name a few. I would argue that articles on individual LSTs are on the borderline. On the subject of DANFS coverage, I appologise for my characterization, I had misread WP:ROUTINE. Lastly, I was somewhat surprised by reaction to this Afd, and appologise if I have offended anyone by this. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you mistakenly deleted my comment; I think you might have meant to post at the bottom of the thread and assumed you copied it by accident. I've restored it and shifted your response below it for chronological order.

I'm not offended, and I hope others aren't. You have an opinion, a perfectly valid one, and it seems to be about an issue that hasn't really been challenged much before (simply being in the minority isn't a reason to apologize). I think that bringing it up at WT:SHIPS would be a better course of action than an AfD, since it has implications for far more than just this article. If you still feel strongly that a wide enough net hasn't been cast for consensus, then go for RfC.

But to the point: I don't think NOTDIR applies here because this isn't a directory (or a single entry in one); otherwise, there would be articles on each LST. Live people looked at this ship, found sources, and wrote prose (granted, a bit was originally copied from PD, but that's been worked on since). I don't really subscribe to the comparisons, though, with Pokémon and the like (that actually could be insulting if you direct it toward the subjects rather than the articles, or were trying to insinuate that military historians are on par with prepubescent anime fans; there is a big difference between fans and subject matter experts). It's not as if we are chomping at the bit to include every miniscule detail about every ship, boat, and barge that ever had a sailor on board. We are academics (i.e. educated and versed in WP policy) and came to limits after careful consideration; and yes, there are limits (take for instance, USS Montana, merged to the class article because it was never actually built). Is the interested audience more narrow than the audience for a pop star? Yes, but it's well-established that popularity doesn't equate to notability. I'm not going to sway you on signifcance, but I can on excessive detail: listing the stats of a ship isn't usually considered excessive; by comparison, publishing the watch logs for the officer of the deck would be.

Like I said, you're not wrong to be the dissenting minority (in fact, I salute the bravery), but I don't think you can really say that an article about a warship is "cruft" without seriously loosening the definition. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd agree that my definition of cruft may be a bit idiosyncratic, and the comparisons I made were really meant to address what struck me as similarities in how the two groups use and present certain information, not on the quality of the information itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There really is very little to say about this landing ship and I would somewhat prefer we summarised it with a few sentences in the class article. I echo GraemeLeggett's point - we do not include all commissioned ships on principle, we include them because they tend to attract decent coverage. If any warships non-notable it will probably be an unnamed, generic transport with an uneventful career. But in this case, there is just about receive enough coverage in independent sources to pass the general notability guideline. The Land (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I admit that there is little to distinguish this ship from others of its class but I personally think its a very good thing for Wikipedia to have a comprehensive list of articles on military vessels. --Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has references now and it seems likely that there is "significant independent coverage" of this topic in reliable sources. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that it is notable under WP:MILMOS/N and WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 02:17, 4 April 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ballerium[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Never released game. No reliable sources in the article. Tried to google some but found little more than a couple of press releases. Delete per WP:NOTE and WP:Crystal. Sloane (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your transclusion, it was point at the old nomination. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnotable failed project.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Verifiable with minor news posts (1UP, Massively, Gamasutra), but nothing significant. If the developer or publisher ever get an article, this can be redirected there and summarized. Marasmusine (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Clark (September 11 attacks survivor)[edit]

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

Bio for a guy known for just one event (where he did not have an important role). Damiens.rf 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Did not have an important role? The numerous media accounts contradict that and provide more than enough information for an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is the second nomination for this article, the first can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Clark Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we need to base this one on the numerous reliabe sources that are available rather than strictly adherring to the rules of notability. --Kumioko (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It has been half a dozen years since there was a serious suggestion that all survivors or all victims of disasters like 9-11 merit coverage here. Blanket coverage of all survivors and victims does not comply with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But a small slice of the victims and survivors of disasters like 9-11 either were already notable, or there is some aspect of the coverage of their stories that transcends memorial like coverage. Evan Kohlmann wrote his Master's thesis on Osama bin Laden. Pre-9-11 that was not notable. Post-9-11 Kohlmann parlayed this thesis to make himself the King of the third-party counter-terrorism commentators. Debra Burlingame was merely the sister of an airline pilot. Pre-9-11 she was not-notable. Post-9-11 she made herself a notable commentator. A small number of individuals rose to notability through an association with 9-11.
Our nominator claims Clark is "known for just one event (where he did not have an important role)". This is wrong. Clark is known for testifying before Congress and before the 911 Commission, and for the many interviews, profiles of him in the press and in documentaries. Clark found an escape route, and several hundred victims on the upper floors could have survived if they had been informed of this route. Our nominator is entitled to the personal opinion that Clark "did not have an important role". But we have to comply with WP:VER here. Authoritative references have gone on record that Clark did play an important role. The opinion of authoritative references trump the personal opinion of our nominator. Geo Swan (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's very well sourced and has substantial content, and is a very exceptional survivor account for having been above the impact. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Congressional testimony transforms this from a lucky One Event survivor to a public figure. Adequate sourcing showing to constitute notability in Wikipedia terms. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 4 April 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. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UltiDev Cassini Web Server[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. Mootros (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is written like an advertisement and the article does not meet WP:GNG, a preliminary research only shows retailers or other advertisement sites. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment- deletion notice is not showing up on the article page. Dialectric (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News finds only press releases. This reads like spam, and is eager to tell you that this product works in environments where others don't. I have restored the AfD notice to the page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article lacks 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability; created by single-purpose account, so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 21:40, 5 April 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. Juliancolton (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rakion[edit]

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

Found no reliable sources proving this game's notability, delete per WP:NOTE Sloane (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. per below.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 21:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No reliable sources? ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]} Is this enough?

The game is even mentioned in this book. I'm sure there is enough references to pass WP:GNG requirement. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Link 1 is a gamespot portal, link 2 is a gamefaqs portal, link 3 seems to be a spam site with an amateur review, link 4 is again the gamefaqs portal, this time listing amateur reviews, link 5 seems to be the only half-decent review, although I'm not sure about the site's reliability, link 6 offers three words on the subject "For example: Rakion", link 7 seems to be a press release, and link 8 is just a download site. So yeah, serious sourcing problems.--Sloane (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book only mentions the game in a passing mention, as an example: "There are also hybrid MMOG-FPS crossovers such as ... Rakion (Softnyx, 2005)." Remember, we need reliable sources that offer significant coverage. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:NOTE--Sloane (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a careful at links, you mentioned some of them that are repeated, while there is not. I see that this game suffers a lot of criticism for its hacking and glitch control system, that even though the game has a big number of players, the majority are bug abusers or hackers, a thing that is not seen with a good look by major gaming magazines, retailers and so on, but a fact that reinforce the notability and relevance of this article to wikipedia is the fact that it share binds with GunBound. But even though it is a mention it also reinforce its notability factor. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this review. Note - most of the links I provided give only a short phrase like "Rakion a MMORPG", but also they provide further navigation to reviews, videos, pictures and other things. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, notability isn't inherited from other articles. Gunbound is irrelevant to this discussion. Number of players ia also irrelevant. What we're looking for is good, detailed reviews from reliable sources. A review from a publication on this list for example, would be very helpful. The link from MMOhunt also fails WP:RS, MMOHut isn't a good reliable source. It's a site run by two brothers, with no editorial oversight. We need better.--Sloane (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been hearing about this game for a long time, so I'm somewhat surprised there's no independent sources for it as it seems popular enough. However, I have transwiki'd it with full history to StrategyWiki:Rakion: Chaos Force/Getting Started (to be subpaged throughout the guide). -- Prod (Talk) 07:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the links above, only onrpg made me look twice - Onrpg was briefly discussed as a source here and the current concensus is not to use it. Other standbys such as Cnet and IGN just have the publisher's description. Marasmusine (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep - The article needs proper writing and get referenced with the links I provided, of course there are other reliable sources on the internet, and those sources are just an example that sustains its notability. Even though WP:N is not WP:INHERIT, the developer of both games is somewhat known and the game is severely known as a game that is enjoyed by its public through the massive use of game hacks. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what sources you intend to base the article on. Marasmusine (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bareiss algorithm. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montante's method[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Montante's method

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

This article is apparently not supported by any scholarly source and appears to be a neologism. (This has been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WPM#Montante.27s_method.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bareiss algorithm, and possibly preserve the worked example. Per my investigations at WT:WPM, it appears that the algorithm is actually taught under this name in Mexico, so a redirect would be appropriate, even if we cannot find a source for mentioning the name in the redirect target. –Henning Makholm (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems to have more detail than Bareiss algorithm and the example is especially helpful. So some kind of merger seems appropriate, if the two are indeed the same subject. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or maybe merge. Someone would need to sort out what is usually called "the Bareiss algorithm" (with the definite article). There are several closely related algorithms in Bareiss's widely cited paper, and this is one of them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Bareiss algorithm. The Bareiss article is currently a stub and could use some expansion, though additional references are perhaps needed more. I don't think there is any need to try to pin down "the" Bareiss algorithm; as with many algorithms, the germ of the idea can be used in many ways and it's the idea that's important. It seems to me that the algorithm arises naturally when you implement Gaussian elimination with integer arithmetic, so it wouldn't be surprising to find several different names for it corresponding to different "discoverers".--RDBury (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a method for solving a system of linear equations, while the Bareiss algorithm computes a determinant. The relationship is not obvious to me. --Lambiam 19:31, 7 April 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of pharmacovigilance service providers[edit]

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

orphaned, unneeded list, only 2 notable entries with articles, better served by a category. WuhWuzDat 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary list of non-notable entities. Also incomplete, with no indication given of why the listed companies were chosen over other, non-listed CROs. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with MelanieN - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:53, 2 April 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. postdlf (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Kelly[edit]

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

Poorly referenced, does not establish notability, prod was removed without explanation. 117Avenue (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did a little mini-rescue and improvement of the article to source the Jensen role and addition to Degrassi, and although a stub right now the casting on Degrassi alone should make it an expansion candidate in the next few months. I will try to find more sources if asked within the seven-day period, but for now I think this should work. Even then, the regular role on The Latest Buzz is quite enough to seal notability, but the dependence on IMDb alone for sourcing has been averted. Nate • (chatter) 23:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of Degrassi actors deleted, notably Argiris Karras, as a single role doesn't make a person notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as meeting WP:ENT.. barely. Fellow started out in a minor role in the marginally notable For the Love of Grace. Apparently someone saw him, liked his work, and he was brought in to play main character Noah Jackson on 45 episodes of The Latest Buzz. Quite a leap from obscurity. He then played Brody Thompson in Muse Entertainment's The Jensen Project distributed by NBC, followed by his role as Noah Roorda in Muse's Change of Plans distributed by Fox Television. Ignoring the first minor role, we're left with three... two as named support characters in TV films and one as a major character in 45 episodes of a TV series. He's already getting to us with his short career in far better shape than many Degrassi alumni... and his upcoming role there will make it a fourth worth considering. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Nate's improvements. - Pictureprovince (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY, although I'd like more substance added. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE ALL (excepting the withdrawn nomination). postdlf (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nemanja Stjepanović[edit]

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

Having only ever played in semi-professional Bosnian League, and never for the national team, this played fails WP:NSPORT. His international club appearances have all been in qualifying and are therefore do not grant notability. There is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Igor Melher played one match for Bosnia&H. A NT[1], thus passing notability. The rest can go. FkpCascais (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I completely missed that. I am withdrawing that nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stjepanović, Pehar, Miličević and Bartulica - all fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the four remaining articles for failing to meet any of the relevant notability criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stjepanović, Pehar, Miličević and Bartulica. They all fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stjepanović, Pehar, Miličević and Bartulica, per above they all fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 08:41, 2 April 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley M. Christman[edit]

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

PROD removed by author, non notable writer that fails WP:AUTHOR. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The books are not even in WorldCat; DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 31 March 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 (non-admin closure). RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hobbies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

infinitely expandable, hopelessly unmaintainable list of highly subjective subjects. Not clear what does or does not belong here. Previously deleted after an AFD, speedy deletion under G4 due administrator noting that this article was "Totally different from the deleted version". RadioFan (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep expandable is not an objection, most lists are not finite. no reason it should be impossible to maintain, sometimes common sense and the ordinary meaning of words in the English language is enough of a criterion. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this fails any list criteria: it is not indiscriminate (there are definitive criteria for inclusion), it is not infinite (there are things that do not qualify for inclusion) and it can be reliably sourced and verifiable. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "hobby" is far too subjective of a criteria to be sufficiently discriminate to meet list criteria.--RadioFan (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Since no policies are mentioned as a reason for the nomination, I must address the statements made in the nomination:
- "infinitely expandable" — "Infinitely" means without limits, this list is obviously limited: to hobbies. List of hobbies is infinitely beneficial to Wikipedia and its users because, to mention one, it helps to enable exploritory browsing of Wikipedia (see WP:AOAL). Examples of other lists like List of hobbies might include Outline of entertainment,List of toys, List of collectibles -- certainly any one of these lists could be expanded "infinitely" as defined by the nominator, given the nature of their topics, but they have not, and prove to be quite useful to me, and I suspect many other users, as List of hobbies will be.
- "hopelessly unmaintainable list" — I don't see this as an arguement to delete a page. I see this as an arguement to set up guidelines on how the page should be maintained and what should be added to it. I would volunteer to do this, but frankly don't know how. I don't believe anything is hopelessly unmaintainable. An example of this might be Tagline#Famous film and television taglines which has the following statement at the top, "<!-Don't add a tagline unless the *tagline* is famous, and reference both the tagline and its notability->" (which was added by someone long before I came along) and seems to be a good idea. I have removed some items from that list as a result.
- "highly subjective subjects" — One might argue that what people find as entertainment as a highly subjective subject, yet we still have the very useful Outline of entertainment. List of hobbies will surely be just as useful.

The bottom line: Keep List of hobbies and fix it, help define it, and help maintain it, instead of deleting it because of the fear that it MIGHT become "unmaintainable". If I have violated any rules of arguing this sort of thing, then I apologize, because it was completely unintentional. I am willing to learn. Thank you, for your time and consideration, Jeffrey Scott Maxwell (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn--RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 31 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baal Shem Tov family tree[edit]

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

Some people listed in this family tree have WP articles and are probably notable, but the vast majority do not and probably are not . WP:NOT (genealogy) ought to apply. Sitush (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep: This is a dynasty and thus the chain of lineage and relationships between them (often vital for understanding succession disputes) is historically important, even when only some of the members are individually important. While this isn't strict nobility/royalty in the classical sense, as a family of leaders of a sizable religious community, I think the conclusions from this discussion do apply here: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility: "While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic." Jztinfinity (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Family tree of founder of Hasidism notable. Chesdovi (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it might help the article if this sort of information was made clear. I'm not yet convinced but surely this stuff should be in the lead? - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relationships of the notable people in the family tree (particularly to Baal Shem Tov) are important. However, the importance of the family as a dynasty needs to be made far clearer in the article - it's certainly not obvious from the article to anyone who knows nothing of Baal Shem Tov except perhaps the name. PWilkinson (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I am not quite impartial to this issue (see history, and my user page), I'd like to add my two cents: I have indeed been trying, of late, to make the page more "useful" in terms of notability, by showing how the Baal Shem Tov's family links to other dynasties. After listing all notable descendants (by this definition) down to the fourth generation, however, it seems horribly "incomplete" and wrong to omit obscure siblings of prominent people (yes, many of them are utterly obscure - Dov Ber of Chudnov, Yisrael the silent and Yisrael the dead are probably some of the most obscure people in Hasidic history).
In my opinion, the best solution would be a compromise: Since most grandchildren were (if marginally) notable, include all grandchildren out of "completeness", and on the text chart, explain dynastic connections.
For example:
"Feiga - mother of Nachman of Breslov" / "Aharon of Titiov (mind you, in his time he was about as notable as Boruch of Medzhybizh, but somehow he eventually went out of style) - ancestor of Skver" / "Sheina Rachel - ancestor of Boston (Hasidic dynasty)", etc. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I think the nobility analogy is valid, and any notable dynasty's members are by extension notable. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But even if deleted - can I please keep it on my user page? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought notability was not inherited? Well, not on WP at any rate. However, I think if it was made a bit clearer in the lead then a lot of the issues might go away. Oddly, I live in one of the highest density areas for Jewish population in the UK & have never heard of this family/dynasty. Not Jewish myself, but I know my way around a fair bit more than average due to friends/neighbours/school/business people etc over the years. Not to mention invitations to bar and bat mitzvahs as a kid. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for notability being inherited: I don't think it is.
If it was, I would continue Yisrael the Dead's line to the present day, to an obscure author of religious works from Israel who is notable only for his miraculous recovery from paraplegia after falling down an elevator shaft (real example).
All I said was that if a high percentage of a family is notable, other same-generational members should be considered notable, for that is the nature of a dynasty. I think many famous royals had obscure siblings, even siblings that died in infancy, but notability is somewhat contagious.
As for not having heard of this dynasty before - these things don't go well across cultural barriers. For example, I can't name even ten sports teams. The same goes for sports players, movies, actors, etc. Now of course these are notable to most Wikipedians - but Hasidic dynasties are notable for several thousand people at least, all of Hasidism, most of Ultra-Orthodoxy, much of Orthodoxy otherwise, and many others - anyone with Hasidic ancestry, anyone with ancestors living in Hasidic-dominated areas of Eastern Europe, etc.
Haven't you noticed the numerous other detailed Hasidic dynasty pages (see: Category:Hasidic dynasties)? Certainly the family of the founder of Hasidism, with its connections to other dynasties, is just as notable. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a particular case where the dynasty itself is notable, independently of the individual members. Actually it's not all that special--its certainly true we have articles for royal dynasties. For an article like this, it isn't necessary that each individual person listed be notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are adequate notable people in the lineage. and, while WP policy is that notability is not inherited, lets not forget thats OUR rule. for many groups, notability IS inherited, and thus they become appropriate subjects for articles here based on real world commentary on spiritual transmission. baal shem tov to reb nachman is more than enough to satisfy me this is a keeper, esp. since this lineage matters intensely to the people following their teachings, and this group (many orthodox jews) is itself, of course, highly notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a notable topic, a well-sourced stub in fact, and a valuable navigational tool for this complex subject. IZAK (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic, a notable family, and the article can be improved further. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 4 April 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. postdlf (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of products manufactured by The Hershey Company[edit]

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

I'm not familiar with deletion policy, but this page along with a scores of products of this company is clearly promotional, not belonging to an encyclopedia. See also Template:Hershey's confectionery products. Netheril96 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep descriptive npt promotional. Relevant encyclopedic information about a major company. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: descriptive and usefull list. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not promotional any more than List of Coca-Cola brands (which is only an alphabetical list and not nearly as organized) or List of Nestlé brands. Meets the criteria under WP:LISTPURP. Jeffrey Scott Maxwell (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly encyclopedic. Just describing a list of products made by a major confection company is not promotional in and of itself. Steven Walling 00:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about those products in that template?--Netheril96 (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Templates ease navigation. Besides, this area is not for discussing templates (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion). -MrFizyx (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean those articles linked from the template. They are individual articles about products of that company, none of which has secondary sources to establish notability. Maybe they can merit a list, but tons of articles?--Netheril96 (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The majority of the commentators have listed the reasons for keep, I agree with what has been posted already. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Southland (TV series). JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Sherman (Southland)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first nomination ended in no consensus partly because the nominator was a blocked sockpuppet. Since it was closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination by another user, I'm nominating the article again.

The article is an unneeded content fork of Southland (TV series) because the fictional character Ben Sherman does not meet the general notability guideline. There are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability. All references found with a search engine test, are from unreliable sources or plot description of the series, none that treat the character in detail or with critical commentary, so there is no basis to presume that the fictional character Ben Sherman has notability by himself. The two references within the article are from TNT, the current broadcaster, so they are primary sources that are useless to show notability. On top of that, the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work that seems to rely on original research by synthesis, so I do not see a valid reason to keep the article around. Jfgslo (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Southland. Subject seems to fail WP:GNG, but it's a reasonable search term to spit readers to the series article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject fails the WP:GNG because there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southland (TV series) per all that policy above Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 07:47, 7 April 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Qutab Shah Rizvi[edit]

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

~~WP:V: Can't find reliable, secondary sources to verify the existence of this putative legislator. Would grant notability if the information here could be verified, but all I can find are wikimirrors.~~ Withdraw, see below joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources verifying the basic details of the article. If this is kept, we'll need to create some redirects because there are quite a few alternative spellings. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nom and comment Thanks, that's great--I seem to have trouble getting the hang of alternate names in some languages, and this is one. Happy to withdraw the nomination, would you be kind enough to do the redirect honors, or point me at the names that should be redirected? --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. I might have gone a bit overboard with the redirects (five) but there weren't any plausible alternative targets. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! (And redirects are cheap, cheap, cheap.) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:55, 2 April 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. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Akkari[edit]

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

Yes, I know, a footballer AFD. Before you start quoting WP:NFOOTY, it says that people playing in a fully professional league "will generally be regarded as notable". Here, I am saying that this article is an exception to that generality. There are no available secondary sources (and no, stats are not secondary, they are primary), and I have a good faith belief that such sources do not exist. There may be a language barrier problem, but since we are the english wikipedia, sometimes language barriers happen. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stats are enough for WP:V. We make things much simpler by having a simple rule for when to keep these tens of thousands of articles , rather than discussing them one at a time. The subject doesn't interest me, but keeping our discussion here limited to stuff worth deleting does interest me. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and there are actually enough English language sources to verify basic details such as membership of clubs. There is Asian-wide coverage such as [2], [3], [4] and [5]. So imagine how many Arabic language sources there must be (unfortunately the multitude of clubs named Al-Wahda make it a pretty difficult task for me to find). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He has also played in the Asian Champions League for his former club Al-Karamah: [6] In 2006, he played in the Al-Karamah team that qualified for the Champions League Final: [7] --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:52, 2 April 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. per WP:V, since no reliable sources have been found. JohnCD (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Rahimi Banehei[edit]

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

WP:V, unsourced BLP. Certainly notable if the article can be sourced, but I can't find any reliable, secondary sources, merely wikimirrors, that use the name. I've tried some variations on the name, and got so far as to consider the possibility that there's a confusion with [Mohammad-Reza Rahimi], but that seems a stretch (at least to my own ears.) Additional sources warmly welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not coming up with anything. And for the governor of Kurdistan province, something should come up. I've tried transliterating his name but no hits at all. Subject to anyone being able to find anything to verify the article's details: delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm wondering if someone was confused with Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, who was governor of Kurdistan province. Nothing else turned up online in my searches. –Joshua Scott 21:12, 3 April 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Archambault[edit]

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

Article is not badly written for a new editor, however the references used here are not adequate to establish notability. Works by the author himself are primary sources, and to establish notability, we must have multiple, reliable, third-party references. Third-party references must satisfy the Reliable Sources guideline, and answers.com and jrank.org do not meet this threshold. A cursory search of Google News Archives brought up only two mentions of this author that I could find, neither of which seemed particularly significant in coverage or length. My attempts to redirect to the article about the book he co-authored were reverted, so I bring it here for discussion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, speedy close. Author has written multiple award-winning children's books. GNews search on "John Archambault" + Chicka turns up scores of articles and reviews [8]. Something's gone wrong with the nom's search. Wikipedia has articles on multiple books he authored, so there isn't a plausible redirect target anyway. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on finding reliable sources. I think the about the author sections in some of his books would be acceptable? If not, please let me know. Also, would the about the author page on his website be ok or no? I would like to fix the article if that is ok, but I am new to this whole thing so I guess I just need a little help. Stephanie Sundheimer (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hullaballoo's search is accurate, so there are sufficient sources to prove notability. "A cursory search" is no justification for bringing an article for deletion. Book Review Index shows 59 reviews in good sources such as Publishers' Weekly, aKirkus, and School Library Journal, and quite a number of other places. I'm pasting the information to the article talk p; it will need formatting. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search that turns up only two hits is a perfectly legitimate rationale to bring a topic to AfD for discussion. Your comment otherwise strikes me as assuming bad faith. I'm sorry I was not able to find these other sources, but that's why we have AfD. Since sources have been found by someone else, this AfD may be closed. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very well written first article by a new editor. Looking a Google Books for John Archambault turns up over 2000 results, along with the news results pointed out by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Clearly a notable author. On a side note, I'm very impressed with the high quality work Stephanie has done here. I should point out that technically I am her mentor, but she hasn't had to come to me for any help whatsoever and has the making of a great editor. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:56, 1 April 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holyk[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet, WP:FILMMAKER, and cannot find any reliable independent sources which talk specifically about the subject. France3470 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very little in the way of sources; BBC coverage includes a brief interview with the subject--perhaps five seconds on camera-- and the Prince's Trust link appears not to mention the subject by name. The film is a more apt candidate for notability than the director. Determination of article's creator to remove maintenance tags without answering issues suggests likelihood of conflict of interest. 99.11.7.81 (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 31 March 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. postdlf (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The impact on libraries of the Google generation[edit]

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

Looks like an essay that breaches some combination of WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH - earlier PROD was removed by author and replaced by an "under construction" tag, but ~~that's now been removed, and~~ I really don't see how any further work can change the fundamentally unsuitable nature of it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC) ("Under construction" tag has been put back -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. Merge any useful material from reliable sources to Internet search engines and libraries. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty clearly an original essay as it sits. Carrite (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay, not an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:57, 31 March 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. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. H. Lightstone[edit]

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

No-notable academic: the only claim to notability seems to be having written or co-written two articles 30-40 years ago on an obscure mathematical topic. No indication he satisfies WP:PROF JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Lightstone is an influential mathematical logician. His book with Robinson is cited over 70 times at Google Scholar, which is high by the standards of mathematical logic. Note that he wrote the book essentially on his own, Robinson suffering from an incurable condition at the time. How is mathematical logic an "obscure mathematical topic"? Tkuvho (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. Loeb said Robinson "wrote the first draft" in his review of the book for Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. Qwfp (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Tkuvho's reasoning. Regardless of his medical condition, his work seems to be heavily cited which would qualify for inclusion as "impact". Additionally, "obscure mathematical topic" wouldn't apply, and is irrelevant for inclusion. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oprah might never have brought Kurt Godel or Paul Cohen or even Richard Feynman on her show, but just because popular culture treats real science and mathematics as obscurities doesn't make them unencyclopedic topics. This Afd's going to be SNOWed out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a debate on the notability of A. H. Lightstone, not that of Oprah, Gödel, Cohen, Feynman, or any particular mathematical or scientific topic. Qwfp (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nonstandard analysis is certainly not "an obscure mathematical topic". CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment obscure was perhaps the wrong word; my point was having written papers on your subject is not usually a criterion for inclusion, unless the papers are notable or the subject especially so. Otherwise every academic would merit an article and WP:PROF sets the bar considerably higher. On citations Google is only a rough guide and 75 is not an especially high number for something written 35 years ago, while the even older article which seems to be the main basis for his notability has been cited only nine times.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It is incorrect to claim that "the main basis for his notability" is the popular article in the American Mathematical Monthly. Though well-written, a popular article cannot serve as the basis for notability for an academic, other than some exceptional cases (I can imagine the author of the "Manifold destiny" article may be notable for that alone perhaps). It is obviously more accessible than his professional publications, but clearly much less influential than the latter. Tkuvho (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: For what it's worth, I think a single paper could suffice. Consider Riemann's "On the number of primes less than a given quantity"; was that all he had written, I think it would still be appropriate to have an article about him. I'm not familiar enough with Lightstone or nonstandard analysis to say if this is similarly seminal, just making the general point. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - See Ernst Ising for a non-counterfactual example. I'm less sure about Lightstone. For one thing we're naturally curious about eponyms, hence the obituaries of Ising. Qwfp (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His research productivity was low, but he wrote a large number of textbooks, so I think the case for WP:PROF#C4 may be stronger than for #C1. Unfortunately this was long enough ago that it's difficult to judge how widely adopted those texts were. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. By the standards of mathematical logic, the case for #C1 is strong. I just went to our list of logicians. The first on the list turned out to be a wrestler. The second was Sergei Adian, the famous logician. Now google scholar lists only 37 cites for his most popular text, as compared to Lightstone's 75. We should compare things that are comparable. Tkuvho (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What other articles exist is irrelevant, as per WP:WAX. If he satisfies WP:PROF#C4 then that should be supported by reliable sources that attest to his impact not just editorial judgement, and if he's notable they should be possible to find.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Initially, it looked more likely to flip to a math article with attribution, but as a prolific (typewriter) author who died young whose work was worth finalizing posthumously, who knows what he might have continued with; the (albeit minor) scholarship, but at the 'primary meaning' Queen's University nudges it sufficiently as a bio, IMO. Dru of Id (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think, rather than basing it on WP:PROF (although that seems possible too) the clearest case is via the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" clause in WP:AUTHOR. We now have in our article nontrivial coverage of four of his books, each with nontrivial content about the book (not just a title and publisher) based from multiple published reviews. Worldcat lists The Axiomatic Method as in 431 libraries, Mathematical Logic as in 396, Symbolic Logic and the Real Number System as in 535, and Nonarchimedean Fields as in 354, all good numbers for this sort of technical book. I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. has created notable mathematical work. WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT is no reason for deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: recent expansion of article renders this AfD almost moot. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for your help. There is a similar effort underway at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0.999.../FAQ to erase any allusion of an alternative to the reigning dogma. I would appreciate your input. Tkuvho (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the author of a fair number of books. It looks as if the deletion nomination resulted from the fact that the article was earlier in a condition that might have failed to give sufficient grounds for its existence. But later editing has changed that. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that the article was nominated for deletion two days after its creation. Extraordinary alacrity. Tkuvho (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The holdings of Lighstone's work in libraries mentioned above by David Eppstein, plus his citation count, demonstrate his significance. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Salih (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per David's findings: That his book holdings exceed 1500 is an easy clincher. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atma Ananda – Shanti Nathini – Dolma Jangkhu (Author)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, self-promoting autobiography of writer failing the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people). The article contains an (unsubstantiated) assertion of notability, so is possibly ineligible for speedy deletion. The absence of sources makes the defects not correctable. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THE BIOGRAPHICAL CONTENT WAS TAKEN FROM THE AUTHORS AUTOBIOGRAPHY PUBLISHED IN AMAZON.COM

LET ME REPEAT ALL REFERENCES DELETED BY ADMINISTRATION -

NOTE: Long list moved to subpage by -- Rrburke (talk)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantinathini (talk • contribs) 02:15 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - An Amazon.com autobiography is not a reliable source, and the list of publications does not establish notability of the subject. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of the sources listed above are written by the subject. This would be good enough to confirm published facts, in the context that the subject said thus and so, but not good enough to establish notability. The rules on Wikipedia are that you have to have works about the subject, not by the subject. A book that discussed the works of Atma Ananda, for example - that would work. News articles discussing their works, or magazine articles going in-depth about their life - that would be fine. Unfortunately, I'm not finding any such sources here or elsewhere. My Russian is a little rusty, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:31, 4 April 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yagoo's road[edit]

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

No WP:RS found to establish notability. Article confuses Underground Railroad with the Erie Lackawanna Railroad and adds rumors of "spirits" and "unknown entities" apparently based on an anecdote found at "Weird NJ.com". LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is barely even about the road, and there isn't anything from a reliable source worth keeping here or at any title. As for the "Underground Railroad" being an actual railroad... Family Guy already did it. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:55, 31 March 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. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put-me-on[edit]

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

Contested prod, non-notable neologism... term is not present in provided reference. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - have spent a while searching on Google etc for this phrase and am finding only a few references to it, most of which are from one photography blog. Difficult term to search for but I believe it is not notable. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Are you putting me on? This page was obviously created as a joke. Not notable. No sources. The one source listed has no mention of "put-me-on". I searched AND read the reference cited BEFORE I realized that the creation of the article Put-me-on was someone's idea of humor. LOL! Jeffrey Scott Maxwell (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added the Hoax template to this article today. -- JMax (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?) 00:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. This is a dicdef of a neologism. Carrite (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also checked the reference in the article and whatever hits I could find via Gsearches. Nothing comes up that relates to the purported subject of this article created 31 March 2011. Note the time of the year, folks. This has to be an April Fool's joke. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 01:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those who parse the incoming stack at New Pages will assure you that stuff like this rolls in to Wikipedia 24/7/365. If this is an April Fool's joke, it is particularly unclever... Carrite (talk) 17:37, 4 April 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; nominator withdrew. Airplaneman ✈ 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Choi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Well written, if slightly spammy article, but serious concerns about notability of subject. Does not appear to conform to the criteria of either WP:MUS or WP:GNG. Sources for the main part appear to be unreliable. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It isn't the strongest case for notability, but the article on popmatters.com, The Orange County Register and totality of the other sources seem to be enough to pass general notability, imho. Having more subscribers than Miley Cyrus, by itself, isn't what makes him notable, but it doesn't hurt. Same with being in the top 10 most subscribed on YouTube, not enough by itself, but with all the other sources (both solid and weak) seems to pass the bar by enough for inclusion. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Note The Pop Matters article is a republished copy of the Orange County Register article. This falls a long way short of the requirements of WP:MUS. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Choi IS notable, IS good, IS famous, IS on Wikipedia (and will forever be), has HIS songs on Wikipedia (and will forever be) and IS #7 most subscribed musician on YouTube. YOUTUBE. It's hard to achieve this, so please recognise this song, him, and HIM! Wikipedia, I trust that you won't delete notable items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorresAndChicharito (talk • contribs) 09:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — TorresAndChicharito (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The article could benefit from some clean-up, but there's sufficient continuing coverage in reliable sources, over a period of years, to satisfy WP:GNG. 2008 San Francisco Chronicle (June 4, 2008)[9]; the much re-printed[10] 2009 Orange County Register article mentioned above[11]; May 2010 feature in Korea Times[12]; June 2010 mention in The New York Times[13]; December 2010 Korea JoongAng Daily profile[14]; March 2011 interview at Houston Press[15]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yep, I'll go with that. Suggest Speedy Keep Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:17, 4 April 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 opinions are divided, the delete opinions have the stronger arguments, with some of the keeps clearly incorrect. E.g. "it's a well-established basic principle that we cover what conventional encyclopedias do": has any other encyclopedia an article on "Abbreviations listed in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica"? Apart from that, why has no one trouted Richard Arthur Norton and reversed his move-to-another-namespace-during-AfD? Fram (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations listed in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of abbreviations in use in 1911

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

This isn't encyclopedic content; by definition it is dictionary material, and no improvement is possible. The previous AfD was a very weak close and if it weren't ten months ago I'd have gone to DRV instead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much an indiscriminate list that doesn't qualify as encyclopedic. Why not do it for every year since 1AD? List of curse words in the dictionary for every year since 1AD? Why not for every dictionary ever made? List of words that start with the letter Q? Again, indiscriminate list. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dennis Brown hits the nail on the head. There is no reason that this particular edition of that particular encyclopedia is worthy of coverage. Effectively a random list, which should be regarded as a no-no. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as the content is encyclopedic, then even if the issue of its proper titling and arrangement is difficult, deletion is not proper. This list's content derives directly from the article "Abbreviation" in the EB1911. (For some reason, EB1911 did not include in its "article space" a list of words that start with Q: straw man & false equivalency.) That model encyclopedia thought it was encyclopedic content, and it is still encyclopedic content today under our policies. I am very sympathetic to the complaints about the awkwardness of this topic's definition. However, I believe the simple fact is that we should have a more broadly defined and sourced treatment of the subject, but instead it happens that (A) no one can be bothered to create such a fuller treatment of the subject, so that (B) we instead have this fragment. It's somewhat like Lysias: it would be nice to have a new article based 100% on current scholarship; on the other hand, the current Wikipedia article, based largely on Richard Claverhouse Jebb's article for EB1911, is better than nothing. The difference is that, to caution our readers that we only have properly vetted and sourced encyclopedic content based on EB1911 rather than more broadly, we have to title this one awkwardly (whereas we don't need to give the title-restriction Lysias as he appeared to the best scholarship of 1911). As a side issue, every encyclopedia should give an accounting of its own abbreviations, and we make plenty of use of these abbreviations (e.g. but not only in retained and good EB1911 content on older subjects & biographies), so that deletion will "break" our encyclopedia's functionality in an important way. I just can't believe that EB1911 owed treatment of the range of common English abbreviations to its readers and that we don't; we need more and wider abbreviation lists, not one fewer that isn't replaced by superseding content. To sum up: have a look at everything listed at Abbreviation#See_also. Until we have a more general treatment that subsumes the 1911 list, the 1911 "fragment" of that ideal article is all that exists, but at least it's a start towards the proper goal. Wareh (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a well-established basic principle that we cover what conventional encyclopedias do (and a good deal mmore). The presence of the topic in EB is sufficient . The title is necessary for exactly the reasons Wareh says. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of these are bogus. There is literally nothing that can be done to transform this into an encyclopedic article as its subject is nothing more than an entry out of an old book. That the book in question happens to be an out-of-copyright edition of EB is neither here nor there, as (contrary to DGG's specious evocation of a "well-established principle", of which there is none) we are not beholden to treat enything ever covered in any other encyclopedia as worth coverage here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have to to it, but it is sufficient justification. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly moved it into Wikipedia space. I see a need for it when doing research but not of use for the general reader. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and solid delete per my previous nomination:

This list contains totally arbitrary criteria for inclusion (what's so important about 1911 or the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition as a place to find abbreviations?) and appears to be composed of nothing but original research. I can't imagine any third-party sources having ever commenting upon such a grouping of information so the subject matter also fails our notability guidelines. Interesting? Yes, so perhaps a transwiki is in order, but this material is definitely not fit for an encyclopedia article. The relevant policies and guidelines include WP:OR, WP:STAND, WP:V, WP:N, WP:IINFO, and WP:NOT#DIR. Them From Space 00:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept difference of opinion, but this is missing some basic facts. The list is not "composed of nothing but original research"; it generally reproduces a list published in the "article space" of the EB1911. If that material is OR, so is everything else in Wikipedia based on EB1911 articles. I believe the point you're driving at is that the titling of the encyclopedic material from EB1911 is OR. (I disagree, but I can see that concern, to which the solution is retitling List of common English abbreviations. For such an article, those listed in the EB1911 article "abbreviation" would be, of course, impeccably sourced. The question is whether anyone would bother to source additions to the list with equal care. Perhaps the solution here could be rename and segregate EB1911 material into an article section, pending the arrival of someone who wants to organize the abbreviations and citations better. Finally, it would be clarifying (if strictly beside the point) if those !voting delete here would explain whether the basis applies to everything else at Abbreviation#See_also. If not, I humbly suggest once more that the solution is rename (because the only offense in this list of impeccably sourced English abbrevations is in the article title). (But let me be clear: my !vote is to keep the title and let renaming and reorganization happen through the normal rhythms of article improvement, not via AfD.) Wareh (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that as it stands this article is not a simple list of abbreviations and would not likely have been taken to AfD if it were. Instead, it purports that the subject of what abbreviations the 1911 EB included is a topic worthy of coverage here. This is exactly what you argued on the previous AfD. There has yet to be a convincing argument for why that is the case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikisource and then delete as an article or project page, if people want to link to this within any article HERE which uses these abbreviations. I dont think this is significant enough to be an article here. here's the wikisource page it might belong at.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my last keep. Or maybe we don't want to be like encylopedia brittanica, and instead focus on anime 100% of the time.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your last keep comment was "obviously this material is fit for an encyclopedia article". So that's two complete non-reasons. The project's coverage is not a binary choice between "lists of words" and "anime". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is, you didn't see the memo on that? Anyhoo, I guess I did not need to articulate that an encyclopedia brittanica entry is inherently encyclopedic. And if one argues it is not, I'll take a lot to be convinced.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- How many articles does WP have from this reference? I'm actually surprised that there isn't a link/portal to this in every article that uses any of these that aren't common now. Dru of Id (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on Earth would being included in a Wikipedia article's reference section connote notability to an article from the 1911 EB? The function would be the other way around if at all. Nevertheless, we do not have a page on entry on mathematics from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, nor indeed any other article which covers, as its subject, an entry from this reference material. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have entries, some of which seem to be just cut and pasted directly from the set, as it was public domain; frequently, abbreviations are there intact, unexplained, which may not have been used much in the interim; when a 70 year-old reading a common subject has to do a search for an abbreviation that they've never seen in their life that is older than they are, value is missing for the reader. OMG & LOL are unfamiliar to them too, but while there are uncounted talk and user pages that have them, their frequency in article space is rare, and Wiktionary internet abbreviations isn't here, but while we have links to it, we don't have thousands of articles from a source reference that compiled them. Dru of Id (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 2,283 in this [16], although not all of them have abbreviations, let alone unclear ones. Dru of Id (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but the subject of this article is not abbreviation or list of abbreviations: the subject of this article is literally, "this page is about the entry the 1911 EB had for 'abbreviation'". If we need to link to the 1911 EB entry we should do it from Wikisource as we do with any other entry from that encyclopedia. It does not make the entry itself a notable subject for a different encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The subject of this article is...about the entry the 1911 EB had for 'abbreviation'." No. There is a big difference between "derived from" and "about." This article is derived from one section of that encyclopedic treatment, and it remains one legitimate fragment of a broadly encyclopedic topic, namely, English abbreviations. We would like to possess an encyclopedic treatment of every aspect of this subject. Unfortunately, we only have this fragment. By your logic, our article Lysias is "about the entry the 1911 EB had for Lysias." As for Wiktionary's internet slang list, well, if it were grounded on as solid a WP:RS as the 1911 EB, it could go in Wikipedia's article space as a list, too. Wareh (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the 1911 EB and using it to write an article on the history of the abbreviation in the English language would be an interesting research topic, but it is not a reason to maintain what is currently a complete non-article in articlespace on an indefinite basis. The potential for an article to be an improved is a good argument to keep it: the potential that it could be completely transmogrified into an examination of a quite different subject is not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - When I follow the link, it takes me to three lists of the abbreviations used in the 1911 set, not an entry that explains what an abbreviation is; just what do you see there? Dru of Id (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That is precisely my point. If we need readers to understand what an archaic abbreviation means then we should point them at the original document as hosted by Wikisource rather than some article on the article hosted here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles must still demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia policy & guidelines, and "was in EB 1911" is not one of those criteria. We have based articles on material from EB articles, yes, but using that example, this 'Abbreviation' article from the EB 1911 could be used for the Abbreviation article on Wikipedia, if there was anything of relevance. We do not, however, as a rule have articles about articles in the 1911 EB, particularly not where that article is simply a word-for-word copy of the article in question. Wikisource is where they belong. Cymru82 (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource, An original list of abbreviations can be a good idea for an encyclopedia article; in this case, by "original list" I mean a list compiled by the editors of the encyclopedia in which the list is to appear. This list was compiled not by Wikipedia editors but by editors of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. So while this content is encyclopedic in that it appeared in another encyclopedia, all this page amounts to is a copy of another encyclopedia's entry on a subject. and that violates established Wikipedia policy. According to WP:NOTREPOSITORY, "mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording" are inappropriate for Wikipedia. "Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia," the policy says – and so that is where this material should go. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But you'll note that in WP:NOTREPOSITORY the examples are source material, not encyclopedia articles. We take over EB1911 encyclopedia articles all the time (I've named Lysias as an example, but there are scores), and that doesn't violate WP:NOTREPOSITORY. So by the rationale of A-Stop-at-Willoughby's, I believe we should keep (because longstanding Wikipedia policy is that EB1911 material is as entitled to our article space as "an original list"). Of course, if anyone wants to grow the EB1911-sourced list with further items "originally" sourced elsewhere, it would be a most welcome improvement, and then we might rename the article. Wareh (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct: This is not a WP:NOTREPOSITORY violation. I don't know what I was thinking; an encyclopedia article is obviously not a primary source. That said, I still feel that this is a better fit for Wikisource. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a red herring. You appear to be particularly reticent as to what you expect the article to be retitled to. The original EB article was titled abbreviation. We already have an article with that title, and it's significantly better than the 1911 EB's one. We do not need two articles on the same subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:44, 12 April 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. postdlf (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler house[edit]

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

So the Huffington Post has a picture of it in its "comedy" section. WP:N? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just trivia. Sgroupace (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mindless "cool pic of the day" bouncing around the internets. Hopefully the "omg reliably sourced!" crowd can be kept at bay on this one. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of an '"omg reliably sourced!" crowd' are quite exaggerated. Tarc is referring to me (see my Delete vote below); if rules like RS get in the way of his preferences, I suggest he give a rationale for the invocation of IAR or point out a flaw in the rule, as I do, rather than attempt to categorize editors. I could build a house that looked considerably more like Hitler. Anarchangel (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the two comments above. NickCT (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the three comments above! Pointless trivia. Ynyrhesolaf (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not averse to coverage of lasting memes, but the few minor and ephemeral mentions found here do not notability make. Anyway, this house ought to be in Minehead.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a very minor internet meme with no claim to notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete N has not been shown; WP guidelines or WP rules do not extend to the preoccupation of the media with trivia; the article passes N with RS. Neither will I quote essays, as they are merely WP:CREEPy clones of guidelines. As there is no guideline preventing it, trivia could be included at WP, but the consensus here and on countless other AFDs is surely that it is not, and in this case I agree that this is trivial. Therefore I must invoke WP:IAR, and assert that RS to establish N is flawed in addressing sources rather than their individual content, which allows trivia from good sources and excludes good content from otherwise poor sources. It is always the ad hominem, the mis-targetted arguments at the heart of WP rules that is their greatest flaw. Anarchangel (talk) 00:51, 1 April 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. Juliancolton (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UCT History and Current Affairs Society[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the WP:CLUB criteria. The sources cited are either self published (i.e. published by the University) or news articles that mention the society and that members go on notable demonstrations but do not show the society has significant impact at a national or international level. PROD (added by someone else) deleted without explanation, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of meeting WP:CLUB, it is my firm belief that the society does meet the requirements. The UCT History and Current Affairs Society has been incredibly active in engaging with South African current affairs matters. It has hosted a number of prominent individuals and has attracted the attention of the written press, it continues to do so. The only concern, perhaps, is the lack of online references cited. This is something that I am working on. This page is still very young, deleting it in it's current fledgling state makes no sense. The society already meets the requirements, it is the page that still needs developing over the next few months - a task which I am currently undertaking. Sastudent101 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately. I original proposed this article for deletion with the rationale: "The program for a student society which doesn't appear to have notability independent of its institution or the people/organisations who have given talks to the society members". The article doesn't suggest that this particular society does anything extraordinary in comparison to other student societies. If that isn't the case, it needs to be made clear in the article (together with reliable sources.) --Kateshortforbob _talk 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rademacher (band). JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Machine (album)[edit]

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

Article fails notability criteria for albums. Independet released albums are generally not notable and no source contradicts this. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The band itself seems to pass on notability, so we might consider redirecting this album title to the band's article at Rademacher (band). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:31, 25 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rademacher (band) I suppose. The release isn't notable, but the band are, so as a likely search term it should be redirected (per the guidelines at WP:NALBUM). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It does not appear to be independently notable; it's just a track listing and an infobox of an independent release. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to [[Mickleover]]. Arbitrary merge target added so the script won't get pissed off. Juliancolton (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wren Park Primary School[edit]

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

Primary schools are usually not notable enough for standalone articles, and this one doesn't seem to have received much coverage in reliable sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently part of a larger project in Template:Schools in Derbyshire, which, to its credit, seems to have only a handful (13) primary schools on its list. Perhaps those that are "junior" or "independent preparatory" can be consolidated into a single article. Mandsford 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most primary schools are not notable but this one is. It was assessed by Ofsted as Outstanding, the highest accolade that a UK school can achieve.[17]. It also has a full portfolio of the top awards in a range of fields; the school has gained the Investors in People Award, Arts Mark Gold, Active Mark Gold and Healthy Schools' Award. All these can be independently sourced. The page obviously needs expanding to reflect all this, which I will do. TerriersFan (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. It does need expanding a little bit though, or might not be considered notable by people not familiar with the area. Isn't a primary school only notable when it has got at least two "Outstandings" though? Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an applicable article on this school's district; otherwise delete. The assumption we make here is that elementary schools are non-notable unless demonstrated otherwise and I fail to see anything in that realm here. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - perhaps some background might be helpful. It is common ground that generally elementary schools are not notable. However, exceptional elementary schools, as with exceptional institutions in any walk of life, are. It is for that reason that Blue Ribbon elementary schools in the US are notable. In the UK an 'Outstanding' Ofsted assessment, backed up by other top awards, is a broad equivalence. TerriersFan (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Such "awards" are mere bureaucratic categorizations. Elementary schools should have independently-documented significance; otherwise we'll have a list of rich kids' elementary schools (since, let's face it, the income of student families largely dictates such "performance" as is recognized by these so-called "awards") and an endless steam of attempts to jam elementary school pages through the gates. This school does not rise to the level of inclusion-worthiness, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 31 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with community page. I'm sure it's a fine school, but I don't see anything notable. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as usual. The only actual case for the school been exceptional is the Orford Outstanding rating, but a/c the school's own summary cited above, p. 11, 13% of primary schools get an outstanding rating. The topi 13% of something is not really exceptional enough for an article. Top 1% in the UK if there were such a rating, maybe. Not merely top 13% DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, nothing outstanding at all about this school other than its award. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 17:17, 7 April 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. Juliancolton (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bean-to-bar chocolate manufacturers[edit]

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

Quite apart from the clumsy title, this article is just a Category in page form, it adds nothing encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies or product manufacturers. If a company is notable then it will can have a page of its own, which can then be added to an appropriate category. Pyrop e 13:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pursuant to WP:CLN. While this list has issues (e.g. spam, redlinks) they can be fixed by editing, it adds significantly more content than a category would (the sortable "Location" column, for example). I would not object to a less clumsy title, but fundamentally I do not see how this page is different than many, many other similar and useful list articles (e.g. List of management consulting firms, List of venture capital firms and many many more). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, as I read WP:CLN, one of the major drawbacks to lists is that they Can become bogged down with entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. This page suffers from that already. As for the location column, that can easily be replicated by subcategories such as "Bean-to-bar chocolate manufacturers in...". In addition, just because other cruddy lists exist doesn't mean that this one should. In fact, List of venture capital firms has already been criticized as not valuable and an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. Why add another? Pyrope e 13:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have edited the list to remove all the redlinks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chocolate#Manufacturers. None of this is sourced, and as Pyrope alluded to, the issue of completeness will always be looming over this. The section of the main article on Chocolate is probably more valuable because, while it does not list every single manufacturer, the prose puts them in some sort of context. Kansan (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOL, more than other rules, should never be used as a rationale here without specifically linking reasons from the article, as no list can be assumed to meet its criteria. Completeness is not a WP rule. Another 'Appeal to Incompetence' (Thin end of the wedge + Appeal to ignorance), which postulates that WP must protect against editors editing improperly or readers reading improperly. WP is what it is; wanting to make it less than it is because you don't like it must remain IDLers' problem, not WP's.

Anarchangel (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness may not be a condition, but without it it is very hard to answer the question "what is the point of this page?" Ok, so it may have a sortable location column, but that implies that you have every manufacturer from that country listed, which they aren't. This is misleading the reader. As is also pointed out below, this simplistic column actually hides the truth that many of these companies are pan-national and have major operations in many parts of the world. Sticking one country in a column verges on misrepresentation. Other details in this table are also so dumbed-down that they are not really useful, which again calls into question its purpose. If you are saying that a lack of sourcing isn't something to be worried about then I suggest you go and completely rewrite WP:VERIFY as it seems to disagree with you. Finally, citing IDL is pretty cheap, as everyone who has commented so far has given thoughtful, considered opinions. Pyrop e 01:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I point out flaws in reasoning whether I agree with the author's vote or not. In the same way, my views on V are not represented at all by my concerns that Kansan's arguments and your arguments appeared to be assuming that WP rules were saying things that they do not. I don't see that the columns are hiding anything. The obvious solution to a lack of completeness would be to render it into prose, although I do admit that would be a lot of work. Personally, I would have guessed that any bean-to-bar operation would have to have a considerable financial backing at its disposal, so I would not be at all surprised to see multinationals there. And as for every manufacturer being listed, again, that comes down to improving the article. I should also point out if it were not already obvious that I lack knowledge in this area and if you have some expert knowledge in this area, please feel free to say so. However, I am not currently able to say that I can see any problems based on what you have said so far. Is there any reason why gaps in the list could not be filled, for example? Anarchangel (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

(I hope I use the correct way of contributing here) Thanks for joining the discussion on the idea of this page. There are several reasons for this page to consider it obsolete or at least providing misleading information. The idea of 'bean-to-bar' is in itself suspect to different interpretations. With that the supply chain of cacao -> chocolate bars is very complex with a variety of actors masking many steps. Beyond that also the idea of the "location" column is susceptible to interpretations (is it the financial HQ, is it the plant, etc...) The processing of the various steps in 'bean-to-bar' happens on many locations. I have talked this morning with a genuine chocolate maker, and feel supported in the current list being a messy melting pot of different actors. Bottom line, although lists may have value - even for Wikipedia, in this case the 'parameter' (in casu 'bean-to-bar) for that list is not exclusive enough to be meaningful nor to be able to cover a list that holds with the idea of quality of information in a Wikipedia environment. If deletion of the entry is your option, it creates a challenge and opportunity for a thorough 'bean-to-bar' discussion'. In the meantime some things can be taken to the Chocolate#Manufacturers area as you suggest. Thank you for your thoughts and actions accordingly EvertJDK (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 24 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per UnitedStatesian; a worthwhile list of bluelink articles, contains information a category could not, scope reasonably well explained.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move (to rename title) per EvertJDK (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

many of the companies still listed don't produce chocolate,
many of the companies still listed start from liquor instead of bean
cleaning up the list will need another difficult debate
the chocolate industry suffers from a lot of 'untransparancies'
the idea of lists vs Wikipedia policies
several companies cannot disclose why they should or can't be on the list (strategic contracts)
In various ways, several steps in the complex chocolate process can be outsourced to other companies/facilities that process a specific step, and then return the new semi product further in the supple & production chain. So who is really making what?

The bean-to-bar "term" is very argueable for many other reasons, hence the very minimum would still be to change the title of the topic I would say to move/ Redirect to Chocolate#Manufacturers. cfr. Kansan and Pyrope

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. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foodimentary[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. There are not reliable secondary or tertiary sources available to establish notability. While this online entity has one an online award it is hardly clear how notable that award is in the first place. Griswaldo (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Every source is primary and a Google search turns up nothing but blog hits and twitter feeds. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:48, 24 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stacking up 34 links to non-3rd party websites doesn't establish notability, and is just annoying. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The winning of awards or the demonstration of status can be a claim to notability. I cannot follow up on every designation listed in this article because there are a lot, but this one seems most notable - Shorty Awards. However, I can find no review of what this organization did to get this award or what the significance of getting this award might be. I even think that this award might be more for technical aptitude than actual media content production, and since the article's subject is presented in this article as a food blogger, I am not inclined to see this as an indicator of notability. I would be more impressed by an award for production of quality blogs than for only a certain quantity of publication. All the other micro-awards seem like grasping at fame. One good claim to notability would mean more a lot of minor points together, and there is no good claim. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:59, 4 April 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. Juliancolton (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microblogging novel[edit]

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

Can't find sources for the title, and we have Blog fiction and variants such as Flash fiction Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Wouldn't it be the case to merge Microblogging Novel contents into Blog Fiction (making it a section of Blog fiction)? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced as a concept. ("Here is a novel on Twitter" and "How to write short stories" do not combine to make "microblogging novel" a thing.) "Twitter novel" could be a separate article, perhaps. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 23 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 31 March 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. Juliancolton (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OnTime[edit]

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

Advertising for unremarkable software. Author removed my prod tag and added more advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, I thought you were allowed to delete the prod tag if you believed that the delete option was not appropriate as it states in the prod tag warning (If I understand what the prod tag is)? This software has been around since 2002, and is a major player in the project management and bug tracking space.. (I have used OnTime and other similar products for years). I truly feel like this software warrants an addition to Wikipedia. Once you review the content, I don't think you will consider it advertising, especially when they are from third party sources. I didn't pull this information from thin air. Please let me know what else I can do (I am still not done making additions, but I strongly believe that in its current state, it clearly exceeds qualifications). Thanks. Zacharyklein (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a side note: I didn't even mean to delete that prod tag.. I figured out that I wrote over it on accident when I edited an older page that didn't even have a tag yet (so, when I saved, it went away).. Sorry about that. :-) Zacharyklein (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article looks like an advertisement, the software has gained several recognitions, but no real info about what the software really is. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good call Eduemoni, I just searched around and found a site that goes over the features pretty well and added a few features and made a "Features" section to help clarify what this software does. Zacharyklein (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Zacharyklein, I do not want to be rude or to judge, or to accuse someone, but are you in any way related to Axosoft and OnTime, employee, owner, fan? Because I checked out your contrib history and you have only created (and collaborated within) two article Axosoft and OnTime, which are very much related, if yes, try (as much as you can) to contribute with a Neutral Point of View, because anyone can point out how irrelevant and non-notable the article is, and how much it still looks like an advertisement. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Product stub. Should be expanded not deleted. If it reads like an ad, you haven't been reading many software dev ads lately. It lists some of the product's features. If you look at other products listed at Comparison of issue-tracking systems, you will find other list entries that should be similarly deleted. To allow them to stay and remove this article treats article retention policy capriciously. We must be fair. I would mark the article as needing additional references and reviews from notable publications and keep it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Two other quick points. The first is, there's no guarantee that this is not a WP:COI. Looking at the editors focus, it seems to be centred on this product. Also, don't forget that we're not supposed to bite the newcomers. This goes to the nature of mistakes made by Zacharyklein. Clearly newbie mistakes. If the prod does succeed, which I hope it doesn't, then someone should coach the new editor in what is and isn't acceptable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a "recognition" section has been created. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 21 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill article about back office software, a Hosted, Windows Client, and Web solution for project management and bug tracking. References are to reviews roughly concurrent with new releases, press releases announcing version changes, and petty software industry trade awards for "Excellence & Productivity" and the like. No indication that this product has any significant effect on history, technology, or culture. -25 notability points for calling it a "solution". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 23 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I note that "back office software" is not a reason for deletion;rather, it means that there are likely to be few available sources and we should be more flexible. _— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, product has numerous third party sources cited. There's enough for an article, and it seems to meet our standards of notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:19, 31 March 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. Juliancolton (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Moving Arts Film Journal[edit]

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

Film journal with no claims nor evidence of notability. Edit history strongly suggests WP:COI editing from single purpose accounts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This film journal has plenty sources of notability. It has been cited by The St. Petersburg Times (Sept. 9, 2010 edition) and some the web's biggest sites such as Aint it Cool, i09 and Boing Boing. The journal is also prominent enough to receive press access to some of the world's most exclusive film festivals like the Toronto International Film Festival, the Berlinale and Cannes. These festivals require a web-based journalistic outlet to achieve international prominence with hundreds of thousands of monthly page views before granting such access. And many of The Moving Arts's film reviews are quoted in promotional materials of mainstream and indie films from all over the world. The journal's founder, Eric M. Armstrong is a prominent critic and a member of the Governing Committee of the Online Film Critics Society (the world's most prestigious organization of professional critics who publish their work online -- it's owned by Rotten Tomatoes). Perhaps this entry needs references but it certainly shouldn't be deleted. It's notability is quite easily verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarmas5 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that if you look at my contribution history on Wikipedia you'll see hundreds of valuable contributions to dozens of different articles on various subjects. I'm not sure why a reason for this article's deletion was "single purpose account." My history clearly contradicts this. Unless you're referring to some other account devoted to this journal? Either way the article in question can be verified with hardly any effort. It should stay. It should, however, be tagged as a short article and that its needs references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarmas5 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is so easy to verify this magazine's notability, then why don't you add the appropriate sources to the article so that we can close this AfD? But do read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:GNG first, please. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Plenty of legitimate, verifying sources have been added, as well as a references section. I think the tag can be removed now. Thanks!

Comment I don't see how any of those links indicate WP:WEB notability. They mention a specific article on the site, that's about it. Notability policies specifically state non-trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really? Why would prominent sources like Turner Classic Movies and the St. Petersburg Times cover articles from the journal and publicize its greatest movies lists if it wasn't a notable source? Seems to me the answer is clear. It is notable...because prominent sources have, quite literally, noted it. And the WP:WEB article you referred me to contains nothing that would render this entry a candidate for deletion. Dozens of prominent filmmakers and studios have noted the journal, also. It's a well known source of news, journalism and essays in indie and academic circles, and somewhat well-known among casual film fans for its lists. Why aren't other online magazines subjected to this level scrutiny? Even much larger outlets like Slate.com don't provide the level of documentation you say is required. Comparable film journals like Senses of Cinema and Bright Lights Film Journal have zero verifying sources with no references and are allowed to remain. Seems like an open-and-shut case in favor of this entry. --Guitarmas5 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but I have to side with Ohnoitsjamie here. The sources provided fall far from establishing notability for this journal. The argument that other articles exist that are worse clearly falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (less reverently also known a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't DeleteWhat about the fact that imdb, the largest movie website in the world, uses The Moving Arts as an official resource for news? That's more than just trivially linking to articles. Imdb is the most notable movie site in existence, and they seem to think the journal is notable enough to use as a resource. Each news outlet they use to feed news onto their pages is handpicked for credibility, size of readership, reputation and notability.--Guitarmas5 (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to me to be a case of a source being reliable for use on Wikipedia but not necessarily warranting its own encyclopedic entry. After all, we should be able to write about the source itself, not about how other sources have referenced it. The Wikipedia article makes broad and promotional-sounding statements ("the flagship artistic cinema publication of the Midwest"?) that need to be addressed if there is any notion of keeping it. I'll have to review guidelines for this kind of topic, and I'll be back later with a response. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The part of the entry that declares the journal as a flagship publication simply means that it's the only film journal of its kind that exists in the midwest. Perhaps that sentence should be altered to sound more benign and informational. But that seems like a notable fact in and of itself.--Guitarmas5 (talk) 05:04, 18 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 23 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That it has notable contributors and is used by notable publications is sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having notable contributors and being itself authoritative enough to be cited by notable publications is sufficient reason to allow the article to remain and be improved over time and through regular editng. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:29, 4 April 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Twist[edit]

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

A rapper who has not yet released an album. The article has been deleted five times before. Has he yet achieved notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Corvus cornix_talk 17:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 31 March 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. Juliancolton (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spector & Associates[edit]

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

No inherent notability per WP:Corp - any attempts to tag the article in respect to this have been reverted. Created and edited primarily by Single Purpose Accounts with an apparent Conflict of Interest Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~There have been several third-party sources added to the article which speak to its notability. Wikichound (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

No they don't;

Self Published sources

Spector Homepage [18]
Naipra.org [19] - If not controlled by Spector & Associates (as founders) - still asserts no notability toward Spector & Associates
PR Museum [20] - Possible reliable source if it can be sourced to the Magazine and not just Spector & Associates Website
Spector Homepage [21]
PR Museum [22]

Marketing Material

O'Dwyer's PR [23]

Primary Sources about awards - Assert no Notability

[24]
[25]

Actual Reliable Third Party Sources

Julia Hood, PRWeek [26]
Stateman, Alison. "In the PR museum." Public Relations Tactics 5.1 (1998): 3. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 14 Mar. 2011.</ref> -No Obvious Archive Copy for WP:V

Not actually about Spector & Associates

[27]
[28]

That's still the same two sources Hood, and Stateman that actually comply with establishing any sort of notability and it's still not enough. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Company websites are suitable for establishing irrefutable information such as office location. I would direct you toward either the PepsiCo or General Electric Wikipedia entries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric

2. See point one.

3. This should be referenced by Wikipedia standards: Citations for newspaper articles typically include:

   * name of the newspaper in italics
   * date of publication
   * byline (author's name), if any
   * title of the article within quotation marks
   * city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper
   * page number(s) are optional

Awards do indeed assert notability. Awards represent industry recognition. This doesn't seem like a difficult proposition.

10 & 11 pertain to the company's association with industry leaders. The actual reference is for a claim of Edward Bernays and his being the inspiration for the firm's founding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Neither reference is intended to assert to Spector directly, rather speak to their role in the public relations industry. Again, I don't see an issue with this. Stuxnet10 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this is while these sources assert that *some* facts about the company are Verifiable they do not assert that the subject of the article is Notable; specifically for any corporation, we abide by the guideline for the

notability of organizations and companies that Guideline requires that corporations are "'the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." That Rules out all of the Self-Published Sources as non-independent non-secondary. Awards can be considered notable in relation to some articles, but they have separate notability guidelines - The Corporate notability Guideline does not consider awards so this means that this reference constitues a Trivial coverage of a subject by a secondary source and is not sufficient to establish notability. If a third part writes a book or article about the notability of Spector and Associates based on their winning this award - As Google Books shows me exists for other PR companies - then that source would assert notability because of the award win. Without any evidence that "Reputation Management Magazine" and "Public Relations Tactics" are reliable sources and without access to these sources it may be difficult for other editors to confirm that the material is either verifiable or asserts notability. However these are really asides because coverage of Spector & Associates in reliable independent sources is not obviously significant. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another public relations business that wants a Wikipedia article for public relations purposes. Text is unambiguous advertising: known for brand-building strategies for business-to-business companies. Only claims to fame are minor trade awards. References are to minor trade magazines or websites. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 18 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 23 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have struck through comments by Wikichound now indef blocked as corporate publicity account. Stuxnet10 has no edits outwith this AfD and the subject article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've blanked the triumphant and spammy "Client List" section (incidentally undocumented by outside sources). I appreciate that this is a PR company engaging in PR about itself, which is unfortunate. However, the list of awards seem compelling as to the firm's significance in its field. Needs some rewriting to knock the self-written tone down three pegs, but still over the notability bar, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major clients is a relevant factor of notability and so are awards. PRweek's editorial coverage of the PR industry is a reliable source. We do not have to prove from sources that winning awards is notable, bold face type or no bold face. Important awards prove notabilit, by showing directly that outsiders consider it notable y. The GNG is another way, but not the only way. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of Awards are awards that clients won whilst Spector was working for them - without sources to say how much or little Spector's contribution led to these awards it's difficult to take the seriously as any measure of the notability of Spector it's self. The only award that immediately speaks to Spector is the Silver Anvil and even it is shared with the client and isn't the PRSA's highest award. Many small companies supply services or Products to larger multinationals and I don't see policy anywhere that this makes them notable. If it was not a PR company but say a Catering company that provided sandwiches to these multinationals whilst they won awards - and equally won some award from "Catering Society of America" would we even be considering them notable? I look to Ihcoyc's essay on corporate notability User:Ihcoyc/Business and have to consider that this should be considered for promotion as a guideline to weed out non notable corporations like this. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

look more carefully,. The awards are awards given to the company for their PR campaigns for the listed customers. Some of the awards are given by PR trade organizations, not organizations in the customers trade, or general business organizations. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the awards are given to the campaign itself even those given by PR Trade organisations - that means they are shared with the client and we have no way to tell how much or little was contributed by Spector and how much was contributed by any in-house PR team (in fact googling some of these "awards" return hits on individuals claiming they personally won them - including Shelley Spector's linkedin page). Worryingly I can't see any sources for these awards other than the self-published Spector claims. Essentially we still only have 1 reliable source the Julia Hood one which appears in a trade magazine and is behind a paywall. Does this source establish Spector as notable? I can't tell because I can't read it but I do know that PRWeek has been cited as a reason to keep in 5 other Afd's about people/firms and has been rejected; in a further 3 Afd's it has been cited along with other sources and they ended on no-consensus; only one article closed on keep and it was supported by an NYT article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, this is a PR company, but this is no worse than other corporate wikipedia pages. A consistency needs to be applied across wikipedia, and I'm sorry, Mr. Jamieson, but your comments are pedantic and poorly researched. Silver Anvils are an industry standard award that exclusively recognize campaigns developed on behalf of clients. Hence the shared recognition. I'm not entirely sure how a client-based company would create a campaign without the shared input of a client. I suggest you research this further before making declaratory statements. I would also suggest that before vilifying company principals such as the president of the company you stop to think whether your comments are appropriate. You'll also notice that the self-published sources you mentioned are actually reprints of third party sources. It would seem to me that your efforts would best spent elsewhere, though the wikipedia community thanks you for your earnest efforts. Wikifitz1 (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Wikifitz1 has no edits outside this AfD. Dru of Id (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly how many Sockpuppets do we need to try and push this Article through? Firstly other stuff exists and claiming that this is "no worse than other corporate wikipedia pages." does not excuse the existence of this one. Secondly Mr. Jamieson was my late father I answer to Stuart. Thirdly, I'm not sure how my comments can be both pedantic and poorly researched as one suggests showing off a knowledge of the industry and the other suggests a lack of knowledge of the industry. In my personal experience - an associate of mine worked in PR/marketing for a major brand and in 1972 developed a campaign that not only made his brand the leading one but set the direction of the whole sector. He was brand manager there until the mid 80s and then moved on to an even more iconic multinational brand. Since then the brand has contracted out the work to P.R. firms of equal size and status to Spector; but the campaigns are 80% based on the work that this individual did for the brand directly in 1972 and the brand deserves to take credit for that. These campaigns have won awards equivalent to the Silver Anvil in Europe such as ISP Gold and Silver awards so they are directly comparable - without sources a reader can be misled into believing a campaign is 80% the work or the PR/marketing company when in reality it is the work of the Brand - It's not asking too much to request that these claims be sourced. Also I didn't vilify anyone, Shelley Spector's own linkedin page [29] lists the Anvils as awards she has personally achieved rather than as awards the company has achieved. I claimed this appeared to be a common trait among all PR people no more, no less - certainly not vilifying anyone. The Self-Published sourced *may* be reprints but without access to the originals we cannot verify that they say or mean the same thing; in an industry that works around positive spin it may not seem important, but in a fact based encyclopedia it is essential. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Jamieson, please refrain from name calling, it cheapens the wikipedia experience for everyone. I would suggest that if you can't control yourself that perhaps you find a hobby that's less stressful than the obviously hectic world of wikipedia editing. Also, pedantic and poorly researched are not mutually exclusive terms:

  1. Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.
  2. Being showy of one’s knowledge, often in a boring manner.
  3. Being finicky or fastidious with language.

While I'm truly happy that you had a friend, who, in 1972 happened to work in marketing, I fail to see relevance to your argument. Maybe you could ask for his advice on the matter? I'm not sure what this means: "Since then the brand has contracted out the work to P.R. firms of equal size and status to Spector; but the campaigns are 80% based on the work that this individual did for the brand directly in 1972 and the brand deserves to take credit for that." Spector created a campaign for a client, they won an award. Seems simple enough to me. Finally, as Shelley Spector was the lead on theses campaigns, created by her firm, she seems to have earned the right to list them on her LinkedIn page. Though I still think that it's odd that you've gone to the effort of searching her on a completely unconnected website and then mentioned her by name. If nothing else this just seems inappropriate. I again thank you for your diligence and wish you the best. Wikifitz1 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not name calling; sockpuppet is a technical term here on Wikipedia for users that either use multiple accounts to make multiple points on discussions such as this under different names. The fact you have no other edits here makes you firstly Single Purpose Account, exactly like user:wikichound and user:Stuxnet10 and highly likely to be either the same person as or a colleague/friend of the other accounts. Both are different types of puppetry but neither is acceptable on wikipedia. Of course if you wish we could take this to an investigation and ask them to work out what is going on here? However aside from your disagreement on the meaning of pedantic, The relevance of my argument is this the awards do not show whether as you say "Spector created a campaign for a client, they won an award." or whether as in my friend's situation "The client created a campaign, and was assisted in deploying it by the PR firm - The client won an Award for the campaign." both are very different scenarios and without reliable secondary sources detailing why the *campaign* winning this award win makes *Spector* notable, then a list of awards is worth little in terms of notability and in reason for keeping this article. Finally I didn't go searching for Shelly Spector's linkedin page, I did a google search for the name of the award and Shelly's page was returned on the first page of hits - other than one hit to the awarding body (which only described the award in general) all of the remaining hits were to the CV's of people who had worked in various PR firms (and several in the same PR firm on the same campaign) all took full credit for the award and the respective campaigns on their CV's - which is exactly my point in raising this anyone can claim to be responsible for winning anything this is why we need reliable third parties to provide suitability on the importance of the award. . Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I have to agree that the sources provided don't stand-up to scrutiny and I could not find unmentioned sources to establish WP:GNG. The awards do not seem significant (as in no outside coverage to demonstrate that it is a major award i.e.Public_Relations_Society_of_America all I found of coverage were paid for adverts and unsourced and should probably be AfDed. There is a mention in the current article [30] stating the winning of Arthur Page Award, which would be major but it is not on the official site as them [31].Tetron76 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nickelodeon Toys. Juliancolton (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon compounds[edit]

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

The subject matter of the article appears to fail the WP:GNG. A quick Google Search failed to produce "significant coverage". Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources whatsoever for this category of toys. Everything in this article is original research, including some POV-laden statements. Goodvac (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the salvageable content to Nickelodeon Toys, of which this article duplicates partial portions. Nate • (chatter) 08:59, 23 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems right. makeswell (talk) 01:12, 5 April 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. postdlf (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Clean Fun (production company)[edit]

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

Non-notable production company lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable production company, with numerous credits in the same kind of reality space. Patterned page after Reveille Productions page. Andie m (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.48.114 (talk)

Comment – Just saying something is notable does not make it so. The article does not demonstrate notbability by using independent, verifiable, reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - hence the IMDB link to verifiable credits, and NAACP citation. Links to several established, non-contested wikipedia pages that apparently consider the shows produced notable. Kept page minimal to avoid any sense of promotion. New York Times source that was previously included was removed. Will re-add.64.183.48.114 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 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 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources to indicate notability of a company found and given. Notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on notability examples in wikipedia , Notability is inherited in multiple ways - several shows on notable networks (MTV, Style, E! - Depth of coverage is national), notable shows, notable celebrities in music, TV, and sports. Based on WP:ORG, if the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. In this case, sources document NAACP Image Award recognition for organization.64.183.48.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment – You may want to re-read the title and opening paragraph of the article you are quoting from. As the title of the article you quoted from states, these are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Therefore, your arguments are not valid. Additionally, the production company did not win an award, only the show did. Again, not a valid arguement. ttonyb (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Ah - that explains a lot of the confusion that I encountered when reading that note. That notability argument retracted - however, depth of coverage is indeed national, (national networks show product) and a still valid argument based on corporation guidelines. Entertainment awards are actually given TO individuals/companies FOR shows. (Hence the ongoing debates about which entities and/or individuals receive producer credit on projects and why you see a bunch of producers clamber on stage to accept.) 64.183.48.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment – Having a national show that was produced by the company is not national coverage. The show might have national coverage, but I do not see the company as having such coverage. The production company did not win the award, the program did. The program is listed as the award winner, not the company. Additionally, the award is not a "non-trivial" award. ttonyb (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Artists or collaborators that have their work shown at a national level have to be considered notable - whether it is at a large gallery, wide film release, or national network. Other production companies that meet this standard are listed on wikipedia without contest. And in what judgement are the NAACP Image Awards considered "trivial"? 64.183.48.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment – If you can show me where having "work shown at a national level" is part of the Wikipedia notability criteria for Companies, I'll agree; however, until you can the existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. "Not-trivial" would be Oscar, National Prime Time Emmy, SAG award, etc. ttonyb (talk) 14:35, 31 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep producing one notable show does not prove notability . producing multiple ones does prove it. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG. Very good reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see what DGG and BabbaQ see because I do not understand why production should indicate notability. I have no idea what it means to "produce" a show or how the production team is any more notable than the many other entities involved in making a tv show, but so far as I understand the artists, the publishers, and the art itself are the important subjects for articles. Certainly the NAACP award mentioned above did not go to this production company - it went to the work of art, which is the show. The artists who made the show are not the production team - this company is more akin to a an entity which provides a famous artist an easel and paint than they are to either the person who does the painting or the publisher who makes the work known. I am not seeing any claim which suggests notability nor am I finding anything through Google which indicates that the company is notable beyond what the article states right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you dont know that. Maybe it wasnt right for you to provide an opinion on this article in the first place as you yourself says I have no idea what it means to "produce" a show or how the production team is .--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per DGG. Agree w/ BabbaQ in response to Bluerasberry. Andie m (talk) 20:32, 5 April 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. postdlf (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gapforce[edit]

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

As far as I can see, this organization does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations. The only references and external links in the article that mention Gapforce at all are self-published or do so in self-written blurbs; not the significant coverage in independent secondary sources that allows us to write a meaningful article with verifiable content. There are some news articles referencing Gapforce volunteer activities, particularly in Belize, but in my opinion together still not enough to base an article on. An earlier ((prod)) tag was removed. There are strong indications of conflict of interest editing. --Lambiam 16:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - WP:Before nominating an article for deletion, you should check Google News Archive and Google Books for any reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage, to see if the notability guideline (WP:ORG in this case) is satisfied. It is not limited to the refs presently cited in the article. At Google News Archive there are several similar stories from March 2009:[32], coverage from later in 2009: [33], and some coverage from 2010: [34]. Google Book search shows substantial coverage of Greenforce and Gapforce:[35]. These refs barely support notability. Maybe someone can find others. Edison (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at those, and did not have the feeling they offered enough in-depth coverage to be able to base an article on; the present article is very superficial and not encyclopedic (but a ((Multiple issues)) tag was removed together with the ((prod)) tag). The primary author of the chapter about Greenforce in the book you found by Google Book search was on placement with Greenforce, where she next worked until October last year – not the level of independence we need. --Lambiam 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unless the article gets formated and someone finds reliability and notability references the article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria to be notable enough to own an article here. This is easily solved by article expansion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not delete just because some editing is needed to include references which have been identified, or to revise the wording or layout. The notability guideline is WP:ORG, which might barely be satisfied. Edison (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability is one of the guidelines that must be satisfied, but if the article gets expanded, correctly written and sourced, its notability is reached. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 17 March 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 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references shown above are sufficient for notability. For things hard to judge otherwise, the GNG does have a place. We do not delete because of needed improvement; we sometimes do delete because an article cannot be improved. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that political activities do not pass WP:POLITICIAN and the incident cited is a case of WP:BLP1E. JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Lai Lam[edit]

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

Unelected politicians are generally not notable despite receiving press mentions during the campaign.There is no claim to notability outside failed political races. The article alludes, but does not cite sources, that she may be a protest candidate. If that is the case we need very good sourcing from neutral sources describing that role. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is HK famous, especially after the Hong Kong by-election, 2010 and breast incident, but not internationally famous. So where does that fit in notability criteria? And I ask that because there are alot of successful and failed politicians for example in the US, Canada etc who are very famous, but are virtually unknown outside where they work. Benjwong (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locally famous outside last years election incident? If that is the extent of it the incident is worth a sentence or two in the article about the election, otherwise I don't see it.

Can you please help with sourcing this, and the claims made? Youtube doesn't cut it and I'd really hope for more than gossip pages in The Standard. WP:POLITICIAN is a pretty minimal guideline (which is why so many US/Canadian officials have articles) but this article doesn't even meet that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 17 March 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, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E. Pburka (talk) 04:18, 24 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The indecent assault incident is likely the critical point here. shows a few stories about her and I've seen the incident on TV (aTV or TVB I can't remember), so I'm leaning towards thinking she's notable per WP:POLITICIAN (but I'm not sure and would like to be convinced the other way.) Kayau Voting IS evil 16:26, 31 March 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. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roshon Vercher[edit]

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

An American football free agent running back who has never appeared in an NFL game, as far as I can tell. Fails WP:ATHLETE. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on a quick search, I'm not seeing non-trivial coverage of Vercher -- just passing references in game coverage or Fresno State overviews. In particular, I'm not finding articles about him as the subject. In three years as a fullback at Fresno State, he gained only 24 rushing yards and appears to have been more of a blocking back than a regular ball-carrier. See his FS bio. If anyone can find signicant coverage of him, I'll consider changing my vote. But from what I've seen so far, he doesn't appear to satisfy either WP:ATH or WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to agree. If other sources surface (including offline sources) I'll happily change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also does not have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 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. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mermelstein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Initiating second AfD nomination on behalf of User:Ravpapa. Rationale (partly refering to the first AfD from Nov 2010) is: --Pgallert (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I am renominating this article for deletion. This article is about a real estate broker and attorney in New York. He is one of 12,518 such brokers listed in the New York Yellow Pages. His main, nay, his only, distinction is that he has a PR agent who understands that the road to notability passes through the portals of this noble institution. His PR agent, or a person acting on his behest (User:babasalichai), has been banned for sockpuppetry. By means of such sockpuppetry, the PR agent convinced the AFD administrator that there was no consensus for deletion, by the clever expedient of voting keep numerous times in the guise of numerous avatars.

The one keep vote that did not come from Mr. Sock came from user THF, a respected and senior Wikipedia editor. I am asking THF to reconsider his vote: Mr. Mermelstein is not notable. He has done nothing of note, he has never argued a landmark case, his opinions are not quoted in law journals, his views on real estate, when published (if ever), are marginal. There are thousands of hardworking, imaginative, and important attorneys who do not have Wikipedia articles; there is no reason that this guy should be here"

Delete While a lot of the references are press statements and passing mentions, I think there is no question this person passes WP:GNG. None of the independent sources are actually about him, but they do go into sufficient detail. On the other hand I do not believe there is any doubt Mermelstein passes any other notability guideline. So I believe this case is about the word presumed in the GN guideline. The subject is completely run-of-the-mill, as the initiator of this discussion eloquently points out. In a way this article could be A7-ed because it does not even attempt to point out any specific fact that makes Mermelstein special. As the presumed in GNG can only be rebutted by WP:NOT, I think the policy reasons to delete this are WP:NOTYELLOW, point 2, and WP:NOTWHOSWHO, point 4. --Pgallert (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, let me clarify that I am familiar with the article creator's history of puppetry, and that they were clearly trying to use wikipedia to promote some entities and disparage others. That being said, I don't see how we can possibly argue that, having met WP:GNG (for me, the Bloomberg article plus the Commercial Observer slide meet that requirement, with the rest being less "in depth" but in total being enough), the subject isn't notable in a Wikipedia sense. If the subject were completely run-of-the-mill, they wouldn't be discussed in detail in Bloomberg or asked their opinion in New York magazine. This isn't a Who's Who listing, it's a biographical description of a New York lawyer who appears to be more notable than the typical New York lawyer. And this is certainly not a genealogical entry--significant descriptions of multiple aspects of his life are included, not just simple familial records. So, even though I would not be surprised if this article was created as part of a more general PR campaign on behalf of the subject, that doesn't automatically render the subject non-notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But being more notable than the typical X cannot possibly be a reason for inclusion? Otherwise, replace X with "rice farmer", "tuck shop", or "government memo", and see what happens. I've been occasionally quoted in national newspapers, and I certainly do not expect an article about me any time soon. Being asked for an opinion on your area of expertise is a totally normal exercise which happens to many professionals. --Pgallert (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't mean "more notable than typical" = "Wikipedia notable". But I can't figure out what your (personal) notability criteria are; if being featured in one article, being one of 12 featured in another, and covered to a lesser degree in a bunch more articles isn't notable...how do you determine what is notable? I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you want to overcome the presumption built into passing WP:GNG, you need a pretty strong explanation, which I don't see in your comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - None of us like people using illicit accounts to skew an AfD result — but that's not what we're discussing here. I find sufficient outside coverage of the subject, such as THIS ARTICLE from Bloomberg to indicate that this individual meets our General Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's also this The Real Deal magazine interview and an interview with Fox Business News. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People at the higher levels of any profession are notable. I think our reluctance to admit the notability of businesspeople might indicate a certain degree of conscious or unconscious intellectual snobbery. I personally have a rather strong prejudice against the importance of some of the occupations that Wikipedia covers very intensely, and personal indifference for the individuals' accomplishments, , but it I hope it does not affect by judgment or cause me to be dismissive of them. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 1 April 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. Notability established; complaints about the subject's veracity or lack of coverage in particular sources are beside the point. The article can note any disputes or doubts over historical accounts to the extent those criticisms are attributable to reliable sources. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1660 Safed massacre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/1660 Safed massacre

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

This was originally a very short stub with serious neutrality and original research problems, by a new editor adding numerous articles alleging Arab violence against Jews. Searching on Google and Google books, I found no independent, reliable historical sources that say there was a massacre in Safed in 1660. The article, after elimination of some self published and non-historical sources, now relies solely on Joan Peters' widely discredited From Time Immemorial. Sources such as Jewish Virtual Library don't mention any massacre. No such massacre is asserted in our article on Safed. At best, a sentence or two could be added to Safed if it can survive consensus there, but the topic does not warrant a separate article unless better sources with much more detail can be provided. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the absence from any single source is a reason to delete. It is a disputed topic discussed in multiple reliable sources. By deleting it there is no way for the general reader to compare the contrasting information. And of course we don't use the absence of something in Wikipedia as evidence that something in history occurred or did not occur. If a biography gets deleted from Wikipedia it isn't prima facie evidence that that person never existed in history. That only works in George Orwell novels. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. I would argue Peters is not a reliable source. At last no controversial assertion of historical fact should be sourced solely to Peters. (From our article on From Time Immemorial citing a 1985 NY Times article: "Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath described the book as a "sheer forgery," stating that "[i]n Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda weapon.") Nor could I find other reliable sources saying there was a massacre in Safed in 1660. Scholem, a reliable source, says there wasn't. WP:V says, "Material must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is appropriate for the claim being made." Peters doesn't qualify, so we have no such source to support the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This the classic strawman fallacy, you ignore the 4 other references with identical information and pick the one identical one from a controversial author and demolish it like it was made of straw. Except it doesn't negate the other identical 4 references. If an author presents a list of presidents and slips in one fictional one, it doesn't mean all the presidents on the list are now fictional. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, Cherry picking (fallacy). Anarchangel (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are more correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you stop deleting the sources while the AFD is ongoing it would be a nice show of good faith. That way people can decide for themselves the reliability of the sources. When you delete them during the discussion you leave nothing for people to look at except the ones that take your side of the discussion. The article is a stub now but can be re-expanded into a full paragraph or two after the debate, with the sources cited by Gershom Gerhard Scholem that he says are exaggerated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have not reverted any more of your edits. You are adding sources such as Christian inspirational publishers and Zionist advocates that fail WP:REDFLAG's requirement of high quality sources for exceptional claims. You also re-added the lede which says, in Wikipedia's voice, that a massacre occurred. Again, there is not a single professional historian quoted saying a massacre happened in Safed in 1660. Also, please remember WP:AGF. All edits I made were to remove patently unreliable sources, synthesis and unsourced assertions, consistent with my understanding of our verifiability and sourcing rules. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require the blessing of historians. If we did, we could not write about current events or about fictional people or about myths, or about philosophy. With current events we would have to wait until someone took the time to write a scholarly book on the topic. We only need reliable sources. When something is controversial we try and show a NPOV as best we can. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep But clean up. If sources say a massacre occurred and others do not, then that controversy needs to be discussed in the article, not by warring in the references section of the article or deleting it entirely. Remember: Verifiability not Truth, if sources exist which say contradicting things, that's alright, we need not be the arbiters of truth only the third-party reporters of the fact these beliefs are held. Also, this appears to be a content dispute better handled on a talk page than in a deletion discussion. HominidMachinae (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search of Google Books using "1660 Safed massacre" turns up several sources that directly mention the incident. As we are providing verifiable information, not some perfect "truth", there is no reason to delete the article. Material that rebuts any of these sources should also be included, but what's here now is encyclopedic, neutral and supported by appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is but a small point, and I would prefer not to undermine your Keep vote and mine, but I must say that my search (search results can vary) returns separate parts of the phrase "1660 Safed massacre" presented together, rather than the exact phrase. Anarchangel (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the obvious concerns that misinformation will be introduced in service of the vying agendas of the sources concerned, because the massacre itself is well sourced; while there is much contention over its severity, none of the sources dispute that a massacre happened. Anarchangel (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator responding to user Norton's "strawman" argument above and to Anarchangel. This began as a classic WP:REDFLAG scenario, with a user adding articles making claims of mass murder, sourced to self published works, blogs, etc. and on talk pages claiming a conspiracy of editors to hide details of massacres of Jews in the Ottoman empire. The clearly self published sources of this article are now gone, but what has been substituted are 1. A book by David Dolan, an American journalist, published by a charismatic Christian publisher with no reputation for fact checked or peer reviewed academic works. 2. A book by Jacob de Haas, who per his Wikipedia bio, served on the propaganda committee of the World Zionist organization. 3. An article from another Zionist organization, the Theodor Herzl foundation. (My argument regarding Zionist sources is that they should be regarded as advocacy organizations, not as impartial reporters of fact, for the purpose of these kinds of assertions.) 3. The Joan Peters book From Time Immemorial per our own article about it, is highly discredited as a source. 4. That leaves the Jewish Encyclopedia, the only work written by actual professors in an academic style, which includes a single sentence saying that Safed--not the Jews of Safed, merely "Safed"--was destroyed in 1660, with no context or detail. This is significant because another editor, responding on a talk page to another effort of the article creator, 1011 Córdoba pogrom, has pointed out that an opposing army killed the whole town, Jews and Muslims together, and didn't single out the Jews as the article claimed. WP:REDFLAG says, "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources". A claim of mass murder is an exceptional claim. I am still waiting for someone to bring a high quality, peer reviewed academic history which actually tells us what happened in Safed in 1660, and that's not happening. The fact that multiple unreliable, casual or polemical tertiary sources all "agree" doesn't give us enough context on which to base a Wikipedia article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have not seen one scientific journal showing that God exists, we really need to purge Wikipedia of stuff like that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even assuming that it happened, which is debatable (even the reliable sources can't provide any information about it except that there was supposedly one survivor, which sounds like the stuff of a legend), it fails WP:EVENT. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "truth" with "verifiability". It may be a legend, maybe not, but it is backed up by reliable sources. Also, please don't wave WP:EVENT in your hand and say it fails it. Please cite a specific clause in the guideline that it fails. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Depth of coverage" is the big one (perhaps "diversity of sources" too), but it doesn't really pass any of them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrate notabality per WP:INDEPTH or delete: Despite the back and forth over the quality of sources, what we really have is mostly tertiary sources citing the Safed incident in a single sentence. I would suspect that a web of citation unites this material, which makes it extremely difficult to verify anything about the event. Roscelese's very clear point stands unless and until notability is established by verifiable sources talking about the event in depth (beside Scholem who calls the event itself into question).--Carwil (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider a tertiary source? The only one I see is the Jewish Encyclopedia. It is one of the six footnotes used, and the information is identical to 4 of the other 6 sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I think you should take Jonathan's appeal for "independent, reliable historical sources" seriously here. The sources are identical in part because Peters seems to be quoting De Haas. Singer & Adler is precisely a tertiary source, a compendium. Dolan and the Herzl Foundation are tertiary sources on this event because they aren't doing research on the event but compiling a list of events for polemical purposes. Peters is as well, but her scholarship itself is discredited. That leaves, possibly De Haas, who also seems to be compiling a 2000-year historical survey. In the strictest of senses, none of these are secondary sources, since none appear to have analyzed the primary sources available (while Scholem clearly has). That doesn't mean they (Peters excepted) should be excluded from Wikipedia, but that we should prefer other closer, credible, and historical sources to them.

WP:INDEPTH turns out to help us not follow potentially spurious chains of one-sentence citations into descriptions of events. More on the article's talk page...--Carwil (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course what you are doing is providing original research on what level of research into primary and secondary sources you think was performed by each of the authors. We can all guess how thorough they were and speculate on what sources they used, but Wikipedia discourages that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scholem's comments on the "utter destruction" are his, not mine. Wikipedia would be quite a mess if we abandon a preference for secondary scholarship over tertiary sources, exactly because we end up with "verifiable" events that never happened or that happened in a totally separate time and way than reported on Wikipedia. I have no problem reporting these reports: for example, as "A variety of sources[4][5][6][7] have reported a 1660 massacre of the entire Jewish community in Safed; GGS[8] dismisses these reports as…". Still, the problem of notability (per WP:INDEPTH) remains.--Carwil (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sourced and notable.--Yopie (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be at least three reliable sources cited as covering this event, thus it is notable and verifiable. Marokwitz (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this well-sourced and notable event in Jewish history. IZAK (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the sources cited, it is (if you will pardon the expression) just another pogrom, to which no one dedicates more than a sentence or two, except for one discredited source and another that did the discrediting. Given the lack of a detailed study (except for one that concludes in the negative), it is hard to put any faith in the claims that it even happened, or at least that it happened as described. As per Carwil and Roscelese, this fails WP:INDEPTH. We shouldn't have an article created by pasting together a set of passing references. This would be fine as an entry in a list of possible pogroms, but not a whole article all to itself. Again, there are citations but they are window-dressing not detailed study and hence they don't prove notability, not at all. Agricolae (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - very thinly sourced article, mostly from questionable sources making contradictory claims, while a newly added source questions that it was a notable event at all. At most, it merits a line or two in the Safed article. Gatoclass (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article does meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Struck !vote of confirmed sockpuppet. Gatoclass (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - I believe the references are both reliable and sufficient. With the exception of Porath, the vast majority of those who "discredit" Joan Peters are partisans. You can't brush aside endorsements by people of the stature of Theodore H. White, Saul Bellow, Arthur J. Goldberg and others. Joan Peters should be considered reliable unless a particular point she makes is proved incorrect, but the 1600 Safed event seems to be a verifiable one. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. This is not really about Joan Peters, but her book From Time Immemorial has been discredited as a work of historical scholarship by Israeli historians such as Yehoshua Porath who wrote in the Times that "[i]n Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish". Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most events from the 1600's will rely on a small number of sources. That doesn't mean that they were insignificant. Just that it was a long tome ago and not many people write about it anymore.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:10, 7 April 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. Big Dom 10:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past entertainment events in Houston[edit]

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

Although I am having trouble pointing to an exact guideline suggesting this list should be deleted, to me it seems fundamentally unencyclopedic, is not well sourced, and doesn't add any value to Wikipedia. I have also not come across similar pages about any other cities, which although not an argument for deletion in and of itself does make me think that I am probably right in assuming that it is an out of place list. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an indiscriminate list and collection of wholly, otherwise, non notable events. Ravendrop 06:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete "Indiscriminate" doesn't fit as there are defined and conclusive criteria for inclusion (events, in Houston). On the other hand, non-notable fits to a T here. "over-broad" and "potentially endless" also are issues with this list HominidMachinae (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIR.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split, merge and delete Individual venue articles could use the historical material case by case. This title is not encyclopedic as such. --Klein zach 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the historical information and any other noteworthy events should be transferred to their own articles, respectively. Once that's done, we could get rid of that article, due to the fact that all that would be left on that page would be those long and unnoteworthy lists of concerts by countless music artists. 96.27.77.81 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 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. Juliancolton (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Laurel, North Carolina[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability. Page creator declined PROD with explanation that it contains a notable ski resort. Even if the ski resort is notable, it does not confer notability on the greater community. The community itself is not a municipality or unincorporated place but a real estate development. If the ski resort is notable, make an article, but I don't see how this particular development is notable. Safiel (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to be a real place, known by this name: for example, Google News turns up not only a large number of articles referring to the ski area by this name[36], but also news articles with the dateline "Wolf Laurel, NC", and not relating to the ski resort: e.g.[37][38].--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the page creator, somewhat new at this, so please forgive any mistakes. As for real place, in addition to being well known regionally as "Wolf Laurel", as evidenced by the above post with respect to news and published articles, the NOAA, National Weather service forecast grids also designate the area as Wolf Laurel </ref> Powderrider (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wolf Ridge Ski Resort or Mars Hill, NC. "Wolf Laurel" appears to be an unofficial name used by local residents for the area near Mars Hill. USPS has no record of Wolf Laurel either as an official or vanity name. RadioFan (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The Weather Channel autofill is to Wolf Laurel Country Club [39]. Dru of Id (talk) 03:59, 6 April 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar Al-Enezi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since 2009, could not find any sources to prove existence/notability on a search. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Player in a fully professional league, so meets WP:ATH. Gets a lot of coverage in google news, with some articles such as this solely about him. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that he has actually played in a fully-pro league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new evidence has been found to show notability. Giant Snowman 02:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NFOOTBALL, appears to have played in a FPL per references added. Also played in Crown Prince Cup - not sure of status of that. Together with Mkativerata's article it should be enough. Like many from that part of the world it can be hard to find sources due to language barriers and alternate spelling variations of name, but they are there--ClubOranje^T 11:33, 6 April 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 deleted as an obvious hoax. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra haider[edit]

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

This article was previously WP:BLPPROD by another editor. The creator of the content removed the blpprod on two separate occasions. When a search of google was done mostly youtube and social networking site appear. This article appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:PEOPLE, is an unsourced BLP, and possibly a WP:HOAX, with the comment that made the billboard and then her and the song disappeared with out a trace even on the web. Enfcer (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. Tagged as such. Ravendrop 05:53, 31 March 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. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Al-Deayea[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since 2009, could not find any sources to prove existence/notability on a search. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unreferenced. If the content of this article is accurate, it would be article as the subject would meet WP:NSPORT, but without sources to support the claim that Mr. Al-Deayea has played in the Saudi Premier League, we can't assume that he has. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Think I may have found the player on the team's website. (Source added to article.) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that he has played in a fully-pro league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFOOTBALL and GNG Sources found and added to show current status (on loan to second div club). No evidence he was given a run out in the first team of Saudi Professional League club--ClubOranje^T 10:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:13, 7 April 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. Big Dom 10:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Greeley Award[edit]

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

No reliable sources with significant coverage to show notability. I couldn't find any news coverage beyond passing mentions in people's bios (as in "so and so has won x, y, z, and a Horace Greeley Award). Yaksar (let's chat) 04:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A strange nomination, in my opinion. Can we argue that the New England Press Association is insignificant? While there's no article on it as yet, there's no doubt in my mind that there could be one written and defended, as this is a widely respected regional professional society. Is this stub article factually wrong? No, there is a verifiable Horace Greeley Award and the fact that it IS given "passing mention in people's bios," per the nomination, is indicative that there NEEDS to be a page to which one might link explaining just what this award is. Is this something that needs to be merged to its issuing organization? Perhaps, but since there is as yet nothing on Wikipedia on the NEPA, there is nothing to merge it to. Is it off the wall for Wikipedia to dedicate a page to a journalism award? Not seemingly, since we have a Category:Journalism awards with 108 listed pages. I just don't get what could possibly be gained by deletion here... I would support merger to NEPA when that page is eventually created, but that's not one of our options today. This is an obvious KEEP. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That still fails to deal with the point that it fails to meet our basic notability guidelines. I have no problem with an article on the NEPA existing if it qualifies (I don't know what it really is though) but we cannot make the assumption that all awards are automatically notable. I really did search for coverage of the actual award beyond passing mentions and failed to find any; I encourage anyone to try the same and am more than happy to be proved wrong. And you seem to be making an argument of "it exists and therefore an article on it must exist." And it's not like anything is really lost here by deleting this article rather than waiting for a merge that's unlikely to come; there is no sourced content, and even if it was sourced it says nothing beyond "the award is given by the NEPA...sometimes".--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I fundamentally agree with Carrite about the notability of the award based on numerous mentions in articles about winners. It is, however, true that facts about the award are difficult to find. It appears that the award is now in the jurisdiction of the New England Newspaper & Press Association (NENPA), the result of a 2009 merger of NEPA and NENA.[40]--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the passing mentions span four decades. It appears to be a regional sub-Pulitzer kind of award, and that level of award differs from just something like a Cleveland press association award. It's clearly not COI, neologism, or promotion, so I'm willing to give it more leeway on notability than I would an award that someone just awarded for the first time last week. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find articles about the award being given, just mentions of it in lists of awards people have won. I can't even find info on the award on the association's page. This particularly AfD seems like it will probably pass, but if there's no further development on the article within a month or so I will probably renominate it. I really can't see how "it's old" or "if it's mentioned it needs an article" are acceptable arguments that go over our most basic requirements for sourcing. There don't even seem to be weak or unreliable sources about the subject, let along significant reliable coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that the one mention on Wikipedia, in this article, looks to be a copyvio of their official website.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:00, 4 April 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, withdrawn by nominator. 28bytes (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Torlonia, 6th Prince of Civitella-Cesi[edit]

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

WP:V, long-term unsourced BLP, I don't see and can't find reliable sources backing the information. Articles on his parents are also unsourced but marked with ELs to a now-dead prodigy account. I suspect there *are* reliable sources for this sort of information, and I won't even fuss the question of notability. Additional sources welcomed, of course. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below.[reply]

OpposeThere are now two sources documenting the main information in his short article (I added one). FactStraight (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus IIRC is that royalty of this type is inherently notable. I went and added a source just before AfD which helps a bit (marco was subject of source, so that's something). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom -- My concern was more about verifiability, Wizardman, I'm more than willing to grant notability. The refs ~~(which I can't immediately verify, but I AGF)~~ are fine. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Line of succession to the British throne. Content can be merged from article history. Jujutacular ^talk 12:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical representation of succession to the British throne[edit]

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

Unsourced content fork of Line of succession to the British throne. If a graphical representation helps explain the succession then it should be in either the article Line of succession to the British throne or Succession to the British throne rather than split off as a duplicate. DrKiernan (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the Line of succession to the British throne has adopted a new format (indenting children under their parents), the graphical representation is not really necessary. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Line of succession to the British throne. Apart from the pictures, it's a duplicate of another article. However, the pictures themselves would be a useful addition to that article. Luckily, the numbering system used seems to be the same so there's no need to renumber the boxes. They might have to go in as enlargeable thumbnails, but I'm sure it can be worked in somehow. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Well, the graphical representation appears nowhere else. This is merely four graphical representations with the names next to the corresponding numbers matching the general list. It provides a graphical understanding. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC) This editor has "!voted" twice[reply]
Delete or merge. As JamesyWamesy says, the indented format now being used at the main article makes the generational differences clearer. If a family-tree format is still regarded as beneficial, it should be used to illustrate the main article, and does not merit one of its own. Opera hat (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the family tree images would fit in quite nicely above the lists of various descendants at line of succession to the British throne. But the current climate at that article seems to be towards shortening as much as possible, so I doubt trying to introduce more images would go down too well at the moment. Opera hat (talk) 20:38, 28 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agreed this article is a duplicate of Line of succession to the British throne and would be best to merge the images on that page in some fashion. The family tree images are really great and makes understanding who fits in where much much easier. Kudos to the creator of the images. A concern on the merging. The images will be hard to keep current. Can the author provide easy instructions so other people can update the images as needed. Bgwhite (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retain or merge - very helpful to understand line of succession. I'd support merging with "Line of succession" if that article is substantially trimmed down (e.g. to the first 200 to 500 persons), otherwise I'd prefer to keep this one separate since the "Line" article already now takes much too long to load due to its size. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The primary part of the article is the graphics, as reflected in the title of the article. The list is not perfectly duplicated, as it is meant to only have those in line and some other minmal information. The graphics are created on Word, and not easily duplicated, unless someone does it from scratch. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC) This editor has "!voted" twice [I thought a new vote after the relisting was OK; should I remove it?][You could do, or redraft it as a response.][reply]
Delete or merge The images could be an interesting but not essential addition to line of succession to the British throne. GcSwRhIc (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Totally redundant content fork just to host an image. The image is not even useful or illuminating, it's somewhat eccentric in style, and it's extremely wide (>1,600 pixels). Also hard to update if anything changes. Hans Adler 08:37, 11 April 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. The arguments for keep are that the material is valid and of interest, but even two of the keeps admit that it verges on NOTTEXTBOOK. I find the delete arguments compelling, well summarised by Dingo in his series of comments at the end. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fourier expansion electromagnetic field[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This forest of maths doesn't explain how to get to photons, and is otherwise similar to a textbook discussion of the Fourier transform which can be applied to anything. It's referenced only to an article from Citizendium and may well be original research. Wikipedia is not a maths textbook. As a sanity check on my own limitations, I found zero hits on Google Scholar and Google Books for this phrase. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-encyclopedic content. If it's a valid encyclopedic term — which I am considering a moot question in the case of this unsalvageable mess of an article — the description should be in English, with appropriate references. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ The Citizendium that this is a copy of seems to be a draft (with a statement on it that it should not be cited). The draft was started about 15 months ago and then apparently abandoned. ~~The subject seems non-notable.~~ It is certainly possible to take the fourier transform of an EM field, and there may be situations when it is useful to do so. But the subject belongs within those situations. And the detailed equations just obscure things. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sister article to this, Quantization of the electromagnetic field, also "dumped from citizendium" as the article histories say. I think the two articles need to be reviewed together by an expert and a decision on how much of the material should be included in quantum mechanics articles and what a good organization of articles would be. I will put a request over at WP:Physics. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article makes good sense. Fourier expansion is essential for the quantization of the electromagnetic field and is an important topic. The article gives more detail to Quantization of the electromagnetic field. It is all standard textbook material that appears in hundreds of books on electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete there's nothing particularly notable about the Fourier expansion of EM fields. Seems like a textbook-case of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, if you'll pardon the pun. From a quick (30 seconds glance), the maths are right and could probably all be referenced, but as Dino said, that does not warrant its own article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Quantization of the electromagnetic field looks like garble and I wish the argument looked more like that on page 272 of [41] or one of the other hundreds of books on quantum mechanics. This could well be a hoax entire. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No hoax. It's all textbook material and the rather elementary mathematics appear to be correct. It's the same as on the next few pages of the source you cite. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well, there's elementary and then there's elementary for someone studying a course in quantum mechanics. There seems to be at very least a typographic problem or two and I think this is too detailed for an article in a general encyclopedia. The general framework of the idea is simply lost in the forest of equations. In fact, I'm not really sure what the idea is. Is it that the fourier transform of a function periodic in all three dimensions is a triply indexed discrete function? Or is it that the Electric Field and the Magnetic Field can be defined from the Vector Potential? Or what? Dingo1729 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep: It is a notable when combined with Quantization of the electromagnetic field. Perhaps it needs to be moved to a more notable name or merged with that article, but the material is useful and as appropriate to WP as many other esoteric subjects. I don't think that WP:NOTTEXTBOOK applies as that policy is currently written. There the main criterion seems to be whether or not it is there to 'instruct' or 'inform'. I believe that the latter is the case here. * Edit (10:21, 31 March 2011) After looking at the material with fresh eyes and after viewing the other comments, I agree that it does violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK (see my comments below). I still don't think that the article violates it to the extent that the solution should be deletion. TStein (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Quantum Field Theory or to Canonical quantization. I think these articles are much better developed than either Fourier expansion electromagnetic field or Quantization of the electromagnetic field. They also cover much the same material but at a better level. I'd also disagree with TStein about WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I think that item 6 there applies quite closely to these articles. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with redirect. These two articles give more nitty-gritty details than Quantum Field Theory or Canonical quantization. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

While the article violates both item 5 (reads like a textbook) and item 6 (reads too much like a technical paper), it is not so bad as to justify deletion IMO. These violations are not fundamental to the article but only in the flawed (for an encyclopedia) way that portions of it are written. The main intro needs to be rewritten and the equations better motivated with some removed as being too detailed. It needs to be better linked to other articles as well. TStein (talk) 21:31, 28 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The formulas are notable some sense and probably easy to give precise references for. It seems like a lot of it is almost too trivial, though, and so I do worry about WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Anyone capable of reading the article is probably just as capable of coming up with these formulas on their own with a little effort. Still, I don't really see that as a compelling reason to delete it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic topic. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK etc.T R 06:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to expand on why it isn't? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
This article is the technical equivalent of Melting chocolate to make brownies. Fourier expanding is a useful and notable technique in physics (which is why we have an article Fourier expansion) like melting chocolate is in cooking (we don't have a melting chocolate article but we have bain-marie). Applying this technique to an electromagnetic field is certainly useful (and even essential is some applications), but not suitable as a separate article. There is no possible content for this article other than explaining WP:HOWTO apply this technique in this particular situation. T R 12:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 The two articles Quantization of the electromagnetic field and Fourier expansion electromagnetic field should be considered together. The latter is simply a sub-page of the former. They were both written on Citizendium by the same editor, who has academic credentials in Theoretical Chemistry. He left them as drafts when he left Citizendium after an unrelated dispute. He had left Wikipedia before that after a similar dispute. They were imported (the edit summary says dumped) to Wikipedia a year ago and have been largely unchanged since then. Unless someone is likely to work on them I don't think that we should leave uncompleted drafts in articlespace in the hope that someone will come along and complete them.

Comment 2 The Citizendium articles are marked “This is a draft article, under development and not meant to be cited”. We have both cited and copied the articles. I don't think we should be doing this. I know we can, I just don't think we should.

Comment 3 I'm not an expert in quantum mechanics, my only exposure being a single course some decades ago. But I am quite familiar with fourier transform calculations. I (arrogantly?) believe that this article should be informative and accessible for someone at my level, but it's really not. I'm not complaining about the formulas, just that they seem to give very little information. I'm in favor of articles on specialized subjects, but this just seems too far.

Comment 4 It took me quite some time to even discern what the articles are about. I think a reasonable description would be Quantum mechanical calculations related to an electromagnetic field in a cubical cavity. The “cubical cavity” part is quite important; the calculations would be quite different if the cavity were spherical or irregularly shaped. And in free space several of the summations would need to be replaced by integrals. I agree with Xxanthippe that this same calculation can be found in some textbooks, however it should be made clear that what this is is a worked example in an advanced course on quantum mechanics.

Comment 5 The obscurity of the article is shown by the fact that one experienced editor thought that it might be a hoax. I agree with Xxanthippe that it isn't, but the other editor is not unqualified in physics.

Comment 6 I apologize for making so many comments. Corrections or endorsements are welcome. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:47, 2 April 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. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Mader[edit]

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

This was speedily deleted. I felt that discussion at AFD was appropriate given the article's long history and the subject's award nomination. Michig (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. If keeped should be better presented. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of coverage in Google News. For example, Monsters & Critics called him an "acclaimed director/visual artist". Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the fact that the article was created for promotional purposes, none of the sources are about the subject and most are namechecks only. Award nominations are one of those things that indicates sources might be available, but none are cited. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 18 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE. Article is in need of cleanup and use of available sources, and both he AND his works have received coverage.[42][43][44][45][46] Addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:08, 29 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are definitely scholarly, independent sources, covering more than just a mention of his name. Many sources--I'm looking at the ones presented by User:MichaelQSchmidt--talk about the importance and impact his style of film making has had on the industry. This article even has several sources in it already supporting his notability, though there is no doubt it needs to be cleaned up, and reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Arador (talk • contribs) 05:01, 31 March 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. This has dragged on long enough. I don't think any of the offered sources amount to much more than incidental mentions, but the only other delete !vote really doesn't add to this either. So I'm calling it off. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee (Webserver)[edit]

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

Non-notable back-office software; contested proposed deletion. Google News searches find nothing that looks like significant coverage in reliable sources.[47][48], only incidental mentions. Books[49] and Scholar[50] are equally unavailing, although Scholar locates a Spanish white paper on the software that was apparently prepared for a Linux user group in Andalusia[51]. This user group article is apparently by the software's author, and as such not independent, whether this may be a reliable source or not. The current article is referenced only to internal sites. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

weak keep Appears to meet notability guidelines, if barely. While I'm not finding coverage of this topic where it is the focus of the coverage, I am finding mentions in linux administration books (Fedora 11 Administration and Search Engine Optimization for Dummies). --RadioFan (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I saw those books hits; I didn't think they were worth mentioning, because both of them simply list the name as part of a list of also-ran web servers; these listings were way too shallow to look significant. If anything, the books confirm that this is a minor league player. Search Engine Optimization for Dummies lists this among "a bunch of little guys". (And at Wikipedia, "search engine optimization" is another word for Satan and his imps.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I agree with RadioFan, and I also found mention of it in this book. --Hamitr (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reason why the "fellow editors" have added Cherokee is to justity a cover-up: A Cherokee webserver Troll has been identified as (at least one of) the "fellow editor" working behind the scene to eradicate G-WAN, after an independent comparative benchmark largely turned in G-WAN's favor. PLEASE HELP TO MAKE THIS (CHEROKEE WEBSERVER TROLL) EDITORIAL WAR AGAINST G-WAN CEASE.— Bugapi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment for closer: above user has been blocked for vandalism and 3RR issues, as well as sockpuppetry: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi. —Tom Morris (talk)
- Additional comment for closer: above user has a conflict of interest.--RadioFan (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I started the process on this article after it was called to my attention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-WAN (Web server) as another unreferenced article about a web server. I did want to make it clear to User:Bugapi that his article was not being singled out for different treatment, and that any unreferenced article about a non-notable subject is potentially subject to deletion. (And FWIW, all of the book mentions pointed out above would appear to be canonical examples of "incidental coverage", and I don't think they make a case for notability.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have moved the page to Cherokee (webserver). OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:54, 23 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I've heard of this webserver before, however the independent reliable sourcing is exceedingly weak. Hasteur (talk) 20:43, 24 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:35, 31 March 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. WP:NPASR. The "delete" side made no attempt to address Anarchangel's concerns, but is free to renominate immediately if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Biggs[edit]

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

No evidence of notability.The only reference to check out is to her own website. Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I skimmed the interview, and am not sure if it is a reliable source. Not much else there. She likes Utilikilts. That's it. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What interview are you referring to? It's not a source in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. There was an interview in the external links. Is it gone? Bearian (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    - I looked at the article and some source, and now I can't find it. Perhaps it was a dream .... LOL. It doesn't change my !vote. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This book review isn't much to establish notability, especially when correlated with the words by Emerson Probst who pushes out stuff for the book's publisher. There is a [LIZ+ATWOOD&pub=The+Sun&desc=5+THINGS+I+HAVE+TO+HAVE+NOW&pqatl=google 172 word article] behind a pay wall. But that is all I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 11 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Linda made numerous appearances on Baltimore, Maryland's WJZ-TV, starting in 2005, in interviews with Marty Bass and Don Scott's 'Coffee With' talk show that apparently span several commercial breaks. They refer to her in superlatives that I take with a pinch of salt, but I feel sure that with that much smoke there has to be some fire somewhere. I could not find the other clips, but her previous appearances are alluded to by Don Scott in her Dec. 1, 2010 appearance on the show. It is shown in full at the Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2010 page on CBS Baltimore: CBS Local Events: CBS Local Pages. That is by far the highest quality source in the article, but it establishes notability, and nearly every sentence is cited now.

Linda is very active in the her particular subgenre of the fantasy art community, and has been called on to present the subject by the Glen Rock, Pennsylvania Fairie Festival (2010 Fairie Chautauqua Presenters Spoutwood Farm: Fairie Festival). Anarchangel (talk) 01:16, 22 March 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, she passes #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." for the regard in which she is held by those who work with her, including those mentioned above, and the writer of the foreword to one of the book her art appears in (The Art of Faery), who is one of the conceptual artists who worked as a consultant on the Dark Crystal and Labyrinth (film), namely Brian Froud. Arguably she passes #2 as well, for her Lowbrow (art movement) underground comix-inspired renditions of fairies. #2 "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Anarchangel (talk) 08:41, 27 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:35, 31 March 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. Big Dom 16:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - various sources which could be used to improve the article, and suggest notability. For example, this covers its attempts to form a Trotskyist group in the Soviet Union at some length or "Workers+International+to+Rebuild+the+Fourth+International" this volume of notable court cases covers its dispute with the Independent Electoral Commission in South Africa. Warofdreams talk 08:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once again and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections npassing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - I agree with Carrite, but is there some consensus or precedent that political parties can be treated in that way? patitomr (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources exist to write an article. This article needs better sourcing, but it's salvagable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per Carrite, and note this current website with the phrase, although I'm not sure it merits inclusion. Dru of Id (talk) 12:39, 8 April 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. Big Dom 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trotskyist Fraction – International Strategy[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, international organization, at least 2 of the members are notable (PTS and LOR-CI). --Soman (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once again and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections npassing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about comprehensiveness of an encyclopedia, that should be a concern of Wikipedia, being nowhere present in WP rules, while simultaneously compromised by inclusion criteria. However, I must point out that the agenda of the Hoover Institution's, or rather Richard Felix Staar's, Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, is to present a global communist conspiracy; Staar has a record of inventing groups to swell their lists, and presenting small friendly societies as large or insidious communist fronts (Talk:Soviet influence on the peace movement#Reliability of Richard F. Staar). So, while their inclusion of this group on their list does tend to evidence its existence, the HI is not a reliable source for presenting facts about the group. We can of course distance ourselves from their declarations by overtly summarizing or quoting them. Anarchangel (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Soman, Carrite. --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles on small Internationals are notable for their documentation of the internationalism and multiplicity of marxist political projects. The differences are notable since they arise from different interpretations and applications of theory and are of some help in understanding domestic and regional politics. A reasonable person would accept that since differences in theory and practice exist and are expressed in different organizations, then the different organizations themselves are notable. The international pages help to distinguish and group the multiplicity of communist and socialist parties organizations in different countries, which are themselves notable. Additionally, these groups are relevant to the history of larger events and political parties, particularly in Latin America and Europe. The relationship of a small international to, say the Workers Party of Brazil or Bolivarianism might not be obvious in the article's current state, but is an opportunity for expansion rather than deletion. DJ Silverfish (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the limited amount I know about this grouping it may, like a few other internatonal groupings, consist of one relatively large national group and some small satellites elsewhere. Nevertheless I believe that the PTS of Argentina is significant, one of the larger groups on the Argentine far left, one of the larger fragments of Morenoism, although possibly this article should be merged with the PTS's. PatGallacher (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a tenable case for merging this article with that of its largest section, the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina), but not outright deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- And notice currently same-titled website, although I'm not sure it merits inclusion. Dru of Id (talk) 13:07, 8 April 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. Big Dom 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Revolution (group)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply and I might say simplistically claiming that an article lacks notability does not prove your assertion. I am not a partisan of the Permanent Revolution group but I do note that it is present and active in Britain and does have fraternal relations with groups in other countries. I also note that politically they have a considerable claim to being a distinct and distinctive international political current. Although they originated as an 'orthodox Trotskyist' tendency they have since then evolved in a number of ways for example their views on the degeneration of the Russian revolution, as they see it, are distinct in the trotskyist milieu. In plain language the entry topic does have considerable notability.

Mike Pearn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.178.18 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is obviously on you. You have to provide enough reliable secondary sources to establish notability or accept that it will be deleted. It's a shame that this article has been around for four years, only to be still in violation of WP:Notability.--Netheril96 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once again and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "It takes its name from Leon Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution." Indeed it does. Note to organizations: don't name yourself after something way more famous if you hope for press about you to be remotely accessible in Google News.

Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an opportunity for expansion and clarification rather than deletion. DJ Silverfish (talk)

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- And notice this currently same titled website, although I'm not sure it merits inclusion. Dru of Id (talk) 13:14, 8 April 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. Big Dom 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once again and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may be unsourced but I am prepared to take it on good faith that it is genuine. There may have been many attempts to form international federations of Trotskyite and other far left groups but the fact that there have been so many makes it all the more important that each is identified separately and its significance assessed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Now does anyone want to join me in a rousing chorus of 'One Trot Faction, meeting in a hall', that staple of the left anti-Trotskyite songbook?)[reply]
:"It is genuine" is not the same thing as "it is notable" - which is the relevant issue. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find a reference to this group name in any book. I can barely find any reference to this group on the web that does not spring from Wikipedia. There are also no citations within the article. While the name of the committee is rather grandiose, most of these Trotskyite groups are usually one guy and a few of his friends, who claim to have a member or two in a foreign country. There are a handful of these types of groups which are larger and have been discussed extensively in the press and in books, and they should not be deleted - but that does not apply for this group or most of the other groups under consideration. This article has no citations, is not discussed in any book or article I can find, and almost every mention of it on the web is Wikipedia related. This page should be deleted. Carrite's assertion that a political party should automatically be included, especially when political party is very loosely defined, is not a Wikipedia rule and does not make much sense, especially if the party has never registered with the government, has never had candidates run for election and so forth. Just like a group of kids forming a band can't just create an article here, so can't a group of Trotskyite's who decide to form a new "international" be entitled to an article. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it isn't clear from the article, the Parity Committee is relevant to the history of French Trotskyism, specifically Lambertism, organised as the Quatrième Internationale - Secrétariat unifié. The material might be incorporated into an article including the history of the Lambertists, who are a significant far-left group in France. However, this is a different thing than deletion. Deletion for this group should be tabled. DJ Silverfish (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- And notice that while unsourced, the Russian article [52] contains a timeline that might make further sourcing less difficult. Dru of Id (talk) 13:22, 8 April 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 I discussed in a previous deletion debate, there are two types of debate on Wikipedia; those in areas with objective standards, where arguments are to be made with reference to those standards, and those in areas without such standards, where argument is emotive or subjective in tone. It is the latter area which causes the most trouble for administrators, the most debate, the most confusing-looking results, and the most appeals, counter-appeals and counter-counter-appeals to the eventual result. Despite how confusing this result may look given the arguments below, it is not a debate which fits into the latter category. The notability and coverage of articles is something that has objective standards, and the fact that those commentators arguing for "keep" chose to use subjective arguments with no proper reference to our policies does not mean that these standards are to be ignored.

User:Carrite and User:DGG make the argument that the movement as a whole has coverage - and that as such, every element of the area should be included in a dedicated article. Patently, this is not the case. The argument that "because WP:ATHLETE allows for the inclusion of people just because we can verify their existence, the same should be true of companies" is also incorrect; ignoring, for a second, that we cannot prove this organisation exists (at least, neither the article nor this discussion shows as such) the ATHLETE policy exists because we work on the assumption that someone playing for, say, Real Madrid, does have sources on them in reliable sources. It does not mean that anyone, regardless of their athletic level, can qualify for inclusion; it requires a demonstration that they have played to a fully professional level. If we transfer this guideline across (which we have not) there is no reason to suggest that this committee has "played" at a "fully professional level".

User:Mia-etol makes a similar argument, ableit with implicit accusations of some sort of bias, and the idea that keeping this article would be necessary because the alternative is to demonstrate that Wikipedia is biased against marxism. This is not the case; our notability standards are objective in nature. Only if we were to adopt the subjective standards that people here seem to be arguing for would outright political bias really be possible. Our standards require academic or media coverage - any bias, therefore, reflects only the biases in mainstream thinking. The result of this all is that nobody has actually addressed the nominator's concern, as is their job as someone arguing contrarily. Asked to argue whether X=1 or X=2, they have instead tried to prove that mathematics doesn't apply. This is not a productive way to spend time, and it is not a productive attitude to take to discussions based on objectivity. Ironholds (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing Committee of Principist Trotskyism (Fourth International)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once again and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." I question verifiability as well as notability. Edison (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. See my rationale here; once again, the same people have used the same arguments and failed to rebut or even talk about the concerns of the nominator. Ironholds (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organising Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once again and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. ntohing in gnews [53] LibStar (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. postdlf (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Societies of Duke University[edit]

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

DePRODed with no reason given. No coverage outside of the article from the school newspaper, not enough coverage to claim notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a new section inside of Duke University, and integrate any salvageable information from this article into that one due to notability concerns. The subject matter may be of note to Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced but likely does not deserve a standalone article. elektrik SHOOS 23:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should also be noted that you don't need to give a reason when you're dePRODing an article, and the fact that an article that previously was nominated for deletion (in any form) is not a valid criteria for deletion. elektrik SHOOS 23:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know. You'll notice that I didn't give the prod as my reason for it's deletion, I was just stating why I was bringing it to an AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Duke University if there is any salvageable content. Otherwise, just redirect. There's not sufficient evidence of the notability either of specific societies, or of the general idea of Duke University Secret Societies, to justify keeping this as a standalone article.--Korruski^Talk 08:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could merge the content but one campus newspaper isn't a very good source. The Land (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanavb (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's not much there. Campus gossip is a poor way of creating an encyclopaedic article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely does not deserve a stand-alone article. I would not even recommend merging it. A re-direct should do, at least till some notability.Kanavb (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its like a ghost story, permeated by supposition - this is not encyclopedic. Mark^Dask 18:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything that's explicitly citable. And obviously discarding any privacy questions, there's nothing to demonstrate why this should be included as notable. Hasteur (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some more notable links, any organization that claims an American president as an alumnus is certainly notable. The university's magazine and other sources also consider this to be a credible list of organizations. ----- 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As good as the effort was, the links seem to suffer from all the same issues as above (and indeed all associations seem to be "alleged").--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:23, 29 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a link to an official Duke webpage, solidifying the claim that President Nixon was a member. No allegation about it. ----- 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note, this is the same IP as the other unsigned !vote above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I wasn't an idiot and had done just a bit more clicking I would have learned that it's an IP address at Duke University, so it may very well be different people. That being said, given the unique way the comment was signed, it's likely the same.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:24, 6 April 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. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch henchmen[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional characters. This article has only one source, not enough sources to establish the notability. No real world coverage to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 08:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again in-universe trivia. Fans already know, others don't care. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one of the lists of characters, trimming content as appropriate. No valid reason for deletion given. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 17 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont go in for this stuff but so much has gone in to this article it deserves to exist until someone can reference it - definitely a keep. Mark^Dask 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced fancruft of which the 2 most "notable" are already listed in the article describing "The Monarch". Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge severely lacking references, which makes it impossible to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:45, 26 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the article is 100% unreferenced plot summary. There are no sources in the article and none can be found. There is nothing to be retained here, neither as a stand-alone article or by stuffing cruft into other articles. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Janwillem van de Wetering. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grijpstra and de Gier[edit]

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

Unsourced nonsense about some fictional characters in a novel. Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 05:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I'm not personally familiar with the characters, I've seen the author's name, and the list of novels involving these characters suggests that Wikipedia ought to cover them in some manner--even as just redirect(s) to the relevant section of the author's article. Any ideas or preferences? Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect to Janwillem van de Wetering#Grijpstra and de Gier novels? --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:04, 22 March 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) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect: Par down the excessive descriptions of the characters to the essence and put at the top of the above mentioned section. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for the sake of building a consensus. Not enough significant coverage to WP:verify notability but maybe some of it can be salvaged as part of a broader notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for the moment. There's enough to constitute its own article eventually though: Grijpstra and De Gier is a series of Dutch novels, as well as a television series, so it's notable enough. Kusonaga (talk) 09:19, 27 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wai Chun Tam[edit]

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

Local politicians are not inherently notable without other substantial coverage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 March 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) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is a district councillor without any other great claims to notability. fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:37, 24 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick search says not notable. Kayau Voting IS evil 16:21, 31 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claude L. Kulp[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC and has no sources to establish notability. —Eustress ^talk 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Notability is sound in that he has an auditorium named after him. However, the article is very weak with regard to WP standards. It needs a proper bio page and a photo of either the person or the auditorium would help. More references such as the ones found in this search shows he is mentioned by name in several books. If that list is added to the article then it would bolster the Wikipedia:Notability and would go to a solid Keep. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mere mention of his name in books would not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. You might be on to something with the auditorium, although I can't find anything explaining why the auditorium was named after him (was he the benefactor?) and it is just a small high school auditorium.

Unless some concrete evidence emerges in support, I still think this one may be a delete. —Eustress ^talk 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 17 March 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) 00:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to disagree with Eustress. This subject has 'not notable' stamped all over it.. Associate Commissioner of the New York State Education Department is the highest he got; all the Gsearch reveals are trivial mentions or mentions within school bulletins, which are only to be expected. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:41, 24 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After all this time on AfD the sourcing in the article is still completely inadequate, and there is no evidence that he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that the topics meets WP:PROF, and no other claim to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:21, 6 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hill jumping[edit]

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

Article has had no sources and has been tagged as such since July 2007. It makes several very dubious claims, and falls under WP:NFT. I can find no evidence that the term "yumping" has been used to describe this activity and in any case Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Selket ^Talk 01:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Seems to be an attempt at a WP:DICDEF without the aid of reliable sources. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - specialized sport jargon. Non-reliable sources leave this in the delete bucket.

Merge with rallying. Clearly most of the references in the page refer to that sport, so it's fine as a section in that article. Steven Walling 02:33, 30 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef... although I have to say when I first read the article's name, my mind somehow transposed the H and the J... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article says nothing interesting, and although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, 'Hill Jumping' hardly needs defining, even if WP were. ARDawson (talk) 11:02, 6 April 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. Without prejudice to creating an article about his possibly notable work Vladracul by somebody without a WP:COI; the article can be userfied to that end if necessary. Sandstein 07:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny de Brest[edit]

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

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

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

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

Declined speedy. This is a vanity piece created, I suspect, by the subject himself. The tone is totally unencyclopaedic, and an inordinate effort would need to be made to bring it into conformity with our standards of a biography. The subject obviously has a serious conflict of interest in this case, as demonstrated by the media uploaded; he has also created an article about his grandfather, which I daresay passes muster, but I digress. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modify topic/cut I agree the one reference does not establish the notability of the person. However, I think there is enough notability on Vladracul to justify saving that portion of the article. If more is not found to justify the notability of Breast, I suggest we move the article to Vladracul, and leave a short blurb about the artist as it relates to the notable project, but cut most of the material making it sound like a promo ad for him. Monty₈₄₅ 02:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vladracul and clean up would be probably the best solution. The cycle was internationally exhibited and attracted the attention of multiple reliable media:Washington City Paper, Filmmaker Magazine (review of the exhibition in the Goethe-Institut Washington, the article cites also LA Weekly), the website kunstaspekte mentions the exhibition in the Goethe-Institut Hong Kong, G-News archives contain reviews in the Washington Post (hidden behind the paywall). I think it is enough for an informative article here on Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not see a single reliable source in this BLP, thus it fails notability. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay THE STRANGE THING IS - AGAIN - AND JOHNNY DE BREST IS TRAUMATIZED - EXACTLY AFTER PUBLISHING NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES WITH SCIENTOLOGY AND MADONNA (who is Scientology too) IN GERMANY (Internet) - THERE IS A SABOTAGE ON JOHNNY DE BREST AT WIKIPEDIA (one Rule! of Wikipedia is, if an Article is accepted, and Wikipedia Johnny de Brest is around Year online and was accepted!) you can't delete him!--BergHollywood (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StayIf the Artwork is important, the Artist is important too. Johnny de Brest had the whole "LA Weekly Good Times"-Page in Los Angeles in Summer 2002! It was a page about the Artist! Even Rainer Werner Fassbinder or German Director Wim Wenders had'n it!--BergHollywood (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StayJohnny de Brest Wikipedia is more than 1 Year online and one of the rules! of Wikipedia is, an Article can't be deleted after he was accepted, he was accepted.--BergHollywood (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StayI am surprised that nobody has Problems with the Wikipedia-Madonna-Article, that's an Advertisment, and we all know that madonna is Scinetology!--BergHollywood (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StayI feel suspected mobbing, Scientology tried to kill Johnny de Brest in Los Angeles 2002 and I wouldn't be surprised if they do everything - after de Brest published the Attacks on him - to suppress any Information about Johnny de Brest, and I bet Scientology has his Spys at Wikiepdia!--BergHollywood (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BergHollywood, your claims are extremely inappropriate for this forum. This discussion is intended to consider whether a subject of a Wikipedia article meets the notability requirements. The notability must be supported by reliable and independent sources. If the sources aren't provided, the article can be deleted. That's all, there's no conspiracy or spying. Please, familiarize yourself with the mentioned Wikipedia policies and comment constructively. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay It is a Conspiracy, and it belongs to a Conspiracy that they'll never would confirm it, especially if they are involved!

And the Wikipedia Rules says if an Article was accepted, they can't delete it! And Johnny de Brest Wikipedia was accepted for more than one year!--BergHollywood (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is a part of Wikipedia process called Articles for deletion (standard, legitimate and established procedure here on Wikipedia), and this debate will decide whether or not the article stay. Anyone can comment here constructively: Scientologists, muslims, punkers, scuba divers, Mormons, miners etc. That's all I can say, the rest of your comment is a bit confusing, do you really believe we are Scientology conspirators? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused on lots of things at Wikipedia, but favoring Scientology is not one of them, LOL! As may be seen from my user page, I am an Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the sources mentioned here at AfD to the article. Additionally, I found another coverage [54] published by Die Welt (in German). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I began agreeing with Vejvančický , but looking at some of the Google News sources, I am unsure. I do not want to do a disservice to this subject, but I am concerned that there may be a hoax afoot, via adding ad material to editable sources.

A hit on Google News, that (no longer?) has any mention of Vladracula . It is clear, if you look at the preceding hit (excuse the length; it is the translator), that something is going on, but what exactly is unclear to me.

I am suspicious of the following hit's overflowing praise; from this many reviews, we should be able to get a hit that is not behind a paywall

Vladracula on ArtNews.org (and check out that ArtNews article, too, for a real feast of WP:PEACOCK) Anarchangel (talk) 11:04, 27 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Terrible vanity article, falls short on enough decent sources too.--Sloane (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the pictures, but this needs a huge working over to get it up to WP standards, assuming something like notability can be demonstrated. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The article tells us that Between February and June 1997 Phoinissa (Bombay based artist) and Johnny de Brest's street-art-Foto-Fix-placards "We Crash Them All" and "We Shot Them All" got a lot attention in Berlin, Münster (Germany), New York and Los Angeles. A lot of attention in such places implies a lot of press coverage. Where is this press coverage? -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 3 April 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 - this was dragging on too long. Any re-naming or moving needs to be taken off AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. An editor asked me to clarify, which I think is needed here, even though technically this is breaking the rules. (Please see above: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.") The "keep" arguments were stronger than those to "delete", for example, that it is fairly well-sourced, even if some entries have not been verified. Many well-respected editors noted that it is useful, and does not duplicate categories entirely. There was also a discussion about the issue of making Wikipedia more welcoming to women. Perhaps its deletion could lead to bad publicity. Lara made some good points, but the article can be improved otherwise. The rule on verifying through sources is really about being able to source a statement anywhere. If one source is bad, or incomplete, normal editing will result in the addition of sources that do in fact verify the statement in the article. If, after a diligent search, sources can not be found, then the sentence or paragraph needs to be stricken. Much of the dissussion was not that it should be deleted, but that it is wrongly titled. That is the subject of a move debate, and is not properly the subject of an XfD discussion. Sometimes, the consensus argument, however poorly worded, is to keep an article, and in other cases, to delete an article. In either case, we have to move on to other issues and not get too upset. The debate went on for 18 days, and that is enough time. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of women who sparked a revolution[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very interesting, but there's very little here that isn't covered by Category:Women in war and its various subcategories. Criteria for inclusion appear to be really arbitrary, necessitating an interpretation of "sparked" and "revolution" that is too broad to be useful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but tweak criteria or title. I tend to disagree with Roscelese. This article is just the kind of 'gem' that many would love to wander upon at Wikipedia, certainly feminists, but also military scholars, middle-school teachers, and readers who just like good compilations of information. The fact that information is spread widely over the Category doesn't help our readers much, and I'm sure the same could be said for many lists; by their very nature, lists are useful for combining disparate content into a convenient location. The Criteria for inclusion may be a bit vague, but with good descriptions and ample RS, I don't see that as a reason to delete rather than just tweak it. Ocaasi^c 02:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree something needs to be done, at least establishing criteria for inclusion. The example of Clara Lemlich in 1909 for instance... I don't recall there being a revolution. I wouldn't think leading a strike would count. That said, A woman could be involved in a non-violent or minimally violent revolution, that probably would not be included in the Women in war category, such as the Egyptian revolution example. Perhaps establish a criteria that those listed not also be listed in the Women in war cat? Monty₈₄₅ 02:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very likely to me that what the article needs more than anything is just a new title. Although it's very provocative, it is definitely a stretch for many of the individual examples. What would some good article title alternatives be? Ocaasi^c 02:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of women in war, List of women who started a war, List of women warriors, List of women who changed military history, List of women who changed history... Some ideas. Ocaasi^c 03:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"List of women who changed (military) history" is completely untenable, and "List of women who started a war" would a) face some of the same problems the current title does with subjectiveness b) remove most of the list content even taking that subjectiveness into account. "Woman warrior" and "Women in war" would also necessitate the removal of some of the content. I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you think should remain on the list - you say that some of the women on this list wouldn't be in a "Women in war" category, which is true, but they wouldn't belong in some of your suggestions either. Can you be more specific about what you think should stay? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this could be very useful. It adds considerable context that the category does not. I agree with Ocaasi, its useful even if it needs a few tweaks. -Selket ^Talk 03:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the creator of this article, I was looking for this information in real life and couldn't find it. After doing a lot of research, I thought others could save a lot of time by having it all in one place. The criteria is very defined –– a revolution is a change of government. Every one of these people (except one) became involved, and as a result, there was a change in government. The only exception is Clara Lemlich, and the reason she was included is because it was the first successful major uprising of female workers in American history. And if you take her out, every other example led to a change in government. To address the question of this information already being in categories, it's very hard to find. There are all kinds of seemingly unimportant lists on Wikipedia, what makes them useful is the information is all in one place: List of people considered father or mother of a field, List of record labels: 0-9, List of medieval bestiaries. USchick (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, a) while (political) revolutions are changes of government, not all changes of government are revolutions - you list Cleopatra and Jingu, for example b) not all of these resulted in changes of government anyway (Elizabeth). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. What was useful to me in real life, is the involvement of women from all around the world, and from the beginning of time. For what I was doing, a nation that was conquered (or not) determined the ruling government. If it's not useful, no problem. Just for fun, look at this list List of Ultraman monsters. USchick (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultraman monsters" is a much less useful list, but its criteria for inclusion are much better defined. Are there more specific and less subjective criteria according to which the list could be overhauled? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that revolution implies more than a mere change of government. Revolutions are ways of changing governments, usually dramatic or sudden in nature. Also, 'sparked' is a neat word, but it's very subjective. The spark is literally the first thing that ignites, but in Egypt, for example, was it Asmaa Mahfouz, or was it Khaled Saeed, or was it Tunisia? Can you have more than one 'spark'?

I think the easiest way to fix this is still to work on the title. List of women who sparked a war or revolution? For me that comes closer, by being a bit more inclusive. I'd still like to tweak 'sparked' and possibly 'revolution' by changing the word or adding some modifier.

Roscelese, earlier I was just brainstorming ideas, not actually proposing them. It wasn't me who mentioned that some of the content was not included in the women in war category; my point was that just because something's in that category doesn't make it convenient to find or read in a horizontally-organized fashion (a snippet from each one), what lists are best at. Ocaasi^c 05:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got confused between you and another user earlier. And I agree that a list has the potential to be useful - it's just that it needs defined and reasonably objective inclusion criteria. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While interesting, and I also found it inspiring, the list has nothing to do with "sparking" revolutions. Elizabeth I for instance, while a great example of a woman leader, defended the establishment of England against a "revolution" which the Spanish were trying to impose. Lists of female political activists, military leaders, and heads of state would be a good thing for WP (and I'm sure we have them already.) If you want to take some of these and mix them together that's fine but it might be better to write a book or article for publication elsewhere. Hey you might even get paid for it. The material is inspirational, as I already mentioned. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is necessary to keep pages on the women questions. There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to eliminate its pages....Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and female editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help (references Wikipedia: This is a man's world, Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?. It is necessary to preserve this page and to improve it. Thanks, --Geneviève (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help suggest ways of improving it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update, comment Per objections here, I moved three inconsistent examples (Queen Elizabeth stops a revolution, ticket given to Tunisian man causes him to burn himself alive, and a clothing strike) to the article's talk page. I think the content is now consistent with the title, and a no-brainer for a great list. I hesitate to invoke communo-political grounds as Genevieve did, and it would be an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to find a list of men who wore pants into battle anyway--but I think there's something really useful about this kind of content, and since each individual piece is significant enough to be included at an article, the list is just a good vehicle to help readers pull together a theme. There's no question that the role of women in history is chronically underestimated and underreported. Assuming we can get the criteria to better match the examples, as I think we're close to doing, why wouldn't we have this list? Ocaasi^c 17:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First thing, the title includes an idiom, so if the article is kept, it needs a rename. Alright, so reasons to delete:
1. Very few entries explain any sort of revolution, which, as others have noted, is more than just a change in government.
2. Very few entries explain how that particular woman "sparked" it.
  - One I find particularly troubling is the entry giving credit to Asmaa Mahfouz for sparking the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. That is not realistic. The sources of that biography don't support that claim, though Gulf News reveals that many bloggers claim her's is "the blog that started a revolution". Less than reliable.
  - Another example is the now removed entry for Faida Hamdi. Giving her credit for sparking the Tunisian Revolution, in my opinion, is a slap in the face to the entire situation, pun intended. She didn't spark anything but anger. Mohamed Bouazizi sparked the revolution with the same flame he burned himself to death with.
3. Articles like these are not what Wikipedia needs to fix this claimed gender-bias "problem" on Wikipedia; and such an argument to the contrary is weightless, as it isn't based on any policy or guideline.
4. This article fails to meet standards. It's ill-defined and includes more entries that don't fit within the scope defined by the title and lead sentence than entries that do, thus is serves to mislead our readers. Lara 03:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, Rename
1. Most of the above arguments against the list seem to be "X, for example, doesn't fit the criteria", but these are not arguments against the list, they're arguments against the inclusion of X in said list, which is reasonable to note at the article's talk or in the edit summary of X's removal but inappropriate to cite as support for deletion of the list at an AfD.
2. If the titling contains an objectionable term or is inartful, the solution is to craft a better title sans idiom and based on which parameters are most relevant to convey. For example, List of women who led a rebellion would allow for inclusion of both violent and nonviolent uprisings, such as Clara Lemlich, while a rebellion can have more than one leader, allowing for Asmaa Mahfouz. (Faida Hamdi would be exempt, and I think she should be; U.S. chicks learn why from Sesame Street.) The inclusion of nonviolent uprisings also solves the nominator's problem of its existence apart from the Category:women in war. This would also open the subject to women whose rebellions were unsuccessful; of course if the outcome is a relevant point, then perhaps List of women who led a successful rebellion. Women who actually led bona fide revolutions could be a primary subsection of the list. I think that List of women who led a revolution is more succinct, and would include women who did not single-handedly spearhead it, while excluding women whose rebellions were unsuccessful.
3. I do think that people have a misconception of the definition of revolution, which Websters says is "2a: a sudden, radical, or complete change; 2b: a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed; 2c: activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation; 2d: a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something: a change of paradigm; 2e: a changeover in use or preference especially in technology." (All the 1 definitions are physics oriented.) Considering that the definition people seem to be taking as the primary for revolution is actually the secondary (2b), and the primary (2a) and tertiary (2c) are both explicitly more inclusive of the sort of broader scope that does not necessitate actually changing a form of government, it justifies inclusion of a broader scope than some here are suggesting; Websters, it seems, would support Clara Lemlich as leading a revolution by both the primary and tertiary definition of the word, which is not limited to violent or military actions. Therefore, I would submit List of women who led a revolution as the best title. Abrazame (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are fair points. Regarding the first point, however, there is a problem in that the list isn't easily edited. It's greatly, if not completely, synthesis. This is where the title (even sans the idiom) is a problem. I mean, the definition of revolution wouldn't necessarily matter here if each of these women were credited in reliable sources as having a direct influence on the success of a revolution. I'm not a history buff and don't have time to read all these bios, but it doesn't seem to be the case for at least most of these entries. At this point, the entire list could probably be blanked as original research, which is why it's easier to bring it up for deletion rather than transform it into a completely different list. The guideline for lists points out that lists are articles and are held to all content policies, including verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. As it is, any by-policy editing of this list will pretty much wipe it out.

That said, if the title is changed to reflect what is supported by sources, then that remedies many of the above problems. List of women who led a successful rebellion is, I think, the better title. Bringing in Webster's definition isn't helpful. We have an article that discusses the various and argued definitions for what a revolution is. The issue is the sources used in many cases here don't use the word revolution, so it becomes original research to label it as such. Because it's a list, information is condensed, and so maintaining and presenting a neutral point of view can become a problem too.

One last thing, what do you mean by (Faida Hamdi would be exempt, and I think she should be; U.S. chicks learn why from Sesame Street.)? Lara 12:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Abrazame, but I 'think' he meant that hitting someone while taking their livelihood away is the kind of basic moral indignity that children learn from public service educational television to avoid, and as such is not a good fit for the theme of this article. It was mentioned to me by USchick that Hamdi's act, although negative, still was a 'spark'. I find that technically accurate but also pretty insulting and misrepresentative of the significance of what happened in Tunisia, and of Bouazizi's sacrifice. Including women in this way requires a pretty different approach in the title or the Lead than is currently suggested to the reader. The original mix of women who 'sparked' or 'stopped' or 'angered someone else to incite' a revolution is misleading. An inclusive article would require a much less suggestive title. Ocaasi^c 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could point to any number of lists here at Wikipedia that are not shining examples of what a good list should be, and everybody would concede that we don't apply the imperfections of one article on another. If the people who wrote the Revolution article were focused specifically on the second definition, that is their right and it may improve the article to be so focused, because it's not a dictionary, but just because some current Wikipedia article has such a secondary focus that doesn't tie the hands of all other Wikipedians to apply only that secondary focus to all usage of the term anywhere else at Wikipedia regardless of what can be reliably sourced as the definition in the world outside Wikipedia.

Further to that point, or if we are to follow the lead of other Wikipedia usage, we conflate the idea of revolution and rebellion elsewhere at the project, specifically at the almost five-year-old List of revolutions and rebellions. We also combine successful and unsuccessful coups d'etat at the almost five-year-old List of coups d'état and coup attempts.

I wholeheartedly support the statement that WP:V applies to lists as well as articles. I didn't check the cites for what remained at the article when I came upon it; again, though, if the problem with the list is that some entries are not cited or that some of the cites don't support some aspect or another of the assertion, then that's a ref tag issue and not an AfD issue. Clearly some of those women led a revolution or rebellion, and enough so to form the basis of a reasonable list. Of the six whose articles I clicked upon just now (Deborah, Cleopatra II, Mother Lu, Trung Sisters, Zenobia, Nusta Huillac) five had either sources or Wikipedia articles that declared they led a rebellion or revolt. Are you arguing that those Wikipedia articles are poorly sourced as well? Or are you (I can't imagine) suggesting that we need to have one source for all these women sharing this in common and that USchick is wrong to compile herself a list of women who not only various sources but the one Wikipedia tells us led rebellions and revolts? Because that is not synth, or original research, it is initiative.

U.S. chicks was a generic variant of the username of the person who created the article; I was referring to the Sesame Street song "Which one of these things is not like the other?" with which I presumed an American would be familiar. For those who are not, the Public Broadcasting show for children would present, say, five objects, four of which were clearly alike (say, different types of vegetables) and one which was clearly unlike (say, a hammer), and sing the song. It was flip but unmalicious humor in support of your assessment that it was effrontery for the moment of a bureaucrat abusing her power who drove a man to a desperate suicidal statement to be aligned with women who spent days or weeks or years putting their lives on the line to fight for the rights of their people. (Although to Ocaasi, yes, Sesame Street did teach the Golden Rule as well, which was the basis of being able to identify the difference.)

Finally, to Lara, are you asserting that USchick has not presented a neutral point of view for one or more of the entries, or are you just trying to heap every straw of negativism you can grasp out of the air on this so that it has the effect of coming off like you're finding problems with the article we're actually discussing? What article could you not say that POV could become a problem? That's not at all helpful. Abrazame (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn’t with the definition of revolution. That is why it’s not helpful to bring it up. We can debate that on the revolution talk page. The problem is that it’s original research to call all of the relevant historical events of these entries revolutions when references do not refer to such. Now, as to the “ref tag issue”, that far understates the problem. The list fails to meet standards, from conception to execution. For the examples you've listed, am I wrong that the entries are clearly historically considered either a revolution, rebellion, coup d'etat, or attempted coup? Or has that information been mostly synthesized from sources? And no, I'm not saying that we need a single source that states each of these women did anything. No reasonable reading of my comments should result in that assumption. What I'm saying is sources need to attribute to these women some sort of major influence on a revolution in order for us to make that claim. Or on a rebellion or whatever else the title change may be. And I'm not arguing about other articles, although lots of discussion in this AFD includes all sorts of other lists and articles for no apparent reason.

Best I can tell, this AFD is going in the direction of "Keep because it has great potential if you completely change it, which I'm not going to do, but probably someone will because anyone can edit." I've seen it countless times over the years. This is why the onus shouldn't be on those calling for deletion, rather those fighting to keep it. Make it an article worth our readers time that meets standards or it gets deleted. Just logical, but this isn't the forum for that (no such forum actually exists), so please excuse my digression. So, perhaps List of women who influenced a revolution or rebellion. More accurate title, broadens the criteria for inclusion to accommodate more of the current entries, and it fits nicely with the above list you used as an example of something irrelevant to the discussion.

Lastly, my assertion on USchick's entries as far as NPOV go are directly connected with the ill-defined concept and poor execution of the list. The title gives credit to these women for provoking a revolution, specifically. I'm asserting that the entries fail to explain how significant each woman's role was in their respective "revolutions". The Mother Lü article, for example, is a one-sentence microstub that manages to explain what this list does not. Nothing about Olga of Kiev involves a revolution. After her son succeeded her murdered husband, she avenged his death. Where's the revolution? Neither the microstub article (including its single reference) or the entry on Ñusta Huillac explains how significant her role was in any revolution. Or, to be fair, how notable she is for inclusion in WP at all. Bibi Sahib Kaur's entry and microstub article are the exact same wording. Neither explain what revolution she allegedly provoked. It reads as if she merely successfully fought in battle. Malalai Anaa didn't inspire a revolution either. She basically shouted at her fiance not to be a wuss, which inspired the soldiers to fight harder in the ongoing battle against the British. Ani Pachen led a rebellion and was captured. There was no revolution. "Paraska Korolyuk and Yulia Tymoshenko were iconic figures and key activists of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine." From my understanding, Korolyuk participated in the revolution, while Tymoshenko was integral in beginning it. Israa Abdel Fattah was active during the Egyptian uprising, but she did not provoke it. That's nearly half the list. Should I cite some more or have I sufficiently made my point? Lara 19:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page addressing Olga of Kiev Talk:List of women who sparked a revolution Women in leadership often lack military strength, but they end up doing serious damage by using whatever means they have available to change the course of history. Sometimes by simply shaming (or inspiring) their men into action, like Malalai Anaa. When a man inspires and leads his army into victory, he's called a great military leader. When a woman does the same thing, she is discredited by editors on Wikipedia? If the people of Afghanistan recognize her leadership, why do we question it here? This list is valuable because you won't find military tactics like this used by men. Here they are all in one place and span thousands of years. The other article stubs can benefit from being expanded, but all those people are recognized in their country of origin as strategic military leaders and it gives a starting point for anyone interested in looking up more information. USchick (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do their countries of origin recognize them for having "sparked a revolution"? Lara 20:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The objections seem mostly to arise from the title, and even the nominator concedes that the subject of women who took the lead in military actions is notable enough for its own category, Category:Women in war. Categories are fine for people who have time to do the "what's under this rock?" method of looking at one article after another until they locate whatever they were looking for, but a list provides at-a-glance information that a category simply can't give. Fortunately, it's not a matter of having to choose between a category only or a list page only, WP:CLN. In that the role of women in the history of war is an important topic that's under-represented, a general page should be available on the subject, whether it's a list or a narrative. Mandsford 15:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone should write that list, because that's not what this list is. Lara 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Genevieve2.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She didn't give a policy based reason to keep the article. Lara 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and possible rename per the article's quality and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. CLN says, right at the top: "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists (including embedded lists, like lists included in See also sections), and navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." In other words, we are wasting our time trying to decide whether the "very little here that isn't covered by Category:Women in war" is worth keeping. I can't see anything wrong with the article at all, it is among the highest quality I have seen at AFD. If it were not for the fact that the nomination says nothing close to it, I would assume by the nom's entries on the talk page that nom decided to bring the article to AFD to be improved. RFC is the place for that, and this article is a very good example of an article that would be a great shame to lose; RFC needs administrator supervision of the same type as AFD to get articles fixed without putting them in jeopardy. Anarchangel (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think a name change might be in order such as 'Women involved in uprisings', as the current title is a little too exclusive; this also addresses the problem that the nom has with it being a duplicate of a category, and Lara's concern that the current entries are not adequately described by the title. Anarchangel (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I would assume by the nom's entries on the talk page that nom decided to bring the article to AFD to be improved" - No, I think it should be deleted. The criteria for inclusion, based on the content of the list, are irreparably vague and subjective. But if it's going to be kept, there are still some improvements that can be made. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it said that the role of a prosecutor in law is to make everything precise and clearcut and that of a defense lawyer, to obfuscate and make things unclear. Yet here it seems the reverse; an easy decision for any editor, what to include in an article and what to not include, is handwaved away as being beyond the scope of mere mortals. The line for inclusion is what editors working on the article decide it is; hypothetically, it is even independent of the title, although I do not recommend that. Anarchangel (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you translate this into clearer wording? The fact that this list doesn't meet standards is pretty clear. What to include is pretty well lined out across various policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. This article fails some of the most important ones pretty clearly. "It's interesting" isn't a reason to keep. "There aren't enough women on Wikipedia, so we can't delete articles about women" isn't a reason to keep. And " I can't see anything wrong with the article at all, it is among the highest quality I have seen at AFD" is not only not a reason to keep (much less a strong one), but it's a good indication that you don't understand Wikipedia's standards. Lara 01:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rather ahistorical in its implication that revolutions can be "sparked" by individuals, but pretty interesting and nicely done. There's something to be said for that. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 30 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a few of the things the discussion here and at the list's talk page have established:

The creator of the list made errors in scope and inclusion.
If the list remains it will be moved to a new name.
The creator of the list has abandoned the list.
I am willing to take the lead and have proposed List of women who led a revolution or rebellion.
Both the word and the concept of "sparking" a revolution have been abandoned and will play no part in the list if it goes forward.
Anyone who does not fit the parameters of the new title will be pruned (and those already removed who do readded).
Any blurbs that do not adequately establish inclusion will be improved.

I would appreciate it if anyone interested in commenting would do so regarding arguments to support or delete the list as proposed (or make other proposals someone else may be interested in pursuing), because nobody is arguing to keep the list as it was created; it was of recent vintage and was in the process of being improved. Obviously I could waste my time moving and editing the list, and expected this to be drawing to a close around now so I could take the initiative to do so, but apparently it seems to some that there is more to be said here. This isn't rocket science, and there is no validity to the attitude by some in this discussion that what I am proposing is an extraordinary undertaking fraught with editorial peril. If there is some argument against what I am proposing revising the current list into, I haven't heard it yet and would like to prior to diving in there. Abrazame (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, really, that "we are going to keep this, but move it to a new title, abandon the original concept, and have almost completely different content" is not really a keep. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want voters to vote based on the proposal, make that the new article. Change the title and prune accordingly. Otherwise, this article needs to be deleted as there isn't a single policy-based keep vote. Feminism isn't a criteria for inclusion. Lara 01:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New list: The article is now a new list, please review and suggest a name. My suggestion is List of women who led a rebellion or a revolution. USchick (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused with your recent additions. In spite of the problem that the list already contained people who did not actually lead a revolution or rebellion, you've added far, far more who did not lead a revolution or rebellion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the headings you added here for two reasons. 1/ Headings in AFDs are not accessible from the AFD edit window and they throw off the formatting on the main AFD page. 2/ This isn't the place for those discussions. That said, the "new list" has more entries than don't fit the criteria than the original one did. The name still hasn't changed and the criteria is no better defined, yet there are additions made to the list and little pruning has occurred. Lara 20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions are in the dictionary. When the king is defeated in battle, and the person who defeated him takes over the throne and becomes a monarch, what would you call it? USchick (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tewkesbury 4 May 1471, was one of the decisive battles of the Wars of the Roses where Margaret was forced to lead her own army.

Second Battle of St Albans fought on 17 February, 1461 where Margaret's army captured the town of Dunstable, where she defeated the Yorkist forces of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, and recaptured her husband. USchick (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And are these called revolutions or rebellions? No, they are not. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebellion: Types of rebellion Mutiny, Revolt, Revolution, choose whichever one you like. How can repeated military battles to overthrow a king not fit the criteria? USchick (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We work based on reliable sources here; your personal belief that a dynastic struggle constitutes a revolution does not meet reliable source criteria. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing the sources for these three articles Margaret of Anjou, Second Battle of St Albans, Battle of Tewkesbury that describe military campaigns led by Margaret to capture the throne? Or are you saying that you need a source to tell you that military combat to overthrow a king is called a Mutiny, Revolt or a Rebellion? USchick (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USchick, I believe Roscelese is noting the general problem with categorization and (potentially) original research. I'll note that this article has moved from 'sparked a revolution' to 'lead or organized a revolution', to now 'lead or organized a rebellion, mutiny, or revolt'--which is very broad. It matters the words we pick and that we not keep shifting to make the examples fit the pre-chosen items. We can decide what the list is, and then pick examples which match. Or, we can look at the list and pick a title broad enough for all of them; List of women in war, for example, would be the broadest, although we'd probably want to exclude mere support roles (nurses, spies, etc.). Ocaasi ^c 11:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making this up, this information already exists with sources in other articles and I combined it into a list List of women who led a revolution. I'm not sure what part of Revolution is being disputed: Overthrow of government: the overthrow of a ruler or political system [55].

If I may say, I think that the one and only way to resolve this is as follows: if you want to get out of this AfD, you have to present a list where every single entry has a reference specifically using the word "Revolution" or "Rebellion". Obviously a good many of the entries on the list do have such a reference, and this and only this will satisfy the heightened scrutiny brought on by an AfD. Those entries that do not have such references should be cut-and-pasted to a thread on the list's talk page indicating why they were removed and what they require to appear on the list. Then, at your leisure, considering your interest in this realm, you (and any interested visitor who comes upon the talk page demi-list) can research historical references about the subject to determine whether it is or is not something that can be cited and should be categorized as a revolution, and if necessary open a thread specifically about that potential entry to discuss the adherence to the parameter. Surely a few will be described as such in scholarly enough of a source as to satisfy the list threshold, and can be added to the main list. For those that do not, you may find that what they share all falls under a different criterion and justifies a separate list. As has been said from various perspectives in this AfD, leading a revolution and leading a military battle are not quite the same thing, and for this list to pass muster here, you need to show that the difference is something you are willing to concede in general, and discuss one entry at a time. It doesn't have to be 100% complete when you first put it up; however, given the AfD, it really should be 100% referenced by a source calling it a revolution when you first put it up. We simply can't argue whether 15 unique stories are or are not a revolution, that's unfair to yourself, to the list, and to those discussing it with you. Abrazame (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what about now? If there was a military conflict with a change in government, I left it. USchick (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding headers in the AFD. As previously noted, it breaks the formatting on the main AFD page. As for the article, there is a display of a serious lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy and an inability to grasp clearly explained issues. You cannot synthesize that something is a revolution, rebellion, revolt, whatever. The source has to support whatever you claim. If you want to put down that "Queen X led a revolt against King X", you have to have a source that says the same. As noted before (I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself), the dictionary definition of a word is irrelevant. What matters is what the sources say. Lara 15:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leading an army into military battle to overthrow the government is a revolution. Do you have a source that says otherwise? Please see WP:COMMON. What specific policy is not being followed here? A dictionary is a credible source to explain words for people who don't seem to understand English. USchick (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post essays as rebuttals to Wikipedia's second pillar. That said, it's interesting, thought not definitive, that very few of these entires are listed at List of revolutions and rebellions. Perhaps because they aren't referred to as revolutions or rebellions in sources. Lara 16:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USchick, you've taken a step in the right direction now, I appreciate that you took my advice, but it was merely a step and at a glance it looks like you need to take four or five more such steps in the same direction to satisfy this AfD. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I glanced at the list as it stands now and quite honestly the first entry my eye fell upon, "15th century Isabella, Duchess of Lorraine, leads an army to rescue her husband from the Duke of Burgundy," does not make any case whatsoever for this as being a revolution or rebellion.

Any action that goes against the status quo could in the broadest definition be termed rebellious, but the essence of what makes it a rebellion in the context of the situation is not at all clear. I would still argue that the shirt factory woman should be counted as a rebellion, for various reasons I would be willing to go into in a debate specific to her at that list's talk, but I see nothing in this entry about Isabella that would cause someone to argue the same. The argument in this AfD is not that the examples were not militaristic enough, or were not in the context of battle, but that so many of the entries did not evidently meet the standard of verifiability to a reliable source as being revolutionary. This is why others in this AfD have been so loathe to concede that simply changing the name would solve the issue, because of how ambiguous several of the unreferenced entries are in supporting a claim to the theme, which is revolution. And I think the aspect of revolution that people get is not merely, did X fight against invaders, or in some war over a general dispute, but, did X fight to alter their circumstances. Obviously one's circumstances are profoundly altered by invasion, and often in a way more dire than other revolutions (like the shirt factory episode), but leading a fight against invasion is a war of defense, not revolution.

And finally to your most recent point here (edit conflict), I am not a pedantic authoritarian, but the argument against you is that the onus is on you to show that entries to your list are revolutions, each and every one, not that editors need to show you for each and every one that is not. I have and would continue to argue with Lara about where we should source and how we should apply the definition of revolution to specific entries one at a time that fit the bill, but I simply can't do it in the abstract for 27 entries at once, and neither can you. I say this not in the interest of "getting around" Wikipedia requirements, but of applying them fairly and comprehensively, and of making sure that involved parties understand and will observe the parameters we decide to set. You're simply not going to win an abstract administrative argument that you have the right to determine what is or not a revolution, and on that point I have to say I agree with Lara and the tack she's taking here. Abrazame (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my position regarding where we should source is as follows:

If the main article of the entry explains the "revolution" or "revolt" or "rebellion" or whatever this list eventually defines as its criteria and is reliably sourced, then I don't believe it's necessarily required to source in this list, but for the reader's sake, why wouldn't we include the source in this list?
If the main article of the entry fails to explain the above, then it most surely needs a reference. And the information should be added to the main article entry. In which case, refer to bullet one about need to reference in the list.

Basically, I view it, at best, as laziness not to reference the list. It's for the reader's benefit and drastically increases the reliability and value of the article to have a complete reference list.

As for applying the definition, I only care about what sources say. Lara 16:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're using this list as an example List of revolutions and rebellions, it's an incomplete list that includes uprisings, conflicts and struggles. It's a much longer list with only 20sources. That list is not defined as to what should be included. To be fair, why is it not tagged for deletion? USchick (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most lists on Wikipedia are incomplete. That's not an issue. The article links to revolution and rebellion thereby taking on the definitions supplied there (though it could use with a drastically expanded lead section), each entry clearly explains how it qualifies, and when you click the articles they reveal greater details with sources to support. There may, of course, be exceptions. In such case those entries should be removed. Randomly clicking through the article, I didn't find any. Lara 17:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting, because randomly clicking through the same article, I found that list to be extremely vague in what they consider a revolution without any sources whatsoever. I don't think you need my permission to do anything. If you have consensus, do whatever you want. USchick (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is this AfD debate still continuing? It seems like a renaming debate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like List of women revolutionaries and keep. The 'sparked a revolution' formulation is inappropriate - it seems to me that it would be POV to say that a particular person 'sparked' a revolution in most cases. (I don't agree that this list needs to exist for reasons of gender equity, when we don't have List of men who sparked a revolution.) But if broadened and re-focused to be on female revolutionaries in general, I think it would be fine. Robofish (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and Bluerasberry should note, as above, that while the article could be renamed, the content would also have to be substantially changed to fit the new title. Many of the people on the current list aren't revolutionaries by any conceivable description. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about revolutionaries. USchick (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt it time to close this discussion soon as a Keep,its so obvious.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually isn't that obvious considering the majority of keep votes aren't based on anything of merit. Lara 02:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lara its over.OK--BabbaQ (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be over. It's true. But it's not a clear-cut AFD, which is why it hasn't been closed yet. No admin has come across it and felt like determining the consensus. Because while your side has numbers, you lack arguments.

The first voter says it should be kept because it's a "gem". While s/he doesn't give a valid reason to keep, s/he is the only one to attempt to improve the article. Another found it "useful". Several voters didn't even give a reason to keep or, to be honest, any indication that they even read the debate (or the article!), like Blue Rasberry. Your vote is completely weightless as it seconds a purely feminist support that has no grounding in policy or guidelines and, quite to the contrary, disregards them completely. Mandsford states that "the role of women in the history of war is an important topic that's under-represented, a general page should be available on the subject, whether it's a list or a narrative", which is all covered by all the articles in Template:Women in warfare and is also irrelevant to the AFD considering that's not what this article is or was.

In contrast, reasons to delete are clear and reasoned. Citing the fact that the vast majority of entries have nothing to do with women "sparking" revolutions or, in fact, any involvement in a revolution at all, which serves to mislead readers. Even with the new list (tentatively titled "List of women who led a revolution or rebellion"), there remains a major problem when it comes to verifiability and original research (read: policies). Addressing some of the real concerns, Abrazame posted a strong keep. Strong meaning valid, here, not the self-ascribed "strong" s/he placed on it. S/he's the only keep voter to present a strong argument.

So, to be fair, there are weak arguments on both sides. Discounting those weak arguments, it pretty much comes down to a small handful of arguments. That's what the closing admin has to filter out and decide from. Also taking into consideration the discussion that took place between the votes, including the fact that the article was changed to what very closely duplicates other established lists that the author wasn't aware existed, and that many of the entries continue to fall outside of the new criteria. Lara 13:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What entries fall outside the criteria? USchick (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me reiterate my earlier concern that many entires fail to explain a revolution or revolt and one must go look elsewhere to find out the necessary information. Also, many entries continue to make claims of revolutions and revolts that sources do not support. If this is an issue with the tentative title or criteria for inclusion, see Wikipedia:LISTS#List_content.

Cratesipolis maintained her husband's army after his death and successfully warded off an attempted revolt, she didn't lead one. The ref for this is a dead end ref (because it was a note copied from somewhere else and no accompanying reference was brought with it) for an author by the name of Leon, and it occurs twice; but the biography is a copy/paste of a public domain encyclopedia entry, so there's that.
Amastris, according to her biography and the working reference within it, combined four colonies and named the newly created city after herself after she separated from her husband. That's not a revolt or a rebellion.
Arachidamia was a Spartan princess who fought against a siege on a Spartan city by Pyrrhus, a Greek general. She didn't lead a revolt or a rebellion. The reference here is the second use of Leon, though the microstub biography actually uses a book by an author named Salmonson.
Agrippina the Younger "presided over the exercises of Roman legions." How is that a revolt or a rebellion? And the reference is a dead end ref to an author named Salmonson (oh, see previous). There are 14 occurrences of this one.
"In 63, Tacitus wrote in his Annals that women of rank entered the gladiatorial arena." Where is the revolt or rebellion?
Li Xiu defeated a rebellion, she didn't lead one.
Kahina was a Berber who led a resistance against the Umayyad conquest of North Africa.
Parsbit commanded an army against Armenia. What revolution occurred?
Thyra commanded an army against Germans. What revolution occurred?
Urraca of Castile's entry leads to a ref I don't have access to, but I assume it's talking about the city of Tui (as opposed to the linked Tuy), and neither her bio nor that of her half sister which she fought with, Theresa, Countess of Portugal, mention this city or any revolution or rebellion.
Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd, a Welsh princess, led an army against the Normans. She was defeated and killed. What revolution occurred?
Alrude Countess of Bertinoro led an army and ended a siege. She didn't lead one.
Mandukhai Khatun took command of an army and defeated the opposition. What revolution occurred?
Joan of Arc led armies during the Hundred Years' War.
Yolande of Aragon supported Joan of Arc.
Pierronne fought in the French Army.
Amina led an army.
Gaitana led an army in resistance of colonization by the Spanish.
Mary of Guise led an army against a rebellion.
Mary, Queen of Scots led armies against rebellions.
Tarabai led an army against an invasion.
Anne Josephe Theroigne de Mericourt led female troops in The French Revolution. Does that count?
Bibi Sahib Kaur "led armies into battle."
Laskarina Bouboulina was a naval commander who fought during the Greek War of Independence. Does that count?
Seh-Dong-Hong-Beh is said to have led an army. Doesn't say anything about a revolt or a rebellion. This entry is unreferenced and her microstub article gives practically no information and has a single dead link reference.
Malalai Anaa, as I noted before, didn't led anything. She rallied the troops by telling her fiance not to be a wuss.
I continue to question whether Asmaa Mahfouz can be credited with "leading" the revolution in Egypt.
And I certainly wouldn't say that Israa Abdel Fattah aka "Facebook girl", who "drew the attention of the foreign media" can be credited as having "led a revolution".

I'd like to point out that I don't endorse any entries currently in the article simply by virtue that they aren't listed here. If the entry itself seemed to make a valid claim, I skipped it. It's more than possible that some of them are false claims. Lara 20:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The research is strong in you! I still think we should just change the title and then a) userfy or b) relist at AFD if necessary in a few weeks. I still think this article is a gem ;p, but it's a gem with a horrible title and poor references. But there's something very much a) notable and b) missing (notable + missing = useful, to me) about such a list. Women in war, Woman warrior, and Category:Women in war or Template:Women in warfare are not sufficient substitutes. An encyclopedic overview and a Category is no substitute for a good list. Average readers don't know categories even exist. Meanwhile, we have List of women warriors in literature and popular culture; we should surely have the real-world equivalent. There is a viable article here, it just needs to decide if the metric is 'revolution' or 'influence on war' or something else. (And it needs proper blurbs and citations). But right now we have List of women who changed the course of history through a prominent military or activist role in war or nonviolent revolution. Which is too broad by a hair. List of women who changed the course of military and political history is probably more on point, but it reveals the breadth problem evermore. USchick, can you please decide which examples you want to lose and propose a title which fits the rest. Ocaasi ^c 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template I mentioned is more than a template. It's a template full of lists about women in war.

This is the problem I was talking about regarding there being lists the author wasn't aware existed. This list is very much full of women who played significant military roles, leading armies and fighting in battle. Those entries, and thus where the article is currently headed, are redundant of existing lists. Lara 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I looked at that earlier (Template:Women in warfare) and it didn't see to be in any way as comprehensive as the above post makes it look. Maybe the template needs some expansion or rephrasing. I agree now that almost everyone on this list who is 'just a woman warrior' belongs elsewhere. Which means most of the examples you noted two posts up have to go for sure. So that only leads literally those who had prominent roles in revolutions, and even then List of women who incited, led, or stopped a revolution is getting loose, but it's the only viable remaining topic I can see. Is that a list that has any unique redeeming value? Ocaasi ^c 22:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue that remains is verifiability. The claims of incited, led, or stopped "a revolution" (or rebellion if that should make the title) must be in the source. This is where problems were encountered in attempting to work on the list over the past couple of weeks, as you know. If we trim out the entries above and then those who fail verifiability, there's not going to be much left. Is a list that short viable when other lists include the same entries? Lara 00:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the book that the article is sourcing with the author Salmonson. I ordered it online if anyone is interested. USchick (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Hopefully that will clarify some entries. Lara 00:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Leaves[edit]

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

A metal leaf next to a bench in Indiana. No reason to think this is notable in any way. —Chowbok ☠ 02:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure how they could be notable, and there are no assertions of notability by the article. Monty₈₄₅ 03:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No claim made for notability. LK (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection. A work of public sculpture, this could be independently notable if it were a significant work of a significant sculptor or if it received significant independent coverage. I don't find either of these, but even so it is part of the notable IUPUI public art collection, which, incidentally, was "the first group to be documented through the WikiProject, Wikipedia Saves Public Art" (now Wikipedia:WikiProject Public art) and can be mentioned in the article about the collection.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:51, 24 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Social skills. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpersonal skills[edit]

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

Non-notable "social guide." Tone is inappropriate, article is a "How-To" on having social skills. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever encyclopedic to Social skills . Actually I was about to place "merge" tag onto pages Social skill, interpersonal skills, soft skills, people skills, with heavy cleanup of the content, since all of them are of the same ilk. However I've been waiting for requested move Social skill -> Social skills. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above.AerobicFox (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 24 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)There are at least 3 articles now on almost identical topics:social skills, interpersonal skills, people skills. If we want to prevent wikipedia from looking like a vast swamp of duplications of business motivational articles, then when we see something like this, we need to merge at least some of them and put the best from each in that merge, and attach a cleanup tag to the merge to indicate it's not that great an encyclopedia article.--Rich Peterson198.189.194.129 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Grammer[edit]

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

non notable unsigned singer WuhWuzDat 16:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This says "Now Grammer has a record contract on S-Curve, and a debut album due out later this year", so he does appear to be signed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per Boing! said Zebedee, and the performance at SXSW (so played at a concert at a national level, can't remember the wording used in WP:MUSIC). I'm on the fence whether his performance was trivial or not, but if he's being mentioned by name in the source for the Hanson charity recording of performers at SXSW he can't have been too trivial. I'm not that familiar with how SXSW is organized, but when I used to go to concerts the secondary stages weren't often recorded. No vote on the deletion, since I am the one who restored the article from deletion and created most of the text in the article as of this timestamp. Syrthiss (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMG for the time being. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NMG 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, this includes, but not limited to: billboard.com, popeater.com, vevo.com, spinner.com, bmi.com, wsj.com, starpulse.com, and many, many others. He performed on The Rachael Ray Show live on November 17, 2010 Waseabind (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide exact links to the articles in question rather than just WP:VAGUEWAVEs and namechecking? Stifle (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several of those are already linked in the article. Syrthiss (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Waseabind. He's performed on national TV and in a major music festival in the United States. That's enough for me. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did some fixin' on the article and looked at the sources, there are enough good ones to show notability. I understand why the article was nominated for deletion, it was started by a newbie unaware of what they subject themselves to.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:02, 30 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:14, 31 March 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. postdlf (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adya Prasad Pandey[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF, no indication this professor has had a significant impact on his field, low h index as well. Also a bit odd to see a full professor with Masters Degree. Another in a string of articles on academics from this university that are not meeting notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as per WP:PROF. There are no third-party sources that help establish notability, and one of the sources is a phone directory which shows him as coordinator of the Banaras Hindu University Press, which is cited heavily. This is possibly an issue,as the article is based primarily on these sources. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As he is a Full time Professor and has Done Phd As you Have to Undersatnd It as Without Phd No one can be Professor In A Central University Which is Asia's Largest and Popular University if you have any confustion ask with university He has Done significantly work in his Field as he has done Major Research Project in Small Scall industry Devlopment which is considered as back bone of industrialisation in India accordingly to his work Government has allowed some special funds for Training and development of Small Scale indutries worker he is currently doing work on indeginious techique of Toy making which is rare in the area . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.85.123 (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: User below is the same user as above)

No Need To Delte this article

As no doubt he is an Eminent Professor in Economics and he has done significant work in Industrial Economics he is expert in the Field of Small Scale Industry as his work makes significanly impact on way of Thninking of Governemt toward this sector of Industry as this is considered as back bone of indutrylisation in India as his work and Reaserch Report which he has Completed makes Government to Allow Special Funds to These sectors workers as previosl thses sector is considered as sick industry as he is now working in the area of Ancient Indigenous techniques of Weaving of Silk Related Cloths which include Saree Drapes Pachmeena etc as this work is rare in the field Under Indian National Science Academy he is First who as an Economicst work on Ancient History of Sceicne Research he is also doing Major research on Toy industry which is considred as dead industry of this Environmnet Friendly Toys which is made up of Sahiya Wood Whcih is Very rare and its Growth.

links which shows his postion as professor in B.H.U http://internet.bhu.ac.in/socialscience/economics/index.html

also more information can be found in google.com . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devinwiki1 (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, simply being a professor of a school is not reason enough to be included in Wikipedia. Also, being involved and doing research for any given project does not inherit notability from that project, unless the the person contributed a significant amount of work to the project, enough for references to note this. I have searched for relevant third-party references to try to improve the article, but if they exist, they simply are beyond my ability to find. I apologize for any confusion about this article, as I suspect that because of a slight language barrier you feel that people are attacking your article for no reason, but I assure you that, for my part, this is not the case.

After attempting to find sources to establish notability, I was unable to find any, and as none have otherwise been provided, have placed relevant templates on the article. You then removed the templates, not as an act of maliciousness in any way, but perhaps because of a lack of experience of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Though I do not [[believe that you intended it this way, your edits were disruptive and instead of helping your article, hurt it by causing the article to require semi-protection, making it more difficult to improve the article by adding an unnecessary step.

If you have any references that establish notability, please place them on the talk page so that they may be added into the article. Also, if you wish to leave a message, please do so on the article's talk page, placing it in four different talk pages is not necessary, as watchlists exist to make sure the relevant parties are made aware of the message. I would also kindly ask that you place any comments, references, etc. while logged on to your primary account, as if you do have multiple accounts, placing comments as an alternate account or an unregistered user does not help your case, but rather hurts your case. I will not comment on this article further, as I believe what needs to be said has been said in regards to the article, and any further comments would simply be unnecessary repetition. Thank you, and have a pleasant day. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scholarly output negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 27 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:10, 31 March 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and a blocked sock. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once again and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:58, 6 April 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 Concensus is a weak keep. Significant bulk nominations should NOT be done as 20 individual nomations. (Non-admin Close) Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

League for the Fourth International[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in article and none found through web search. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once again and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:28, 1 April 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. Big Dom 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Workers' Unity (Fourth International)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a German-language doctoral thesis about trotskyist organisations in the German-spaking countries as a reference. --Kiffahh (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- And notice the group giving the statement in this recent website post, not sure if it merits inclusion. Dru of Id (talk) 13:45, 8 April 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. The article is entirely unsourced. Per WP:V, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The arguments about including information about small parties in general are beside the point as they do not address that this particular article about this particular small party is unverifiable. Sandstein 06:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Workers' Committee[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find any evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 08:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Can you give any specific reason why this particular group - the International Workers' Committee - should have an article? Not only is there no evidence of notability (as Warofdreams, who seems very knowledgeable about these matters, has confirmed), there is no evidence in the article the organization ever existed. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can you give a "keep" for this group when no evidence has been offered that it even existed? Superheroes Fighting (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DeleteFails verifiability as well as notability. Per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:58, 6 April 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. postdlf (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jay Richardson Jr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am once again proposing this article for deletion. The last time I did was during the 2008 election and I now see that that was a mistake. However, I can find no reasonable argument to keep this article on the site at the present time. Other than running a long shot election that had no real chance, he has done nothing that seems to warrant an article. If I am incorrect as to my understanding of WP:N, please let me know. I will make no further attempt to have this or any similar article deleted. Please share your thoughts. Illinois2011 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is decided to keep the article, keep in mind that it is going to need some serious clean-up. I'm not sure who is going to do that considering no one has heard of this guy. Illinois2011 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewing the old AFD, it seems there was reasonably strong support for notability, so I'm saying keep on the grounds that Notability is not temporary. I don't see anything here that would overcome that policy, and I presume we are going to allow pages for notable candidates in the 2012 elections. Monty₈₄₅ 20:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Monty₈₄₅ 20:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Monty₈₄₅ 20:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed candidate who didn't win so fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also fails WP:GNG, two of the references are link to election results, one is routine and the other is trivial/not really about him. In this case that he was notable (though, I wouldn't necessarily argue that) is solely related to WP:BLP1E (and yes, an election campaign is one "event" even though its spread over multiple weeks, or sometimes years) and WP:RECENTISM. A look at his google news hits (using various combinations of his, rather common, name if you drop the "ray" and "Jr") virtually all are in late 2008 around the election, and few (if any) before and none after. Clearly has no lasting notability and should be deleted. Ravendrop 01:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that notability is not temporary, and per that guideline, a re-assessment of teh evidence for notability separated by the passing of time shows that he does not meet our inclusion criteria. He is a political candidate that received routine political election coverage. He has not made a lasting impact, that would justify and article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. No coverage except for the election itself. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 31 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:14, 31 March 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. postdlf (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Davenport[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable Eeekster (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be receiving sufficient coverage to establish notability, e.g. [56], [57], [58], [59]. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article clearly establishes why subject is significant or important. --Cinetar (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article and Wikipedia will benefit from expansion and additional sourcing... but not through deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 28 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:14, 31 March 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. Unlike other similar articles nominated for deletion, this one does have a third party reference, even though of unclear reliability, but in the absence of editors discussing it, I cannot find a consensus to delete. Sandstein 06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Workers League (Fourth International)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, LIT-CI was, at its peak, one of the major Trotskyist tendencies internationally. Its Argentinian section had some 300,000 followers and the Brazilian PSTU is a major organization as well. It goes to show that these mass deletion postings haven't been done correctly, a reading of the article would clearly have indicated notability. --Soman (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply and I might say simplistically claiming that an article lacks notability does not prove your assertion. I am not a partisan of the IWL but I do note that it is present and active in a considerable number of countries and counts its advocates in the thousands if not tens of thousands. I also note that politically they have a considerable claim to being a distinct and distinctive international political current. In plain language the entry topic does have considerable notability.

Mike Pearn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.178.18 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:58, 6 April 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. The article is sourced only to the group's own website (and other apparently self-published websites the links to which do not work). Per WP:V#Notability, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The arguments about including information about small parties or similar parties in general are beside the point as they do not address the problem that, as far as we can tell, this particular small party is not covered in third party sources. Sandstein 06:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Trotskyist Opposition[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant grouping even if the article could do with improvement. PatGallacher (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply and I might say simplistically claiming that an article lacks notability does not prove your assertion.

Mike Pearn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.178.18 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:59, 6 April 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. The article is entirely unsourced. Per WP:V#Notability, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The arguments about including information about small parties in general are beside the point as they do not address the problem that this particular article about this particular small party is unverifiable. Sandstein 06:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Trotskyist Fraction[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect to Trotskyist International Liaison Committee. Content can be merged from article history. Jujutacular ^talk 12:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Trotskyist Committee for the Political Regeneration of the Fourth International[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the people trying to keep these pages aren't even looking at them, they just cut and paste the same pro forma screed that they should be kept to every article. I can not find a book or article that mentions this group. Everything points back to Wikipedia, except a few pages on the web that list hundreds of political parties without much information on them, this being one of them. The only exception is a Myspace page which has three articles written by this committee - back in the 1980s. No one else finds these people (by people I mean the three or four people, if that, who comprise this "international" committee) notable, and neither should Wikipedia. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Trotskyist International Liaison Committee - not really notable, but verifiable and mentioned in that article as its successor. This work (called a directory, but far more details than that term suggests) mentions it, and this confirms its existence, while pointing out that the British section was minuscule. Warofdreams talk 13:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." Verifying its existence via a directory listing is inadequate. No sources cited to satisfy the guideline. Edison (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Warofdreams, merge only verifiable content. Sourced as it is only to self-published websites, one of which does not work, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sandstein 06:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Warofdreams, Carrite, and DGG. If paper or online sources can be found, sure, why not keep it? However, the article notes that it "was essentially the continuation of the earlier Trotskyist International Liaison Committee...." I'm not clear as to whether this was an important part of the Trotskyite movement. It certainly merits inclusion somewhere in WP. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 11 April 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. The article is sourced only to the group's own websites (and the archive links provided do not work). Per WP:V, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The arguments about including information about small parties in general are beside the point as they do not address that, as far as we can tell, this particular small party is not covered in third party sources. Sandstein 06:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Socialist League (Latin America)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Article does not use any sources independent of the group itself. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:59, 6 April 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. The article is sourced only to the group's own websites (of which one is "under construction"). Per WP:V, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The arguments about including information about small parties in general are beside the point as they do not address that, as far as we can tell, this particular small party is not covered in third party sources. Sandstein 06:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Liaison Committee for a Workers' International[edit]

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

Unclear there is any evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cetainly concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 15:00, 6 April 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. Leaving aside the arguments for covering such groups generally, people disagree whether the claimed coverage in a book is sufficient for notability. Sandstein 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International League for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

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

Little or no evidence of notability. Article gives Robert Alexander's book on International Trotskyism as a source, but when I tried a search on Google books, all I could find was a single reference in Directory of British political organisations 1994, by Paul Mercer.

Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered in Alexander's International Trotskyism, 1929-1985; for an organisation based in France which dissolved before much was on the internet, that's enough to demonstrate its notability. Warofdreams talk 09:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policy is NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 15:00, 6 April 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. The article has no sources but for a link to an archived version of the group's Geocities page. Per WP:V, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The arguments about including information about small parties in general are beside the point as they do not address that this particular article about this particular small party is unverifiable. Sandstein 06:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Centre of Orthodox Trotskyism[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No independent sources in article; web search revealed no usable or relevant sources. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found. The number of members parties suggests it might be notable, but a search hasn't turned up any independent, usable sources. Warofdreams talk 09:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 15:00, 6 April 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth International Posadist[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs improvement but keep. 57 Varieties of Trotskyism indeed, many of which could hold a Congress in a taxi, but this one is notable. The article can be improved from 3rd party sources. From the first page of a Google search, for example, there is this article. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now added some 3rd party references to the article. AllyD (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with AllyD. Also this, this, this, this and this cover it, just from a one-minute search on Google Books. Strange group, poorly sourced article, but certainly notable. Warofdreams talk 08:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply and I might say simplistically claiming that an article lacks notability does not prove your assertion. I am not a partisan of the PI (Posadist) but I do note that it was present and active in a considerable number of countries. I also note that politically they have a considerable claim to being a distinct and distinctive international political current. Given the fame, or notoriety if you like, of this tendency due to its rather individual views on the possibility of UFOs the entry topic does have considerable notability.

Mike Pearn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.178.18 (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what might be worthwhile is if you expand on your 4 word AfD nomination - specifically about this article? AllyD (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - A four word nomination which was copied and pasted 20 times without specific discussion of a single article. Hours to build, five minutes to destroy... Carrite (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are implying that I used exactly the same wording for each AfD about Trotskyist internationals. That is wrong, and anyone who looks will see that I did not do that; in several cases, the wording was different, and in some I commented on the evidence that was available (or not available) for the specific group. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to sufficient reliable sources, (all of Warofdreams'), but be very careful to remove all the hoaxy content (and AllyD's Fortean Times cite) without removing anything useful. Only Matt Salusbury at the Fortean Times, and User:Formeruser-81, believe that J. Posadas believed in UFOs. Note, for example, that the New Age movement was only a decade old when Posadas died. Every other source only mentions the sort of things that one (impartial users) might expect of Trotskyists. Special:Contributions/Formeruser-81 also uploaded the admittedly very cherry-picked File:Gayhitler.jpg, and quit working at Wikipedia in 2005. S/he has never answered any message on his/er talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needs sourcing, but the tendency is genuinely well-known for its speculations about UFOs. Among things on Google Books, Permanent revolution on the altiplano: Bolivian Trotskyism, 1928-2005 covers this in some detail. Warofdreams talk 08:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group has had organizations in various countries all publishing unique periodicals, the group has been referenced in a number of mainstream publications.

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:54, 6 April 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. Big Dom 16:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No sources in article not associated with group; found nothing usable through web search. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - marginal, but, according to Google, it's covered at some length in the Historia del trotskismo en Argentina y América Latina. Unfortunately, that's not available to view. Google Books and News are, unfortunately, not strong on Spanish texts, so I wouldn't expect to find much on a notable organisation - just enough to confirm that it exists and has been written about. I note that there are articles on it in three other language editions of Wikipedia. Warofdreams talk 08:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mia-etol (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant grouping even if the article could be improved. At least two of its constituent groups, in Argentina and Italy, have significant articles in at least one language. PatGallacher (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this is one of a series of articles of a mass deletion effort, I'm going to state my case once and will copy-paste it below — it holds for one and all. This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise. It would be silly to keep an article about a group that genuinely isn't notable simply because articles about other groups that might possibly be notable were nominated for deletion at the same time. Further comment on Carrite's remark is hardly required. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Per Superheroes Fighting's simplistic take that "an article should be kept if what it is about is notable, deleted otherwise," I offer the following... We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate 20 articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. "Ignore All Rules" means nothing more or less than "Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia." Since this was a copy-and-paste mass challenge, this message will be likewise copied-and-pasted where applicable. Carrite (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would add that its largest component, the PO of Argentina, is an organisation of some significant weight, and some of its comrades have their own Wikipedia biographies, at the 2009 election it won 7% of the vote in Salta province, 5% in Catamarca province. At least 2 other sections are more than small sects, in Italy and Greece, one leading member of the former has his own biography, Marco Ferrando. PatGallacher (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Carrite--historical information of this sort is encyclopedic. Our scope is broad enough to record minor parties. The'yre relatively difficult to judge for notability , without using what are in some cases very difficult to find sources. The reader is best served if they are covered comprehensively, not selectively. just a small religious movements, and I think our general policy has been to be inclusive of those that have a real existence. The guiding policies are WP:V and NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:54, 6 April 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. Just barely on the fence for WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Shearing[edit]

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

Speedied twice, but this seems to make an assertion of notability and use some potentially reliable sources. I think an AfD is needed. Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRYSTAL. She's clearly not 'made it' yet. As a side comment, clicks are cheap; new media is playing havoc as journalists don't quite know how to handle internet memes and this type of "net-celebs" Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - The sources suggest the subject is probably noteworthy, so ideally the article should be improved (so as to remove, for example, execrable drek about "tak[ing] her music to the next level"). In practice, of course, this ~~never~~ rarely happens, usually because editors have better things to do than write better ad copy to assist spammers, so the spammer typically succeeds in using Wikipedia to flog their wares, as the subject's record label has done in this case. More evidence, if any more were actually needed, that COI editors should be prohibited, not merely discouraged, from creating articles related to their conflict. [Dismount soapbox]. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the prose, to the point where I felt comfortable removing the tags. I think all we really need to check are the sources (I think we should keep, really, as we've kept other YouTube stars without record deals due to some similarly high amount of views).

As to the article creator, I've blocked his accounts twice. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Delete - Could be big, but until her 1st record comes out I'm seeing only speculation on her work. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Musical artist without any official recordings or product. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- WikHead (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online fom WP:Reliable sources, but much evidence of an astroturf marketing campaign. Shire Reeve (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wilke, Stephen (18 November 2010), "19M HITS WILL MAKE WILL MAKE BEX A STAR", Daily Star - "YouTube girl's deal", The Sun, 13 December 2007 - "Rebecca is set for stardom", Daily Star, 13 December 2007 - "Shot at fame for web star", The Daily Express, 13 December 2007. None are that strong but the 3 year diff between the first burst and the later article suggests longevity. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - passes WP:MUSICBIO, if only marginally. I can't help but think this article is a bit premature - she hasn't released her first single yet - but the significant coverage in reliabe sources is there. Robofish (talk) 16:52, 29 March 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) 02:34, 31 March 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 a1 (insufficient context), WP:SNOW, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long pong[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP and WP:COI. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI Note the user Longpongusa (talk · contribs) has claimed to be Robert Jones, who he originally listed as the creator of the sport. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:46, 31 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Cosmetic Safety Guidelines[edit]

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

As was said in the prod, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. This article would make a fine school essay on eye cosmetics. However, it is not a suitable encyclopedic treatment of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think nom is spot on. The article is a how to guide, with no possible hope of being anything else. Not a bad thing, just not appropriate for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like advertising for a product named "Latisse". The current opening sentences read like marketing copy. "Many people use cosmetics on a daily basis to cover blemishes and enhance their beauty. Today there is Latisse®." -Salamurai (talk) 03:49, 31 March 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. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Media Center[edit]

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

Contested: Lack of reliable sources

Defence: Software described in the article is very new and has not received so much reviews by indipendent reliable sources. However it is a stub and I am updating this one and several various articles at same time on regular basis. I regularly marked it as "stub" as long as it is still worked on.

Also for Defence: It is the first product of Media Center Software ever released for AmigaOS-like Operating Systems, so it deserves de-facto an article on Wikipedia.

Also for Defence: AMC is a commercial product and it could be regularly purchased (as stated in the article talk, by Mr. Pascal Papara, maintaner and developer of AROS Broadway distro, the OS for which AMC was first released to. (A software product currently on the market is a fact enough reliable).

Also as Major Defence: I found first reliable external source: Amiga Future german magazine (bi-lingual and published in Germany for english and deutsch language readers) published a first review of Amiga Media Center software in its issue 88 (Jan/Feb 2011) published last january 2011. it is a well known newspaper magazine for Amiga users and it is indipendent from the developers of Amiga Media Center and the developers of AROS Operating System Browadway distro where AMC was first released for.

All defence issues are also present in the Amiga Media Center talk page, where it contributed also Mr. Pascal Papara the developer of AROS Broadway distro.

Sincerely Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)__[reply]

Comment This AfD is apparently a contest of a PROD placed on the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 30 March 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) 01:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a new package, by an unknown, with no history, that hasn't been covered by RS. I don't mind it being thin on info at this point, but it almost borders on speedy as it doesn't even claim notability, only claiming it exists. However, Prod was appropriate, and now delete is. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it is a new package AND MAINLY it is the first one of the category mediacenters for the Amiga platform. So its own existence grants its reliability.

Also Mr. Fabio Falcucci who created it is an "unknown" outside the Amiga community, but a well known developer into the Amiga little reality, continuing keeping alive this platform and granting its visibility worldwide with new products and up-to-date software as it happens in other platforms scene. He also created a library which grants organized GUI frontends for the software created with Hollywood (programming language) that was then adopted as part of it SCUILib and perhaps, it could means nothing, or it could means everything, but "Hollywood Programming Language" was new software also, but the article regarding it was accepted without problems here on wikipedia. So what is all this problems with Amiga Media Center that was created using Hollywood? Is it enough reliable as prior software for the Amiga platform to keep it as standalone existing article here in wikipedia? Or [alternative] could it be another solution merging AMC into "Hollywood programming language" article, until AMC will be enough reliable to deserve various reviews by computer magazines (online and paper made) that will grant it as existing and notable software?

Sincerely: Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)__[reply]

- comment To be perfectly clear, I am not saying that what he is doing isn't worthwhile. My opinion is only that what he is doing has yet to qualify under the Wikipedia guidelines as "notable". What he is doing is interesting, to say the least, but that isn't a criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - commentYes, but we are not discussing here about Mr. Fabio Falcucci who is just INCIDENTALLY the creator of this software (and I quoted his name in the article about AMC as a matter of precision).
    We are discussing if this software is enough noteworthy for a multimedia platform (Amiga) that in 25 years got for the first time its first omni-comprensive all-purpose Media Center Software, just as like Windows or Linux, and if this software is enough noteworthy to deserve an article of its own.
    The difference is that Windows requires an entire release of its own (Windows Media Center Edition), Linux requires a distro of its own to be shrinked into a set-top-box and including a series of scripts to drive its existing media software. While AMC is not an Operating System release patched by the manufacturers, neither is driving existing multimedia programs by scripts. It is a front end GUI software for mPlayer, and it is not just a compilation of Amiga scripts aimed at driving mPlayer software. AMC is a binary software of its own that gives mplayer a complete new configurable interface system. IMHO it is enough noteworthy. Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)__[reply]
    - - Raffaele, have you read WP:GNG? We're talking about Wikipedia's definition of notability, not the usage outside of Wikipedia. None of the guidelines have been met. Further, comparing to other articles isn't helpful, see WP:WAX. tedder (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I stated in my PROD, lacking reliable sources to establish notability, see also Wikipedia:Notability (software). Being sold or being used or being in existence does not prove notability per Wikipedia's standards. tedder (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I beg your pardon, but the fact AMC is 1) being in existence, 2) usable and 3) sold into the market are just some of AMC notabilities. The important notability facts for AMC are enlisted in my comment at hour 22.11. Here I repeat it, and point it one by one for your benefit:

A) AMC is not an operating system patched to be multimedia center. B) it is not a collection of scripts. C) (Point 1) It is a frontend for mPlayer, but it also (Point 2) loads and runs games (mPlayer doesn't runs games), (Point 3) it plays movies, but it is also capable to collect it (Point 4) in a database available to the user. It is enough noteworthy into the history of Amiga computer (Point 5) as a new kind of software and (Point 6) alignes this platform to the others present into the market now in 2011.

Also my article contains: 1) A short overview, complete of a brief history and characteristics of the software and its features 2) An assertion of notability (it was reviewed by an indipendent Amiga Magazine) 3) A software infobox with information on version number, developer, etc. as in any existing software article here on wikipedia, and you must admit there are some articles of software for other platforms that are less organized than mine and lesser significant for their platform of reference (Windows, Linux), but still are present UNTOUCHED in this wiki because none asks for their deletion. Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)__[reply]

Yes, untouched articles do exist because they aren't always "asked for deletion". Articles should be proper, but it's a moving target. I'm avoiding responding to your points because they indicate a lack of reading WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NSOFT. Please couch your argument in those terms. tedder (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Generally, articles on software, like any other commercial products, need to show that they have some kind of encyclopedic significance; that they've had significant effects on history, culture, or the field, of a kind that makes for long term historical notability. It does not look like this product is cutting any new ground; the fact that it exists, is for sale, and runs on a niche system is not enough to give it that kind of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, Amiga is nowadays a niche system, but it made the history of multimedia computing. It is strange in all these years it never gained an omnicomprensive multi-purpose media center, but in 2011 Amiga got it with AMC. It could not means anything for those who know nothing about Amiga, but it is a milestone in a computing history full of notability that longs for 25 years and still goes forward. Wikipedia is not like a paper encyclopedia that keeps just the info that are stored in that surface constrained by the physical surface of the paper. Wikipedia is an online encylopedia that requires no space, and it could being updated anytime by following the timeline progress of any topic of sufficient historic relevance, and perhaps Amiga is a relevant topic of history of computing. That's just the fact regarding AMC and its platform of reference. Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 04:13, 7 April 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. postdlf (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbo of Metz[edit]

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

According to WP:TWODABS, we should generally only have a disambiguation page if the reader could possibly become confused if the page has more than two topics bearing the same name. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per tc Pass A Method talk 12:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are two people Abbo I of Metz and Abbo II of Metz and neither seems to be the primary topic. Tassedethe (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:59, 26 March 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) 00:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the TWODABS exception when there is no primary topic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skye Edwards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Secrets[edit]

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

Self-released album not associated with any label, and apparently only available on iTunes and Amazon MP3 download. I could not find any external 3rd party reviews of this album. Only references on the page are to a youtube video and the singer's myspace page.[60] Fails WP:NALBUMS. LK (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with Skye Edwards, the artist of the album.AerobicFox (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 March 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) 00:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with Skye Edwards - I was able to find a handful of mentions and reviews but they were all blogs, which i understand are not WP:RS. I believe the term does merit a redirect to the artist's article, though. patitomr (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of songs by Elvis Presley. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Evil[edit]

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

Not every Elvis song needs an article as notability is not inherited. The only sources for this one refer to its use in a film. A redirect was reverted and I do not see how this passes either WP:N or WP:NSONGS. I don't find arguments as "Every Beatles song has an article" as valid. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I would also quote WP:Songs which says, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Although I think there is plenty of room for growth, I can't see it growing more than a stub. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:24, 24 March 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) 00:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - Fails notability as per WP:NSONG. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song and no claim of notability. The info, if it standup for WP:VERIFY as it appears to be original research, can be merged into either the main article for the film or the album.--Michaela den (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failure to state a claim which indicates notability and I failed to find a source providing more information in a Google search. Blue Rasberry (talk) 08:43, 4 April 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. postdlf (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Trask[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. PROD was removed with no supporting reasons given. Onthegogo (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Haven't found an avenue where he meets WP:NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - barely meets (but still, does meet) WP:GNG per his press coverage[61][62] + [63], thus no other route to establishing notability need be considered. Thparkth (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes have to play in major professional leagues to qualify for Wikipedia articles; the fact that a junior-level athlete has garnered marginal coverage in the hometown newspaper of the city the team he plays for is located in doesn't demonstrate anything unless you can point to coverage outside of his hometown media market too — until such time as he actually gets drafted into the National Hockey League, any high school athlete in Saskatoon with a modicum of talent will get as much coverage in the Star Phoenix as Trask does, and it doesn't make them notable either. Furthermore, given the fact that the article's creator has the username User:Baileytrask, there's a very high likelihood of WP:COI here — a concern which isn't exactly assuaged by the article's assertion that "he looks good in a suit" (as if that were the least bit verifiable in reliable sources, or even the least bit interesting or relevant to an article about an athlete.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Meeting the WP:GNG is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Subject-specific guidelines do not override the GNG; rather they provide alternate means to demonstrate that it is probably satisfied. Thparkth (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merely getting drafted in the NHL would still fall short of WP:NHOCKEY. He would either have to get drafted in the first round, win a significant amateur/junior award, play one game in the NHL or other "major" league, play 100 games in a "minor" league, or appear in a sanctioned international senior ice hockey tournament. Patken4 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 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) 00:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, due to his status as an athlete, nor does it meet WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable sources. The sources provided in the article and those provided in this discussion do not meet WP:IS. Mentioning of an athlete by a local paper (not only local, but very questionably third-party) does not constitute notability. Lord Arador (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet the notability requirements at WP:ATHLETE. Wait till he plays in the NHL. Corvus cornix_talk 04:46, 31 March 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. Poorly sourced BLP and the article is borderline CSD G11. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marialia Pacitto (MARIALIA)[edit]

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

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of an individual. Pacitto certainly exists (appears to have a tumblr, myspace, etc) but.. zero mentions in Google News or Google Books, skimming web results doesn't show any other verifiable sources. tedder (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only reference provided is the subject's official site, and I can find nothing else online. Article smacks of promotional intent, if not outright autobiography based on the personal life info and puffery. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 22:48, 2 April 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. Big Dom 07:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pitmans[edit]

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

pure spam, non notable firm WuhWuzDat 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no Independent Reliable Sourcing. I could find nothing at Google News, and the references in the article are not really references at all. They are more like External Links: three of them to the law firm itself, and the others to twitter; linkedin; a charity that they claim to help; and a legal network they helped to create (the link provided doesn't confirm that, but other info at the network website [64] does). --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 29 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost qualifies as a speedy, as it doesn't even try to establish what makes them notable. No RS, nothing notable, Wikipedia isn't a phone book or biz card. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evidence of notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:13, 31 March 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. Appears to fail WP:CRYSTAL, but seeing as there has been little participation here, it could be taken to WP:REFUND Big Dom 07:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Atlantis 2: The Quest for the Golden King[edit]

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

Planed Film that doesn't have any references. May be a hoax. Not announced yet. ~~Awesome EBE123 ^talk_Contribs 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest making it a redirect to Lego Atlantis: The Movie#Sequel. ~~Awesome EBE123 ^talk_Contribs 22:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search turns up nothing, lack of reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 29 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 31 March 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Stefani[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. The Italian Wikipedia has no page for him and he is supposedly an Italian politician. He has pages on the German and Esperanto Wikis but they have no sources either. J04n(talk page) 00:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This BBC article or this one, in the Independent, demonstrate that the basic facts in the article are correct. It needs sourcing, but as a cabinet-level politician, he's clearly notable. Warofdreams talk 09:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination: not sure how I missed these but that's why we don't delete on first sight. Good work, J04n(talk page) 09:48, 31 March 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beady Eye songs[edit]

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

With only one album released, this list is already contained in the track listing of the album. The others listed here are right there in the artist's navbox. A bit too early for this. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the discography in the main article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 24 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not particularly informative to the reader at this point in the band's brief history. Unnecessary and redundant.--Kubigula (talk) 03:42, 31 March 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.