The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maledicta[edit]

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

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources on Maledicta, having done a Credo reference search and Google search. The article meets WP:NBOOK, however, it lacks citations to reliable sources and I couldn't find any academic publications on "Maledicta". —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:42am • 23:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A well-known and well-regarded academic journal. In general, you can't expect notable academic journals to have been the specific subject of publications in reliable sources: just try finding such for, say, the Journal of Economic Theory; even for respectably old ones this may be difficult (e.g. American Journal of Psychology).  --Lambiam 00:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lots of coverage in the mainstream non-academic press over the years. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You say you can't find any sources on Maledicta; did you even bother to look at its own webpage, which contains a lengthy list of reviews, references, and mainstream news articles on the journal and its associated publications from 1996 onwards? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly-thought over AfD on my part, I didn't search archives so I'd request the AfD be closed. Thanks. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:16am • 01:16, 21 May 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon F. Reeves[edit]

Shannon F. Reeves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete unsourced BLP written more as a resume than as a bio, but essentially the only real claim of fame is membership on a state central committee of the Republican Party (unsourced, but let's assume it's so) but not an elected government official, not even apparently a candidate for anything, ever. Is that notability? If so, we usher in thousands of more notables, especially if we treat Democrats alike and those of major parties at all other countries' first subdivision level - Bavaria central committee members for the SPD anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as he has never been elected to high office. Other claims of notability are unpersuasive, and this biography of a living person is unreferenced. Cullen328 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of references and clear lack of notability. Usual caveats apply, however; if she ends up getting elected to something, an article might then be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence that WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN have been met at this time. Of course it can be re-created when and if Reeves achieves notability. --Dawn Bard (talk) 03:24, 25 May 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. Obvious hoax. Favonian (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flutherith[edit]

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

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

This article is an dictonary definition so WP:NOTDICTIONARY is applicable here. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a hoax. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoax. It isn't even Latin in form. --AJHingston (talk) 23:06, 19 May 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 ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden comb[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Can't find any references on Google. Possible WP:HOAX. Yk³ talk · contrib 22:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a malformed proposal, because this is a redirect link. The article to which it redirects lists three references. Google results are not indicative of notability or lack thereof. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the redirect at about the same time as the AfD was created, hence the confusion. If you look in the history you will see that the original article was a load of nonsense and I am sure that is what Yk3 was suggesting to delete. Anyway, it is gone now and there is no harm in keeping the redirect. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it. Yes, the original content should have been speedily deleted. As it is now a redirect to an article that would need a separate proposal, I recommend the nominator close this one. I can do that if the nominator wishes. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:52, 20 May 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 00:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Command and control regulation[edit]

Command and control regulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. That is, this appears to be one person's essay defining a topic by synthesizing various sources, and is original research. Singularity42 (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It seems that the term command and control regulation has been used in the US in the specific sense used in the article in relation to environmental protection, and so it can claim some notability, but it could have a whole variety of valid meanings. And the discussion of the theory of state regulation of behaviour in general belongs in an article on political theory, the regulation of environmentally harmful behaviour in an article on that topic. So even if the problems of synthesis and essay could be resolved it would still be a fork and an unsuitable article title. --AJHingston (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator; also note that the prose is so vague and uninformative that it's almost unreadable. You definitely get the impression that there's less to this than it appears: This form of regulation, which represents a ‘sustained and focused control exercised by a public agency over activities that are valued by a community’ can be applied in multiple areas but below it is discussed as a method of prohibiting or restricting environmentally harmful activities. Most commonly, command and control regulation involves legislation-making and the setting and application of environmental standards which are then monitored and enforced by the regulatory agency, who have the power to use sanctions in response to non-compliance. Environmental standards refer to uniform requirements on broad categories of activities to achieve specific environmental goals; these standards can relate to emissions, concentration of substances in an ambient medium, processes, product standards and so on. This ‘rules-and-deterrence’ model represents a top-down process which relies heavily on technical expertise of scientists, lawyers and administrative experts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There have been a number of ecology-related essays posted on Wikipedia in the past few days (see also Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and Eco-localisation which I've prodded, and I know there are others). While it's good that these projects are made accessible, Wikipedia is not the place for them. SSRN or bepress would make better homes. ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 21 May 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 : Article already speedy deleted by John for No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content. Non admin Closure. Edgepedia (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Ellis (American businessman)[edit]

Ronald Ellis (American businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently non-notable person. Only ghits seem to be mirrors of this article, a blank Crunchbase page (but even if if it actually said anything, user-generated content doesn't establish notability), and a company profile page. First line of article contains what appears to be a claim to notability but I suspect it may be fictional (the inline ref doesn't support it, nor does any other source I can find). bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The first reference, according to the edit history, once supported a statement about the subject being an executive of E-star, Inc. That statement was removed but the reference was kept. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. I'm not sure that being a vice-president of a payroll software business is more "notable" in principle than being the youngest to graduate from a particular course; but since neither of those has actually attracted comment from independent sources, he falls a long way short of WP:BIO. I don't really care whether people want to frame him as a non-notable graduate or a non-notable exec; either is fine by me bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I was just clarifying the last sentence in your nomination.

Thanks sorry about the lack of clarity. bobrayner (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notwithstanding the cite discussion above, this person doesn't appear to meet inclusion criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are actually four items from the same creator which have been nominated for deletion. They are: File:Clopen symbol.png, Joey Koala, United Under Economy, and Ronald Ellis (American businessman). The latter is the odd one out as Ronald Ellis is merely non-notable rather than fictional. bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This use one primary sources and provides not a shred of notability with coverage from any secondary sources, as the Wharton link doesn't even mention Ellis. OCNative (talk) 14:27, 21 May 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, with the core debate being over the inherent notability (or lack thereof) of USTC judges. --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norman H. Wolfe[edit]

Norman H. Wolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is a biography of a living person about a judge in the United States Tax Court. The article has no references, and I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources about him to establish notability; there's plenty of material that can confirm he is a tax court judge. My understanding is that the tax court is an inferior court, and being a judge in such a court would not be deemed to be automatically notable. Whpq (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As the nominator, based on some of the discussion below, I've amended my position to redirect to List of Judges of the United States Tax Court#Special Trial Judges. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Judge Wolfe's biography can be found on the website of the United States Tax Court. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Courts and Judges has created articles on almost every one of the several thousand persons who have served in the Federal Judiciary of the United States. The Judiciary is a coequal branch of the United States government, placing its members on par with Executive Branch officials and members of Congress. Furthermore, the United States Tax Court is a particularly important federal court, in that it is the only place taxpayers can go to resolve IRS claims against themselves without having to first pay the penalty. Articles on the judges of that court are therefore useful to those who are interested in knowing more about what types of people are in this small and discrete group making decisions affecting hundreds of millions to billions of dollars annually. As for the Tax Court being an "inferior court", it is indeed an Article I court, but unlike some Article I judges (such as magistrate judges, who I would agree are generally not notable), Tax Court judges are appointed by the President of the United States and must be approved by a majority vote of the United States Senate, and unlike Executive Branch officials, their terms of office generally exceed the tenure of the President who appointed them. bd2412 T 20:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: I have now added the above reference to this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for adding the reference to the article. Verifiability is not an issue. There is no doubt that he is a tax court judge. It is case of notability. I've read the long discussion below. I'm still not convinced that that a standalone article is justified, but I would support a redirect to List of Judges of the United States Tax Court#Special Trial Judges. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that is an acceptable solution, provided there is no objection to merging in some of the information from the article (educational and career history), which can be incorporated into a table, along with the relevant external link as a reference. I presume this discussion will mandate the same outcome for anyone else in this class who does not have some indicia of notability other than being a Tax Court judge? bd2412 T 14:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't promise I won't nominate the list article for deletion based on my comments below. I'm struggling to understand how having what appears to be mundane biographical information about a tax court judge, most of which is available on the tax court's own website, adds value to Wikipedia. So, I oppose the redirect.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The information is relevant because it provides a sense of the kind of people of whom the Tax Court is composed. It would be absurd to say that the Tax Court itself is notable, but we are going to impose some black box of secrecy over any information about the backgrounds of the judges who make up the court based on the notion that those judges are non-notable. I don't see the value to Wikipedia of forcing people to leave the website if they wish to find reliable, sourced information about people who, even if non-notable, are certainly non-trivial in their role in government. bd2412 T 16:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how useful our debate is at this point, BD, but just because a court is notable doesn't mean that the judges are. Two analogies come to mind. First, magistrates are not inherently notable; yet, the courts they work for are. Second, a CEO of a company may not be notable, even if the company he chairs is. I think the terms "absurd" and "black box of secrecy" are a tad hyperbolic.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not, at this point, arguing that the judges are encyclopedically notable enough to merit individual articles (although I believe that they are, and if there is a policy that says otherwise than that policy needs to be fixed). I am merely arguing that it is permissible to convey information about them in an article on the court, or on the office of a judge of that court. The inclusion of such information in an article is a matter of editorial judgment as to that article, and is not the question being decided in this AfD. Your opposition to even having a redirect is not founded on policy, as the criteria for allowing redirects to be made to articles are very different from those relating to what can go support an article. If someone wants information on Norman H. Wolfe and comes to Wikipedia looking for it, the least we can do is direct that visitor to an article having the most likely relevance to what they were searching for. bd2412 T 18:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The suggestion was to redirect to the list. If you want to imbed the judge list in the Tax Court article itself and redirect to the Tax Court article, I have no problem with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I note also that there is a distinction on this court between the regular judges and the special trial judges. As it turns out, special trial judges (such as Judge Wolfe) are indeed more like magistrate judges; they are hired by the chief judge, and not appointed by the President. However, I would also note that decisions of the special trial judges, like those of the regular judges, are appealed directly to the Circuit Courts. bd2412 T 18:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to be trying to bolster your notability case based on the fact that Tax Court decisions are appealed to the circuit courts rather than to the district courts. I don't believe it's uncommon for administrative agency decisions to be appealed directly to the circuit courts. For example, in the case of labor relations, the first step of the adjudicatory process is for an ALJ of the NLRB to have a hearing and issue a decision. That decision may be reviewed by the members of the NLRB itself. A decision by the NLRB is appealable to the circuit courts, not the district courts. That kind of procedure doesn't really establish notability. Continuing the NLRB illustration, the NLRB has five members (as opposed to the much larger number of tax court judges), and, yet, as far as I can tell, only the chairs of the NLRB get their own list, and it's not clear to me whether an NLRB member is considered inherently notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.I must say that the Tax Court is a fascinating creature. Who knew? The Wikipedia article says it is part of the legislative branch, not the judicial. I read an opinion by the Tax Court itself that addressed this issue, albeit in a different context. According to the opinion, the court used to be part of the executive branch. However, according to the opinion, in 1969, Congress removed it from the executive branch and made it an Article I "legislative court". The opinion may be found at Burns, Stix Friedman & Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 57 T.C. 392 (1971). All that aside, the power of the judges on the court are limited. The reach of the court itself is limited. Although juges are appointed by the president, they are not appointed for life (as with Article III judges), and their appointments are generally without any controversy. I doubt - but don't know - they are vetted in the same way as Article III judges, either. To me, they are much more like specialized magistrates, even if they are appointed by the president. I don't think they should be inherently notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most judicial appointments, probably better than 95%, are without controversy. As a practical matter, a fifteen year appointment is about as lengthy an appointment as one can get short of a lifetime appointment, and I should have noted above that Tax Court decisions, like District Court decisions, are appealed directly to the United States Courts of Appeals. On the other hand, it has occurred to me that since the thirty or so articles on Tax Court judges are very short, and likely to remain so, we could merge them all into the list without much loss of information. bd2412 T 22:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 95%? Not that I doubt your word, but do you have something to back that up? And over what period of time? In any event, equating tax court judges to district court judges seems way off base to me, and even a list requires notability for the list members.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say just look at the vote tallies for List of federal judges appointed by George W. Bush and see how many nominees drew any opposition (much less the ones confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent). I would also say that the Tax Court judges, given the relative finality of their decisions, are much more like District Court judges than like magistrate judges. As for lists, the notability bar for inclusion in a list is necessarily lower than the notability bar for having an individual article on something on the list. We see that all the time when we list, and perhaps describe, the songs on an album or the minor characters in a major work, even though most songs on any album, and most minor characters in any work, are not inherently notable. bd2412 T 23:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Too much work to collect data to assess your percentage. The practice of Wikipedia and lists may be different than the guidelines and policies. See WP:LISTPEOPLE ("A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement."). Bankruptcy judges are appointed for 14 years, only one year different from tax court judges. They are not necessarily specialty judges like tax court judges. I stick by my delete, but, notwithstanding my other comments, if my only choice were many articles about individual tax court judges and a list of them, I'd go with the list for efficiency, even though I generally dislike Wikipedia lists.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • By that reasoning, should we delete List of Judges of the United States Tax Court and Category:Judges of the United States Tax Court? bd2412 T 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes to the list and I don't know what the guidelines are for categories. What about imbedding the list in the Tax Court article (that's done with other courts)?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • If the list can be maintained within the article, I see no reason why it could not be maintained separately, and quite frankly no reason why the information in these articles, if not maintained in separate articles, can't be merged into it. If we can list the names and dates, why not also the qualifications that got them the job? I would also like to point out that I put a lot of effort into assembling this information, as apparently no one else - not even the Tax Court itself - has bothered to put together a complete list of all Tax Court judges. Unlike many other articles we have here, if this information is lost from the encyclopedia, it is lost to the world. Well, unless of course someone else puts the list together, but believe me, it was a pain tracking down all the names. I had to run through years of old cases just to figure out when judges started and finished. bd2412 T 01:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Imbedded lists don't have the same notability requirements as stand-alone lists because they are not articles. See WP:EMBED. Article content is not subject to notability. I sincerely sympathize with all the work you've put in, but, unfortunately, that isn't really a sufficient reason to keep an article or articles. However, if the judges were put in the Tax Court article as an imbedded list, your work would not be lost.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I see. Okay, I got this. Here's what we do. Instead of having a "List of" article, we'll have an article on the office of Tax Court judge describing the qualifications and duties of the position with the existing articles on the judges merged into a list embedded in that article. bd2412 T 03:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm not sure if your proposing your own solution or misinterpreting mine. But just so my idea is clear, I suggested that you take the existing United States Tax Court article and create tables with the judges, just as, for example, in United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. But now that I think about it, that wouldn't really save all of your work about each judge because the court articles don't have details about the judges, just entries in a table, meaning it would really be no different than List of Judges of the United States Tax Court, which some might say should be deleted as a stand-alone list. Anyway, I think I've exhausted all I have to say on this issue for the moment and will let others comment. Maybe our mini-debate will illuminate some of the issues for the benefit of those others.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a close call - there seems to be nothing notable about this guy other than his (former) judicial office. So it boils down to: are Tax Court judges inherently notable? As discussed above, these are not lifetime appointments. There are others, as noted above, like bankruptcy judges (and I may add administrative law judges, magistrate judges, judge advocates general, etc.) all of which are "federal" judges in the US scheme of things but they come and go and while they may write or handle momentous cases, they are not inherently more notable than a typical civil servant of equal stature (say the career non-political-appointee folks in the Dept of State, Energy, etc.). So, unless this guy handled some notable case or wrote something notable (nothing in the current draft seems to so indicate); he's just not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have proposed merging and redirecting this information for comparable judges into a single article on the office itself. If you have any objection to this solution, please indicate this. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'll just add a few comments. I respectfully disagree with the notion that Tax Court judges are not inherently more notable than a typical civil servant (and I wouldn't know how you would determine whether a Tax Court judge and a civil servant were of "equal stature"). I made a minor edit to the article to move the material about the Tax Court being part of the legislative branch. The material cited was to a government web site, but the U.S. Supreme Court has already weighed in on this. The Tax Court (I argue) is not part of the "legislative branch"; it is an article I court, but it is part of the judiciary, not the legislative branch. Also, I would argue that Tax Court judges are not like district court magistrates. They are more like U.S. District Court judges (except that they're not appointed for life). But to get to the main point, I would argue that Tax Court judges are sufficiently notable for the simple reason that of all federal judges, these might be the ones most often seen by citizens who are litigating federal tax cases. With a few exceptions, the Tax Court is often the only place that a taxpayer can litigate with the Internal Revenue Service without first having to pay the tax and sue for refund. Famspear (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The guy at the drivers license bureau is probably the guy I'll see the most as the face of government, but it doesn't make him notable. That seems to be a very weak argument for keeping the article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Famspear said that of "of all federal judges" these would be the ones most encountered by citizens, not "the face of government"-type bureaucrats to which you allude. It is unfortunately all too easy to characterize an argument as weak when you are knocking down a straw man instead of the actual argument being put forth. bd2412 T 04:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable position. The analogy of the position is indeed with US District Court judges, who are accepted as inherently notable. Their salaries are equivalent. They are normally reappointed for life. Their decisions are appealed to the Circuit Courts of Appeal, not the district Courts. They are not equivalent to US magistrates -- the tax court equivalent to that lower rank is "special trial judges", who are appointed by the chief judge of the Tax Court DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how salary has anything to do with notability. Magistrate judges are paid 92% of what district court judges are paid. Does that make them inherently 92% notable? As for reappointment, most term-appointed judges (magistrates, bankruptcy judges) are reappointed as often as they wish; yet, that doesn't make them inherently notable either.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  DGG, how would you feel about merging and redirecting all of the existing articles on Tax Court judges into List of judges of the United States Tax Court? We could redirect to sections, so readers would still be able to find the information immediately. bd2412 T 15:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) Salary in a government position is normally a good indicator of relative rank in a hierarchy. (2) I would not in the least accept merging. They're as notable as the district judges individually. I'd as soon merge all the members of a state supreme court. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)![reply]

• Keep ... or at least keep information about the Tax Court judges at the level suggested by BD2412. (As a sidenote, there is a difference between "a court created by Congress pursuant to its Article I powers" and "a court that is part of the Legislative Branch," but we don't need to have that discussion here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly keep per all those above. Neutrality^talk 19:46, 26 May 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 00:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Brown (Journalist - South Africa)[edit]

Bobby Brown (Journalist - South Africa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced autobiographical article. He's a journalist, yes. The rest I can't find anything to support. Singularity42 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - apparently non-notable journalist. The claims in this article might well be true; but even if they are, he apparently hasn't received any attention from third-party reliable sources that I can see, thus he isn't notable by our guidelines. Robofish (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Shameless self-promotion. The article was created by the subject. Tonyfaull (talk) 14:33, 21 May 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 by Gogo Dodo (G3: Vandalism). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Bartok[edit]

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

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

Sounds like a great kid, but no reliable sources except school's press release. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless more reliable-source coverage can be found. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources indicating notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Extremely suspicious that the photo is a crude forgery... AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. This appears to be some sort of bored teen vandalism page, and possibly a veiled attack page. I've tagged it as G3 as vandalism, but am willing to let the discussion take its course if it is declined. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, given the reference to the deleted hoax article Bahameen, this article is likely related to the User:Moore Stats sockfarm, which has been creating hoaxes and vandalizing as such recently. Thus, also tagged as G5 and creator blocked as a sockpuppet. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Close as Speedily Deleted — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State citizenship[edit]

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

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

Article makes numerous claims, citing laws, court cases, the U. S. Constitution, etc. Such claims, not directly supported by the sources cited, are piled together to make claims related to Sovereign citizens claims. Note "unique" interpretations of numerous terms and unusual titles for various documents (freely associated compact states is used to refer to all states, rather than PR, Guam, etc., "United States" vs. "United States of America", "Citizen" vs. "citizen", "Constitution for the United States of America (1787)" vs "United States Constitution", etc.). States are countries, we are told, and the U.S. government is a foreign corporation. Citizens of the various states are, we are told, not subject to federal law. And so on. Essentially, this article is an essay by one of the various movements. SummerPhD (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So go back to this far less idiosyncratic version of the article and work forward again. Sometimes the solution to an article is writing, not nomination for deletion. It is not as if there aren't copious sources on U.S. constitutional law that deal with state citizenship and how the concept has been dealt with over the centuries. You could start with Vicki C. Jackson, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, (Jackson 2001, pp. 130 et seq.) harv error: no target: CITEREFJackson2001 (help) who discusses how the idea of state citizenship was gradually subsumed by federal citizenship. It took just over 20 seconds with Google Books to find; and that was just the first that came up.
  • Jackson, Vicki C. (2001). "Citizenship and Federalism". In Aleinikoff, Thomas Alexander; Klusmeyr, Douglas B. (eds.). Citizenship today: global perspectives and practices. Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 9780870031847. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Uncle G (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification - That "far less idiosyncratic version" is still an idiosyncratic essay. While that one seems to be more in touch with reality, it is completely unsourced. Throughout the history of the article, it has taken on various forms, none of which establish that this is a notable concept independent of the meanings assigned to it by the so-called sovereign citizens. Note that the initial version of the article was a list of case law citations. About a year later, it was someone's Gov 101 essay test (unsourced). An additional year later, some amateur constitutional lawyers had thrown some primary sources in. In January of 2011, a different amateur came in with their own spin of the primary sources. From my POV, that one takes considerable license with the sources. Long story short, I see no version with even one source other than a particular editor's interpretation of various cases, laws and the U.S. Constitution. Further, I am unable to find secondary sources with substantial coverage of "state citizenship" beyond the U.S. Constitution delegating the issue to the individual states and discussion of citizenship in individual states. It's as if we have sources discussing peas, corn, carrots individually and want to use them to write vegetable. Checking three state articles and Washington, DC and Guam, I find virtually no discussion of state citizenship, beyond isolated statements about "citizens". If there is a coherent, sourced article to be made out of any of this, I am unable to find it. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia is not a US domestic encyclopedia. The concept of citizenship of a state is an important concept both in political theory and international law. Its application in relation to individual political entities should either be dealt with in a discrete section of an article on the general topic or in an article labelled accordingly. I infer that the present article is only talking about citizenship of individual states of the USA, but the opening statement seems to be both making general statements about citizenship of a state acquired through citizenship of another associated state and also specific application under the US constitution. --AJHingston (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsalvageable OR. (The reference list composed only of primary sources is generally a good tip-off for this.) Yes, state citizenship is a topic that could probably be written about, but in my view a vote of "keep, but remove all the content and re-write from entirely different sources" (which is what would need to be done) is not significantly different from a vote of "delete." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Roscelese. Much of the content of this article consists of rambling original research, based on taking parts of sentences from various laws and court decisions out of context so as to come up with a fringe theory about citizenship in the United States. Well, arguably, this shouldn't be considered "original" research, because I saw a lot of similar content in Usenet discussions before Wikipedia even existed. But in any event, the current content is almost worthless. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see some reasoned discussion of this article. I tried to clean it up, but any editing I did was quickly undone by either Coquidragon or Exxess. I was unhappy that my sentence, "It naturally follows, then, that anybody born in Virginia or Pennsylvania after July 9, 1868 is a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe part of a judicial opinion that doesn’t bear on the case at hand (dicta) has no value as precedent value. I also believe that opinions that were later dismissed have no such value. The author of this article obviously believes otherwise.

I started to do a note-by-note critique of the references, but it was draining far too much of my energy.

1. ^ a b c d e "28 U.S.C. > Part I > Chapter 13 > § 297 : US Code - Section 297: Assignment of judges. . .

This reference is provided to support a definition of state citizenship, but the reference is to USC Title 28, which deals with judiciary and judicial procedure. Title 48 concerns the freely associated compact states, but it is not germane to this article. The writer apparently thought the federal constitution was a compact among freely associated states. It is not. Chapter 18 of Title 48 covers the compact between the U.S. and Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau, as does the Wikipedia article, “Compact of Free Association.”

3. ^ a b c d e Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873) and Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226, 1234-35 (D. Colo. 1993); SEE U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14, section 1.

As noted by SummerPhD, the U.S. Supreme Court gets the final word on the value of these cases. One thing you never see quoted from the Slaughterhouse Cases in these types of articles is this: “a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State.” Compare the Wikipedia article “Saenz v. Roe.” What does U.S.C.A. stand for?

4. ^ a b c "28 U.S.C. > Part VI > Chapter 176 > Subchapter A § 3002(15)(A) : US Code . . .

This reference is taken out of context to support an unfounded assertion. Chapter 176 of Title 28 of the United States Code concerns federal debt collection procedures. The section given provides definitions solely pertaining to federal debt collection. It defines “United States” as (a) a federal corporation; (such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), (b) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (c) an instrumentality of the United States. This definition allows the statute to refer to these entities as “United States” without needing to give the entire list each time.

5. ^ a b "U.C.C. > Article 9 > Part 1. § 9-307(h) : US Code - Section 9-307(h): Location of United States.". . .

This is a reference to the Uniform Commercial Code, which, as the Wikipedia article states, “is not itself the law, but only a recommendation of the laws that should be adopted in the states.” As far as citing it as a federal statute, I believe the writer has misunderstood. Article 9 covers secured transactions, and the particular section referred to merely gives the address to serve process if the United States has failed to pay what it borrowed from you. (Also, the UCC uses a capital S when referring to states in the United States; they must not know the difference between the United States and the United States of America.)

6. ^ a b c "The Constitution of the United States > Article I - The Legislative Branch > Section 8 . . .

Another reference taken out of context. The federal government has power over D.C., but it is not limited to D.C.

8. ^ "Rights under 42 USCS sect.1983 are for citizens of United States and not of state." -- Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905 CC Cal) 136 F 941

This case isn’t available on any free court case research page, but if you want to see the sovereign citizens come out of the woodwork, try doing a Google search on it.

10. ^ a b c d "28 U.S.C. > Part VI > Chapter 176 > Subchapter A § 3002(14) : US Code - Section 3002(14): Definitions". . .

This is another reference from Chapter 176 of Title 28 of the United States Code, which gives definitions of terms to be used when the feds chase deadbeats. Given that it uses a capital S, it undermines the argument made in the article. By this definition, state with a capital S can be any territory or possession of the United States, without the “of America” added.

11. ^ a b c "28 U.S.C. > Part I > Chapter 13 > § 297(a) : US Code - Section 297(a): Assignment of judges. . .

Again, this reference concerns who gets to be judge in a court in Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau.

12. ^ a b c "28 U.S.C. > Part I > Chapter 13 > § 297(b) : US Code - Section 297(b): Assignment of judges. . .

Same reference, different paragraph. It doesn’t concern U.S. states.

I say delete it. If this information is necessary, it can go it the general articles concerning citizenship or sovereign citizens.

Grig541 (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean. The problem as I see it is that there are two readings from the article, based on a poor distinction within the article itself. Also, I think that the addition of the so-called "sovereign citizens" label as it meaning the same as "state citizens" (without any reference whatsoever that such is true, the reference given being about definition of the former, not about the later) is not correct and has nothing to do with the article, at least with the second part of it. I don't know enough about constitutional law to speak about state citizenship under the US Constitution or state citizenship under the 14th amendment. I mostly concentrated on the 2nd part of the article (the one being deleted, no edited as claimed, by Grig541), which simply stated what I have being taught in school all my live. I am Puerto Rican. I am a US citizen, yet since I don't have state citizenship (based on residency) in any of the 50 states, I lack the right to vote either for Congress or the President, even though they govern over Puerto Rico. The right to vote is a right of the state citizens of the US, not a right of a US citizen. I could go on and on. I did not check the references given to see if they were true, but the article clearly talks about the reality of politics in Puerto Rico. I read the quote "The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands exist within the United States, outside the laws of the United States of America" as true based on a Supreme Court decision (I'm looking for the case name) in which the court said in not so many words that Congress decides which rights and which laws from the US apply in Puerto Rico. If you look at many of the legislation done in the past year, including the Health reform, there are stipulations about what applies and what doesn't apply to Puerto Rico or the other territories (since the reform applies equally to all states). I say clean the article of false referenced material, but the clarifications it brings are noteworthy. I believe the differences between state citizenship and federal US citizenship is worthy of a Wikipedia article. In addition, the first section of the 14th amendment reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thing would go a lot easier if Coquidragon would stop removing my edits. Granted, he has a point about citizenship in Puerto Rico, but I object to his saying the references cited have anything to do with the text in the article and then calling my logical extension of one of the statements opinion. I apologize for the "compact state" entries, but I did that in frustration that nothing else I did would be left alone. Grig541 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed all of your edits. I did not touch anything dealing with the 14th amendment, as I am not knowledgeable about it. If you assume my good faith, you'll see that: I removed the "sovereign state" definition form the first paragraph, since it equates state citizenship with sovereign citizenship, and, even though some of the body of the article might follow "sovereign state" ideology (I don't know if that is so), there exist a state citizenship that has nothing to do with "sovereign" citizenship. The definition is out of context where it was, without further explaining, as there is no mentioning of the 14th amendment in that paragraph, as the 14th amendment has nothing to do with what state citizenship is, and as sovereign citizenship is indeed related to the amendment. You made several changes to the capitalization of many words. Besides taking out some of the redundant explanations (which were not yours), since there are indeed two uses of the word "state" in the same paragraph, the capitalization of one of the meanings against the other is a composition technique to prevent confusion. The wording seemed to me like an opinion. I apologize if it was not. "Following this logic (what logic), it naturally follows (not necessarily so)" Sorry if I was mistaken.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems to me that this article is getting worse since this AfD started, not better. It used to be that most of the sources used were actual statutes and court decisions. Granted, they were being taken out of context and misinterpreted, but at least they had some legal standing in the first place. Now we're seeing inherently unreliable self-published sources being added, such as a personal web page on Angelfire. This article is in such poor condition that it would be best for people to stop editing it, let it be deleted, and then, if this topic is still considered worthy of an article, to start over from scratch. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I hinted above, under a new title, which is necessary anyway. If there is to be an article on citizenship of states in the USA it needs to make that clear in the title. It is very unhelpful to anyone looking for an article on citizenship of the state, a very important topic, to find themselves in a very muddled article that is almost taking that concept for granted. --AJHingston (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nobody seriously has accepted this article's premise since 1870, well before Wikipeida was created in 2001, after adoption of the 14th amendment. Grig541 has properly analyzed the worse errors in sourcing. Even if reverted to a "good" version, this article is a synthesis of fringe-theory, nonsense, and original research. If we must keep it, blow it up and start over. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bearian. Edward321 (talk) 13:09, 26 May 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. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Border Vengeance[edit]

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

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

This article is nominated for deletion: in spite of its "public domain" status and rediscovered negative film copies (see List of rediscovered films, the notability is absent. Also, the page is a stub, and the cast from the 1930s are all but forgotten. Even "Internet Archives" source may not be enough to have this article "kept". --Gh87 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:NF as the film features significant involvement by at least 7 people deemed notable enough to have their own articles. The fact that the article is a stub is not a valid argument for deletion. Also, I'm surprised to see "the cast [is] all but forgotten" used as an argument to delete content from an encyclopedia. --Bensin (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm... I don't see filmographies in every article of a participating actor. Even filmography should have been enough, but should I do filmographies? --Gh87 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looking at WP:Deletion policy and after looking closely at WP:DEL#REASON, I am troubled by the nominator's deletion rationales. Being a stub is a reason to tag an article yes, but not to delete it. Not finding sources on the internet is also not a deletion rationale, as Wikipedia simply loves books that might be found in libraries. Stating "the cast from the 1930s are all but forgotten" is also not a proper deletion rationale, as I might remind the nominator of WP:NTEMP, and the actors that had notability then, have that notability today. As for the rationale "notability is absent", we do not look at a stub's present state but consider WP:POTENTIAL and look to see if even a 76-year-old B-movie has made it into the enduring historical record and whther the article can then be made to serve the project. That said, and other than a generous tagging for concerns, the stub that has pretty much sat forgoten since September of 2009. While AfD is not meant to "force" cleanup, it has again had that effect. the unsourced unencyclopedic stub that was first nominated has now become a minor encyclopedic article that serves the project and informs its readers. It would indeed be surprising if a B-movie from 1935 would have the same depth of coverage or critical commentary as a big budget studio blockbuster from 2011, but then we do not judge a 76-year-old movie using films such as Star Wars as the guideline. The article may never be bigger or better than I have made it... but so what? It is here for the readers, and not the editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the book references are enough to indicate notability here. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:13, 25 May 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 00:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Kaye[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG; the only sources I could find were related to the subject, which fails "coverage in independent, reliable sources." Created by a person with a stated conflict of interest, which suggests that the article was intended to be promotional. elektrikSHOOS 17:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable as per WP:BIO. No reliable sources. - SudoGhost™ 17:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless I'm overlooking something, I can't find any information in 3rd party reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:21, 25 May 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 00:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LifeTopix[edit]

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

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

Non-notable product; sources given are non-reliable. Lots of PR, amateur reviews, capsule descriptions, but nothing substantial and reliable. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article is borderline G11, mostly sounds like an advertisement. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 16:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - a few reviews but from relatively unknown sites not mainstream ones: blogs like e.g. Engadget, newspaper sites and technology magazines are not shy about reviewing popular and significant, i.e. notable, apps. But this has no such coverage.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - as above, 3rd party coverage is thin and not RS. Article was created by an SPA, so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 00:07, 25 May 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 00:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Dunlop[edit]

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

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

As a player for an amateur hockey team, this athlete fails WP:NHOCKEY. VQuakr (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A web search of Dane Dunlop hockey comes up with a few independent sources with articles written about the kid. [1], [2], [3]. --Endlessdan (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the NZ Herald article would not open for me, but the scoop article is a press release and the Lewisville Leader article is trivial (it dedicates one sentence to the subject, mentioning that he scored two goals in a scrimmage game). VQuakr (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 20:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom (failing WP:NHOCKEY). - SudoGhost™ 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How did he do? - If he was accepted into the Dauphins, then I think he has notability as the first New Zealander to play in a major hockey league (even if its at junior level), with the refs given above plus a result ref satisfying WP:GNG. If he didn't make it, there's no story. dramatic (talk)
  • Comment Not "major league". He tried out for a Junior A team. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Agree with Gene93k. If he made it, that along with the sources ought to be sufficiently notable. But since I did not find any references to him making it, I'm not sure he did, and so deletion would be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator is now blocked as a sock of a banned user, and the other "delete" opinions are probably addressed by the intervening improvements.  Sandstein  05:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pig slaughter[edit]

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

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

Several reasons for proposed deletion. The page lacks citations and has been tagged for such since 2007 with no attempt to rectify the situation. The article focuses heavily on Croatian pig slaughter rather than a world view of the topic and reads like original research. Additionally, the article spins off into processing (gutting, beheading, and skinning) and butchering which are not slaughter but different topics entirely. Slaughter ends with the animal's death. In industrialized cultures, four footed food animals (cows, sheep, pigs, goats, horses) are typically slaughtered in the same way: the animal is transported from farming facility to slaughterhouse, stunned, hoisted to the rafters, its throat slit, and the blood drained. In undeveloped lands, the animal's throat is slit at home and the beast allowed to die in a wallow of its own blood. Do we really need separate stand alone slaughter articles for each food animal when the methods are essentially the same? Will not one article such as "Animal slaughter" suffice with concise, separate sections for each animal if necessary? While "merge" with "Animal slaughter" might be suggested, I'm reluctant to support because "Pig slaughter" is virtually unsourced and (as I mentioned) reads like OR. I propose deletion of this article and an expansion of "Animal slaughter" to include separate sections on specific food animals with appropriate citations, or simply the industrialized slaughterhouse method versus the homestyle method. NYFernValley (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn essay which rambles off topic. Leave redir to Animal slaughter; do not merge. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The slaughter of pigs as a specialist trade goes back to ancient Sumeria. It has distinctive features such as scalding which are particular to the pig. As the pig is a major type of livestock, the topic has great notability. For an example of a source detailing this, see here. Our editing policy is to develop this material not to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Scalding is not slaughter. It's processing and doesn't belong in an article called "Pig slaughter". Neither does butchering, packaging, advertising, selling, or cooking. All food animal slaughter is essentially a "specialist trade" in the industrialized world but this is no reason to expect a separate stand alone article for pigs or every other four footed food animal. The titbit about Sumeria can be accomodated in a separate "Pigs" section in an "Animal slaughter" article. True, pigs are major human food animals (except in Jewish or Islamic societies), but giving pigs a stand alone article means sheep, goats, horses, cows, and other four footed farmed animals such as deer should have their own stand alone slaughter articles when essentially the procedure used for pigs is also used for other four footed food animals: the animal is led to the killing floor, it's stunned, hoisted to the ceiling, its throat slashed, and it's blood drained until the animal is dead. Period. I don't see "Pig slaughter" as it stands an article worth keeping for the reasons above, and I don't see the reason for a dozen stand alone "slaughter" articles about other animals destined for the dinner plates of humans when the same procedure is essentially used for all.
    • Your premise is wrong, the scalding and butchering is all part of the general description of "slaughter" (see wikt:slaughter), plus it's explicitly part of the tradition that is widely recognized as "pig slaughter". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The verifiability argument is valid, but you actually have to contest that - either you claim that it's outright unverifiable and unsalvageable, which would warrant deletion, or you don't. The "I don't know, it seems fishy" stance is a poor reason for deletion. But, you're actually missing how the tradition is anything but solely local (Croatian), rather it's spread across continental Europe - notice how numerous editors added the local names from Portugal to Ukraine. If you examine the article history you'll notice how it includes content from an earlier article about pig slaughter in traditional American hog pens, too. In any case, the article already speaks in no uncertain terms about the general agricultural practice of pig slaughter, that section is placed first, and there's nothing apparently wrong with it. You could claim that explaining the tradition in detail puts undue weight on the topic, but that again isn't cause for deletion, instead it can be a reason for splitting the article (as it was once before). The technical distinction between the sole act of slaughter and the other relevant actions it is not important enough to warrant removing the whole context - the slaughter does not happen as a standalone notable act that would warrant its own article, whereas the whole process named after it does. And finally, I think your exceedingly negative opinion about pictures that seem perfectly relevant to pig slaughter betrays a negative bias. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Joy, I don't enjoy being attacked and being accused of a "negative bias" because I removed some questionable pics. Two pics were not germane to the topic but rather to butchering and food preparation, and the other was gruesome. Personally, I loved the pics, I relished them, most of my life has been spent looking at pics of pigs being bled, but Wikipeida doesn't display pics that are inappropriate to the topic, offensive, frightening, gruesome, pornographic, horrific, revolting, or disgusting. Animal slaughter is deliberately conducted in the industrial world behind closed doors and far from the common gaze. Guided tours of slaughterhouses are not conducted for the public. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Let's err on the side of common decency, good taste, and caution. There are external links where the curious can get their fill of pigs being slaughtered. Pics can be sent to Commons and the "Wikipedia Commons has media related to this topic" link placed at the foot of the page. Gruesome pics placed within an article force readers to view them. In the final analysis, I believe this article can be deleted and the "Animal slaughter" article expanded to incorporate any necessary details about pig slaughter. This article is unsourced and has been tagged since 2007. No one has ecpressed any interest in citing sources. Wikipedia is not a how-to so there's no reason to incorporate the Croatian step-by-step into an article whether sources exist or not. NYFernValley (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, let's be serious. The draining of blood is an integral part of a process commonly known as "pig slaughter". Pig halves are the main product of the same process. The gruesome nature of the pictures literally stems from the gruesome nature of the process itself. The article is improved by having them, you're not really doing anyone a favor by censoring them just because they're ugly. People won't come to the encyclopedia to avoid seeing the actual nature of a topic, they will come to see the facts, and the fact is that this stuff happens. I don't think the claim that this behavior is beyond common decency and good taste is valid, because then the whole practice and the profession of butchers would tend be outlawed, which it most certainly isn't. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, let's get serious. Draining the animal's blood from a slash to the throat is common to the slaughtering of all food animals and a gruesome photo is not necessary to convey this information. Words are enough. Abortions happen but you're not going to see a photo of a bloody aborted fetus at Wikipedia. One could argue such a photo would be "informative" but it shouldn't be dangled under everyone's nose with a "this is real, this is it, you must look because it's real!" rationale. No one is forced to go into a slaughterhouse to see a pig being slaughtered. However, readers are forced to look at this gruseome photo whether they want to do so or not. I wonder if the guy in the photo is somebody's uncle and that's the reason the pic is here. I've written rhis business up on the Talk Page. NYFernValley (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue by Colonel Warden (talk).

• Keep Plenty of valid information for those interested in the subject. A lot of information wouldn't fit in another topic about animal slaughter in general, so needs its own article. If some of the information is redundant then it can be discussed on the talk page for trimming. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water . Google Book search for "pig slaughter" and "religious" shows some results [4] as does this search when adding in the word "ceremony". [5] If anyone has access to any of these books, it'd help a lot. My Credo 250 account is surprisingly worthless. There are times throughout history where different cultures did pig slaughtering for religious ceremonies though, as evident by the summary results that appear. Dream Focus 01:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Valid information"? It's unsourced! Where's the "validity"? Any information in this article should be sourced and then sent to a separate "Pig" section in "Animal slaughter". This is the point I am trying to make: pig slaughter is no different from the slaughter of other four footed animals in the industrialized world and does not merit a stand alone article whether sources are found or not. With trimming and reorganization, "Pig slaughter" can be incorporated into the "Animal slaughter" article. The Croatian/Serbian stuff can be sent to its own stand alone article because it's so specific, so narrow, and creates "undue weight" here and would even do so in a "Pigs" section in "Animal slaughter". BTW, Joy who proposed KEEP above is "from Croatia", according to her user page. NYFernValley (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are sources in the article. I added some myself just now. If you see anything that you believe needs a source, then tag it ^{[citation needed]}. I created a section for pig slaughtering done for religious reasons. Dream Focus 09:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saw it and sent it to Animal sacrifice where it belongs. There's a See slao at the end of this article. Unless there's something unique about the slaughter method itself -- the animal is stabbed in the stomach rather than the throat, for example -- I don't understand why your info should be include here. A link to animal sacrifice is sufficient. NYFernValley (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All the problems described can be fixed by simply altering the existing content or its title. There is zero evidence to suggest that the topic itself is not notable or verifiable. In other words: we never delete articles just because they need cleanup. Steven Walling 01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is zero evidence to suggest that the topic itself is not notable or verifiable. The article is unsourced! Isn't that evidence enough! The article is OR! If this article can sit in the project for FOUR YEARS unsourced then why should ANY article be sourced? But you're missing my point. Pig slaughter in the industrialized world is little different than the slaughter of any other four footed food animal and thus does not merit a stand alone article. A "Food mammal slaughter" article with separate sections for cows, pigs, sheep, deer, etc. is sufficient and so the "Pig slaughter" article can be deleted. NYFernValley (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need a million sources to know that some things are notable. Pig, dog, sheep, cat and all the activities related to them are pretty much obvious. Since the main purpose of domestic pigs is to be eaten, an article about their slaughter, butchery, and all the various cultural traditions thus related is quite obviously necessary. In any case, other editors have already pointed out to you that it's quite easy to find related source material if you just search Google Books. Steven Walling 07:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 07:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Comment. The topic is only notable when high quality, reliable sources are entered. It isn't notable because it is something that happens every day. You probably pick your nose every day but this is not notable until high quality, reliable sources are provided. Smithfield slaughters 36,000 pigs a day. A record. But only notable (according to Wikipedia standards) when sources are found and entered. I'm not going prowl about looking for sources for this stuff. There are other things I prefer to do and don't have the time to take this enormous business on. I'm not going to clean some irresponsible editor's mess up. Those who vote KEEP can take this mess on. NYFernValley (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unsourced WP:CFORK of Animal slaughter and Slaughterhouse. No evidence of any substantive coverage that would not fit into these (or related) articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. NYFernValley (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I attended a traditional-style slaughter of a hog in Mexico when I was a kid. It was akin to the description of traditional methods in this article. The experience was actually quite interesting. I'm of the opinion this is an encyclopedic topic. I feel secure that sources are out there. I also agree that the current rendition emphasizing Croatia reads like original research. I have no opinion as to how to proceed, other than to say that deletion would be a mistake and leaving things unchanged is also not a great option. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't envy you; I understand backyard slaughters are horrific and I'm in no hurry to witness one. One hundred years ago, children ran from the site of slaughter terrified and crying. They jumped into to bed, covered themselves with pillows so they couldn't hear the squeals of the pigs. They would be saddened and terrified for the days and weeks following. You seem to be an exception. Yes, pig slaughter is an encyclopedic topic BUT you're all missing the point. Pig slaughter is little different from the slaughter of other four footed food animals whether the slaughter is accomplished in a high tech slaughterhouse or the backyard. And because there is little difference one main article such as "Animal slaughter" is sufficient, with separate sections for each animal. This is not a broad topic. The pig who has his throat slashed in a Croatian backyard is no different from a pig who has his throat slashed in a Mexican backyard or a lamb, a cow, a goat, a horse that has its throat slashed in dozens of areas around the world. Read my lips: The process is the same and because the process is the same there is no need for umpteenth individual articles scattered across the project detailing exactly the same slaughtering methods! I understand backyard pig slaughter in Croatia has recently been made illegal so I'm not sure we need a detailed description of every slash of the Croatian knife and every guzzle of wine. Do we need to know Croatians drink some sort of wine during the slaughter? Why? And where are you going to find a reliable source for this claim? What does drinking wine have to do with the pig slaughter? I imagine Croatians drink wine at other times. Perhaps a list of "Wine drinking times in Croatia" would be an appropriate article. The Croatian pig slaughter stuff has been around for a long time and was probably written to promote Croatia. It should be cast off as a separate stand alone article with a "references needed" tag at its head. Then we can foget about it. I'm not optimistic that every eingle line in the Croatian description is going to be sourced to a high quality, reliable secondary source. It's obvious the passage is OR. It seems the Ayes have on this discussion so I'm wasting my time here. Have a nice day. NYFernValley (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in junior high. It was a part of daily life. It wasn't terrifying, it was interesting... The process is entirely dissimilar to commercial slaughter methods, which are actually more horrifying, I think. The point is, this is an encyclopedic, sourceable topic, copious sources mentioned above and below in this thread. The current rendition of the article is a mess, admittedly. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was a common site a hundred years ago, I'm certain most didn't see it as horrific at all. Just part of life. Your comments suggesting otherwise are just utter nonsense. Dream Focus 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, whether the subject of an article is horrific or not really doesn't matter in terms of notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a search on WorldCat for pig slaughter yields results that indicate this is a notable topic. Just a few:
  • Microbiological investigations of pig slaughter operations, by Rachel Ann Pearce; University of Ulster
  • Pig slaughter, cutting and curing by Paul Heap; South Australia. Dept. of Agriculture
  • Studies on traditional pig slaughter practices on pork production and quality. by Anish Antony
  • The influence of weighing precision on delivery decisions in slaughter pig production by Erik Jørgensen --LadyofShalott 17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wonderful. Now go through the article line by line entering citations appropriately. The object is not to mog through Google books looking for sources but to enter citations in the article. Anyone can dredge up sources at Google but there's no one who wants to do the dirty work of entering citations into an article that is someone else's mess. NYFernValley (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I personally dislike this kind of thing, it appears to be a clearly notable topic. I don't think we should delete articles on notable topics because the present draft is unsourced or unfocused. I found a few more promising sources on Google Books:[6][7][8] Qrsdogg (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Great! Now go through the article line by line entering citiations appropriately. Thanks! NYFernValley (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP. The AFD is to prove the article's subject is notable enough to have an article. If you believe the current sources in the article aren't enough, then you can add the rest yourself. If you sincerely doubt any of the information, then you can tag it with ^{[citation needed]}. Dream Focus 20:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a most educational and encyclopedic topic. Appropriate for inclusion, and obviously noteworthy and notable, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The person trying to delete this article has gone through and wiped out a good size chunk of it. [9]. If you want the entire thing deleted, then discuss it in the AFD please, don't go chopping out large chunks of it during that process. I'm reverting you. Dream Focus 20:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Croatian stuff now has its own article Croatian and Serbian pig slaughtering, processing, and butchery because the stuff is too local and too narrow for this article. It should go to a "Croatian customs and traditions" section in the Croatia article but the page is locked so I couldn't drop it there. I sent the pig religious sacrifice stuff to Animal sacrifice where it belongs. Unless there's something really special about the way a sacrificial pig is slaughtered (thrown in the fire alive, stabbed in the anus, dropped 100 ft from a temple roof), the stuff doesn't belong here. NYFernValley (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Continue the discussion on the talk page of the article please. Another editor just reverted you. Dream Focus 21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, and just as I was having to explain how the pig slaughter article isn't a content fork, I noticed you actually created a separate article that was exactly that - another article about traditional pig slaughter, just with the parts you couldn't verify (or whatever). That's a pretty arbitrary distinction, and I've summarily merged it back. I also integrated the existing external link as a set of inline references, and added another Croatian article that discusses the topic specifically and in detail. I'll see if I can add a few more. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I QUIT. You've spent the day returning unsourced content to the article and reverting all attempts to improve the article in some sort of "contest" to see who is going to come out on top. You win and you can have it. The game isn't worth playing. Your disruptive behavior and foolery confirms what I've long suspected about Wikipedia: the project is very much (not entirely) a congregation of anal personalities. And you have a place in the front pew. Don't bother responding. This is my last contact with Wikipedia. Pat yourself on the back for driving a newbie off the premises. NYFernValley (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My section on pig butchering for religious reasons had a reference for every entry. And you aren't trying to improve the article, you are trying to destroy it entirely, thus the reason you nominated it for deletion. And three different editors have reverted various things you have removed, including the removal of pictures you seem to be determined to keep out of Wikipedia for invalid reasons mentioned in the talk page discussion. Dream Focus 22:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's mourn NYFernValley's 2 day history at wikipedia. See him again soon with whatever name he chooses next time.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete I suggest we WP:TNT, since there are too many issues with the page. Tear it down, start again. Besides concerns about WP:CFORK, there is:

• WP:SCOPE since it seems to focus primarily on Croatia, see:

1. Tradition -- Focusing almost exclusively on Eastern Europe.
2. Country-specific traditions -- Focusing on Serbia and Croatia
3. Problems -- Croatia

• WP:ORIGINAL, see:

1. Agriculture
2. Traditional Autumn Activity
3. Most of Act of slaughter and the butcher of carcass
4. Processing of Animal parts
5. The smokehouse
6. All of Country-specific traditions
7. Everything under Problems

1. WP:OWN see: Talk page
2. Including some problems with WP:CIVIL, WP:DONTBITE, and WP:GOODFAITH on this AfD.

Homo Logica (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you believe the article should exist? Saying to "Tear it down, start again" seems odd. Why not just say it needs a rewrite, and discuss what should be done on the talk page?

• If it focuses too much on Eastern Europe, then stuff involving other parts of the world can be added as well.

• What WP:OWN issues? One editor kept trying to remove things, other editors reverted him. That same editor didn't want certain pictures in the article, three different editors reverted his removal of these pictures, and a 4th editor commented that their reason for removing them wasn't valid. Rather uncivilized behavior really, going against consensus, and determined to delete things you don't like. And just look at the rude message he left when he announced he was leaving Wikipedia. Dream Focus 02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally convinced of the need for the article to fork. However, I've set that objection aside for the purposes of this discussion. I laid out my specific arguments for it being deleted. To quote from WP:TNT, "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over. ... Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over." There aren't just a couple of problems with the page that can be edited away quickly. It is a systemic problem throughout the page. Better to just get rid of it and start again.

As for the others. The problems with WP:OWN is that you have, more than once, declared that somebody was doing something to "my section". It really is important that you not make it personal. Even if the page is kept, which I very strongly believe should not happen, I would recommend that you personally take a break from the page. Regarding the new editor, it happens. A lot of times, people don't understand how things should work here. You need to be patient with them, explain the rules, and if they are edit warring, report them for that, or file a WP:RfC/U. What you should not do is WP:BITE. Crowing over somebody leaving WP is definitely not something we need.

Homo Logica (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, WP:TNT is merely an essay someone wrote, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ESSAYDEL Homo Logica (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP Qrsdogg (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that applies, since I didn't say that it was messy, so it should be deleted. I cited an essay, and pointed out that cleaning it up would take more effort than deleting it and starting it again. And please, don't try to make this into a WP:POINT. It isn't about WP:WINNING.

Homo Logica (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I was unclear, I have no desire to make a point or win a competition here. AfD is about discussing relevant applications of policy, and since we've been able to do so I think this discussion has been a success. I'm always very resistant to the idea of deleting articles on notable topics, even if they are in rough shape. I doubt there will be an abrupt change in consensus here, so I'm going to drop the stick now. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I said "my section" only once, and when questioned explained I meant the well sourced new section I added. And I believe I explained things quite well on the talk page. He was just determined to not have images he didn't like, etc. Dream Focus 04:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"My section on pig butchering for religious reasons had a reference for every entry.", "I disagree. Its a good example of pig slaughtering. Also, my religious pig slaughtering section should be here, it not that long, and it certainly not fitting in a general page about animal sacrifices". One here, one on talk, in the space of about an hour. But, as I stated, that's just for my suggestion that you to spend some time away from the page.

Homo Logica (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. Don't read too much into something like that. I never bother proofreading what I wrote. I should've said "the" instead of "my" perhaps. Dream Focus 04:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it isn't a huge deal. I just suggested some time away might help a little. :-)

Homo Logica (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that'd be stupid. The article needs work now, so why would you want someone who is actually doing work on it to leave? As for your edit summary, "Not about winning", that's not what this is about. Lets stay on topic though. Dream Focus 05:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put in two responses. One of them was about that. Mine to you was a gentle reminder. Please stay cool :-) Homo Logica (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In this case, I don't think that deletion is a good method of fixing flaws with the article. The nomination is somewhat ill-informed: pig slaughter is a notable cultural practice is some parts of the world. It does not end with death of the animal, and involves food processing too, so the title "Pig slaughter" should perhaps not be taken too literally. "In industrialized cultures, four footed food animals (cows, sheep, pigs, goats, horses) are [...]" - yeah, but not all cultures in the world are industrialized, that's exactly the point. Undue focus on some parts of the world could be fixed by forking. GregorB (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is both notable and verifiable and because of religious and cultural requirements is different enough from other animals that it needs a page in its own right.--hydeblake (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems little evidence in the article of "religious and cultural requirements is different enough from other animals that it needs a page in its own" (just a few vague mentions of animal sacrifice of them). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's an example of a source which discusses the cultural aspects of pig slaughter in Slovenia. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - there is little evidence of it, but that's because it's not a terribly good article. It needs a major overhaul to get it to a satisfactory level, but the topic is one of interest and importance.--hydeblake (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the problem is that it does comparatively little to carve out a non-overlapping niche for itself. To survive, the article has to demonstrate a significant level of coverage of non-overlapping sub-topics (and may possibly need a rename to emphasise this). This means working out what related articles are already out there, so that effort isn't spent creating further WP:CFORKed material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All I can say is that in my (rather underdeveloped) country, pig slaughter (in Czech: Zabíjačka) is considered an important part of folk culture and tradition. I can't imagine nominating the article for deletion on Czech Wikipedia :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, the objection (my objection, at least), is not to the fact that the topic might be important enough for its own article. It's that at the moment, to clean it up, it would require each section to be re-evaluated and balanced per WP:UNDUE. Then, since it is entirely WP:ORIGINAL, somebody would have to go through and look for sourcing for each statement that is already up. Then, somebody could start actually researching the material for the article. By following WP:TNT, we skip right to the last step. We just research the article.

Homo Logica (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Imperfection is not a reason for deletion. 99% of Wikipedia content is imperfect. After reading the article I must admit that I don't find the information harmful. You are right, the article needs work, but not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to point out WP:HARMLESS and WP:VALINFO. The problem isn't that it is imperfect. It's that it is all WP:ORIGINAL. There is, for Wikipedian purposes, nothing on the page. Thus, nothing to salvage, right now.

Homo Logica (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely off base. Original research is content for which no reliable published source exists. In case of the content myself and others had added to this article regarding Croatian tradition, this is patently false - there are certainly sources for this, but they are not quoted. The article has a problem being verifiable, but it does not have a problem being true. If there was ever a shred of doubt in my mind that any of this was fake off-the-top-of-my-head material, I never would have added it. Obviously that does nothing to fix the verifiability problem, but deletion doesn't fix that, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. ... The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below," from WP:ORIGINAL.

You're stating that sources exist, and presumably, they were where you gathered the information. However, nobody can WP:VERIFY the statements, since you have not included them, or cited them. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The citation tag, as I stated, has been up for 4 years, without the sources being cited. I have seen numerous editors say, "Sources exist!" However, during this discussion, I have seen the number of sources in the article stay the same. 6 sources. 5 on religious traditions, and 1 on stunning of animals. The very first sentence in WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

This is not personal. If there was verifiable material to keep, I'd be the first to say it should stay. The fact is, though, that there isn't. The article, as it stands now, has nothing to keep.

Homo Logica (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I said my piece above. This is a legitimate encyclopedic topic, copious sources noted above in this thread. The article is a mess and needs massive revision, but it is ultimately correctible through the normal editing process. Keep and fix. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6 sources in the article. 5 are about religious practices. 1 is a sentence on stunning the pig. The easy solution, since you guys are saying these sources must exist, and it can be easily cleaned up, is to render my argument invalid. Fix it. Otherwise, you're just saying, "it could be done." It has been unsourced for 4 years. This isn't a new article with no sources. This is an article that has been around for 4 years, containing entirely WP:ORIGINAL.

Homo Logica (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I also wanted to mention that there are two big problems with the article, that virtually requires it be deleted. The article is unsourced, but quite lengthy. There isn't a little bit of WP:ORIGINAL that went into it. There is a lot. That means that what would be done (should it be kept), is to attempt to find sources to justify the WP:ORIGINAL. This means that, if it is kept, it cannot be given proper weight. We're looking to justify the content already there, rather than looking for what content actually belongs there. It would be quite disturbing, to me, for us to go that route. The alternative, is the second problem. Suppose we keep the article, and simply remove the WP:ORIGINAL. As I pointed out earlier, that's the entire article. If we keep it, our options are to either 1) lower our standards, and settle on a biased article, or 2) blank the page, which amounts to deleting it, and start again. Once you take out the WP:ORIGINAL, there is NO page. That, alone, should be enough to have people rethinking their position. Most of the arguments on here come down to WP:MUSTBESOURCES.

Homo Logica (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have noticed the availability of sources in this discussion and linked them, so please try reading them rather than blithely assuming that all of the unreferenced information in the article is necessarily false. Certainly more can and should be provided, but that a problem far less serious than what you seem to be describing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, please refrain from making this personal. I would remind you, that WP:VERIFIABLE is that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It is not verifiable, so it doesn't belong in here. As for how big the problem is, I would refer you to my complete breakdown of the WP:UNDUE and WP:ORIGINAL of the sections, above.

Homo Logica (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Logica - sorry to disagree (and I certainly don't want to start an argument) but I didn't think Joy was engaging in a personal attack (although there was no need to put blithely assuming) - I read it in a slightly different way than you, I think. Either way Joy is right to point out that much of the unsourced material is true, but you are, of course, right to point out that verifiability is one of the major cornerstones of Wiki. This article as it stands is not very good and needs a major overhaul at the very least, but I still think that it should remain, as long as someone is prepared to do some fairly heavy work on it.--hydeblake (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think our stances are on that far off, here. The blithely assuming was the only part I really objected to. Just wanted to make sure it didn't go further (such as the personal that I removed). My suggestion wasn't specifically to just get rid of it and be done. My suggestion has always been WP:TNT, since the work required in the major overhaul would exceed the work required to just start from the beginning. It comes down to much the same thing, for an article in this bad of shape.

Homo Logica (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why you might see this as too personal is perhaps your particular peculiar interpretation of WP:V - to determine whether something is verifiable or unverifiable, someone actually has to challenge it, or it has to be likely that someone will challenge it. Yes, the burden of proof that something is true is on the person who adds material, not the person who challenges it. Challenging parts of this article is the easy part, someone just has to strike offending parts. Or demonstrate how easy it would be to challenge those parts. But other than the very generic arguments seen in this discussion, nobody has actually done much of that in any really meaningful way, AFAICT. Even NYFernValley's misguided content fork didn't actually mean that he was challenging the veracity of those statements - if he wanted to do that, he could have either outright deleted them or tagged them with inline citation-needed tags. This discussion has been excessively theoretical in nature. Hopefully we can get past all this silliness as more references are added, eliminating this whole uncertainty about things being improper. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This AfD is quite peculiar. There's no question that the topic is notable, or that the article can stand improvement. Homo Logica, you are making arguments that are not persuasive, though you are well-versed in citing a blizzard of policies despite having only 250 edit under your belt. And NYFernValley was a brand new editor starting an AfD. AGF as to all, but its peculiar.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the issue, and not the editor. Your comment has not addressed the very specific concern that the effort required in fixing the article is greater than that required to start from the beginning.

Homo Logica (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you would like to prepare a revised article in userspace for discussion purposes? I would be happy to review.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand. I'm not proposing a revised article. I'm proposing that this one be deleted. Homo Logica (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you agree that Wikipedia should have an article on pig slaughter, correct? Why should you not propose revising it? You seem like a knowledgeable person, and we need logical knowledgeable people working on articles, even when they may not be in their area of expertise.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, that for the purposes of this discussion, whether it should have been forked can be placed on the backburner. I have stated repeatedly that fixing the article, as it is now, requires more effort that starting a new one. I'm pointing out that WP:TNT is the best route, in those circumstances.

Homo Logica (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware it could be stubbed and then rebuilt, right? LadyofShalott 00:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. And I'd be okay with just clearing off all the unsourced material. The problem is that it just leaves us with the Czech Republic and Religious Practices. The article would then not be about Pig Slaughter in general. That said, I'd still be okay with it, since it amounts to much the same thing.

Homo Logica (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT? An essay never used, never cited, and started by infamous mega-banned editor A Man in Black? LOL. You even write the same as he. Anyway, everything Homo Logica said shows that the topic is notable and the article should be improved, not deleted. You clearly have time on your hands, so get to work or go home.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Citing WP:TNT repeatedly through this AFD is ridiculous. The essay goes against the long established Wikipedia policy of WP:IMPERFECT, which is why I nominated it for deletion. Follow policy, as it is the law, while essays are meaningless. Dream Focus 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat that WP:TNT describes my suggestion, and not a policy I'm using to justify anything. Just to be clear. These are the policies, guidelines, and essays I have cited, as reasoning for my position, as well as responding to concerns about my position.

Guideline/Policy - WP:ORIGINAL, WP:UNDUE, WP:VERIFY, WP:BURDEN

Essay - WP:SCOPE, WP:HARMLESS, WP:VALINFO, WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:TNT

Other - WP:ESSAYDEL

WP:IMPERFECT does not apply to that suggestion, as has been pointed out in the MfD, and in the previous MfD. I will point out, again, per WP:ESSAYDEL, that Essays are not meaningless.

Homo Logica (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note The nominator of this AFD has been indefinitely blocked as a  Confirmed sock puppet of banned user ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 16:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So? I don't have a problem working with a sock who acts civilly and in this instance I see no reason to take alarm. Apparently this sock incurred the wrath of Wikipedia after getting into an argument with an editor who has "clout" -- all of three years ago, for crying out loud! In the meantime the sock has created dozens upon dozens of GA articles for Wikipedia and 1 FA. I think dogging this editor has been taken far enough. What are you -- the relentless avenging angel? Take a break. I'm grateful the sock brought this article to my attention. Other than screaming "Sock!" like an hysterial high school kid, do you have anything significant to contribute to the discussion? GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title suggests a global view but the article focuses on Eastern Europe. A world view may be impractical: Pig slaughter in ... Denmark, England, Norway, Brazil, Venezula, China, Japan, United States, Canada, France, Spain, blahblahblah. Perhaps the article should be retitled "Pig slaughter in Eastern Europe". Whatever, the title as it is at present is misleading. Also, this is an English language encyclopedia and sources for the Eastern Europe info are in non-English languages, making it difficult if not impossible for English language editors to verify the quality or the reliability of the sources. The "Sacrifice" section is borderline. The ancient Greeks set aside a small portion of a sacrificed pig for the gods while the rest of the animal was consumed by the people. I'm not informed on the other cultures. On the whole, I sense that the focus on Eastern Europe is the product of some disgruntled people who see their traditions being cut short by EU regulations. The Croatian pig customs can be entered into the "Croatian culture" article and the Serbian, Czech, and Slovakian info can be entered in similar articles. GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of nominator. - filelakeshoe 01:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the sources are in English or not, is not relevant. There is a policy about that somewhere, I just don't recall where. If your only complaint is the name of the article, then discuss it on the talk page. And the ancient Greeks sometimes sacrificed entire pigs, casting them into chasms so nothing could get to them. That doesn't matter though. Pigs were slaughtered at times for religious reasons, I listing four quick examples for that. Dream Focus 20:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Welcome to the deletion discussion for Pig slaughter. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on people rather than the article is considered disruptive." GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• GlasgowGuyScotland, welcome to the wonderful world of AfD, thanks for participating in your first discussion. However, your !vote doesn't state a valid basis for deletion of the article, however, you seem knowledgeable on the subject so perhaps you could improve the article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly could improve this article. "Backyard" Eastern European pig slaughter is no different from "backyard" pig slaughter anywhere else in the world. What happens is the same: the pig's throat is cut and the animal is bled to death. It was mentioned elsewhere in this discussion or the article's Talk page that the article should focus on modern slaughterhouse methods with a mention of "backyard" methods. This seems to me the way to go. For me, all the material about Eastern Europe is nonessential to an understanding of pig slaughter and should be moved to "Croatain culture" and similar articles. There is no reason to single out Eastern Europe in an article about an event that is universal. GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can add in other nations as information is found. Nowhere does it say we'll only cover one group. Notable examples should be listed in an article. Dream Focus 20:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is absolutely no reason Eastern Europe nor any other land be singled out in this article. If Wikipedia must have such as article (and it is moot whether this is so) then the article should focus on the methods of modern slaughterhouses in the First World rather than the backyard methods of the Second or Third World. All the Croatian bits should be moved to "Croatian Culture" and the other Eastern European bits to similar articles because they are all essentially saying the same thing: the pig's throat is cut and the animal bleeds to death, the slaughter begins in the fall, pigs are slaughtered at Mardi Gras time, etc. There's so much duplication from section to section making this article redundant and unreadable. I cannot understand why the bit about girls collecting bones for their wedding day is essentrial to our understanding of pig slaughter. The bit belongs in an "Eastern European wedding superstitions" article. Additionally, I challenge the numerous references which an English speaking, writing, and reading lad cannot decipher. It is impossible for me to ascertain whether these sources are high quality or reliable. This is an English language encyclopedia and editors and readers are not expected to read Croatian or Czech. It's obvious some Eastern Europeans have "glommed on" to this article to "push" Eastern Europe as a vacation destination for English as a First Language peoples and to "vent" against the EU in a political statement of some sort. GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is about the most insane AfD I have ever seen, and the nominator has withdrawn their support anyway. By all means add details of slaughterhouses, backyard ritual slaughter outside of Eastern Europe, but speaking from personal experience, I had never heard about this until I moved to Czech Republic. - filelakeshoe 00:50, 27 May 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. There is no consensus for deletion at this point in time. Further discussion about the couple of proposals for a "merge", may take place at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens[edit]

List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Entirely built on poorly chosen sources and obviously promulgating the view that particular diseases are caused by infections. We already have List of infectious diseases, which serves this task well. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. List of infectious diseases is not the same thing and I think the lead does a decent job explaining the difference, as well as explaining that inclusion does not mean the pathogen causes the disease. Could you explain your problem with the sources? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small single studies rarely provide proof of causality. The sources are not compatible with WP:MEDRS, making verification much more difficult. JFW | T@lk 10:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, I am not sure why you say these are poorly-chosen sources, JFW. Could you explain this further? If you can suggest ways to improve these references, I would be grateful.

This new article is categorically different to the extant List of infectious diseases article. This new article is the only resource on Wikipedia that provides a list of pathogens associated with diseases (which is categorically different to pathogens that cause disease, the latter being provided in the List of infectious diseases article). This information cannot be found anywhere else on Wikipedia. The List of infectious diseases page does not, and cannot, provide this information, as it covers different subject matter.

This new article does not particularly promulgate the view that the diseases listed are caused by pathogen infections; such a view could not be based on fact. In fact, the article explicitly states that "association does not imply causation", just to make it clear that many associations may turn out to be spurious. It is only rigorous scientific research that will determine, for each listed disease, whether its associated pathogens play a causal role in the disease, or not. Research of this nature often takes decades. Some disease-pathogen associations may well turn out to be spurious; others may turn out to be causal (or conditionally causal). This new article simply details the current state of knowledge of this area of research. I am not sure why there is so little coverage of this area on Wikipedia.

Important discussion and comments further explaining the categorical differences between this new article on disease-associated pathogens, and the extant List of infectious diseases article, can be found HERE. Drgao (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just because one small study possibly indicates some link is not proof of causation. None of the examples are remotely close to satisfying Koch's theorem. JFW | T@lk 10:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As stated in the article, "A disease is said to be associated with an infectious pathogen when that pathogen is found more frequently in patients with the disease than in healthy controls." This makes it slightly different than List of infectious diseases, which is all about diseases that have been proven to be caused by certain infectious agents. This is a slight but key difference. A cap reading This is a list of human diseases suspected to be caused by infectious pathogens. For a list of human diseases known to be caused by infectious pathogens, see List of infectious diseases. should be enough. As for the sources, I fail to see how government websites publishing academic papers, like this one can fail WP:RS. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comments above about how some studies cannot provide proof of causation or association. PubMed contains links to millions of scientific papers, not all of them are suitable for these purposes. JFW | T@lk 10:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the infectious diseases list or Repurpose. There are also some serious cleanup issues here, with a lot of this based on "primary" sources (i.e. research results, not review articles), and honestly it appears like there are rampant problems with WP:UNDUE. I'm looking at the article as a list, not the caveats and article at the top, because it claims to be a list, not an article. The whole "associated with" and the problem of "post" hoc fallacies means that this article and list could be very, very easily misunderstood. A list of pathogens "associated with" diseases might be useful (this content is already sort of there in this article), with the heavy caveat through formatting of specifically having an "associated with" and "proved to cause" distinction. There are some major gaps in the content, as there are all sorts of infections are "associated with" HIV (e.g. HHV-8, T. pallidum) and aren't listed here, so this list comes across as "infections that might cause disease" and I have a healthy wariness towards speculative content. One possibility is simply to retitle the article and have an article on infectious agents (pathogen implies that it causes disease, which is not known for some of these bugs) associated with disease and have a bunch of examples rather than having a list. SDY (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SDY. Thanks for your comments. AIDS would not need to be included in this list, as AIDS has an established cause, namely HIV. This article/list will generally only contain diseases that satisfy the two conditions that they are: (1) diseases currently unknown cause, and (2) diseases which have a number of known associated infections, that may conceivably play a causal role in the disease. This is probably not explained sufficiently clearly in the article; I will have to reword it to make this clearer.

You raise a very valid point that the article/list could be very easily misunderstood. Perhaps the intro to the list should be worded with greater clarity to ensure that people appreciate that association is not the same as causation, in other words, innocent until proven guilty. Having said that, the article should be understood as precisely as "infections that might cause disease". That is the reason that these infections are studied, as they might (or might not) be the cause of their associated disease. There would be little point in studying these disease-associated infections, if not for the purpose of finding a possible cause for the disease. Drgao (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the page introduction to hopefully address some of your concerns. More emphasis has been placed on the fact that we are only generally concerned with diseases of currently unknown etiology. Also, the potential for misunderstanding the nature of the page has reduced by incorporating the following sentences as the last paragraph of the introduction: "Nevertheless, in the following list of diseases of currently unknown etiology associated with infectious pathogens, there is no proof that the associated pathogens do play a causal role in the disease, only a possibly that they might. Only further medical research will determine whether the associated pathogens do play a causal role or not." Drgao (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge information about any "association" to appropriate article about the infectious organism. Putting aside the clear sourcing issues already stated above, the fact that this is a list format means that important information to place each "association" in context is not present, making it one big WP:UNDUE violation. Random or trivial associations are placed alongside actually important associations without any context whatsoever. Yobol (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A lot of agents can facilitate development of diseases, rather than be the only and direct cause. This is important list that should not be the same as List of infectious diseases. And it is indeed very different.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, we should list only the agents that are strongly suspected to be linked with diseases, not all sorts of farfetched theories. JFW | T@lk 10:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This subject is a legitimate and neglected area of inquiry which is also very controversial among the medical establishment, not least because of the large number of serious diseases which have recently been found to be caused by communicable pathogens. The nominator should specify precisely which of the 101 sources, nearly all of which appear to be peer reviewed, are "poorly chosen." Does the nominator have any secondary sources to the contrary? Dualus (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the sources don't support the content. For example, the "sudden cardiac death" section blames enteroviruses, and the source talks about identifying infections in viral myocarditis. This has nothing to do with the list's supposed inclusion criteria, which is that these are common comorbidities that might have a causative link. This is very, very speculative stuff, and we need a lot better sourcing than "here's one paper that suggests it might be" to get real verification. There are some interesting concepts discussed here that are worth talking about, but the article as written is a disaster. Maybe not a reason to delete it, but maybe a reason to put it back into user space until it's ready for primetime. SDY (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that the reference provided is a little weak, in that the study was more concerned with identifying infections in viral myocarditis, than in studying sudden cardiac death. Nevertheless, viral myocarditis is responsible for 20% of sudden death, according the Myocarditis Wikipedia article, so it occurred to me that this study might provide some useful evidence of enteroviral involvement in sudden cardiac death; and that this might be a useful scientific clue for someone somewhere.

However, I will defer to your judgement, and remove this particular entry in the article's list, if you think this is below the threshold level of acceptance as evidence. I hope the reference I provided for enteroviral involvement in myocardial infarction is of better quality.

I am not sure why you say the article is a disaster. Much of my focus was on the pedagogic quality of the article, trying to give the reader not only a list of diseases that are associated with infectious microorganisms, but also some inkling of the complex causes and mechanisms which may precipitate disease, and the difficulties involved in uncovering these mechanisms. For example, I thought that this inclusion in the article was pedagogically very rich: "In a murine model, Crohn's disease is precipitated by the norovirus CR6 strain, but only in combination with a variant of the Crohn’s susceptibility gene ATG16L1, and chemical toxic damage to the gut in other words, through a virus–gene-toxin interaction)." It shows how it may require three very different causal factors to coincide before the disease appears. I found that fascinating, anyway. This sort of information hopefully gives the reader a better feel and sense of the complexities involved in hunting down the causes of disease.

If it is just that you think some references are below the threshold level for acceptance as evidence, or are too "creatively" used, I would be most grateful if you would point these out, so that they can be addressed, or removed if it comes to that. Drgao (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article has a serious WP:DUE issue. It portrays a bit of evidence regarding infectious causes of disease out of context off all the other causes. These issues should be dealt with on the pages that pertain to said disease.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost every chronic disease predisposes to infection. Must every single predisposition be mentioned? Dementia is associated with Providencia stuartii. Kidney transplantation is associated with Aspergillus fumigatus. The list is never-ending. In the absence of any context, statements like these have no value. I am particularly dismayed by the list of cancers with "associated pathogens". This is especially unhelpful. The list is an indiscriminate collection of worthless statements. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "In the absence of any context, statements like these have no value." If you read the introduction to the article, you will notice that a precise context is very clearly provided. The article is not a random list of any microbial associations of diseases, and the article is not interested in diseases where immune deficiencies are the explanation for the associated infections. Drgao (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the list may run into problems of original research if we start arbitrarily including and excluding things based on a carefully constructed definition. The concept of "diseases associated with but not necessarily caused by infectious agents" is a useful idea to kick around, but narrowing the list down to speculation about the cause of diseases puts far more editorializing into the content than the sources really support. Honestly, it sounds like the article's content is currently List of an arbitrary group of diseases that might be caused by these pathogens but we can't prove it. It's really more of a cleanup issue than a deletion issue, the idea of the list is valid but it's going to have to include the broader concept, not just specific speculations. SDY (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are getting at: that there is the potential that editorial policy might play a greater role in shaping the article that the sources actually dictate (and if this were the case, it would make me feel uneasy as well). In practice, however, you find that no editorial decisions are called for, as a study's content does quite clearly determine whether that study should be included or not. This is because when a study is examining the prevalence of a given pathogen in a certain disease, the authors generally make it clear that the study was gathering this prevalence data for the express purpose of highlighting a possible causal connection. For example, the abstract of this study, which examined the association between HHV-6B infection in the brain and mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE), ends with the sentence: "Our results suggest a potential etiology and pathogenic mechanism for MTLE". So it is quite clear here that the context is of HHV-6B as a potential causal agent of the disease.

Thinking about Axl's comment: it may be a concern that the context of the article is not immediately obvious from a quick glance; this may be something that needs to be improved in the article, in order to make its contextual background more obvious. Drgao (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" If you read the introduction to the article, you will notice that a precise context is very clearly provided. "

— Drgao

I have read the introduction to the article. The opening sentence is "The following is a list of human diseases of currently unknown etiology that have been associated with infectious pathogens." On what basis have the editors of this article decided that a disease is "of unknown etiology"? Does "not well understood" count? How about "probably due to"? "Possibly due to"? Some specific examples I have major concerns about: asthma, atherosclerosis, autoimmune diseases, cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, etc.. The article's scope fails at the first clause. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" The article is not a random list of any microbial associations of diseases. "

— Drgao

Yes, it is. As Graham Colm mentions below, each "association" is based on its own primary source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" The article is not interested in diseases where immune deficiencies are the explanation for the associated infections. "

— Drgao

On what basis have you decided this? Does IgG deficiency have "known etiology"? If so, how is it any different from autoimmune diseases or cancers in this respect? If not, it is indeed "a human disease of currently unknown etiology that has been associated with infectious pathogens". Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a disease were of a known etiology, there would be generally no need to investigate the microbial associations of that disease with the view to determining which microbes may potentially play a causal role in the disease, as the cause is established. So this is why an unknown etiology is stipulated.

Similarly, an immune deficiency disease like AIDS, where it is known that the co-infections do not play a causal role (since HIV in both the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS), there is also no need to investigate the microbial associations for etiological purposes, as the cause is established.

Review sources were used whenever they could be found. There are lots of primary sources employed, admittedly, but many of these sources are also used in the existing main articles for each disease. Drgao (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to address my concern regarding the definition of "unknown etiology". Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" If a disease were of a known etiology, there would be generally no need to investigate the microbial associations of that disease with the view to determining which microbes may potentially play a causal role in the disease. "

— Drgao

So the list is actually about diseases that might possibly have an infectious cause that hasn't been confirmed yet? That isn't what the title of the article or the article's opening sentence say. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: So the list is actually about diseases that might possibly have an infectious cause that hasn't been confirmed yet? – Axl

Yes, that in a nutshell is exactly what the article is about. I'm not quite sure why I didn't think of putting it like that in the first place. I will definitely edit the article to place this phrasing as the first sentence in the introduction.

Regarding the various shades of unknown etiology ("not well understood", "probably due to" and "possibly due to"):

First of all, it seems that there are two classes of etiology behind a disease: what might be called a metabolic etiology, which relates to the system(s) of metabolism that are malfunctioning in a given disease; and then there is what might be called a primal etiology, which relates to what caused that malfunction in the first place. For example, in type 1 diabetes a malfunction of the beta cells results in insufficient insulin - and this aspect, the disease's metabolic etiology (and how to compensate for it), is well understood; however the primal etiology of type 1 diabetes is not known, but is possibly due to a noncytolytic enterovirus infection of the beta cells.

In asthma, as another example, the metabolic etiology involves inflammation, swelling, and excess mucus production in the airways of the lungs, again something that is reasonably well understood, I believe; however the primal etiology (or etiologies) of asthma are not known, but various risk factors and have been identified, so we might describe this primal etiology as "not well understood". By contrast, adult-onset asthma has primal etiology that we might stretch to describing as "probably due to" Chlamydia pneumoniae.

In the case of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), "almost clueless" may be an appropriate way to describe the current understanding of the metabolic etiology of this disease; but the primal etiology of ME perhaps warrants a "possibly due to" chronic infection with Coxsackie B viruses, and/or echoviruses, and/or herpes family viruses, as well as various toxic contributory causes.

In general, a specific disease will presumably generally have only one metabolic etiology (the areas of metabolism that are malfunctioning), but potentially many primal etiologies that may precipitate the metabolic etiology.

Some primal etiologies may be able to singularly precipitate a disease (for example, HIV singularly causes AIDS); other primal etiologies might only precipitate a disease when there is a concurrence of two or more necessary causal factors (herpes simplex 1, plus a specific allele of the gene APOE, in combination lead to a higher risk of contracting Alzheimer's)

Anyway, this article is generally concerned with primal etiologies that comprise microbial infections, or microbial infections in conjunction with one or more other necessary causal factors (like additional microbes, genes or toxins).

Most primal etiologies presently listed in this article are "possibly due to" cases. I am still classing this as an "unknown etiology", since "possible" (or even "probable") is still not a fully proven cause.

However, sometimes a disease of fully known primal etiology is included in the article, but is listed because the disease also appears to have other separate possible primal etiologies that are still unknown (for example myalgic encephalomyelitis has a proven primal etiology of Chlamydia pneumoniae, but may also have additional distinct primal etiologies that are possibly due to Coxsackie B viruses and so forth). Drgao (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed reply, clarifying some important points. I remain concerned by the subjective nature of "unknown etiology", the speculative implication of the associations, and "sometimes a disease of fully known primal etiology is included in the article", which is contrary to the declared aim of the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if as you suggest, the article is renamed as:

List of diseases that may possibly have an infectious cause that has not been confirmed yet

which is an excellent suggestion, then the "unknown etiology" clause can be dropped entirely, because this new title succinctly and completely prescribes the intended scope of the article. My use of the clause "unknown etiology" was just an effort to try to capture and pin down the scope, as the present title of this article does not fully capture the aim of the article. Hence I made an awkward effort in the article's introduction to try to describe the article's scope - but that effort is now redundant, as the scope perfectly encapsulated in your suggested title.

Other variations of your new article title suggestion include:

List of diseases in which infectious microbes might play a casual role

List of diseases that possibly have an infectious cause not yet confirmed

List of diseases with possible (but unconfirmed) infectious etiologies

List of diseases with possible (but unproven) infectious etiologies

Of course, this article remains one of speculative implications, not proven ones, and I do appreciate SDY's comment (copied from the discussion page of the article) that, quote: "Wikipedia really hasn't made a habit of publishing speculative material, especially on medical topics. "It could be true" is not the level of verification we're looking for". I would not like this article to be a blot on the landscape of Wikipedia's high quality of medical coverage, if it was generally felt that the type of medical research in progress covered by this list ought not to be included in Wikipedia.

The case I would put forward to argue for inclusion of this article in Wikipedia is that: in recent decades, an increasing number of possible (but unproven) infectious etiologies have been discovered in connection with common chronic illnesses; and this has surprised many researchers. There appears to be a new school of thought in medical research that is beginning to accept the idea that infectious etiologies are likely behind many diseases of currently poorly understood etiology. So as well as providing some definite references, this article also reflects this new school of thought to a degree.

It must be pointed out, though, that some of the inclusions in this article's list of microbe-disease associations go back a long way: breast cancer's association with mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV) goes back to the 1930's, and yet amazingly, after all this time, MMTV remains a possible but still unproven cause of human breast cancer (even though MMTV is a proven cause of murine breast cancer). So this article covers an old area of medical research, but one that has recently come much more to the fore. The main problem with obtaining proof in the case of humans always comes back to the fact that, for obvious ethical reasons, you cannot inoculate infectious pathogens into humans to see if these pathogens do cause the disease or not. So these possible (but unproven) infectious etiologies may retain their state of limbo for many years to come.

Another argument for inclusion of this article is that many of these listed possible but unproven microbial causes of disease are already included in the main Wikipedia article for each particular disease. So there is very little new information in this article; just a juxtaposition of information already existing in Wikipedia - arranged in a way that allows readers to better examine and compare various possible but unproven microbial causes of disease. Drgao (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete— The article is based on cherry-picked, speculative, primary sources scattered throughout the literature. It contravenes WP:MEDRS and WP:Weight. It plays down established aetiologies and gives the impression that "association" means "cause". It is not encyclopedic, it is tantamount to original research and will tarnish the good reputation that Wikipedia has for its medical content. Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not presume that infectious pathogens are the only potential cause of disease; it's just that the article's focus is diseases with microbial associations.

I am not entirely sure this article does contravene WP:Weight, as WP:Weight says "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view". The next edit of the article will include appropriate references to the majority viewpoint, ie, that there are several other potential causes of disease, including: toxins, radiation, dietary and lifestyle factors, stress, genetics, epigenetics. The article tries hard to make it clear that "association" is not the same as "cause", and I hope to make this distinction even clearer in the next article edit. Drgao (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't clearly about a minority viewpoint, though. Association of any disease with infectious pathogens is extremely, extremely common, and this is a tiny subset. If the list covered the whole concept instead of just the wild mass guessing that happens to have some evidence of correlation, it'd be fine, but carefully defining the limits of an article to limit it to a single point of view is... well, let's just say that it's not what we do here. The WP:WEIGHT exclusion there is so that we can have articles on conspiracy theories and such, which are always very explicit, usually from the title of the article, that they are not mainstream thought, and treat the subject matter with suspicion and doubt. This article appears to endorse the subject matter, and that's essentially a WP:NPOV problem because reliable sources don't make these links. There's an article here, but it's not the article (not a list) that's being written. SDY (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be kept. I do agree with Axl and some others that "the list is never-ending" and some of the specific associations have been challenged in scientific literature. So, what? The subject is widely discussed in literature (more than a hundred of valid references already). Let's expand and improve. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Crankish. Neutrality^talk 21:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astonishment One word in opposition to a 100 reference article? Really? I think my efforts would be better spent somewhere that the culture of deletionism and physicians' guild censorship is not so welcome. 99.58.31.20 (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The introductory text of the article has just been rewritten to an extent to implement changes that reflect the various concerns, criticisms and suggestions raised here and on the discussion page of the article. These changes to the text include:

(1) The article is now much more clearly described as: a list of diseases with possible (but unconfirmed) infectious etiologies - as per Axl's suggestion.

(2) Removed the unnecessary stipulation of the diseases being of "unknown etiology" - as per Axl's concern.

(3) Included the statement that there are other potential causes of disease (toxin exposure, radiation exposure, dietary and lifestyle factors, stress, genetics, and epigenetics) - as per Doc James's suggestion.

(4) Added text to make it very clear that the terms linked and associated are used in a strict technical sense (meaning a frequent co-occurence of certain pathogens in certain diseases, and not be read that linked and associated imply that there is a causal relationship between pathogen and disease), as per SDY's concern.

(5) Removed some of the "hype" that potentially unbalances the article's neutrality, as per SDY's concern. Drgao (talk) 23:49, 25 May 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 00:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional centenarians[edit]

List of fictional centenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization. The extreme age of these characters is generally a trivial part of their portrayal and not an appropriate basis to create a list per WP:IINFO. Anthem of joy (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; from a quick look at the list, it's composed almost entirely of characters who are immortal, not characters who simply happen to be very old, so an age-based list is superfluous. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; it's totally unreferenced and purely subjective. Immortality makes age irrelevant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- indiscriminate trivia. As mentioned, the fact that most of these characters are immortal makes their age pretty irrelevant. Reyk _YO! 04:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Just a question though, there is a Lists of centenarians on Wikipedia, so why wouldn't you want a list of fictional ones? If not, should we make it a category? Mathewignash (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the centenarians on the lists of real centenarians are immortal and thus of largely irrelevant age. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nomination. The list is subjective and trivial. It appears that none of the fictional characters is notable for being a centenarian, which makes it fail WP:NOTDIR also. Jfgslo (talk) 22:58, 26 May 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/snowball deletion, Wikipedia is not a hosting service. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also deleted the related page Local Modifications and Local Ontologies, the uploaded images, and the user pages of the two contributors. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Guide to Movement of Object & Data Properties[edit]

Quick Guide to Movement of Object & Data Properties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:NOTMANUAL, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the following article written by the same author on the same topic in the same manner, with the same problem (WP:NOTMANUAL) - PROD was removed by author:

Quick Guide to What can I change in the VIVO Ontology? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Singularity42 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding, for the same reasons:

Practical ontology design principles in the VIVO context (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TransporterMan (TALK) 16:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article #4 (same reasons):

Ontology design choices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Singularity42 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on these coments on both talk pages, I propose a speedy deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete all three pages, author using WP mainspace for a sandbox for, apparently, some other website. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I've left the creator a level 3 warning now, and these pages are irredemably hopeless. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:30, 19 May 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 : Article already speedy deleted by John as a hoax. Non Admin Closure. Edgepedia (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Koala[edit]

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

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

Non-notable cartoon character; made up by one non-notable person, only seems to have appeared in content self-published by that person. Article creator removed prod. bobrayner (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Another Bobrayner torment. Joey Koala is pretty well-known, dependent upon the region. Note: ALL cartoon characters are made-up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpaj (talk • contribs)
  • Where, exactly, is Joey Koala pretty well known? Which television show or printed media did Joey Koala appear in? If you could let us know, that would help underline Joey Koala's notability. (Apart from a fleeting appearance of a koala logo in a Youtube video that you made yourself; that doesn't establish notability). bobrayner (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are actually four items from the same creator which have been nominated for deletion. They are: File:Clopen symbol.png, Joey Koala, United Under Economy, and Ronald Ellis (American businessman). The latter is the odd one out as Ronald Ellis is merely non-notable rather than fictional. bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt. No notability, possibly invented to get onto Wikipedia. --NellieBly (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable logo character of a non-notable company. Non-notable character asserted to appear on non-notable television programme, although the programme only seems to exist as a video on Youtube. Also another in a string of Link Starbueiy articles, which I commented on in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Under Economy AFD. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This uses purely primary sources and provides not a shred of notability with coverage from any secondary sources. OCNative (talk) 14:25, 21 May 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. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olan Hyndman[edit]

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

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

An obscure Iowan neurosurgeon whose book propounding his idiosyncratic theory of evolution/philosophy of science received a pair of 1953 reviews (in The Philosophical Forum and the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, not in any journal that specialises in evolutionary biology, or philosophy of science). Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Below references include from the (The soil science journal, medical library association, American Psychiatric Association, Oxford Journal)

1. Soil Science Journal: September 1952 - Volume 74 - Issue 3 - ppg 261 - Review of his book
2. http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC195525 Reviewed by John J. Biesele, Ph.D.
3. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/pdf_extract/110/9/720 Reviewed by Norman Ford Walker Ph.D
4. http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/4/621.1.extract - His book reviewed in a journal #Another reference - Hemispheric communication: mechanisms and models By Frederick L. Kitterle p. 20 claims he was a neurosurgeon at the institute.

The soil science journal, medical library association, American Psychiatric Association, Oxford Journal all reviewed his book. We also have reliable sources which show he was a surgeon and the University he worked at see the article itself, still have no idea why this is trying to be deleted. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify whether you wish to keep or delete this article, and if keep, why you think this subject meets WP:PROF. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Liveintheforests, the original author of the article, has now tagged for speedy[10] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:16, 19 May 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 00:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity versus Aquinas[edit]

Trinity versus Aquinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delisted PROD. Schoolboy rivalry that does not list any reliable sources, is of dubious notability, and does not pass the General Notability Guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While the rivalry is real, well established and well-known within the two school communities, it does not achieve mainstream notability, as evidenced by a lack of citations. Moondyne (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is just an article about trivia and does not meet pass WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Moondyne (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of clear notability. We do have articles on notable rivalries between schools (the first coming to mind is Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry), though clearly we need a lot more coverage to justify such an article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article as written does not establish notability of subject matter. News search discovers no related press coverage. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The rivalry is real, although it isnt probably notable. Best covered in either of the Aquinas, Trinity & CBC articles. Lack of reliable sources. Five Years 09:11, 21 May 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 , WP:SNOW/author has requested deletion. - filelakeshoe 23:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Cincinnati Private Eye Protecting Princess Di: A Fascinating Footnote In History[edit]

A Cincinnati Private Eye Protecting Princess Di: A Fascinating Footnote In History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A book that was, I believe, published last month. There is nothing in the article that demonstrates notability, either according to the general guideline or the book-specific guideline. Creator of article (and co-author) has discussed notability but has not come up with anything that would meet those guidelines. I can't find any siginificant coverage in reliable sources either. BelovedFreak 13:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — BelovedFreak 13:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no claim to notability nor any sources to reinforce that it is, Sadads (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP the article. I think the article is fine. The book simply covers a seven day period from 28 years ago; and the proof is in the book itself. There was no coverage at the time of the incident 28 years ago; that is the whole concept of the book. I think it is sad and small-minded that a google search determines the nobility or credibility of all articles on wikipedia. Example: Angelina Jolie can fly to Africa and if we can't find proof through a google search does that mean she didn't really go to Arica? The article is accurate and honest and I wish it could stay on wikipedia. If not, thanks to each of you for your assistance. I did the best I could. LuvToRead3 (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the issue here is the notability of the book as a book, not the notability of the underlying events described in the book. In other words, has this book hit any best-seller lists? Has it received acclaim from any major book critics? Was the author invited on to Good Morning America or The Oprah Winfrey Show to promote the book? These questions are an oversimplification; the actual criteria for notability of a book can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Your most likely way to qualify this book as notable is the criterion "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Again, see Wikipedia:Notability (books) for details. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The event is notable but that's irrelevant. This book is too new to be a notable as a book. Maybe in a few months the article may be worth re-creating, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we shouldn't keep the article just based on an expectation of future notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With zero Google News hits for the title, I suspect that it will be difficult to establish notability for this book under WP:BK. As I stated above, the notability of the underlying events is irrelevant here, just the notability of the book. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability. As we've mentioned above, we're talking about the book itself, not the individual or the incident - and, on that score, I can't find any material talking about the book itself. That said, Usual caveats apply; it's a new book, after all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book has been on the market for three weeks. So to answer the questions of some of the members here: No the book has not received any major awards and, NO,Oprah has not invited me to apprear on her now over TV show. I've read descriptions of hundreds of books on this site and I think this listing is just fine. I'm not upset that "things here did not go my way." (Rather a personal insult, I think, as if I'm some spoiled brat.) All I really wanted to do was place a noteworthy article. I don't care for the hurtful personal insults. I'm happy that some of you are obviously much smarter than I am and I'm very proud of you. However, I am not totally stupid as I do know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I no longer care for the negative attitude (towards me) of this site. Please read the articles for most of the books on this site and show me the "notability." I admit that I am not educated enough to do anything more here. By all means, remove the article. Thank you. LuvToRead3 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 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.  Sandstein  05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shonlock[edit]

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

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

Concerns about notability. There are assertions of significance within the article, but these are not backed up with reliable sources. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUS per verifiability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable sources to be found. Endofskull (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A WP:SPS (the subject's own website) is not a WP:RS … the other "reference" is dubious as well. Happy Editing! — 70.21.17.51 (talk · contribs) _{00:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete - Assertions of notability are not backed up by reliable sources. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I just added some refs, there's nothing huge but there's some. I could go either way on this one. Robman94 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Robman94's additions. Phearson (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the new references, just enough to squeak by WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Also, he has charted on the Billboard Christian Songs chart. [11] Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on Houston Chron interview, Billboard chart. Close, but enough. --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:49, 19 May 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per sourcing/Paul Erik.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The rough consensus is that enough reliable-source coverage has been identified to establish notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cruise[edit]

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

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

rm self-promotion of tourist catch-word. WP:SPAM, essentially unreferenced and a catchall for travel information. Not encyclopedic. Student7 (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SPAM. Endofskull (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promo / free-advertising.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:RS and [WP:N]]. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at the risk of being against the opinion of the majority. Blue cruise is a very common name created not by the tourist agents but by a respectable authoress. It is not a company or a brand name and it certainly deserves an article in a 3.5 million article encyclopaedia. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising/spam/promo article. Doh5678 Talk 18:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:RS and is quite confusing to read. Although its not clear, I'm certain the intent is to advertise. Phearson (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the strength of this NYT article, which should be referenced in the article. Several other potential NYT references exist as well. A simple news search shows that this is a notable concept. Article needs to be expanded and wikified, but the concept is solid. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added an NYT reference. I think the subject matter is pretty clearly notable at this point. The article needs improvements, so I also added a rescue tag. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The New York Times has various places it mentions the blue cruises in Turkey. [12] So its a real thing and clearly notable enough to get coverage. Dream Focus 23:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: infrequently employed neologism/translation-of-a-foreign-language-term. That a single prominent source makes mention of it (but gives a divergent definition) does not make it notable. I'm sure dozens (hundreds?) of countries have local terms for local tourist attractions, but this does not mean that Wikipedia should maintain WP:DICTDEFs on these terms, let alone their English translations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:48, 19 May 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not the greatest article, but still the fact that the New York Times attests to its notability argues for keep. The barrier between Turkish and English is rather high and the topic seems to have jumped that. It also has some good information for the few people in the English speaking world who might be interested, maybe potential tourists to Turkey or students in geography classes. Merge to "Tourism in Turkey", or whatever, is also possible. Maybe better.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have now added citations from the NYT and Newsweek. Like it or not, this is a notable concept with solid RS support. The article deserves a place in Wikipedia. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Added citations to books, WP:RS, and copyedited for clarity, changing to the indefinite article "a blue cruise," to match the Dutch version. Discovered in the process of adding citations that this term appears to have literary origins which predate its use in the tourist industry. We could use help from some Turkish speakers to expand on its significance in literature. Trilliumz (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Found another decent book source [13], this looks like a notable concept. There are a ton of google news and book hits for the Turkish translation, as well. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added your book reference to article as historical context for the term. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reliable sources are already used in the article, and it is now clear that this term has a historical background. --Seksen (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sure it promotes tourism to Turkey, and certainly it is a recent coinage. But the NYTimes article validates it. (And it sounds lovely).I.Casaubon (talk) 19:04, 26 May 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 : Article already speedy deleted by John as a hoax. Non admin closure. Edgepedia (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Under Economy[edit]

United Under Economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable organisation; sources are self-published by "founder"; gibberish text; not a real standards body in any meaningful sense. bobrayner (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator; it's just made up - admittedly by somebody who's made up some other stuff and put it on several sites like scribd and youtube, but still made up. bobrayner (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator. Try parsing the sentence "The Syndicate for Mathematical Appliance and Resource Technology (S.M.A.R.T.) rotisserie fosters subsidiary coins – Imaginatomy and Creativeering – each being either unique or conformal, where such instruments are utilized as joysticks in stewart (stew choreography)" into something approaching meaningful English without straining a brain muscle. Seems to be yet another in a long series of "Link Starbureiy" hoaxes or injokes or something that have been introduced to Wikipedia, either as articles (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Link_Starbureiy or as bogus references (see a discussion about the The Link Egglepple Starbureiy Museum being a reliable source) As Bobrayner says, the person behind it has sourced the article off-wiki with self-published sources; in the longer term, he has been pushing the whole Link Starbureiy-related stuff on blogs and forums for quite a while; I found a forum post from 2003 and mentions that seem to go back to 2001 or so. Anyhoo, back to the article: this is a joke made-up entity. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This and all of the other articles that Bobraynor has decided to attack today have been well-cited. References supplied.

Note to Bobraynor, if you keep this up your account will be suspended within the next 24 hours.Rajpaj (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajpaj, threats like that only discredit you further. You're in a hole; stop digging.

A better alternative might be to offer a policy-based reason to keep the article. Alternatively, you could try to find some reliable sources as an alternative to the self-published guff on Scribd, Google Docs, &c. bobrayner (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are actually four items from the same creator which have been nominated for deletion. They are: File:Clopen symbol.png, Joey Koala, United Under Economy, and Ronald Ellis (American businessman). The latter is the odd one out as Ronald Ellis is merely non-notable rather than fictional. bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt. Article subject appears to be fictional, and non-notably fictional at that. --NellieBly (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This uses purely primary sources and provides not a shred of notability with coverage from any secondary sources. OCNative (talk) 14:23, 21 May 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. joe decker^{talk to me} 00:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susnato Chowdhury[edit]

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

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

CSD been removed repeatedly without valid contest is nafSadh nosy? 08:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Subject do not meet WP:AUTHOR or any other WP:PEOPLE notability criteria. All cited references are primary and non-authentic. Solely edited by close relation or one specific IP (who in term, involved only in subject's promotion). CSD'ed while patrolled from patrol backlog. --is nafSadh nosy? 08:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Most of the GHits for this person appear to be self-published on YouTube, blogs etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unless some evidence for notability shows up William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not yet. He has a single poetry collection published and doesnt have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO. lacking significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poingly[edit]

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

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability of this band. Epeefleche (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All I can find in reliable sources for this project are passing mentions (eg: [14][15]). Apparent lack of significant coverage; does not meet WP:MUSICBIO.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:02, 23 May 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. Neutrality^talk 19:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Are Hiring Managers Thinking?[edit]

What Are Hiring Managers Thinking? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This appears to be a how-to guide on writing or improving a resume. As it is unreferenced, it does not appear to have much encyclopedic content for merging with another article. Prod was contested. VQuakr (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Bobadillaman (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per nomination; an essay of original research giving personal advice. All of us have experienced confusing questions from hiring managers. It will surely be better to know what hiring managers are thinking while taking the interview. With the insight of their thought process job seekers can surely craft better material to impress hiring managers. Read below to know how you can impress employers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW delete, unencyclopedic essay, no salvageable content. Hairhorn (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced non-encyclopedic essay. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. ----Smeazel (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR and no subsequent edits after page creation.Curb Chain (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WBBM-TV news team[edit]

WBBM-TV news team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Information on this page already exists on page WBBM-TV, it is an unnecessary copy that serves no purpose. Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC) 06:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no redirect. The basic staff is already listed in the main article and this is a complete orphan, not even listed in the main WBBM article. And as it is I'm very uncomfortable with a directory for a station's entire staff since the 1970's as adding way too much cruft to an article. Nate • (chatter) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anything useful can and should be under WBBM-TV. That article has a section for the news team, including multiple bluelinked articles - so a redirect to WBBM-TV#News_team makes sense. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It would set a dangerous precedent to have an article like this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reason for a separate article, and the topic is already covered sufficiently in WBBM-TV. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under the premise that Wikipedia is not a directory. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 22 May 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 The Angry Video Game Nerd. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie[edit]

Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable independent film with no coverage in reliable sources outside of those involved. While The Angry Video Game Nerd created by Rolfe is certainly notable, this film is not. Notability is not inherted. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. Worth at least a section in the Angry Video Game Nerd article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect as per Crisco Skullbird11 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect as per Crisco - frankieMR (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect as per Crisco --Kizor 16:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect as per Crisco —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Stephanous Bridges[edit]

Sebastian Stephanous Bridges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This person does not appear to be notable per the applicable notability guideline at WP:CRIMINAL. The only press coverage appears to be of his execution, see also WP:BLP1E. Prod was contested. VQuakr (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:PERP. we don't create articles for everyone on death row and this one indicates no long standing notability. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per LibStar and VQuakr. Relatively few Google hits for this individual.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while there is something to the idea that someone who has committed that rare-enough murder deserving of execution, and the state actually going through with it, must mean that there was sufficient notoriety (notability?) of the offense or the offender. But that notion has been rejected by numerous prior AFDs which show that being an executee is not inherently notable - neither is being a murderer, having $56,000 in cash, or anything else claimed in the article, etc.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- While the article doesn't address it, the United Nations Human Rights Commission called for a worldwide moratorium of the death penalty just days after this South African national was executed (coverage); South Africa ended its death penalty in 1995, the murder he was convicted of occurred in 1997, and extradition from South Africa has since hinged on not seeking the death penalty (although he was apprehended in the U.S. and this was not a factor in his case). Listing at Capital punishment in Nevada seems sufficient, but would recommend the addition of a footnote there showing nationality, especially if article is deleted. Dru of Id (talk) 02:58, 21 May 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 by nominator after sources added by User:SKS2K6. (Non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss (South Korean group)[edit]

Kiss (South Korean group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find sufficient RS refs support notability, though I welcome others to point us to them if they exist. Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The group's a Korean one-hit wonder from 10 years ago. Google News barely helped, so I had to do a precise (regular) search to get any sources. The references should now suffice, especially considering the length of the article. SKS (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks to me as though four of the sources are not RSs for notability purposes, but you may be better able to address that than I am -- am I missing something? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with references improved greatly by SKS. WP:NOENG allows us to use foreign-language sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we may use the Korean sources, and that SKS did a great job. I have the above question as to the RS sourcing, but if consensus here is that we have sufficient RS coverage, then it should be kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Shame I can't read Korean and help with the sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources added by SKS. Rlendog (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It looks like enough sources have been added, and they seem to be reliable. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Consensus here is that with the Korean sources helpfully uncovered and added by SKS, we now have sufficient indicia of notability, so I am happy to withdraw the nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 26 May 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlight Saunas[edit]

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

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

• Advertisement. And delete Sunlight Saunas/version 1. (See Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Rejected requests May 2011.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Advertisement. The inclusion on lists does not amount to notability.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage. I wondered for a minute whether the appearance on the Oprah show might conver notability, but that item turns out to be about infrared saunas in general and does not mention this company. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 26 May 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.