The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 redirect to Israr Ahmed. Speedy redirect, to avoid speedy deletion as promotional DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anjuman Khudam-ul-Quran[edit]

Anjuman Khudam-ul-Quran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable organisation and the article provides little appropriate material. Judging by the article's history, it seems to have always served as a promotional article and nothing else. With Google News, I found three mentions here (article mentioning the founder's death), here and here. The relevant English links I have found are YouTube videos or simply mention the founder rather than focusing with the organisation. I must also mention that despite the article's title including "Khudam", these links show that the correct name may be Khuddam. If there are reliable sources, chances are that they are not English but probably Arabic or Farsi, considering that these three links are Pakistani news articles. Additionally, the article provides no evidence of a Farsi name (a Farsi name would help with searching deeper) or a Farsi Wikipedia article. If the article were saved, the better option would be to add it to Farsi Wikipedia (if there isn't a current article) and translate it when the article has matured. A Google search shows that the organisation may have another name or is affiliated with Quran Academy, which was another article started by this author and was deleted twice (2006 as copyvio and 2012 as A7). Considering that the SPA author started both of these articles, it is likely that they were affiliated with Anjuman Khudam-ul-Quran and Quran Academy. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The best course might be a protected redirect to Israr Ahmed, the founder, who is clearly notable. The history of this article and that of the Academy is so problematic in the hands of various editors that I think we'd need the protection. Swister, if you think this would meet the situation I am prepared to speedy close this and make the redirect, because otherwise this is a good candidate for speedy as both A7 and G11. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, chances are that the article would be restarted with promotional material again. If a user has significant content to start the article again (which would probably be unlikely), they may know where to ask. Additionally, it may make this AfD easier for other editors and for the article itself. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy G11; In view of the statement by the editor, it makes it unmistakable that the sole purpose is advertising the book, and, since the book is hopelessly non-notable, there's no way of fixing the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haunting on Malbury Street[edit]

Haunting on Malbury Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Blatantly non-notable book, entry created by the author. Book is self-published / pay-to-publish. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look Man or girl, this is the WIKIPEDIA. I chose to make a page for THIS book. Don't we have the freedom to show something paranormal or decently NEW once in a while? I didn't finish this book in 1 WEEK. It took EIGHT MONTHS. I want people to find this story and get interested. It's not on ANY site whatsoever. I used Create Space and this WILL become notable. Give it time please. People need to find their way towards this book. Is it NOT notable enough that a school Library is going to buy it? -.- Speedygal (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO. I am NOT trying to advertise it. I am merely giving it a Wikipedia page. I will add the snypoises within a week or two after it's been on Amazon for a good length of time. But thanks for the kudo's anyhow. Speedygal (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable, no reliable sources. Promotional in nature. GregJackP Boomer! 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable[edit]

List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Every time this page comes up on my radar I get angry. It's clearly against WP:NOT in several ways. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my amendment to the rational below. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There's a simple solution: Take it off your watch list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Being that this is the third nomination, and the last one was only three months ago, I advise the nominator to be more specific about how it fails WP:NOT before editors rehash previous arguments from AfDs that ended in a no consensus last time and a keep prior to that.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of the sources for this article are opinion pieces. Several of these unbreakable records are obviously breakable. I am not saying that they will be broken. I am saying that they were broken within the past twenty years. The conditions that existed when these individuals established these records are essentially the same for players today as they were for the record setters. The arguments that "the game has changed" don't exist for these records. The only argument for their inclusion seems to be "Wow! That's a big number." There's absolutely no reason why someone similar to Ichiro couldn't break his record of consecutive 200 hit seasons that he just established a couple seasons ago. If Mariano Rivera recovers and comes back next season, as he has indicated he would, he would obviously break the saves record every time he gets a save. The article states that the closest active player is Francisco Cordero. Actually, Rivera is still an active player, and he can potentially break the record in his next outing. The article is titled "List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable" not "List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable by other people." Kinston eagle (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But they are opinions from multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia:Describing points of view says "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs". Regarding the list name, WP:LISTNAME says "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." At any rate, nothing else would consider it unbreakable besides "other people". On a minor note, Rivera is correctly listed as the saves leader.—Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Rivera, an injured but active player, is correctly listed as the saves leader which is why this record is not unbreakable. As soon as he gets one more save, he will have broken that record. Therefore, it is clearly not unbreakable. Even if the article is not deleted, this section at least should be removed. Kinston eagle (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the record is not changing hands, it would be considered to be "extended" and not "broken".—Bagumba (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear Bagumba. When Federer won Wimbledon this year, every news article covering the event stated that he "extended" his record, not broke it. Once you have it, it can only be "broken" by another player. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I nominated this for deletion the first time, changed my mind for the second, and this WP:POINTy "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" deletion nomination (see, I can throw around guidelines too) isn't swaying me back for the flip-flop-flip. Based on the amount of discussion "unbreakable" records get, even if there is no one objective standard for what constitutes "unbreakable", this is a notable subject worthy of an article. The article still needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bagumba pointed out to me that this doesn't meet the definition of "pointy". Good point. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a matter of opinion just like the lists of the best and worst movies are. But certain opinions are widely held and can be sourced. There are a couple of categories. One is records that just aren't going to be broken because the game isn't played that way anymore, such as Hoss Radbourn's 59 or 60 wins in the 1884 season. Others are because they are considered to be statistical anomolies, perhaps the most famous being Joe D's 56 game hitting streak, which no one has come close to before or since. This is not just opinions and guesswork. Some figger filberts (Bill James types) have used statistical methods to support their opinions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my reasoning in the second AFD, in the end of the day this is simply original research, with the GNG arguement faulty at best (what makes Life Magazine, etc a reliable source on this topic). Secret ^account 02:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life is part of Time Inc, so it wouldn't be that hard to imagine them getting access to sports experts to compile the list. I don't think we would discount a sports-related article in Time just because they are not a pure sports outfit. I dont see OR, as this is sourced (and any unsourced text can be removed). I am slightly uncomfortable with lists such as this based on sources applying a label to something, such as basketball players being called floppers in Flop (basketball). However, is there a policy or guideline that prevents this type of article?—Bagumba (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's sourced, it's not OR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it depends on how the content is sourced. This article is about writers opinions on which baseball record they believe it's "unbreakable", and then using different sources to prove their point. That is a clear cut example of a synthesis of published material that advances a position, and the position this article advances is that this record is considered unbreakable by this source and then it uses current statistics to back that source position mainly because obvious rule/style changes that came as the sport advanced. It's OR at its obvious. Secret ^account 04:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not OR. If I say that Joe D's 56 is unbreakable and I run some stats to "prove" it, that's OR. But if Bill James has done so, that's a reliable source, not OR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the exception (and the reason why this page probably exists) as DiMaggio's record has been discussed in so many newspaper articles, journals, and even whole books, any analysis of it, if written correctly, easily meets GNG and can avoid original research as its a common topic. But that discussion belongs on his article, or better yet a new article about the streak which I'm surprised one haven't bother creating it, not a whole subpage where it throw other records in there. And if I'm not mistaken James wrote a notable essay that his record can be broken under the correct conditions. But that's avoiding my point, a journalist opinion on why this record might be "unbreakable" and throwing random stats from different sources or their own original research supporting that view is a synthesis supporting the unbreakable point of view. Still OR no matter how you put it. GNG is moot here. Secret ^account 05:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the case at least for the"Most career saves" and "Longest hitting streak" sections, which are sourced by articles and not stat sites. Note that a source like this one from NBCSports.com provides statistical analysis of why it is considered unbreakable, even if I don't agree with a lot of the logic. Combining different references with opinions on an unbreakable record is not all that different than combining a lot of references claiming Mariano Rivera is the greatest closer.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Nothing has really changed in the past 3 months, this really seems like a personal dislike. The only parts of this article I am not the biggest fan of are the Ichiro and Rivera records as they are extremely recent and have not been as established as the other records as truly unbreakable. However, as with the other records, if they can be reliably sourced then they can be added. Even if you think a couple of these records are not appropriate then make a case for removing those specific entries, not for deleting the entire article. As for saying that the game has changed doesn't apply to these records is absurd. Most pitching records were set over 90 years ago due to fundamental differences in playing style that no longer take place. This is as encyclopedic as something like this can get. As with the "movies considered the best/worst" articles, it's possible to take a collective opinion, which may seem subjective in the abstract, and turn it into an appropriate article. I'm in favor of adding even more reliable sources to bolster how unbreakable these records are, not for deleting it outright due to a minimal, if at all, policy based argument. RoadView (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't avoid the original research question. Backing it with more random stats will just make the article worse. Secret ^account 05:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ on your opinion regarding "random stats". Most of these unbreakable records are covered by multiple articles pertinent to the subject at hand. Multiple sources, not just one single journalist making claims. That also blows your OR argument out of the water completely. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the GNG. Many of the sources have 'unbreakable' in the title. Also, Original Research is not a reason to delete, unless the entire article is OR, which this is obviously not, considering the sixty-three reliable sources listed. The solution to any OR in this case is to rephrase the offending statements to more closely match what the sources say. This should be done in the course of normal editing and is beyond the purview of AfD.  The Steve  10:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The page making you angry is not reason for deletion. Disagreeing with whether an individual record is unbreakable is not reason for deletion (though if published sources disagree then that disagreement can be mentioned). It's not OR because it's published in reliable sources. Those are all the arguments for deletion that I see. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while "considered X" is iffy ground for most articles, there is sufficient RS'ed commentary for these records that I see no problem with retaining the list as-is. If you or I consider something unbreakable, that's OR. But if multiple major sportswriters are published as saying so... that's reliable sourcing, and hence notability. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per most of the other keep comments above. Incidentally, I hope the nominator's comment that "I get angry" is meant hyperbolically. I can imagine situations (such as certain types of BLPs) in which I might be "angry" that Wikipedia contains an article; a list of baseball records shouldn't be one of these situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of reliable sources describe these records specifically as unbreakable, so this clearly passes WP:GNG, for starters. Not liking the article is not a justification for deletion. As for WP:NOT, I fail to see in what way that would apply to this article. It's not an indiscriminate, sprawling list of statistics; with less than twenty total items, it's a very precisely focused list of the handful of records that sources describe as unbreakable. There's also no original research involved in presenting the information. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rational Amendment - Okay, okay. I was a little to vague creating this. This is a violation of WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, and very slightly a violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan2055 (talk • contribs)

NOTOPINION doesnt apply because there are reliable sources. Neutrality can be fixed if that is the concern, and is not a reason to delete. NOTCRYSTALBALL does not apply because this is again verifiable. NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply since the content (except for the Rivera entry) is not based on breaking news, but analysis of records years or decades after the fact.—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After consideration, I can't come up with any way in which this list violates the sections of WP:NOT that Nathan cited above. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Records are only highly unlikely to be broken given current conditions; however, conditions have changed throughout Major League Baseball history, and so virtually all records could be broken. As I recall, both Bill James and Baseball Prospectus have written about how records like 300 wins may become approachable again in the future. I don't believe there is a sufficiently well-founded central thesis for the concept of records that are considered unbreakable; each record requires its own explanation of the state of the game in the context of the achievement, why the record is difficult to break today, and what conditions would have to return (or be introduced) in order for the record to no longer be considered unbreakable. As such, I think the list is in danger of being a list of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. I suggest that the articles for each achievement in question be expanded if necessary to include reliably-sourced discussion of how the changing conditions of MLB over the years have affected the ability to set new highs/lows for the achievement. For example, the difficulty in breaking the career MLB record for wins is best described in the article on wins, which already has discussion of the changing demands on starting pitchers. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, the basis of this article is not much different from List of films considered the worst, which survived it's 8th AfD nomination in 2011. There are a lot of "List of ... considered ..." articles on Wikipedia. I'm sure a lot of them are OR. But if there are reliable sources to back up the opinion, it's hard for me to say its unencyclopedic just because it's difficult to determine whose opinion to include. I can see why people would want to delete this, it's just not an obvious call based on an existing policy. Village pump might be a better forum to get wider opinions beyond keep/delete !votes as the issue of "List of ... considered ..." articles are not unique to baseball.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, there's no central set of reasons why the records are considered unbreakable; each one has its own specific set of conditions (triples would depend a lot on ballpark layouts and field conditions, for example). There is a reduction in extreme performances that comes with evolution of talent, but other counterbalancing influences have also arisen. It's not that the individual discussions can't be sourced, but that each of them is, at best, only loosely coupled to the others. Whereas a list of, say, the worst movies can share a general discussion on criteria for effective story-telling and cinematography, these records require specific discussions on how to interpret the influences of the changes throughout MLB history on the record in question. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Nominator's personal opposition is based on emotion rather than rationale; that's the worst reason to delete an article. For all those arguing original research, please! 63 refs from a variety of reliable sources and you're still labeling this OR? Not to mention that this was debated just three months ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Doesn't meet any of the conditions of not as mentioned above. Also it is clearly sourced to reliable sources so it isn't an OR situation. The abundance of sources clearly indicate its a notable topic, so there is nothing that leads to delete. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm new to this debate, having not participated in the previous AfDs for this article. When I saw the article title, I expected fancruft and a likely "delete" vote. When I actually read it, I saw that it was well-written, properly sourced, and "records considered to be unbreakable" amply supported by reliable sources. IMO, this is a strong "keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Colapeninsula summed it up nicely. Also, enough is enough. What has changed since the last AfD? AutomaticStrikeout 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG with significant pieces on the general topic of unbreakable baseball records from Life, NBC Sports, Sports Illustrated, and Morning Journal. Original research is a content issue, not a reason to delete in this case. Even if one is of the opinion that the logic used by the sources is flawed, balancing information that these records are breakable should be added if they exist for neutrality; it is not a reason to delete.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mars 2[edit]

Mars 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Reason is the same as the Mars 3 article (they are twin spacecraft): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mars_3 3er40 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Try this customized Google News search. Examples of coverage in reliable sources include: [1], [2], [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for pointing this feature out. However, I've briefly looked through the search results (and the sources you pointed out), and it doesn't provide enough coverage for the level of unsourced material in both articles. All that's in the news is mostly information repeated in many other newspapers, which is the same info already sourced in my sandbox. 3er40 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - While there may be lots of unsourced content in the article, unsourced content is not a reason to delete; AfD is not for cleanup. Also interplanetary spacecraft are as close to "automatically notable" as anything. Also have you looked for Russian-language sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There are sources already in the article, others exist both online and offline which can be added. Subject is clearly notable. I can't see any problem here; certainly not one of a level requiring deletion. --W. D. Graham 12:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems the consensus is clearly keep, and it's probably going to stay that way. I'd like to request for both the Mars 3 and Mars 2 discussions to be closed. I'll just try and work around these difficulties. 3er40 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• One last note before this is closed: this wasn't a question of notability. I agree that this subject is very notable (thus why I wanted to continue coverage in the Mars_program article). This was a question of whether there is more than one reliable source that provides the level of coverage I'm looking for (which wasn't the case for English-language sources). Also, while this isn't for clean-up, this place (if I remember correctly) can be used if there aren't enough reliable sources in existence. However, I guess I can try to look up russian-language sources and see if I can find anything there. 3er40 (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't think this article should be deleted anymore. See the mars 3 afd for why. 3er40 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mars 3[edit]

Mars 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I have tried on my User sandbox to find reliable sources, but there is only one resource from NASA that can be used for most of the info in this article, which means the article would rely heavily on one source. I would like to continue work in the Mars_program article, which talks about the various different Soviet rover missions to Mars, including Mars 3. 3er40 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Try this customized Google News search. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for pointing this feature out. However, I've briefly looked through the search results (and the sources you pointed out), and it doesn't provide enough coverage for the level of unsourced material in both articles. All that's in the news is mostly information repeated in many other newspapers, which is the same info already sourced in my sandbox. 3er40 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - While there may be lots of unsourced content in the article, unsourced content is not a reason to delete; AfD is not for cleanup. Also interplanetary spacecraft are as close to "automatically notable" as anything. Also have you looked for Russian-language sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There are sources already in the article, others exist both online and offline which can be added. Subject is clearly notable. I can't see any problem here; certainly not one of a level requiring deletion. --W. D. Graham 12:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems the consensus is clearly keep, and it's probably going to stay that way if this isn't closed. I'd like to request for both the Mars 3 and Mars 2 discussions to be closed. I'll just try and work around these difficulties. 3er40 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• One last note before this is closed: this wasn't a question of notability. I agree that this subject is very notable (thus why I wanted to continue coverage in the Mars_program article). This was a question of whether there is more than one reliable source that provides the level of coverage I'm looking for (which wasn't the case for English-language sources). Also, while this isn't for clean-up, this place (if I remember correctly) can be used if there aren't enough reliable sources in existence. However, I guess I can try to look up russian-language sources and see if I can find anything there. 3er40 (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, thanks for suggesting to look at russian-language sources. I just found a couple of really good sources (such as http://ru.knowledgr.com/00068913/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%812). Thanks everyone for your time and suggestions. I don't think this article should be deleted anymore. 3er40 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruenor Battlehammer[edit]

Bruenor Battlehammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The topic of the article isn't notable because it doesn't have "significant coverage in secondary independent sources", per WP:GNG. Out of 9 sources, #2 and #5 to #9 are primary sources, and sources #1, 3 and 4 are completely trivial mentions thus not significant coverage:
#1 is just a mention of the character's name in passing inside a single-paragraph plot summary of the novel
#3 is just a single mention inside a repetion of plot points from the novel
#4, same thing, the character is just mentionned in passing once inside a single-paragraph plot summary for the novel.
These sources contain no commentary or analysis whatsoever, they do not go beyond mere plot summary, and correspond to the WP:GNG definition of "trivial" ("The one sentence mention [...] is plainly trivial". ). As such they do not "adress the subject directly in detail" since first they don't adress the subject (the character) but rather the book in which he appears, and second, the character itself is barely mentionned once and no detailed external statement whatsoever is made on it. The sources have already been severely criticized in the article talk page. Per WP:WHYN, "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", and so the sources provided only allow to write a definition of the topic (ie it's fictional history). Which means that this article also violates WP:NOTPLOT in that there are only three short sentences in the whole article (13,267 bytes) that aren't plot (so the sources themselves don't allow us to write "a whole article"). A search on Gbooks and Gscholar didn't give any result besides primary sources and more ultra-short plot summaries. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - despite the nominator's arguments, the sources included should be enough to pass WP:GNG. When this article was nominated for AFD the first time it had no sources at all, and the ones it currently has were added after that AFD, so I suspect we will find more sources this time around as well. The plot can stand to be trimmed significantly, but that is no reason to delete. BOZ (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You claim "the sources included should be enough to pass WP:GNG" but you refuse to explain why, and you refuse to adress my arguments that the sources don't meet the GNG. You "suspect we will find more sources this time around as well" yet you refuse to explain why or actually bring forth these so-called sources. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy", unless you provide an actual explanation for why the sources would pass the GNG and why you suspect sources will be found, your comment should be discarded from the final consensus assessment as it boils down to WP:ILIKEIT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the nominator's claim that sources 2, 5 and 6 are primary sources is debatable; the primary source materials mentioned here are sources 7,8 and 9, the published novels in which the article subject is a character. Sources 2,5 and 6 are sourcebook materials based on the character defined by the primary material, in that they distill the characterization defined by the novels into usable game mechanics. The fictional characterization section is rather too large and too world-specific, but that is a matter for article cleanup by editing, not AFD (and time and real-world commitments permitting I may take a stab at that). Additional Comment: the nominating editor is politely but firmly reminded of WP:CIVIL; you are not the closing editor and it is not your place to decide whose comments should be discarded from the consensus assessment. Otherwise, your nomination and subsequent comments can just as easily be boiled down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Dungeons & Dragons sourcebooks being original works of fiction in which the character appears, published by the same editor as the novels, they are unquestionably primary sources. Please refer to WP:PASI for a definition of primary sources related to articles about fiction: " primary sources about the fictional universe, i.e., the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction (e.g., another episode of the same series)". Interpretations that other original works of fiction featuring the discussed character wouldn't be primary sources have already been rebutted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons). I'm afraid the topic doesn't have the required sources to write anything other than plot summary, and i don't think it is possible to find them (illustrated by my own research and the fact that the two "keep" !voters failed to provide them) so this AfD is perfectly relevant. And as such, I don't see any reason why you'd be recommending conservation and I'm politely asking you to please provide further arguments.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not say the AFD was irrelevant; if it was, I would have recommended procedural close rather than keep. I provided no additional sources because I believe those present, as noted, are sufficient. The AFD you referenced above does not, as far as I can see, refute or rebut my argument that the subsequent Handbook references published by Wizards of the Coast are not primary sources (given the enormous size of that AFD, if you can provide a specific edit reference, please do so), and I referred to WP:SECONDARY before entering my recommendation above. While it is an essay, I believe WP:Secondary does not mean independent has some relevance here. The referenced handbooks are not "another episode of the same series"; they translate a fictional, in-universe character into a real-world implementation for use in a real-world game. The fact that said game is a fantasy RPG and depicts a universe (any universe) other than our own is not under discussion here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Additional Comment and Question: I just reviewed the edit history for the first AFD on this article and I believe this diff contains a relevant argument: is it still the consensus on Wikipedia that major characters in significant novels or novel series are inherently notable? (Note: I may not have linked that diff correctly; if I did not, I hereby give permission to other more wiki-knowledgeable editors to correct it.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, the AfD does rebut that D&D sources wouldn't be primary sources, that was precisely the whole point of the AfD. You can easily see that the nomination itself and every redirect argument were based on the premise that D&D sourcebooks are primary sources, and consensus was in favor of these arguments. All the articles that got redirected were sourced to various D&D sourcebooks, obviously that didn't make them notable. Every time the question was brought to the Reliable Source Noticeboard the answer was the same:[4],Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_127#Dungeons_.26_Dragons_sourcebooks. Also, "another episode of the same series" was just an example, the main point of WP:PASI is "the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction". I don't think you can deny that Forgotten Realms RPG handbooks and Forgotten Realms novel are affiliated works of fiction. As for Forgotten Realm itself, it is a game built around a fictional universe. Both the fictional universe and the game and its mecanics in themselves are primary sources. As long as we're dealing with official handbooks that define what the game is and without which the game would just not exist, we're dealing with primary sources. WP:Secondary does not mean independent can be true but not relevant here since sources used to establish notability must be independent anyway. And as to your additional question, notability is not inherited and there are no specific notability criteria for fiction (there was an attempt to build that at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) but it failed and the GNG is used for fictional elements).Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The referenced link to the Reliable Source Notice Board appears to be a single, short discussion between 4 editors. I do not believe that defines a consensus by Wikipedia standards, nor does it reference any previous discussions on the same subject. Further, even if the AFD/Noticeboard discussion did define a consensus that the sourcebooks are primary sources with respect to the D&D monster articles (and I do not grant that it does), that is not relevant here. This article refers to a character in a series of novels written by Bob Salvatore under contract to TSR starting in 1987 (see wikipedia article on Salvatore and the references therein). The Forgotten Realms campaign setting was first published in 1987 and contained no references to any of the characters which subsequently appeared in Salvatore's novels, and in the appropriate references to the Salvatore article in an interview with the author, he categorically states that these characters were his creations. This means that the subsequently-published sourcebooks, containing the game mechanics to adapt the novel characters to D&D games running in the FR campaign setting, must be secondary sources, since Salvatore's novels do not provide any such game mechanics and simply tell a story. The argument that the game mechanics are equally fictional is not a strong one - to use an analogy, the videogame Quake is a work of fiction, but the underlying Quake Engine which implements the physics which make the gameplay possible is not. You can't play Quake without the Quake engine; you can't play the Forgotten Realms campaign without the underlying D&D game mechanics. If you do, you are just telling stories set in the Forgotten Realms - which is precisely what Bob Salvatore's novels are, and why I am arguing that in this context the sourcebook material is a secondary and effectively independent source. I see nothing in your comments above, or in the AFD/notability discussions you linked, which refutes that.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to take the matter to the RS/N for further confirmation if you want. But we have a consensus in AfD on the fact that D&D handbooks are primary sources, and it is perfectly relevant here. Your whole argument is fallacious since its premise is to ignore the undisputable fact that Forgotten Realms RPG handbooks and Forgotten Realms novel are affiliated works of fiction. Salvadore's novels are part of a bigger "Forgotten Realm" franchise, just as the handbooks are. Both are the property of TSR/WotC and both are components of the same commercial franchise. The Forgotten Realm handbooks cannot be secondary source since they are not "one step removed from an event", because they are not removed from the Forgotten Realm franchise (the event), they are FR, just as the novels are. They don't make "analytic or evaluative claims" since they're building a game and a fictional universe. Which is also why they are absolutely NOT independent. Your analogy with Quake also isn't appropriate, Quake Engine isn't a secondary source on Quake, it's a component of Quake, just like FR handbooks and novels are components of the FR campain setting. As for Forgotten Realm itself, it is a game built around a fictional universe. Both the fictional universe and the game and its mecanics in themselves are primary sources. As long as we're dealing with official handbooks that define what the game is and without which the game would just not exist, we're dealing with primary sources (yes, I'm copypasting since you apparently refuse to adress any remark that rebuts your opinion). I'm sorry for you, but the previous AfD I linked totally debunked your interpretation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Plonk*.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I don't think the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide books are independent (as the character comes from a Forgotten Realms novel, the sourcebook is simply a continuation of the IP through a different product), the article does appear to have independent sources. Assuming that this is Greenwood Press, then I'd certainly say that's an independent source (as the website that article links to does have the book in question). The other source, Dragonlore: From the Archives of the Grey School of Wizardry, is also independent of the topic. The article does have multiple reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject. I think the article satisfies WP:GNG, although additional independent sources certainly would help strengthen the article. - SudoGhost 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please adress my actual reason for nomination which is that these sources are not significant ? As I said, they're all single-paragraph plot summaries that only mention the actual topic (the character) once in passing. Significance is a part of WP:GNG and your comment doesn't adress that issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have alerted the Dungeons & Dragons Wikiproject of this discussion. Dream Focus 03:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Per BOZ" has been challenged for contradicting WP:AFDFORMAT as it fails to "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Maybe you could provide a more argumented comment that would adress the nomination in detail.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to have appropriate independent, reliable sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You do not adress the issue of unsignificant sourcing raised in the nomination, as such you fail to "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Maybe you could provide a more argumented comment that would adress the nomination in detail.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to me that the nominator's reasons, if accepted, would mean that there would rarely be articles on fictional characters in fictional universes, or in game universes. These articles are of considerable interest to those playing fantasy role playing games, and we should let them have the articles, if properly written and sourced, which this article is as it stands, if not when it was first nominated for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You do not adress the issue of unsignificant sourcing raised in the nomination, as such you fail to "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Maybe you could provide a more argumented comment that would adress the nomination in detail. Also, AfD is not where you should make claims that no single article on fictional characters should be deleted, this matter should be dealt at Wikipedia Talk:Notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For King and Country (film)[edit]

For King and Country (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

• It was prodded as "non-notable, cannot find any substantial third-party coverage". But this Google search shows plenty of references. And, if this article is kept, then undelete page Neil Carroll (director)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 15. Snotbot  t • c »  17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 17:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I searched and was ultimately unable to find a single reliable source that mentioned this film in-depth. The thing about the search link given is that not all of the links in the search are actual verifiable hits. Most of them were junk hits, links back to this page and AfD, sites to view the film (most of which are of dubious nature), and primary sources. We don't keep articles based on how many ghits they get, and besides... this isn't actually that many hits. I only found one sole link that actually mentioned the film ([5]) and that doesn't really look like it's a reliable source. Even if it is, one source does not give notability. On a side note, even if this film had notability, that doesn't guarantee that the director has notability outside of it. On the other hand, it also means that just because this film isn't notable that doesn't mean that the director forseeably couldn't. If you really want to have an article for the director you might want to see if one of the admins would be willing to transfer a copy into your userspace to work on and source via WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage about this film. I can find no critical commentary or sifnificant awards. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ChinICT. SarahStierch (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Nazikian[edit]

Franck Nazikian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The last discussion was closed (by me) as a no consensus, but noting that there were sock puppetry issues (my fault for not noticing), I think it would be best to re-do the nomination. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it ok to semi-protect this one? Let me know if it isn't because I just did. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to ChinICT - Cut and paste of my opinion from the last AfD. Admittedly, I am not the most familiar with the tech industry but it seems like the company Nazikian founded, ChinICT, is notable even if Nazikian, himself, is not. If this was the reverse with a winery (with the winery notable but the owner not), over at WP:WINE we would merge the relevant, unbias and sourced content of the owner bio's over to the winery page and either delete or redirect the owner's page. As far as I can tell reading about Franck Nazikian in the English sources and what little I can glean from Google translate on the Chinese page, this seems like the best course. The ChinICT only needs a little about his tech experience and work with conference while other details can be deleted. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to ChinICT - The man himself isn't particularly notable, but his company is. As the original nominator, I'd suggest folding in the few relevant details about Nazikian's tech experience into the ChinICT article.

Also, thanks to Kevin Gorman for catching this one, and to Mark Arsten for promptly relisting it. Those dastardly socks would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling editors (and that stupid checkuser, too!) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to ChinICT per arguments of Agne and Scooby-Doo. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Ainley[edit]

Neal Ainley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

the only notability is misdemeanor crimes, for which the only penalty was probation. fails WP:BLP1E / WP:CRIME -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clear WP:BLP1E. Chillllls (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Eeekster (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The following comment by the article's creator appears on the article's talk page: "If your name is listed in a report by Kenneth Starr and page A01 for the Washington Post notability has been met." The person's notability is as a prosecution witness in a criminal case related to a significant political scandal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article's creator may have stated that as criteria for notability, however the actual policy outlines somewhat different criteria which are the ones which we should be utilizing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. No significant coverage to overcome either WP:BLP1E or WP:CRIME. That fact he had a few blurbs in major press sources about the single event is insufficient. In this instance, we have the luxury of knowing there has not been persistent coverage since the event.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Green Book[edit]

The Little Green Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Previous a WP:PROD by another editor on the rationale "Lack of established notability in accordance with WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.". The Prod was removed by an IP. The article remains unreferenced and with no evidence that the book has achieved any notability, so I'm bringing it to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That IP was me, sorry I didn't notice I wasn't logged in. I can't really argue that the book has achieved sufficient notability per the policy, so if you're going to delete the article I guess I can't stop you. I would say though that I think that is a shame. The book sold tens of thousands of copies and has been a part of many people's lives, in that sense it is notable. It's a small yet valuable part of contemporary culture. The article itself is also valuable as it serves as a good starting point to learn about notable historical figures. I liked it when Wikipedia's goal was, as I heard it, "all human knowledge". I find it unfortunate that Wikipedia would exclude knowledge when it could just as easily include it. The notability policy smells like a tool for self-important elitists and social exclusionists and I'm disappointed to learn that Wikipedia has a policy like that. Wikipedia is perfectly positioned to cater to the "long tail" of the internet and I don't see why it would have a policy of excluding content that some people would find useful or be interested in. All in all I'm just disappointed in the policy and the process and I feel that where there could have been value created there is a loss in its place. I'd encourage the moderators to leave the article in place regardless of the notability policy on the grounds that the article has value as an entry point into learning more about important historical figures. I just don't see the need to delete it.

Jj5 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did a search and there's just no substantial coverage for this book in independent and reliable sources to show that it has notability. As far as amount of copies sold, that actually doesn't guarantee notability and saying that it's sold tens of thousands isn't really that much when you consider that Suze Orman's "You've Earned It, Don't Lose It" has sold about half a million copies since its release and that's probably an outdated number. And even then that's not a guarantee that Orman's book has notability. There are a lot of books that sell hundreds of thousands of copies, yet never get enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. These are books by authors that are considered so notable that they have an article, yet their books just don't meet notability guidelines. A good example of this would be most of the books by Nora Roberts. She's an incredibly influential figure that has made a definite mark upon the literary world, both in her influence over other writers as well as via how prolific she is. Yet most of her books wouldn't be considered notable per these guidelines because the individual works have not been covered in enough reliable sources. We can't add them simply because the author is notable or because her works have sold insanely well and been loved by millions. They have to have independent and reliable sources to show notability. We can't keep an article because WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The reason we have the guidelines in place is because there are a lot of books that are not notable and are unlikely to ever be so. I hate to say it, but this book falls in with the other books that will probably never be notable. I'm sorry that your feelings are being hurt, but this book fails notability guidelines. It's not an elitist thing as much as it is just a "this book has not been covered in any reliable sources at all" thing. On a side note, I think that you might want to read WP:COI. I see that you share the same name as the author, so if you are the same person then you might want to avoid creating and editing things that you are involved with. There's no rule against it, but it's very, very hard to avoid having a conflict of interest in these situations because it's so easy to see notability where there is none as well as to take something personal when it isn't.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The appropriate guideline for notability is Wikipedia:Notability (books). This book doesn't even come close. Sorry. HairyWombat 06:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage that would establish this book as meeting the inclusion guidelines for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BK. Looks like WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apart from the apparent lack of notability, the way the article is laid out, with exaggerated reference to the book's contents, suggests promotional bias.--Zananiri (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K-R.O.K[edit]

K-R.O.K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The current references are dubious, see [6]. Appears to fail WP:MUSBIO. If anyone disagrees, please state which of the WP:MUSBIO criteria applies. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 19:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was originally thinking this might be a hoax, but one source I found panned out, so the singer does exist. However, the other sources didn't, to the extent that it looked like sources were being falsified - most were extremely unreliable, (the Michael Jackson claim seems to be fake, and many were just to forum posts), and those they weren't unreliable didn't pan out. For example, one source, "Black Noise", was published in 1994, but was used to cite a claim from 2009. Without page numbers it wasn't possible to verify the content, but publishing dates were enough to raise serious concerns. This seems to be a problem with other articles by the same editor, and I was planning to bring the article here, so it is good to see I was beaten to it. Other than one article, I haven't found anything to get past WP:MUSBIO. - Bilby (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Opening Doors to Recovery. I've left the page history intact in case anyone's interested in merging. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stignorance[edit]

Stignorance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A non-notable Neologism that has no indication of any sort of widespread use. It appears the have been coined and used only by the group discussed in this article. The PROD was removed by the page creator without comment. Rorshacma (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - textbook case of WP:NEO. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Whpq. No RSs at all. or merge per Cnilep. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Opening Doors to Recovery, which I have just this minute created. I found a couple of news sources and some funder press releases on the project, but nothing specifically on 'stignorance'. Cnilep (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created separately if wanted  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Programmable automation controller[edit]

Programmable automation controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Spammy WP:NEO and WP:CFORK. This is one vendor's neologism for their own product, which sets out to distance itself from its competitor's Programmable logic controllers by inventing a new term for itself. No sourcing other than from Opto22 and ARC themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More than one manufacturer sells something described as "Programmable Automation Controller" - some sell a shoebox-sized PLC under this name, Foxboro uses it for their "high end" controller. Since it's a marketing term with no commonly accepted differentiator from "programmable controller", it coudl be deleted and if needed a mention made at "programmable controller".--Wtshymanski (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 19:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes the article is spammy, and yes it has been monopolized by SPA/POV to one vendor. It's a mess and needs fixed, and the external links go nowhere toward showing notability per GNG. Unfortunately this is a notable concept that is not a neologism but happens to be saddled with a terrible article. I added references that show discourse about this topic in trade press, took out 'spammy' external links, and removed useless "coined by ARC" passage. Most vendors make both PLCs and PACs, so the theory that it's a single manufacturer's product name is inaccurate. The nominator can be excused for not finding much towards notability with normal searches, as good editorial is buried amid volumes of product and news release data. However, if you look [|here] and [|Here] you'll find sufficient references for notability. I may take on improving the article if time permits, but for now I have to say Keep and fix. Celtechm (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Update Celtechm (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This [7] says a PAC is a personal computer running LabView. This [8] says something similar. This [9] says a PAC is an "advanced" PLC ( every PLC since the PLC/2 has been an "advanced" PLC). These guys [10] describe a "programmable automation controller" that very much resembles a PLC. Someone called "Control Technology Corporation" was selling a "Model 2800 Programmable Automation Controller" in 1985, when Bill Gates was still trying to get Solitare to shuffle the cards. (Google Books Machine design: Volume 57, Issues 13-19 1985). Who is the ARC? Is it more than just one vendor? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of two things: either a trivial variant on programmable controller with nothing to distinguish it from such (and so where a redirect would seem the best solution). PLC does at least have recognised distinguishing characteristics from a "PC in a stronger box". Otherwise it's one vendor's WP:NEO, and it's having a hard job to justify itself for 3rd party notability. Now it could be seen as either of these things, but what it doesn't appear as is a notable topic that stands in isolation. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ARC seems to have some credibility, though it is a market research company. (Wait till you see the inevitable article on Collaborative Process Automation Systems - talk about "proactively leveraging our paradigms to achieve new synergies" - but ISA published a book on this so evidently ISA thinks ARC sees something we need to know about.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a whitepaper by a vendor, but... http://www.ni.com/white-paper/2960/en —Ruud 21:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO, although a redirect to Programmable logic controllers probably couldn't hurt either. —Ruud 18:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're not PLCs. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what you seem to be saying above? —Ruud 20:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Programmable controllers aren't all the same thing as programmable logic controllers. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Programmable controller is a disambiguation page to Programmable Interrupt Controller (unrelated), programmable automation controller and programmable logic controller, whose lead starts with "A programmable logic controller (PLC) or programmable controller is..."? —Ruud 21:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Native Esperanto speakers[edit]

Native Esperanto speakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Completing nomination for an IP editor. Their rationale, as posted on the article's talk page, is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted as WP:OR, due to the lack of authoritative sources concerning existance of this phenomenon or truth in inclusion of the listed persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.49.18.203 (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 19:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Esperanto. Doesn't seem to be a subject of multiple instances of independent coverage, but seemingly some worthwhile content as part of a piece on the main topic. Carrite (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my post below as regards independent coverage, which I hope will show that this appraisal is off the mark. In case of merger, though, I hope you will agree that Esperanto Culture would be a more appropriate destination than the top level Esperanto. --81.250.217.57 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as pretty much unsourced and OR. The only bit that has a half-decent source is George Soros being raised as speaking it which might be wroth a sentence in the Esperanto article. Oh and there are no such people as the Esperantos of course. Keresaspa (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this comment is serious, but if any elements of the article are OR or unsourced, please do tag them as such. I am fairly certain that adequate references will not be hard to provide. --81.250.217.57 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on a different version of the article; more references have been added since (mostly by you it seems). However even as it stands I'm still not convinced there's a need for the article as it could be covered adequately by a section in the Esperanto article. Keresaspa (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. There are links to several reliable sources on the Japanese version of the article. They are in English, so anyone who is actually interested enough in the subject should be able to improve the English article. --Mlewan (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has been in Wikipedia for some time - and if you look on its talk page, you will see that some one expressed skepticism about it, but later added that it was an article on a real subject. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't an article about the Esperanto language or culture, nor about specific individuals: it is an article about a (curious and interesting) sociological phenomenon. There are plenty of external sources on the phenomenon---the Google Scholar link at the top of this page brings up 12 academic articles right there, and many more turn up if you view the citations for those articles. This besides the couple thousand people alive who fall into this category, many of whom belong to organizations for native speakers, which have a web presence. 18 other language Wikipedias include an article on the topic (many of them well-referenced), and it has been on the English wikipedia for over 10 years. The one nominating seems to doubt that this phenomenon really exits; this ignorance only proves the article's utility. --81.250.217.57 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a clear lack of independent, reliable sources, not from esperantists, particularly, as evidenced by that article. Unless they are referenced there, it should be considered as a PR action from esperantist group. 178.49.18.203 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue, on two levels. The Journal of Child Language is a respected academic journal in the field, and the author is clearly not an esperantist. Secondly, no Esperanto group has a PR motive to boast of its L1 speakers, because the purpose of the Esperanto movement is to promote the language as a neutral second language, not to impose it as a first language. --81.250.217.57 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I feel inclined to merge. Not because the subject is not notable or because there isn't enough verifiable information about it, but simply because this information naturally belongs in the article about Esperanto. I mean, of course it is an interesting sociological phenomenon, but so are native speakers of Irish or Kashubian. But do, or should, we have articles about those as well? For me, the primary reason to have this kind of information in a separate article, is that there is too much that can be said about it that is not directly relevant to the main article, or that otherwise the main article would become too long. This is clearly not the case here; the only really relevant information here consists of some three sentences and a few names. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference here is that Esperanto is an artificial language. The mere existence of native speakers, then, is the result of a process entirely different from Irish, Kashubian, Choctaw, or any other less commonly-spoken language. (And even then, the Gaeltacht does have its own article.) No other artificial language has ever gained native speakers before this, which makes this a unique phenomenon in human history. (Which is why there have been scientific studies focused particularly on this phenomenon.) In case the consensus runs against my arguments, however, let me at least urge the (ill-advised) merger to go to Esperanto Culture rather than Esperanto (which would completely upset the coherence of this encyclopaedia).--81.250.217.57 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is misleading as it suggests existance of people whose native language is Esperanto, not just bi-tri-etc-lingual persons. The claims require corresponding proofs, which are now lacking. 178.49.18.203 (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are misunderstanding "native speaker" as "unilingual speaker"? A child who grows up in a home where two languages are spoken has two native languages (for instance I speak English and my wife speaks French, my children never grew up not speaking either language, and both are native to them). The article does not even suggest that there are any unilingual Esperanto speakers. --81.250.217.57 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be surprised, 81.250.217.57, but I even kind of agree with you. I am just not sure if it is true that Esperanto is indeed the first artificial language with native speakers; there are data about a native speaker of Volapük. And there must be artificial languages with native speakers after that as well. From that point of view I think it would be more relevant to have an article Native speakers of constructed languages or somesuch, one that would not delve specifically into the peculiarities of Esperanto culture, but rather deal with the unique sociological phenomenon itself. That would make sense, because most (if not all) of the explanatory text goes for any constructed language and not specifically for Esperanto.

It doesn't change the fact that in my opinion the key data about native speakers should be part of the Esperanto article.

For the rest, I think the whole Esperanto business on WP is much too fragmentary. Dozen of articles about details, while Esperanto culture in its current form is a somewhat abundant listing of expressions of art in which Esperanto plays a role, while many other articles are mostly lists as well. But there doesn't seem to be any decent article about Esperanto culture in the broader sense, which I believe is a pity. Such an article could easily combine material from several minor articles like this one as well. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article never claims that Esperanto is the first artificial language with native speakers. Your points on improving Esperanto Culture are well taken, though. The idea of a more general article on native speakers of artificial languages is an interesting one, especially if in fact there are others (although I'm sure the context would be radically different between the circumstances of a native speaker of Esperanto/Ido/Volapuk on the one hand, and Klingon/Quenya/Sindarin on the other). If such an article were created, though, it would be important for Native Esperanto Speakers (et al.) to redirect to the appropriate section, since many readers will be more interested in a specific language than the general phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.250.217.57 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no sign of any "lack of authoritative sources concerning existance [sic] of this phenomenon or truth in inclusion of the listed persons", which is the purported reason the article was nominated for deletion. If peer-reviewed academic journals are not considered valid sources, then what is? Somehow I think that if this article did merit deletion, it would have happened sometime already in the past ten years. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was an excellent point about how if the article did merit deletion, it would have happened already in the past ten years - I am inclined to agree. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so am I. Like I said, I am in fact for a "soft delete", but for completely different reasons than the person who nominated it, whose argumentation is simply wrong. Yes, there's more than enough that can be said about this subject that it notable and verifiable in independent sources, so that is surely not a good argument for deletion. My question is only: is the very fact that notability and verifiability can be established enough to warrant a separate article about a subject? Well, in my opinion this information is worth including, but it would be better off in a broader article: either Esperanto, and/or an expanded article about Esperanto culture, and/or an article about Native speakers of constructed languages. Best, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Oops...hit the delete button :P SarahStierch (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contractor management[edit]

Contractor management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Speedy contested. This resembles an essay and would at least need a complete rewrite with relvant references. All these activities are just a subset of managing a company and it's not clear that this is a discrete topic. The references cited are general safety references which apply to both contractors and direct employees. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 19:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is our policy to improve weak articles, not to delete them. As an example of a source which might be used for such work, see Outsourcing and Human Resource Management. Warden (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:Improve. It wold be nice to think that is the "general policy" but I have seen far too much otherwise Colonel. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pretty obvious delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun Bo Rivers[edit]

Shotgun Bo Rivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Self-published author with no indication of notability per WP:AUTHOR. ... discospinster _talk 15:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've nominated it for BLPPROD twice now. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. Note that, if the author does become notable, an article may end up being appropriate. We're just not there yet, not by a long shot. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, no reliable sources provided and none found on a search. Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Fails WP: AUTHOR with no assertation of notability, plus it's written in an unencyclopedic and un-neutral format. Electric Catfish 20:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Bosnar[edit]

Ivan Bosnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • [11])

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 22. Snotbot  t • c »  15:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article creator. Note to nominator - it is extremely poor form not to notify an article creator about an AfD. GiantSnowman 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of coverage and professional play. As the article creator consents to deletion and is the only substantive contributor, this could probably be speedied G7 if anyone was so inclined. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valdelaguna[edit]

Valdelaguna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No content apart from info box Jamesyboy2468 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page has content now. Remove from deletion discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.109.120.124 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The artcile is an adequate stub. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: article now has content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyboy2468 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: no grounds for deletion. --Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer, per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) and per WP:MAPOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G7. —SpacemanSpiff 06:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Venkateshan[edit]

Deepak Venkateshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

That the article is auto-biographical is evident from the user name of the creator as well as the second contributor. Earlier tags suggesting the same were arbitrarily removed by the page creator without making any improvements to the article. If anything, subsequent additions to the article have only made it even more autobiographical Sesamevoila (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the revision history, it would seem that contributors User:Egghead70 and User:Malabala are meatpuppets since they have been recently created and contributed only to this article. I have tried to point out to User:Iamthermoman the error of his ways on his user talkpage but there's been no response. Sesamevoila (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is iamthermoman. My name is Deepak Venkateshan and I am a writer by profession. I have no gumption in admitting that I did a page on myself but the data in it is true. If this page has caused so much of problems for the delicate balance of Wikipedia then please delete this page. I am more than happy to lose this data. I am not some troll that creates multiple user ids. Egghead70 is my sister and Malabala my wife. They have just been enthusiastic and added more stuff about me or rated me. I have an IMDB record but that simply does not seem to matter. For that reason, I would gladly delete this page. I am not sure how to do it and would requested sesamevoila to do the honors. Regards, Deepak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthermoman (talk • contribs) 13:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. The only other non-keep voter (myself) is also fine with a withdrawal. Jenks24 (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Secondary College (Blackwattle Bay Campus)[edit]

Sydney Secondary College (Blackwattle Bay Campus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH of WP:ORG. Lack of coverage by independent reliable organisations and outlets. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:42pm • 11:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the nom, but I'd suggest a redirect to Sydney Secondary College would be a better outcome that deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a better idea. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:58am • 23:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per thinking elucidated at Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). WWGB (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should poorly-written articles with limited coverage be retained? What you have cited is an essay. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:19am • 01:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found 16 references with very little effort. As with other articles about high schools, I think this article will survive AfD. WWGB (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's actually an existing high school. and high schools are inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I did a standard Google search which returned very little in the way of reliable sources, I hadn't used their News search. Given the improved nature of the article is it possible to withdraw the request? James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:02pm • 06:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). 'Poorly written' is absolutely , not a criterion for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of sources available from which it can be expanded to comfortably meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus that this match does not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay v Ghana (2010 FIFA World Cup)[edit]

Uruguay v Ghana (2010 FIFA World Cup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The notability of this subject is contested. While there are many references in the article, few of them relate to this game in particular, and even fewer of them refer to the match in any historical context. Most of the content is routine news reporting, something that every game receives, regardless of its long-term notability. We only ascribe automatic notability to major tournament finals, any other games have to prove long-term notability, which this game does not. – PeeJay 10:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 10:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a notable match, not by a long shot. GiantSnowman 10:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Suarez handball is already covered on his own page no need for this game to have its own page. BadSynergy (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article really about that one event. The rest is really nothing special to earn a separate article (ie Final etc). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This really does not need an article. Thomas85753(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable match, no indication of significance by reliable sources. – Kosm1fent 12:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources do not indicate lasting notability, match is covered in enough detail at 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. NapHit (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - why is it supposed that football matches require "lasting," "long-term" or "historical" notability, above and beyond the normal GNG threshold? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because pretty much every game gets broad coverage from numerous sources at the time when it is on, but only a few games get long-term, lasting coverage. This allows us to keep the number of match articles manageable. – PeeJay 18:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That way lies madness indeed and hatnotes like "This article is about the match between Gillingham and Wycombe Wanderers on 21 August 2012. For other matches between Gillingham and Wycombe Wanderers see Gillingham vs Wycombe Wanderers (disambiguation)" ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that a WC quarterfinal is comparable to a league game that is played twice a year. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not suggesting it is, but Clavida chauchat seems to be suggesting that any game which meets the GNG is potentially deserving of an article, which would basically cover any professional-level match. That's the point I was trying to make.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the article on the 2010 FIFA World Cup. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we do not really need separate articles on any specific matches in any world cup finals except for the finals - we can just have details on other specific matches merged with the article on the particular world football final. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Adam4267 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Meets GNG. Significant coverage worldwide from reliable secondary sources.

This game is notable because it was a WC knockout round game that ended in a shootout. The ending was especially dramatic because the outcome was changed in the last minute of extra time. In a tied game, a player blocked the ball with his hands to save what clearly would have been a goal and a loss, and then his team ended up winning. This handball incident is consistently linked to Uruguay/Ghana (and the country)/Suarez. This consistent mention goes well beyond routine coverage (e.g., the Argentina – Germany game in the same round). Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • What are you talking about? Where is the long-term historical significance? Of course there will be mentions of the handball from time to time whenever Suarez is involved, but there's nothing to suggest that the entire game is notable. The only reliable sources in the article either relate to the tournament as a whole or are contemporary to the game, which is not indicative of a truly memorable game. – PeeJay 16:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't read anything that requires an article have long-term historical significance or even be memorable. I've only read that it must be notable. There is nothing written about notability criteria regarding matches at WP:Footy. The WP:SPORTSEVENT requires it to be "considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. ... 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches ...)." Routine coverage is a simple match report and article the day after the game. Everything above that (multiple articles from the same publisher, extra commentary) and the repeated mention of the game internationally (outside Uruguay and Ghana, the local teams involved) indicate that it is notable. Otherwise why keep mentioning non-notable events?
    • The 2009 France–Ireland games (cited in that SPORTSEVENT precedent) are analogous to this game. They (or maybe just one) had extra coverage because of Henry's handball, which cannot be separated from the games (or game?). Strafpeloton2 (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the requirement for long-term significance is implied by the notability criteria, which state that any coverage of the subject must go beyond the routine. Since most of the sources referring to the game are routine, i.e. written merely because the game happened, not because anything particularly special happened, you need to provide sources that show lasting notability. And by the way, we're not talking about the France v Ireland games, per WP:WAX. – PeeJay 12:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Naturally, many of the sources are related to routine coverage. But many isn't all of them, and the rest demonstrate the notability. For example, after the game Ghana wanted to change the rules about comparable handball incidents; discussion of changing the rules is not routine. Articles mentioning the game the following year aren't routine. All the extra international commentary about the handball incident doesn't happen following a handball in a Gillingham–Wycombe Wanderers games; that's not routine.
        • My interpretation of WP:WAX is that I shouldn't claim the Uruguay–Ghana game should exist because random game article X versus Y, which may or may not be notable, exists. But I disagree that the article on the France–Ireland games is a random game article that may or may not be notable. I used that one because it appears to me to be a standard by which to compare the notability of games, since it is explicitly stated in the WP:SPORTSEVENT examples of what games are notable. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • And how far did those discussions about rule changes go? How reputable are those sources that mentioned the game one year on? How many sources do you think will mention the game in 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? I'd be willing to bet that the number will decrease dramatically as time goes on, and since notability is not temporary, it'd be a stretch to say that this game is really that notable. I would probably argue that the France-Ireland game doesn't meet notability criteria either, but that's not for here. – PeeJay 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, they didn't change the rules, but the point is that there aren't too many games that lead to even discussing rule changes either. I think the Liverpool Echo, Fox News Latino, Daily Monitor and The Barbados Advocate are reputable. I can't predict how many sources will mention the game in the future, but I bet the number of mentions increases the next time Ghana or any other African team makes it to a similar WC stage, or as a comparison for controversial WC incidents or late heartbreaking losses, or if Suarez does something controversial. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's lots of games that result in discussion about rule changes, particularly anything involving goal-line technology. – PeeJay 10:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:SPORTSEVENT per the sources provided by Strafpeloton2 in this AfD. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - merely one of hundreds of World Cup matches. 2.26.51.191 (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:SUBARTICLE. No talk page consensus to take the action taken. Also, while a fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own, that is for a representative survey of the relevant literature, not for every detail that can be sourced to a reliable source. For example, one sentence of the new article reads, "In the 58th minute, Gyan's had a low shot to the near post saved by Muslera." The sentence after that is "Five minutes later, Forlán crossed to Suárez for a volley, but Suárez missed wide." These are not major facts or major details, but instead minor facts and minor details. That falls into WP:NOTDIARY - news reporting about ... sports ... can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every ... goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included. I hate to request that all this hard work be deleted, but that is required. The main article 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage is sufficient to cover the topic and you should get a talk page consensus first before pursuing a WP:SUBARTICLE. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You can find thousand of sources for any football match, but that doesn't mean that it is notable. In other words, it lacks long-term notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Perhaps folks should focus on improving the "Floatopia" article. Heh. Lightly salting this one, too. SarahStierch (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Par[edit]

Chris Par (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete due to lack of established notability in accordance with the general guidelines for biographies, as well as primarily promotional content. Previously created three times, G11 speedy deleted, then salted. Recreated under this new title. The sources are primarily minor mentions in local newspapers about the subject as the individual wishing to establish a beach party, fighting the local city council attempting to shut it down. Note that the repeated external links/references are all duplicates of those listed in the article. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 09:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Essentially self-promotion. I've found a single story in the Santa Barbara newspaper, no indication that it's more than a local story. The user has been mounting a widespread social media campaign, all self-generated, and seems to think Wikipedia is another social media outlet that can be used for self-promotion. Most of the content is essentially a hoax, or at least exists only as the result of their proclamations on user-generated media. Acroterion (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After noticing it had been speedied 3 times already I put it up for speedy again, but it was denied, so I guess we are here. Let's go through why this is a joke and hoax. The joke comes from the first and only picture, its not even serious and the title is 'Stupidswaggedup.jpeg' I think that is a little odd to start with, regardless of the image itself. It is probably not even a picture of the subject itself, if the link to thecampussocialite.com is believed to be correct. Though the so-called source for the Campus Socialite awards are anything but reliable. I doubt 'meatloaf' is a proper Journalist and it appears to be a site that anyone can write and post articles. As noted from the ' REP YOUR SCHOOL WRITE MARKET PR' and 'I market. I write.' Ads that suggest user-generated content with little to no editorial oversight.

Floatopia or whatever may be notable, but Chris Par probably isn't. According to the sources, Floatopia is the subject and Chris Par has one line, "UCSB student and Isla Vista resident Chris Par — took the lead and filled out the county’s permit application, which Farr said was inadequate because it made no provisions for security or sanitation." and "A UCSB student, Chris Par, applied to sponsor this year's event, according to the Santa Barbara Independent. The parks director called Par's application "sub-par" -- he really said that." and of course, "Chris Par’s performance at a County Board of Supervisors meeting last year, from which he was forcefully removed due to inarticulate, profanity-ridden arguments against the county’s closure of the beach..." In summary, all we get from 'reliable sources' is that he tried to organize it, was denied, and was later removed for a disruptive vulgar outburst. Is that the bar of notability? Is that the bar of GNG? Considering that Chris Par is not the subject, but 'Floatopia' is, then there is almost nothing to support more then writing half a paragraph about some organizer that made a scene one day. Which would fall under WP:NOTNEWS because such things happen thousands of times a year, even arrest reports are more notable than this.

I'd be more than happy to let this thing sit if the claims made elsewhere in the article are addressed as part of the notability claim. I.e. "and in this one year recovery from surgery stitching the half of his foot broken from the bottom half on medical leave from school and work, he has so far recorded 3 albums released on iTunes, Swag, Swag Juice, and 2par, with accompanying free mixtapes, ran for Mayor of Santa Barbara, 3rd District Supervisor, and rogue upon a constitutional convention amending the requirements to run so to do so, President of the United States in the 2012 electoral year, a convention, postponed 4 times, yet to be held." Anyone who claims to be President of the United States is a pretty much a joke or a hoax. Let alone other claims present in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I speedied the original three versions as hoaxes based on the campaign claims, not to mention A7 (both as an individual and as a musician), G11 and BLP problems, but here we are. Might as well make it stick so future versions can be G4.Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article did claim he was President, I might've speedied it as a hoax (or maybe not - a lot of the information seems to be true, if perhaps embellished). But it only claims that he intends to run. Compare the claim that he ran for governor of California as a write-in candidate and lost; that's also a believable claim, the barrier to doing that is extremely low, and usually won't attract media attention. WilyD 15:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was hard to understand, but the subject is ineligible to even RUN for president as he doesn't meet the requirements, let a lone the key 'must be at least age 35' part to do so. I doubt the other claims are even true as well, in the slightest possible way. A write-in is also a joke, because Santa Claus, Jesus and Homer Simpson have all been write in candidates for many elections. If more then 1% of voters made a vote for 'Chris Par' it still wouldn't pass GNG, and no source + contentious claim = delete. Considering that the image used in the article is not even the subject, the entire thing as a whole appears to be a joke. It is like replacing the picture of George Bush with Ozzy Osbourne for the article on 'George Bush'. Every aspect of the picture image violates the guidelines regarding images; frankly I don't see why that picture hasn't been speedied either. The time for speedy is over though, so I'll gladly wait until the end of this AFD. Least the discussion and issues can be archived. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In addition to the above criticisms of the page which I agree with, I first noticed this article had jumped from near the bottom of the AfC pending list to the created page list yesterday which was anomalous to say the least... especially given its final form. In addition, the user who contributed this page just removed the AfD tag in what they categorized as a "minor edit", which casts some doubt as to whether they are acting in good faith with regards to Wikipedia tenets... Reynhart (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Promotional, POV article ("heroism", "unprecedented", "out of spite", etc.), most notable for its boasting and its lack of independent reliable sources (the few sources that are cited in the article are about Floatopia and only peripherally about him). --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no evidence or WP:RS supporting WP:GNG. Being a write in candidate or wanna be candidate does not make one notable. Nor does being a party legend. As the article says, he "saw minor success in album sales". One must not mistake flamboyance and self promotion for notability. I agree with the observations made by Reynhart, Cindy, Acroterion, and MelanieN . Dlohcierekim 21:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having reread article after Joe's fantastic cleanup, still not seeing subject as meeting WP:GNG. While there is some media coverage, it does not rise to significance. Dlohcierekim 18:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Further, nuke from orbit and mark as uninhabitable. This should be SPEEDY:G3, except that the article creator knows how to contest a SPEEDY. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Concur w/ salt. 4 deletions is enough already. Dlohcierekim 04:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct response, at this stage, is speedy delete and salt per WP:SNOW. Let's not waste more time on this than absolutely necessary. --TS 04:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I've already offered an opinion and besides, I desysopped for a protracted absence. Dlohcierekim 05:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I rewrote the article using just the info found in reliable sources. I found nothing aside from his activities surrounding the 2010 and 2011 Floatopia events. The claim that Par ran as a write-in candidate for California governor in 2010 seems not to be true - his name is not listed as a registered write-in by the CA Secretary of Statein either the primary or general elections that year, and did not receive a vote. Dohn joe (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removes part of the hoax, took a lot of work to redo that mess, I'm also going to assume (from my own notes above) that he is not able to run for president also matters. A minor mention, in that (equally messy) Floatopia article seems justified. Thank you for also removing those photoshop 'album arts' and that picture of someone who clearly isn't Par. It makes whoever has to close this thing assessible to the one line trivial mentions in sources as they exist. The bulk of promotional, ranting fluff with blatant hoaxes were the concerns of almost everyone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice very nice. Dlohcierekim 18:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow! Great job Wikifying the article. I, am very impressed.

On the other hand, however, there's still the issue that simply being an organizer who worked on Floatopia and campaigned about beach closures doesn't make one notable; but this way, it's much easier to see who it is we're talking about and what Wikipedia-article-qualifying merits this person does or does not have. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Having gone over the article's history, I found it was the work of a sole contributor (others were established users performing maintenance and tagging) . Now while I think any editor w/ his prosaic skill should be retained, I am troubled by the use he put his skills to and by the fact that this is the 4rth iteration of an article on a subject that does not meet the WP:GNG and whose purpose seems promotional. I still think it should be WP:SALTed. Dlohcierekim 19:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dloh, I'm all for editor retention. Trouble is, I think some people come to Wikipedia not to build the world's largest information repository, but to give their personal subject its 15 minutes of fame on the world's largest information repository. I totally agree: if there is any way to retain the original author, we should do so. But I just happen to think that most people, even if they otherwise would have been good editors, feel burned when their pet article is deleted (or AfD-nom'd), and don't come back. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too true. Dlohcierekim 20:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I read more on this guy, he's a freakin' genius. "Make Everything Free, Make Everyone Rich." "Party Revolution." Make every city look like Vegas, switch to an automated renewable-resource economy, pave the streets in gold, $10 million salaries for everybody, eliminate the lower class and put everyone into the 1%... man, I want this guy to be President. The preceding sarcasm was brought to you by Jsharpminor (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment At this juncture creator has reverted DohnJoe's improvements. perma link to improved version Dlohcierekim 22:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I put it back at my last version, but that'll be my last involvement, I imagine... Dohn joe (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, though, Dohn - even in a probably losing cause. At least now we can see what is really there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:2swag Note: You're gonna have to copy and paste and replace (DOT) with a . in the URL as I can't post these here as links. Thanks!
2010 Live Televised Official California Governor Candidacy Announcement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA-u9dSv9Nk
2011 Live Televised Official President of the United States Candidacy Annoucement http://www.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=hOdrQh1Us78
2011 Santa Barbara Newspress Front Page For Presidential Candidacy Announcement https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=10150220502751320&set=a.419884361319.210264.591386319&type=1
2011 Santa Barbara Newspress Floatopia Hosts' Article https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=10150202100771320&set=a.472538676319.259252.591386319&type=3
2010 Gubernational Campaign Site http://chrispar.tumblr(DOT)com
2014 Gubernational Campaign Site http://chrisparforgovernor.tumblr(DOT)com
2012 Presidential Campaign Site http://chrisparforpresident.tumblr(DOT)com
2012 Constitutional Convention to amend requirements to run so to do so http://www.chrisparforpresident.tumblr(DOT)com/CONVENTION
2013 Mayoral Campaign Site http://chrisparformayorofsantabarbara.tumblr(DOT)com
2010 Gubernational Prop 19 Campaign Stunt http://www.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=AGGwlfEdID0
2010 Gubernational Write-In Candidacy https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=490129101319&set=a.472538676319.259252.591386319&type=3
2010 Gubernational Propaganda at UCSB https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=466647551319&set=a.472538676319.259252.591386319&type=3
2010 Infamous Golf Cart Incident http://www.onlyiniv(DOT)com/?p=1378
2010 Famous CNN GTA Headline https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=10150093471766320&set=a.472538676319.259252.591386319&type=3
2010 Public Apology on Gubernational Campaign Site Dropping GTA Charges http://chrispar.tumblr(DOT)com/post/660370265/public-apology
Rockstar Notability For GTA Incident Comparison http://28.media.tumblr(DOT)com/tumblr_lvch3qwflg1qdmz1oo1_500.png
2010 LA Time Highlighted Quote http://awurl(DOT)com/dfzudvSNF#first_awesome_highlight
2010 CNN Interview For Floatopia Piece http://www.cnn(DOT)com/video/?/video/us/2010/04/11/pkg.ca.floatopia.cnn
2010 Patriot Speech Sparking National Publication LA Times sparking National News Broadcaster CNN http://www.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=kZHekJt4-3A
2010 Heroic, Legend Highlighted Quote http://awurl(DOT)com/EmqxnhDde#first_awesome_highlight
2011 Wikipedia Unlinked Reference https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=10150090394321320&set=a.419884361319.210264.591386319&type=1
2010 Floatopia Event Invite https://www.facebook(DOT)com/events/167190520192/
2011 Floatopia Event Invite https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=10150229787616320&set=a.472538676319.259252.591386319&type=3
2012 Floatopia Event Invite https://www.facebook(DOT)com/events/220079771394350/
2011 Banned From Santa Barbara https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=10150402039086320&set=a.472538676319.259252.591386319&type=3
2011 Banned From Santa Barbara https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=10150230114641320&set=a.472538676319.259252.591386319&type=3
2010 Signing My Name Away To $5 Million In Liablity To Hold Floatopia On Beach https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=415678986319&set=a.472538676319.259252.591386319&type=3
2007 Founder Of The UCSB Party Scene https://www.facebook(DOT)com/groups/20063240409/
2011 Found Of SBpartyscene.com http://sbpartyscene(DOT)com
2010 Fanmade Van Wilder comparison https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=10150153382561320&set=a.472538676319.259252.591386319&type=3
2011 Campus Socialite Award By Legitmate Nomination And National Vote http://thecampussocialite(DOT)com/campus-socialite-awards-best-college-promoter
2010 Online Revolution Surrender After National Guard Confrontation In Front Of House After Emailing The White House About Starting Party Revolution https://www.facebook(DOT)com/photo.php?fbid=415891161319&set=a.472538676319.259252.591386319&type=3
2012 Worldwide iTunes Released Album, Swag Under Chris Par http://itunes.apple(DOT)com/ca/album/swag/id533838321
2012 Worldwide iTunes Released Album, Swag Juice Under King Par http://itunes.apple(DOT)com/us/album/swag-juice/id540764539
2012 US Only iTunes Released Album, 2par Under 2par http://itunes.apple(DOT)com/us/album/2par/id545435917
2012 Datpiff Released Mixtapes Under Chris Party http://www.datpiff(DOT)com/profile/TheChrisParty
2012 2par Band Page http://itunes.apple(DOT)com/us/album/2par/id545435917
2012 Kings Tour TBA Announcement http://2par.tumblr(DOT)com/UPCOMING
2012 Famous [Album] [First Half] (Official Music Video) http://www.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=cC2IA9-lKv8
2012 2par Poster http://www.zazzle(DOT)com/2par_print-228131310310321089
2012 2par Poster http://www.zazzle(DOT)com/life_of_leisure_poster-228205431581362308
2013 MTV Floatopia http://mtvfloatopia.tumblr(DOT)com
Everything Cited With Further Verbal and Pictured Explanation Can Be Verified Found At https://www.facebook(DOT)com/WhoChrisPar/info Now After Reviewing The Sources, How Can You Possibly Deny Chris Par's Notability as a Socialite, Politician, and Rapper? Chris Par hosted Floatopia 3 years in a row to promote these endeavors and after falling from 15 feet from a balcony at the 2011 MTV VMAS and upon accepting a lower amount off a lawsuit with the condition of the development of a pilot for a proposed reality show tentatively titled IV Shore to document his journey to even greater legendary prominence he will have a bigger television franchise than Jersey Shore, so you will know his name before the end of this year, and sure as hell better stop deleting the facts when you all are the ones biased against his greatness, everything stated are non promotional statements, statements made, soley, to tell the story of an sung hero, and legend in Santa Barbara, and already the World in what will be an unprecedented Constitutional Convention this October 6, 2012. The world will be watching, will you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2swag (talk • contribs) 03:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — 2swag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

what will be an unprecedented Constitutional Convention this October 6, 2012. Please try to stay reality-based, will you? results of Google search for Constitutional Convention "October 6, 2012" --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC) User:2swag 2012 Constitutional Convention to amend requirements to run so to do so http://www.chrisparforpresident.tumblr(DOT)com/CONVENTION [Please Read Invitation Sent To All Of Congress and look up National Monument Reservations on October 6th][reply]

• So he has a Facebook page. Delete as the political equivalent of a MySpace band. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's ran 3 campaigns, released 3 albums on iTunes through indie labels (on the same playing field as Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, and Justin Bieber, all of whom, though ghey, suppose as equally notable), hosted the biggest beach party in the world and became an internet meme for it (please review at least mtvfloatopia.tumblr(dot)com), and has a pilot being developed projected to be bigger than Jersey Shore, he did not just appear, if you haven't followed his notability since 2010 you are a new fan and therefore have been out of the loop for 3 years this page should have been created years ago!! (This unsigned comment posted by User:2swag.)
    • OK, so he's also a MySpace band. Surprising that this brilliant man hasn't generated any coverage in the real media. Probably a conspiracy. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He certainly merits an award for tireless self-promotion using social media. Trouble is, he thinks Wikipedia's social media too. Acroterion (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some kind of Hall of Fame for the most amazing AfD discussions? This could be a candidate. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis González-Mestres would be in the top two. There's a bunch of blocks and an SPI to go with it, not to mention a couple of websites explaining how Wikipedia is suppressing blah blah blah. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You've never seen my talk page, I guess--it's where politicians come and hobnob. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure it's enjoyable to chat with the Constitution Party's candidate for Coffee County Recorder of Wills about your suppression of their candidacy/free speech/right to an article on WP. . I did see Mr. Drmies Jr. though: congratulations! Acroterion (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! (I still can't believe no one has slapped a "NOTMYSPACE" note on it.) Drmies (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW: Here, from one of the actual sources cited in the article, is a independent source's evaluation of Chris Par's importance: "(A Floatopia organizer) mentioned fourth-year UCSB student Chris Par’s performance at a County Board of Supervisors meeting last year, from which he was forcefully removed due to inarticulate, profanity-ridden arguments against the county’s closure of the beach, as an example of what not to do. (Par organized the “Protest to Stop Closing the Beach,” for Saturday, April 9 at a location called “They’re Gonna Close the Beach Every Weekend Until 2020,” which 16 people attended on Facebook but apparently nobody attended in real life.)"[12] --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:2swag That was from a figure of authority's point of view, watch that speech here and judge for yourself its merit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZHekJt4-3A and is not a politician's job to spread his message? Does not one must start somewhere? Is iTunes not a legitimate enough source, he's got more albums on there than Notorious B.I.G., Mac Miller, and Wiz Khalifa. —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC) User:2swag Is stating candidacy on live television for both Governor and President on two separate occasions, with a means to amend the constitution via constitutional convention to do so set for October 6, 2012 not enough? —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC) User:2swag How can you deny a person did or is currently doing something simply because you have been previously unaware? Whether or not you know of a person's relevancy does not change the fact that they are relevant! You are simply out of the loop. You all are denying shit that happened actually happened, stints as low as denying the holocaust happened. Whether or not you want to remember it happened, it still fucking happened you douchelord cumquats. Wikipedia should document what happened as accurately as possible, just telling the story is in no way promotional, you are just spin doctoring it as you all are lacking something called neutrality.

• OK, 2swag, that's enough. Please stop disrupting this AfD. You obviously have no idea what Wikipedia is and isn't, and "douchelord cumquats" isn't funny enough. The next outburst will be followed by a block. Rest assured, every participant here will thoroughly peruse your Facebook page in their quest for neutrally establishing your notability. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I thought we were in a state of informality here from your snide, sarcastic, and unprofessional degrading comments toward the relevancy of the subject, I was just playing along the lines of standards you have set but you are correct it is no use fighting fire with fire, I just lost it there for a second, I truely apologize, and appreciate your consideration. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2swag (talk • contribs) 05:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Fails WP:BIO. A search for sources revealed nothing beyond what is already in the article, which amounts to exceedingly brief mentions in articles about Floatopia. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 08:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball Delete (if such a thing exists - otherwise, the regular brand will do). Is below par in terms of WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment(jeeez I wish the edit button was at the bottom of the section) @2swag-- Self-published sources, Youtube, FaceBook and most of what you listed are not reliable 3rd party sources not connected w/ the subject. Further, subjects' actions by no means are notable in the specialized Wikipedia sense of the word. I do wish you had read and understood the links pertaining to notability and sourcing I left on your talk page. What info is provided by reliable, 3rd party sources does not comprise the sort of national coverage we need, nor does it support a claim of encyclopedic notability. Dlohcierekim 13:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO by wide margins. No significant coverage in reliable sources to speak of, just a few passing mentions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:2swag so you guys are going to let this guys page stand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Famous_Bushman over a party legend at ucsb, nationally accredited socialite, host of the biggest beach party in the world 3 years in a row, rapper with 3 albums out, and man who's ran statewide campaigns for governor at the age of 21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8uTWAwbq7Y (watch that unpreviously sourced), Mayor at the age of 22, and is hosting a constitutional convention to amend constitutional requirements to run so to get on the ballot and run for President of the United States at 23 in the 2012 electoral year http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m91tnb2A2r1qcatk6o1_1280.jpg (invitation send to all of congress)? You all have a clear bias if you are willing to leave these things out, even without further explanation, if these sentences were added to the brief description you all would salt it because you don't want to believe true what is clearly happening? This does not go along the lines of fairness nor the guidelines of a neutral wikipedia article, there is just something else, some personal distaste toward the subject you don't want the world to know of and I hope you can come to realize this and allow these facts to be included for if he were ever to die for this revolution it best be documented properly that he was a revolutionary trying to change the world, and forever a legend. If not on wikipedia, it will be recorded and covered around the world, that he died a hero, and then, maybe only then will you come to recognize what he has done for the world and publish a proper wikipedia article accurately describing his notoriety and prominence as an individual. —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The matter with World Famous Bushman is that the subject received sufficient news coverage. Chris Par, however, has not received sufficient news coverage for his alleged music career. Please note that being a "party legend at ucsb, nationally accredited socialite, host of the biggest beach party in the world 3 years in a row" is not notability. Additionally, all the information you claim about the subject is either not supported or irrelevantly supported. Wikipedia is not a social networking or a website to promote yourself. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2swag it is a conspiracy the mainstream media has not covered his campaign for the ideas of economic freedom goes against everything capitalism is basedly structured for, and the political agendas of the new world order also known as the illuminati who oversees and controls all mainstream media broadcasts. I hope I have made it clear as to why you are not finding what constitutes as a "source" covering his campaigns though through the underground he has raised to prominence as much as one can without the help of "national coverage", aside from the floatopia scandals. Please reconsider the original article without accusations of self promotion when they are just facts being stated as to what this person has so far accomplished in his lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2swag (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I propose a new law. Call it the WikiConspiracy law. It's exactly like Godwin's Law except when someone in a Wikipedia discussion uses the phrase "It's A Conspiracy" they automatically lose the discussion. Regards, --Manway 18:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? User:Jsharpminor/Conspiracy Jsharpminor (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2swag Conspiracy was used only to defend the sarcastic, "it must be a conspiracy" comment from earlier I cite: Surprising that this brilliant man hasn't generated any coverage in the real media. Probably a conspiracy. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2swag (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under WP:SNOW In claiming a media conspiracy to not report Chris Par, the point has been conceded: even 2swag is now saying there is a lack of reliable coverage of Chris Par. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@2swag Please. Sign your posts at the end of the post. Not at the beginning. Dlohcierekim 12:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. Nobody wants the administrator's deletion tool used. This is Articles for deletion, people. Don't bring things here that any of you can do with the edit tool that you all have, and that you can discuss on the relevant talk pages using the article merger process if that becomes necessary. Only bring things to Articles for deletion if you actually want the administrator deletion tool exercised. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Essex[edit]

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

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

REDIRECT - Non notable biography of ordinary person, only famous due to The Only Way Is Essex many of the current cast have been on the show since before Joey Essex arrived and haven't got articles on Wikipedia. I stronly advise we redirect to The Only Way Is Essex#Cast - Sirocco758 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT - No notability outside of show. Reli source (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wright_Flyer_III#Flying_at_Kill_Devil_Hills. SarahStierch (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Furnas[edit]

Charles Furnas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

He was the first airplane passenger, flying with both Orville and Wilbur Wright. Interesting, yes; notable, no. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did give him a mention in Aviation#History. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If all he's chiefly known for is in relation to his participation with the Wright Flyer III, then a redirect would probably be a good idea. (Or if you want to get specific, to Wright_Flyer_III#Flying_at_Kill_Devil_Hills.) So far I don't see where he's overwhelmingly notable for anything else. It's definitely amazing, but not independently notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wright_Flyer_III#Flying_at_Kill_Devil_Hills. I did a search and I don't see where Furnas was independently notable outside of his famous flight with the Wright Brothers. There's enough reason to believe that this could potentially be a search term and since he was the first passenger, a redirect to the article about the Wright Flyer III would be appropriate.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: Clearly not notable enough for his own article. HairyWombat 06:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, I second the suggestion of Tokyogirl79. Cavarrone (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Being bold and closing this one myself. Could even be a speedy. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Barrel Riddim[edit]

Monkey Barrel Riddim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable riddim. No mentions in reliable sources. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was wrong venue. The appropriate place to nominate this page for deletion is here. NAC—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HolidayCheck AG[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HolidayCheck AG (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HolidayCheck AG|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE_GROOVES 05:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and close Wrong forum and no rationale given. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 07:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G11 by Jimfbleak. NAC—S Marshall T/C 06:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Becky Holland[edit]

Becky Holland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable. All GNews/GHits are either self-published or not-reliable sources. While she is an apparently prolific journalist at a small local paper, this is not enough to meet WP:GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" does not meet GNG Hillabear10 (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't even come close to WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 3-time cancer survivor, has a cat with two faces? She needs to move away from that town. (Delete per nom.) --MoonLichen (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment this was SD'd, we should close. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator - no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow ^Talk 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Louie[edit]

Maggie Louie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG, sources are a magazine article, a list of songs on a CD, and a news article that mentions the artist in question...WP MUSIC states articles should have "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician". The variety article may weakly meet that criterion, but I'm not buying it. Non of criterion 2-12 are applicable and doesn't meet WP:GNG. All of these point to the article being deleted. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is sourced by both Variety and Billboard magazine which satisfies the reliable source requirement. --Bangstorm (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the GNG with mentions in Billboard, Variety, Pensacola News, and The Post and Courier. She also gets passing mentions in CMJ and The American Legion Magazine.  The Steve  10:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per user The Steve. Meets GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Pensacola News source has been added since nomination. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the total number of references has increased exponentially since nomination, I hereby withdraw my nomination. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy from rape[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Pregnancy from rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Currently this article has two components. The first section is a well-cited bit about rates of pregnancy when someone is raped. This is relatively short but crucial, and I think should be merged with Rape (which surprisingly does not have this information.) The remainder is a list of people who have made remarks about how rape is less likely to cause pregnancy because (insert reason here), including Todd Akin's recent comments. The biographical articles on those individuals already cover their comments, and I'm not really sure what the encyclopedic value is in listing these in one place (we don't have an article listing all the 9/11 "Truthers", for instance, and both views are equally "supported" by scientific evidence.) In addition, the opening tag line makes an uncited non-NPOV comment about how "many pro-life advocates" believe that pregnancy is less likely when a woman is raped - certainly the number is' non-zero but it reads like a general attack on pro-lifers, which isn't encyclopedic. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that rape can cause pregnancy is a fact that has confused people for years. ( See NY Times Story: Myth About Rape and Pregnancy Is Not New It isn't something new. Moreover, this is directly in conflict with scientific evidence. The article is clearly a start. However, it is something that should be allowed to develop. Casprings (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment First, Casprings created the article, and I'm not questioning their intent. I don't think WP:HASPOT holds because the scientific part of the article (e.g. what should be on the page) is quite short, a paragraph or two, and would fit in better with the main article on Rape. What's the encyclopedic value in listing people who believe that pregnancy and rape are somehow uncorrelated in the same article? It's like the article reads "here is the scientific evidence and here are losers who don't believe it for some reason." --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Aren't political views(or can't they be) WP:N ? Why wouldn't it be encyclopedic to document those views? Those views are documented here Climate change denial Casprings (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The views are already documented on the bio articles on those with sufficient notability. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If a group thinks something then that needs to be documented. Casprings (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"First, Casprings created the article, and I'm not questioning their intent." I can't say I really understand the reason you pointed out that Casprings created the article unless you actually were trying to imply that he or she has some sort of outside motivation. Forgive me if I missed something. AgnosticAphid talk 16:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Implies all rape is man-on-woman. If it were Minorities and their role in crime, you would not (I hope) be arguing to keep, but it's conceptually no different. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• CommentThat is a good point. While I am not sure that is a good point to delete, it is a good point to change the name. I will change the name, and see if it supports your thoughts. Casprings (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing as how this article is altruistically concerned with educating the small numbers of people who don't understand how human reproduction works, and has nothing to do with pointlessly using wikipedia as a political tool to point out Representative Aiken's dumb election-year rape gaffe, it seems that you could leave the Aiken part out and communicate the message just as effectively. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Under the current title "Pregnancy from rape" it seems pretty clear, and non-male-on-female rape not an issue. --Lquilter (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Last time I checked, no men had ever gotten pregnant from being raped. Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(For anyone looking up male rape victims, articles exist on rape by gender discussing both male-on-male, and female-on-male rape, noting both statutory and forcible, as well as male-male prison rape. Not relevant to AFD though.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is in principle possible for a female-to-male transgender person to be raped and become pregnant. They are disproportionate targets of rape; however their hormonal treatments inhibit their fertility. As far as I know, no such case has yet occurred, so it would be mere speculation to discuss it in the article. Dcoetzee 02:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Comment The science part of this article is duplicated on the existing article Effects and aftermath of rape (which covers not just pregnancy but other biological and psychological issues as well.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is nonsense and is simply here because this editor, Casprings, has a dogged hold on making sure Todd Akin is disgraced as thoroughly as possible. Casprings writes: "The fact that rape can cause pregnancy is a fact that has confused people for years." Are these the same people who think that toilet seats make you pregnant or that babies are delivered by storks? Since the most common understanding of "rape" is that it is forced sexual intercourse, only people without knowledge of what "sexual intercourse" is would believe that sex doesn't play a big part in making babies. The subject of this article belongs squarely at the Rape article, not in its own separate content fork. We don't need to hold people's hands as if they are all idiots and make articles like this. -- Avanu (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of articles debunking stupid ideas. Should we not bother to have one on the Yeti because 'everybody knows' there isn't a Yeti? Risingrain (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Are you kidding me? Delete per NOM. JOJ ^Hutton 04:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If I need to respond as to why, shame on who asks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillabear10 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is a WP:COATRACK to further the creator's perverse desire to smear a politician. Article is pure OR from start to finish. Belchfire-TALK 04:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Neutral. I do believe that this is a subject that should be covered in Wikipedia. As incredibly stupid as the people who state "you can't get pregnant from rape" might seem, this myth has been spread around for a long time and obviously is something that some believe. That a notable politician would believe this shows that it's not just "Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel" that propagates these myths. That this myth has existed this long and has been commented on in several reliable sources and through several notable people merits a mention somewhere. HOWEVER, I don't think that there needs to be an entire article based around it and I agree that this article reads like a soapbox for a specific viewpoint. It'd need almost an entire re-write to be encyclopedic. I agree that this page should be deleted, but I do think that there needs to be a mention of this in the main rape article somewhere. I'm not sure exactly what it should be labeled (rape myths? controversy?)and who knows, maybe there's enough out there that could justify an article. I just know that right now, this current incarnation of the article is not the way to go about it. This article was written with an agenda. The user might have had good intentions and emotions that I fully sympathize with, but this is not the way to go about creating an article about this particular subject. If someone can re-write this to be encyclopedic and less WP:POINT-y, I'd look into changing my vote, but this current incarnation of the article just isn't kosher.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is a myth, but the trouble is that there seems to be some evidence to back it up, some of which is even discussed in sources proximate to those used in this article. An "inconvenient truth". (Now where have I heard that before?) Belchfire-TALK 06:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• All the more reason for this bit (both sides of it, of course) to be more diplomatically, accurately, and neutrally written elsewhere, but not necessarily in this article at this point in time. I just don't think that this current incarnation of the article does the idea proper justice and is more of a WP:POINTy mess.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well-taken. I think we can both agree that the true purpose of this article is something different than it's title would suggest. Belchfire-TALK 08:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed on that. It's pretty much a thinly veiled attack page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with an "attack"--your word--if its neutrally worded and correcting a grave error. AND WTF -- I am still shaking my head at Belchfire's suggestion above that there is "evidence" to "back it up". I hope he gets quoted in the Daily Mail or something.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article, which is fundamentally about Todd Akin and US politics. It's right that Wikipedia covers the risk of pregnancy arising from a rape incident somewhere, but I don't see why it can't be covered under rape.—S Marshall T/C 07:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While effects and aftermath of rape provides a general overview of the subject, there are sufficient sources to warrant a standalone article on pregnancies from rape that meets WP:GNG. Given the recent media kerfuffle surrounding this topic, it's not surprising that there are concerns over the neutrality of such an article. However, concerns over the neutrality of the current article have no bearing on whether the topic itself is notable. Considering that there is some real world dispute over whether raped women can become pregnant, it is apparent that an article exploring the topic is rather needed. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 09:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can re-write it to where it's neutral, well-sourced, and provides viewpoints from both sides, I'd be willing to switch to a keep. I just feel that right now this would have to be almost completely nuked and re-written to be encyclopedic.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this would imply we also need an article on Rape and Bathing or Rape and HIV/AIDS, in light of comments by Jacob Zuma, where he admitted to having unprotected sex with a woman who accused his of rape, but claimed that he took a shower afterwards to cut the risk of contracting HIV. Jacob Zuma is the president of South Africa. I'm sure you can find a LOT of people in politics and in the general public that believe unusual or completely ridiculous things. I don't believe that means we need to create articles for each and every stupid belief that people might conjure up. -- Avanu (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If confusion and controversy about rape and bathing had been the subject of commentary by numerous secondary sources over a long period, the subject of numerous academic studies, as well as an influential political topic over the course of many years, then Rape and Bathing should exist. If not, then your parallel with the present article falls apart. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wha? The union of spermatozoon and gamete leds to fertilization. When this occurs in humans we call it "pregnancy." It doesn't matter if it's in vitro or in vivo; via human intercourse, rape, incest, or implantation. It all results in the same thing, and all of them are possible. I'm guessing either I missed the point entirely, or the article does. WP:COATRACK for being spaghetti someone is trying to stick to any wall they can. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE Merge back to Rape. Don't think this would be more than a footnote if not for poltics. 216.81.94.73 (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:COATRACK for which the only purpose seems to be to link Romney with Todd Akin and Akin's moronic statement on Rape. The creator of this article should be ashamed of themselves. Arzel (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Effects and aftermath of rape. The parent Rape article is long, and it's reasonable to redirect this to the most appropriate spinout. This is a plausible search term, however. And, sadly, it's possible that sufficient development will occur at the target article to warrant this being re-spunout in future. Contrary to what some comments here have implied, the myth that rape cannot cause pregnancy is by no means new, and by no means isolated to any one current politician. Frankly, absent the current controversy, I'd probably argue to keep and expand this article -- but that controversy ensures that we would have a difficult time doing so in an NPOV manner at the moment. So, instead, let's give the (non-coatrack) information a proper place to develop, and re-examine its placement if the time comes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough work is being done on this, especially with the historical references, that I don't think Effects and aftermath of rape (much less Rape) would be well-served by the merger. Vigilance will be necessary to prevent recent political statements from having undue weight, but that's an editorial issue rather than a matter for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ample reputable sources given in the article demonstrate (a) the frequency of rape pregnancy has been the subject of serious academic study for years and (b) although the academic sources seem to uniformly agree that rape pregnancy is not particularly unlikely, there has been persistent confusion and political controversy on the topic for many years (centuries, in fact! [13]). Hence, the notability of this topic is hard to question. The main reasons to delete seem to be either that (1) the subject is too "obvious" to include, which is contradicted by both the public confusion and by the judgement of experts that academic studies were worthwhile or (2) that we shouldn't include this topic because it has become embroiled in recent political controversy. (2) might be a reasonable point if this were only a recent controversy, but ample sources demonstrate that is not the case. Using a recent controversy as an excuse to exclude a topic of longstanding notability on the other hand, is the exact opposite of WP:RECENT and WP:NPOV. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but consider renaming to something like "Pregnancy from Rape Controversy" if focus remains on that aspect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let it developed and later on it can be argued if to merge as a full section under Rape or keep separate. Cwobeel (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This should be allowed to develop. The article continues to improve and is very different from the article I uploaded to start. I suggest if anything, a relisting might be the best solution. Casprings (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a fork. This is Campaign 2012 fallout, in my estimation, a pseudosubject emerging as a result of election year "Stupid Politicians Saying Stupid Shit." Wikipedia need not have an article to refute every ignorant pronouncement of the banjo-plucking pols from redstate America... Carrite (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, this subject has a long history that goes far beyond the 2012 campaign, with commentary by numerous prominent and reputable sources (such as multiple academic studies). Nor is it purely of political and legal interest—as one of the cited sources (Gottschall, 2003) points out, the topic is of importance in evolutionary biology as well because it bears on the question of rape's influence on evolution ("Critics of evolutionary theories of human rape, especially those theories that invoke the possibility of rape-specific adaptation, often deem rape-pregnancy statistics critically important.") — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a massive and long-studied topic that this piece suddenly emerged from the ether on August 22, 2012, in the aftermath of the Akin Asininity. What an astonishing coincidence!!! Face it: this piece simply WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED if not for Bozo the Clown being stupid. And it is not Wikipedia's place to create elaborately sourced psuedoarticles on pseudotopics to provide political Ooomph to one side of an electoral skirmish. Carrite (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article needed to exist before this. Sadly a lot of stupid ideas are commonplace and influential and therefore notable. Bozo the Clown may have inspired its creation now, but its the beliefs and actions of all the other people that make it notable. Granted that Bozo the Clown's contribution to this topic should be a mere mention at best, and the second part of the article needs a lot of cleaning up to not just be a hit-list of idiotic commenters, but rather a real discussion of the role of the argument in politics. --Lquilter (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What do you think a women who was rapped and had a child would say about this page? Hillabear10 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion debate. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly! Hillabear10 (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (but guard against WP:COATRACK) — Pregnancy from rape is a common event about which there is research, misinformation, multiple political controversies, and legislation. The Akin controversy reflects some of these issues and their political salience. However, per NPOV and COATRACK, this page should not be turned into a "why Todd Akin is stupid" page. Discuss his comments at Todd Akin instead, leaving only a brief mention on this article.--Carwil (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've waited to weigh in on this, but it appears this is a real issue, a separate issue, with real coverage of it. The Akin controversy article, if not kept, should be folded in here. Dr. Fred Mecklenburg's 1972 article may have spawned a lot of the modern debate, but enough has been written about this, not just in August 2012, for this to be a legitimate article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while minding Carwil's caveat regarding WP:COATRACK. Subject appears notable on its own terms, and the article now has enough secondary RS's (outside of the current controversy) to meet WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as a clear cotrack from the Todd Akin article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 August 2012
• Keep since the topic is clearly notable, per (a) multiple scientific studies [in two different fields -- sociobiology and also social science research around this question of politics]; (b) use in politics and persuasion; and (c) popular belief.
  :: As to the fact that the article is being written now because of a political mis-step by an American politician -- well, quel surprise. Articles are frequently inspired by news-of-the-day. We then have the task of sorting out whether it's of mere fleeting interest or whether it's of long-standing notability. Here the topic is clearly of long-standing notability.
  ::As to the relationship to the main article on rape -- As with all sub-topics, the appropriate thing to do is to have a succinct summary of the issue in the article on the main topics (rape and pregnancy, with a bit more in the rape article and a bit less in the pregnancy article IMO), and a "see also" link for further research.
  ::: As to is this merely an attack page -- No, it's not merely an attack page, because the topic has notably inspired quite a bit of research and discussion. What to do about Mr. Akin's comments? Don't over-emphasize them and be sure they are of real historical note, not mere passing note. In my view they are of mere passing note in the over-all history of the pregnancy from rape controversy, but probably of more than passing note in the article on Mr. Akin himself.
  ::: And finally, as to whether this topic is written for or against one or another view on the matter -- we can and should remain neutral on controversial topics. The fact that it is a controversial topic, or the fact that it is in part based on multiple common misunderstandings about biology -- none of that is relevant to whether this is a notable topic. We're not promoting the misunderstanding nor are we attacking someone's religious beliefs simply by encyclopedically reporting a notable topic, which happens to be a common misunderstanding used for political gain.
  --Lquilter (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge: obvious COATRACK designed to keep the Akin controversy alive and mentioned in as many articles as necessary. The cherrypicked list of people politicizes the article during the election season and is unacceptable.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 22:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is the list of people cherry-picked? What portion of the article is a coatrack, i.e. does not directly relate to the topic of rape pregancies (science, politics, law, and history)? In what way do the sources (stretching back centuries) on this topic not demonstrate that it has longstanding notability? And if it is a topic with longstanding notability, are you arguing that we should exclude an article about it because the topic has arisen in political news recently? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not a coatrack? On the original article, you had a list of five people who made statements thinking that there was some sort of inverse correlation between rape and pregnancy. Three of them had their party affiliation listed (including Akin), another has it called out that there was a Romney endorsement in 2007. More words were spent calling out these people than the actual science bit of the article. How does that not meet WP:COATRACK? (Much of this is still in the article as well.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that the only legitimate subject of an article is the "actual science" of rape and pregnancy. However, numerous secondary sources support the notability of the political and legal influence of the idea that rape suppresses pregnancy (stretching back for centuries). A neutral discussion of this influence has to cite prominent adherents and discuss the relationship of the idea to major political and legal ideas. (And if you have specific editorial criticisms, those are a matter for editing discussions, not deletion. Nor am I responsible for the original article.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The idea that pregnancy can only occur if the woman has experienced orgasm during intercourse is one that I have seen discussed in the context of the history of sexuality in Britain. It has been claimed that it was a common belief amongst women in the 19th century, and amongst some young women even at the end of the 20th. It has been used as evidence of inadequate education in sexual matters, though it could also be used to counter the idea that somehow it was only the liberated 1960s that 'discovered' the female orgasm at all. For the belief to have gained any currency amongst women, repressed Victorians with large families must have been presumed to have found their conjugal bedroom duties not wholly uncongenial. The underlying idea is certainly notable. Whether this is the right place for it though is another matter, since the underlying point there seems not to be the question of consent but the pleasure - to put it another way the woman may have consented but be disappointed in the event. --AJHingston (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your last objection is easily dealt with - we might devote a sentence or two to the belief that physical reactions constitute consent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've been meaning for some months now to write an article on this subject so while I'm sad that my thunder has been stolen I'm also pleased that WP is covering the topic. Because it is a topic, the focus of several independent studies as well as the subject of discussion in many medical and legal books. Users calling for deletion here are making arguments that necessitate editing, not deletion. They could, for instance, very productively contribute to the article and assuage weight concerns by expanding the historical material which is already present. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Considering the recent interest of this article is in context to Akin's recent remarks and also to the recent reports of the GOP's adopted platform to oppose all abortion exceptions (including rape), it would seem that the important and notable issue is for the accredited science on rape pregnancy to be readily available in the relevant articles that address the effects of rape. I don't really know if that's best served in this article or if it should be merged into one of the other articles. But since it is currently a very front and center matter of gynecological politics, it's really Wikipedia's duty to provide referenced hard facts on the matter for all who want to be informed. And, if it's notable enough, topics or articles on rape effects denialism and rape stigma in general as a matter of history, culture and politics; for instance, when rape victims are blamed for their rape, or are subject of honor killings for having been raped. It seems to me like a topic of rape will always have both medical and social notable dimensions. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Absent the immediate political context there seems to be a need for the topic of this article to be covered in an encyclopedic manner to document the scientific and medical evidence on the subject. The historical mythos on this topic and its prevalence means documenting the knowledge on this topic is of enduring social value. Mr Wave (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful article with plenty of medical and historical sources. Jokestress (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside Perspective - It appears that this has been made a focus of attack for !vote-stacking and WP:CANVASSING by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. Just thought that any admin looking this over ought to be aware of that. Organized POV pushing is not fair or proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked briefly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism and didn't see any canvassing. There was a notice about this discussion in a section on AFD, but that seems okay. Was there something somewhere else? (And which direction would the canvassing be arguing for, anyway?) --Lquilter (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable. Restucture to avoid the tendancy to stucture the content around stupid things that politicans say to avoid WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep - if it weren't a political and/or controversial issue, putting it into the rape article would be enough. But it is. If it were only Akin who said it, it could be moved into the article about his gaffe (or, if that is deleted, into his article). But others have. Here is a source that should be cited in the article. It discusses laws related to the intersection of rape and pregnancy in the U.S. (exception to no-public-funding laws; possible to adopt-out without father's consent; etc.). Savidan 03:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article but place the emphasis on the information of scientific interest. I see no reason for more than a sentence or two on any given political occurrence, merely to show that misconceptions exist. bd2412 T 03:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The fact that it took a political incident to notice that we didn't have an article on this subject is not relevant to whether or not we should have such an article. There's clear more than enough reliable sources, medical, historical, and contemporary to discuss this subject. We need to make clear what the scientific consensus is and be careful of giving undue weight to the idea that pregnancy can't result from rape, but that's an editorial issue rather than an issue for AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing vote to keep. This article has undergone a dramatic change since I first voted, thanks to the hard work of several users. It's still not entirely perfect, but it's definitely good enough at this point to where I would say that it should be kept. The biggest problem with the original incarnation was that it was so non-neutral and unencyclopedically written that it really would have had to have been nuked and re-written. That's no longer an issue here and any further improvements to the page can be done as time goes by.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't see this dramatic improvement that you mention. The lead of the article says "the contrary belief that pregnancy can almost never result from rape was widespread for centuries", yet the article itself barely scratches the surface of that *very* controversial statement. There are just TWO actual references to historical texts that mention this in passing, and neither source explains how such a conclusion was made, nor does it explain how these texts were actually used in real cases. In other words, the only proof we're given that this was so prevalent is two very sketchy sources.

Looking at the rest of the article, it is a patchwork of things that seem to be trying to prove a point that the various authors weren't making. We have claims that pregnancy rates are the same as normal sex, claims that it is twice as much, and the longitudinal study mentions that "12% resulted in spontaneous abortion", which relates directly to the comment made by Todd Akin that prompted all this, as well as the supposed widespread historical belief, but no mention is made of any connection.

In addition, you still have a disproportionate level of text about boneheaded political comments in the article, yet there is no mention of what medical doctors or scientists that were in politics or Congress concurrently with those commenters had to say about the same issues. Nor do we have what the general medical opinion of such comments was. In short, we have some very fringe-sounding comments from people who generally have no real medical experience, we have no historical proof of how pregnancies from rapes were historically viewed or handled. (My guess is that most people were just generally ashamed by the whole thing and wished it would all go away.) It is still a pretty lousy article, (if you knew me, you would know what I am about to say is exceptional for me) and in general, this article is simply here in this condition because of people who are very politically biased, and not because it is worth anything in its present state. Wikipedians should know better than to make half-assed, poorly done, psuedo-scientific crap. But when politics gets in the way, this is what we end up with. -- Avanu (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have three secondary sources, including two professional historians, attesting to widespread medieval belief in the idea of the impossibility of rape pregnancy. Regarding the statistics, we have several reputable secondary sources saying that rape does not decrease the likelihood of pregnancy. At least one source argues that it is more likely, but not all the sources agree on this point, and we report that. Nor do all the statistics agree, in part because some of them are measuring different things or in different circumstances. And we have several secondary sources attesting that belief in the improbability of rape pregnancy is prominent and recurring (whether or not it is widespread) in the pro-life movement, in addition to direct quotations of several such beliefs by prominent adherents.

Regarding quoting people who don't believe that rape-pregnancy is improbable, I'm not sure what you want here. We already cite mainstream scientific opinion as such, and already say that Akin's comments were widely condemned; quoting particular condemnations seems to be too much detail for this article. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with rape if not for one idiotic comment, this wouldn't exist. Mythpage88 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously. It sounds like some of the earlier !voters might have been confused by the article needing cleanup that now has been at least partially completed. Subject is notable, written about, and not inherently a violation of WP:NOT or WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge(?quite unsure atm) Here it goes. First, many Foo and Bar-style articles are bogus. There are exceptions (like Simon and Garfunkel or Crash and Burn, where both together form the notable entity, or a sum which is far more notable than its components), but many Foo and Bar articles are less notable than Foo or Bar, sometimes utterly unencyclopedic, and should be moved to Foo#Bar or Bar#Foo. In this case, Rape#Pregnancy has been suggested, but I think the topic is wide enough to warrant more than one articles.

Rape about the crime itself, common legal criteria of rape (including the cases where consent exists but is irrelevant to jurisdiction), usual punishment in both current legislations and history, etc. IMO, that's what should be in Rape.

Effects and aftermath of rape is a related topic but relevant enough in itself, and might even be split into three: physical, psychological, and societal effects. IMO even these three are notable enough to serve as Main articles feeding into EaAoR. If that's the case, it is clear where Rape and pregnancy belongs: Physical effects of rape#Pregnancy, and if it's not, it's Effects and aftermath of rape#Pregnancy. The related political gaffe should be moved into Political gaffes (where it should get a 2 or 3-sentence mention) and Todd Akin but not into the Rape topics.

The topic should definitely not be deleted, as there have been many mentions that pregnancy after rape is less likely than after consentual sex (so there is correlation, it's just not impossible to get pregnant due to rape, nor unlikely enough to question a rape claim in court should it occur). - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 07:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a blatantly obvious coatrack article make by a blatantly disruptive user. The idea that we are inundated with idiotic articles about US politics on a daily basis is bad enough without having them spill over into legitimate topics. Trusilver 08:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this article needs to be very, very closely monitored, it is a notable topic per SarekofVulcan below. Trusilver 04:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge statistical info in beginning, delete the rest as a coatrack. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge The historical background is important to have. Bob (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Effects and aftermath of rape. It is certainly relevant and notable that people think you can't get pregnant from rape (the most ridiculous thing I've heard since "you can get pregnant from oral"). 83.70.170.48 (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - politically motivated AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or Merge with Effects and aftermath of rape. This is a clearly notable topic which has not just arisen recently, contrary to some commenters' statements. --George100 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should this discussion result in "merge & redirect", Effects and aftermath of rape would be the most appropriate page to which to do so, as it is more specific to the subject than the broader Rape article.--JayJasper (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article is already far too long to merge in its entirety into Effects and aftermath of rape, even if all mention of the recent Akin controversy (currently just a few percent of the article) were deleted. Could people suggesting Merge be more specific in what they would delete in order to perform a merge? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the initiation of the article may have been provoked by the Todd Akin controversy, the statistical, medical, ethical, and political issues surrounding this topic are worth covering, and those sections are well referenced. Only a small part of the article covers the Akin stuff, so the article is hardly a coatrack. We really ought to have had an article on the topic even before the controversy broke out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - regardless of what prompted this article, this is exactly the sort of information that our core readership - students - are looking for. Far too long to merge into anything, it is also clearly notable, based on the many significant citations. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The scientific, political, and cultural notability of the topic are proved by the current references, which also provide good information. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, after expansion of material from Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy (Which is also going under AFD) and adding more viewpoints on the issue. Pregnancy and rape is an important social issue, and clearly a notable topic. The fact that there have been laws passed that deal with unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape (regardless if the laws are in favor or against the victim) shows that its notable, and goes beyond just the rape aspect (as some "merge" !votes have suggested). The Todd Akin comments article provides some good details that should be here (not there, that article should be merged/transwiki to Wikinews) and I'm sure there are plenty of other viewpoints to create a balanced article here. The coatrack issues are a concern but I believe that that can be balanced out, and thus does not merit deletion here. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the laws -- we do have specific legal status given to pregnancy resulting from rape which is another strong cue for notability. --Lquilter (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Certainly a pertinent subject for any modern encyclopedia.   — C M B J   03:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - as per Bearian. This is exactly the kind of neutral, unbiased information that can be difficult to find, especially for young people. There is a long history of misunderstanding and misinformation on this topic -- in medieval England and in 19th century America, rape charges were regularly dismissed as unfounded if the woman turned out to be pregnant, based on the belief that women could not become pregnant from rape. Today, one in five Americans still believe this is true. This article is necessary and useful. Sue Gardner (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Actually in the 19th century US case, the rape charge was not dismissed; the court found that the claim that "pregnancy can't result from rape" was invalid. (The man was sentenced to be castrated but that was never carried out.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, Mr. Vernon, good for you :-) -- you read the citation more carefully than I did. Even so, I think the point stands: the idea that rape can't result in pregnancy has a long history, and people still are confused about whether it's true. Which makes the article important & useful. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the far better solution than the junk @ Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy. If you wanna write about this, make it general enough so that it remains relevant long after Akin's stupidity is forgotten. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- this is a clearly valid standalone topic that can be referenced from subsections in both the Rape and Pregnancy articles as a "main article", and also the right place to deal with the in-depth refutation of the (apparently disturbingly widespread) pseudoscientific beliefs about this, and examination of the scientific evidence for the even more unpleasant state of affairs that exists in reality, where the rate of conception, far from being zero, is actually significantly higher than normal. -- The Anome (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Bearian, Masem, Sue, Anome, etc. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Vandenberg. Khazar2 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article obviously attracts a lot of attention and an article would be a good help to expand wikipedia's coverage to both topics, specifically rape, pregnancy, and their intersection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this seem to be some "aftershock" of the Todd Akin story. However..seems notable enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you're going to weigh in here, please don't do 'the lazy vote' where you say "Keep per UserX" or "Delete per UserY". If you have a legitimate rationale for the debate, write it in and explain *your own* position. It might be strikingly similar to another person's viewpoint, but its really lame to just say "I like what Billy likes". If I read Khazar2's rationale above, I then have to go to John Vandenberg's rationale above it, then I have to go to Bearian, Masem, Sue, Anome and read those and then try and understand how John Vandenberg interpreted this. If you have an argument for or against a deletion discussion, focus first on the deletion rationale, then formulate your own response. Don't just jump on a bandwagon. Its intellectually lazy. -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that there are many very good arguments here that are well articulated and persuasive, and I support their statement entirely. You need to counter their arguments. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Because of the Todd Akin story and persistent ignorance on this topic that has been around long before that, like a NC lawmaker saying that raped women cannot become pregnant back in the 90's, and people who think women have to orgasm to get pregnant, we need this article. A woman told me that she didn't think it was possible for a woman to get pregnant unless she enjoyed the experience. Apparently, she was confusing male reproduction with female reproduction, since orgasm is required for the man to cause pregnancy. However, orgasm, while pleasurable for the woman, is not required for pregnancy to occur. If the sperm cells reach the egg cell(s), pregnancy occurs. As for "forcible rape" comments, they don't belong in an abortion discussion, but under statutory "rape" discussion, since most statutory "rape" is not actual rape. Both parties want it and there is no violence, just a law patronizing little girls or boys and telling them they are too young and punishing those who give into them. And most of those times, it involves teenagers who have had puberty. So the term statutory rape is an insult to women who were beaten nearly to death and then raped. And young people can be forcibly raped, so letting the perps plead to a statutory offense (underage sex without violence) is demeaning to them.66.110.251.145 (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is right that there are two logically distinct things here. One is the question of the significance of a woman's sexual pleasure, and specifically orgasm, in becoming pregnant. Before modern medical science, and in particular microscopes, it is understandable that the idea grew up that there was a process in women analogous to male orgasm/ejaculation. We know better now, but it is possible to hypothesise mechanisms by which orgasm and associated events might facilitate fertilisation, even though their absence clearly cannot prevent it altogether, and they should be discussed in the light of current scientific evidence as well as the historical interpretation. But as pointed out, rape is something different, and irrespective of whether the willingness to engage in intercourse and her biological responses might lower a woman's defences against pregnancy, there might still be the absence of a full, informed and lawful consent and it would still be rape. I refrained from an !vote above not because I do not think these issues belong in WP but because a portmanteau article is not necessarily the best way (though it might be). --AJHingston (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP, by law, and even by many dictionary definitions, statutory rape is rape. It's rape for solid reasons that are not at all patronizing, or insulting to women who have been physically forced to engage in sexual activity. A 10-year-old girl who has hit puberty, for example, is vastly mentally and physically different than a 16-year-old girl/complete biological woman. You act like "real rape" is only defined by physical force. I see that's what you classify as "legitimate rape." But you'd do well to read up on the other definitions of rape and why they apply. And while statutory rape usually concerns sexual activity with pubescent and postpubescents, your "Both parties want it and there is no violence, just a law patronizing little girls or boys and telling them they are too young and punishing those who give into them." commentary sounds just like what pedophiles (those with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescents) say. Give into them? Seriously? It's usually the legal or older legal adult that presses for the sexual activity. Your comment is an insult to people who experienced statutory rape and state that they were traumatized by it, whether because of the sex and legal matters that followed or just one or the other (since it can happen without anyone but the victim knowing about it).

And, AJHingston, what do you mean by a "portmanteau article"? See the article Portmanteau? So what does portmanteau have to do with this article?

108.60.139.170 (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely that it seems to be combining diffferent things. The she could not have got pregant unless she was enjoying it, if she was enjoying it that much it could not have been rape line of argument lies I think behind much of the historical evidence, at least. Dealing with that alone requires so much unpacking that to concentrate on just one or two elements of the topic will do the subject an injustice, to cover everything will require reference to many things which are best dealt with in other articles. I am sure a good article could be made, but with so many fingers in the pie I am not confident it will be. --AJHingston (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are a significant number of people who are being misled by politicians about this issue. That one "can't get pregnant from rape" is a GOP meme being spread widely, and the press has covered this extensively. It's thus very notable and qualifies for its own article. It's also related to the GOP War on women and the Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy, but with this size it would become a weight violation in those articles. Here it can get the coverage it needs and can be wikilinked to from those articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a GOP 'meme' spread widely, then it wouldn't have caused such a fuss among both parties and the public when Todd Akin said what he said. -- Avanu (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is widespread among a certain group, as is amply demonstrated by the sources (e.g. five major pro-life groups are cited for statements supporting claims that rape inhibits pregnancy) and is also pointed out by several of the secondary sources, doesn't mean that the fact of this belief is well known to the general public. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I bet that isn't quite what those groups said. Even Todd Akin did not say "can't get pregnant from rape". He actually said "from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare" and "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down". The first part of that comment is his personal opinion based supposedly on what other people have told him. The second part is actually a fact, depending on how you interpret what he said. Pregnancy is often terminated by the female body based on many factors, including stress. Since Akin gave no particulars, we can't say unequivocally what he meant or how much real understanding he has, but to categorically rule out his statement as unequivocally false is simply bias at work. -- Avanu (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the groups say that pregnancy from rape is impossible ("inhibit" in English can mean to merely retard or impede rather than to 100% prevent), nor does the article claim that they do. They just argue that it is very rare because of some biological process that supposedly acts to impede pregnancy during forcible rape compared to intercourse without trauma. This is exactly the claim (which contradicts the current scientific consensus) that Akin promulgated. (And you can justly come under fire for uncritically repeating a loopy claim, even if you attribute it to someone else, if you appear to give the claim more credence than it deserves.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numerous reliable sources have significant coverage of this topic, satisfying WP:N. The fact that a politician torpedoed his campaign by vocalizing a long-standing myth in no way justifies keeping such an article out of the encyclopedia, which has a mission of providing accurate information about important topics. The topic has a history going back hundreds of years, with British legal documents from past centuries asserting the impossibility of rape resulting in pregnancy. If a foolish politician asserted that evolution is impossible, bats are birds, whales are fish, and pi is exactly equal to three, that would not justify removing related articles from the encyclopedia. The topic is notable and encyclopedic, as it was before this political season, and as it will be after it. Edison (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When I first saw this article, my first impulse was to merge it into Effects and aftermath of rape. The article was obviously driven more by politics than a desire to build a better encyclopedia, and that disturbs me deeply. Putting that aside, though, I realized it is a pretty well written article, a worthy topic, and large enough to merit its own article. So, net positive, the encyclopedia is improved, even if I disagree with the motivations behind the article. --JaGa^talk 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since even now stupid politicians make comments about this, the article should be kept. There is enough valid referenced content for it to exist on its own. Dream Focus 18:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There have been real scientific research on this specific subject. Maybe it's getting a lot of pageviews because the readers heard what a politician said about it. Good, now drop the politics and show them what biologists and MDs have learned about it. Kilopi (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- the argument has been traced back to medieval times and properly sourced, so we just need to beware against COATRACKing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . I wouldn't have imagined--if I'd even given it any thought--that such an article would even be necessary, but a little reading of recent news stories from the US indicates that this is a badly needed factual source. That it makes American right-wingers embarrassed is their own problem, I reckon. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously, we should be careful that the article doesn't become a coatrack, but that doesn't change the fact that the topic itself is notable. And the scientific info on the subject can certainly be expanded. There's years of study on this topic (sadly). Silverseren^C 06:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is definitely not an appropriate page title; if kept without radical changes, it should be moved to Rape and pregnancy. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pregnancy from rape" (the current title) is the more appropriate and descriptive title. "Rape and pregnancy" (the original title that this AfD was posted under) is simply a conjunction, and could refer to rape during pregnancy as well as rape causing pregnancy. We're only interested in rape causing pregnancy, i.e., "pregnancy from rape". --Lquilter (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the pointer. I came across this AFD from WP:ANI, and since I wasn't interested in voting to keep or delete, I hadn't looked at the article. Nyttend (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The editor proposing deletion correctly notes this article has two parts for the scientific and political controversies. That is not reason enough to merge one part into Rape (which should contain a summary of and link to this article) and ditch the other part. He also states, "we don't have an article listing all the 9/11 'Truthers', for instance, and both views are equally 'supported' by scientific evidence." which itself is controversial and unsupported and cannot be used, therefore, to conclude anything, except perhaps that we need an article similar to this one on 9/11 Truthers which exists. There are, and will continue to be, issues that have both scientific and political components. Both can and should be represented fairly and separately in the same article if not too long. -74.162.150.244 (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic in its own right. JN466 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—This topic is clearly notable independently of the topic of rape itself as the sources now in the article show. If anything good comes from the whole Todd Akin mess, this will be it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unquestionably a notable subject, and it does have both scientific and political aspects, so the article should cover both. I don't particularly like the title but that can be discussed and improved. Neutron (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and a reasonable spin-off of the article on rape. Obviously, this focuses way too much on the political aspects, but that can be remedied through editing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - even if Todd Akin had never said anything, this would still be a notable topic in its own right which we should have an article on. Can someone SNOW close this please? Robofish (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I count about 14 delete votes, nearly all at the beginning of the discussion. There aee a lot of keep votes coming now, but I think the ratio of keep to delete isnt high enough for a snow keep close three days before the scheduled end. If some more of those deletes change their mind, the direction of the AFD would be clear. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm told that administrators only review the strength of the arguments and not the number of votes, but hell, this could be a load of who knows what. I know better than to believe that admins actually read these things carefully every time. Probably many times they actually do, but with a comment like the one above, I lose a lot of faith that things are done on the basis of good arguments. -- Avanu (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Our job is education. Even as a feminist for 50 odd years, I didn't know there were people who thought you couldn't get pregnant from rape. People need to know you can; and they need to know there are people who think you can't. Do it in an NPOV way, obviously, but do it. CarolMooreDC 13:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the topic is obviously notable and AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem - The article has gotten better, but it is still biased and patchworkish. Since the AfD started, it has been renamed several times, and people have thrown whatever they can at it in order to keep it from being deleted. @Carolmooredc, I am surprised that as a feminist for so long, you haven't heard all the completely weird ideas that teens come up with about what will and won't get you pregnant. A LOT of people have misconceptions about how pregnancy works, not just the religious right or conservative politicians. Todd Akin believes that the female body can respond against an unwanted pregnancy. Is this true? Yes, actually it is to some extent. Stress plays a role in pregnancy. But clearly, Todd Akin overstated what reality allows. The facts are that this stuff probably belongs under another article, like Pregnancy or Rape, yet people are so keen to see a political blow made that they've clamored for this article to stay put. Without question, the understanding of women's health issues over the centuries has been less than perfect. Men were in charge of medicine, and as such, they were naturally biased toward their own bodies. But medicine also once thought leeches were a really great way to help get rid of bad humors in our body. The point of view in this article is very biased and skewed toward proving a point, rather than seeing the bigger picture, which is simply that a lot of people can be damn ignorant a lot of the time. -- Avanu (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a Misconceptions about rape article that would include a big section on this, as one of the more notable outbreaks of misconceptions. I'm sure we've all heard of some that others haven't heard of. Let's not even start on aliens raping humans and all the people who think that's where their babies came from! CarolMooreDC 15:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would work for me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd third CarolMooreDC's suggestion with the stipulation that we keep this article as well.   — C M B J   02:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep SarahStierch (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article as a pro-victim tone rather than a neutral tone thus disrupting WP:NPOV. And the timing of the creation of the article seems a little POV in itself. If kept it should keep to the science of the subject instead of to the opinion of politicians and people. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 18:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up (no rename or rename to Misconceptions about rape both ok). Unlike the Todd Akin fork, this one actually is a legitimate encyclopedic topic and does have potential for a good article. AFD norms are to look at the article topic and whether that can sustain an article, rather than its origin or its need for improvement.

• Topic is not inevitably or even obviously POV, and despite being prompted by the Akin controversy is not tied to him particularly;
• Topic has been studied and of interest by medical and social researchers, as well as media and others, from a number of perspectives, so there is a wide range of sources and evidence of notability;
• Topic has wide and enduring social impact and interest (for individuals, in laws and social structures, medicine and healthcare, police and support, and obviously politics, etc);
• Topic is the subject of an enduring social myth, belief, or question (depending on your view) as evidenced by others above, and probably notable in its own right for this alone;
• Topic is "stand alone", ie there is enough to be said specifically about pregnancy from rape so that it can legitimately sustain an article on its own, in more depth than the rape article could. For example it can cover not just various views and statistics, but many other factors such as law, abortion/rape rights worldwide, major past/present political debates and legal cases, clinical and social research, views of a wide range of interested parties, global information (not just US), etc;
• No need to "controversy"-ize the title; it's a valid topic and does not need to be presented purely in terms of a US controversy. (Compare abortion for title validity). It goes a lot wider than that. We can provide an informative uncontroversial article on the whole issue of pregnancy from rape, based on factual cited evidence. Because a topic involves a controversy doesn't make it a controversy.

As a topic this can justify its own article. It is notable, enduring, encyclopedic, reliably citeable, verifiable, and very wide impact worldwide; it can draw on a very wide range of significant viewpoints including science, education, healthcare, and advocates; it makes sense as a stand-alone topic; and is capable of becoming good (even if not good right now). Cleanup and initial quality issues in some parts isn't a reason to delete. If it did become pure POV partisan junk we can AFD or restart in future, but I don't think that will happen. It's a high profile topic so if it's kept, it will get eyeballs once this AFD ends. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment on (non)merging: I don't think we need to merge with Effects and aftermath of rape. That article is better centered on the effects or rape, leaving this one to focus on misconceptions about rape - a nice split of two distinct encyclopedic topics. Of course each overlaps a bit on the other, but it's still a good split. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Political figures chose to make this a topic and there should be a thorough exploration. heather walls (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important aspect of the War on Women. I'm in favor of continued maintenance of the article, and possible mergers. Mcavic (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has been thoroughly developed and moreover, will serve as a better home for the digressive content in the "Background" section of Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy. Its significance goes far beyond the recent gaff. The fact that it was triggered by it is immaterial; every Wikipedia contribution on any topic is triggered by a contemporary interest of some kind, even if it's just personal interest, and if the gaffe inspires people to learn and contribute more about a topic of enduring social importance, all the better. Dcoetzee 00:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article covers an important topic, which clearly is and will be looked up, is sourced and relatively well developed, and also which is difficult to be reduced to a subsection in another article. Pundit|utter 12:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject of legitimate scientific inquiry regardless of any role in recent events. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hedge my vote a bit if we can agree on some improvements here and now. As the article stands currently, it is a bit of a mess. It is a patchwork, and while I'll agree that AfD is not for cleanup, turning this thing loose without some ground rules just means you're going to have the same arguments again at the article Talk page later. Can we agree on some places that need improvement in the article, and maybe hand those off as improvement directives if the article survives? It is also possible the title is part of the problem too (it has been changed several times already).

I personally feel that the Misconceptions about rape title is a better one, but I think we can even do better. Also, I don't see a lot of balance in the article at present. It seems to go out of its way to say that it was universally believed that women could not produce a child as a result of rape. I am going to assume, perhaps wrongly, that our ancestors were not all quite so single minded on this opinion. Yet our article presents the idea that only recently we have become enlightened enough for a single person to realize this. I find this very hard to believe. -- Avanu (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need better editing or wording - I already cited a US court case from the early 1800s where they dismissed the claim that women could not produce child in rape cases, and the manner of tone (which I'm of course reading into it) implies it wasn't exactly revolutionary to suggest as such at the time. (I wouldn't have mentioned this except someone else missed the context of my addition, so if someone wants to try to rephrase it, they are more than welcome to!) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take that aspect (any imbalance) to the article's talk page anyway. 1/ the discussion is then visible long-term to other contributors, 2/ AFD really is only to decide keep/delete (+ variants). Quick comments on both replies: - New articles born of a single incident tend to be shadowed by that incident for a little a while; we don't need immediate perfection. It's topical, it'll get attention, people here who care will pick up on it anyway. @Avanu, look for reliable sources on that issue in past times, they will for sure exist. Wording such as "It was widely believed" or "the predominant belief was" or "Laws and religious views were largely that" will handle the fact we aren't saying everyone was like that (+ cite of course). Maybe add a history of views on rape subsection or article somewhere and link to it summary style for the historic background on views in this article? Not an easy write, but encyclopedic and worthwhile to document the major changes, exceptions, pivotal events, and evolutions, across cultures and time. (Though this is not relevant to AFD). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to develop a compromise here that even the Delete votes can get behind. Crystal-ball impressions that "it might get better" aren't a good reason to Keep the article. Renaming or reworking it are valid alternatives to Deletion. But we could just as well delete the whole mess and simplify this. -- Avanu (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to favor keep based on it meeting the notability guidelines. I'm against such a rename, because it doesn't list all misconceptions about rape[14], only this one thing, which is enough for its own article. Dream Focus 15:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, that the subject of rape-induced pregnancy itself is quite notable and not just the misconceptions about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I rescind my barely thought out suggestion to rename it that! CarolMooreDC 19:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At this point I'm pretty happy with the way the article has shaped up, big thanks again to everyone who chipped in. I normally don't withdraw my AfD if it looks like other people think the article should be deleted, even if I no longer think that is the case, but I'd like to know if anyone else who thought the article should be deleted in its earlier state have changed their mind. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was surprised to learn that this misconception has a very, very long history. It isn't notable just because of some idiot American pol. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/reproductive-science

We may not want to face this fact, but apparently a LOT of people hold this misconception. We have a lot of articles debunking stupid ideas. Should we not bother to have one on the Yeti because 'everybody knows' there isn't a Yeti? Risingrain (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a Yeti article even if virtually no one any more believed Yeti stories to be true, because Yeti stories (both sincere beliefs and fiction) were historically notable over a long period of time, as demonstrated by numerous reputable sources (and there are many similar examples on Wikipedia, such as Hollow Earth). The same WP:GNG apply here (both to the scientific investigations and to misconceptions); the beliefs of individual Wikipedians are irrelevant to our policy. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So... you're agreeing with me? Or...? Risingrain (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with your conclusion, but am suggesting that the argument is stronger than you imply. :-) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sourcing for this article is solid and the material presented is relevant. In fact, there is so much material available that a sub-article on "Rape and pregnancy rate controversy" could possibly be branched off. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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