Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 25

< 24 March	26 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Jesse

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

I have been unable to find any coverage of this online graphic novel by independent reliable sources. Significant coverage by such sources is a requirement of the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability states "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, articles should be able to describe a topic in an encyclopaedic manner and should not be composed of purely plot summary or "only describe the nature, appearance or services" of a website. Without reliable third party sources I do not think such an encyclopaedic treatment will be possible. If searching for sources be aware that there is an identically titled book published in 2002 about a young man who required a liver transplant ([1]). Guest9999 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia guidelines for notability. None of the Gbooks or Gnews hits are about this. Edward321 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete print version is self published. Does not pass WP:WEB, WP:BOOK, or the WP:GNG. No useful sources cited, and none findable via google. DES ^(talk) 02:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources although this blog is an interesting read. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability, no coverage, no sources. It's an easy decision, delete. Whenaxis (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skepta

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

Page Skepta has been deleted 5 times before. Has he become more notable since?:
- 22:10, 17 November 2007 Akradecki deleted "Skepta" ‎ (content was: '{{db-bio}} Skepta is a British Garage/Grime rapper. his real name is Joseph Junior Adenuga. he is the co-owner of boy better know along with his brother JME.')
- 20:51, 17 November 2007 KF deleted "Skepta" ‎ (content was: '{{db-a3}} {{db-nonsense}} Skepta')
- 14:35, 13 October 2007 Retired username deleted "Skepta" ‎ (It is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7))
- 12:00, 26 September 2007 Pedro deleted "Skepta" ‎ (A7 - notability not asserted. content was: '{{db-bio}}{{Infobox musical artist | Name = Skepta| Img = | Img_capt ...')
- 22:13, 11 September 2007 Alkivar deleted "Skepta" ‎ (CSD:A7 non notable)
  - Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable according to WP:MUSIC – currently #26 in UK Singles Chart. snigbrook (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to be a rather famous UK grime rapper. I've added a number of sources to show this. Silver seren^C 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Back in 2007 he hadn't accomplished much yet, but these days he's one of the better known figures in the grime scene, with singles that have charted nationally in Britain. — Gwalla | Talk 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. No credible assertion of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close Quarters (band)

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

Non-notable unsigned band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Warrah (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A7 even though edit warriors won't let me. Clearly doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

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

Duplicates Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Cocos Islands only have 600 occupants. They are tiny (the islands, not the inhabitants). Most of these redlinks will never have - or warrant - articles - who is going to write an entire article on Population of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Even if you wrote every name out in full it still wouldn't make enough material for an article. Pointless. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete with haste aplenty. Absolutely no reason for an outline. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, and per the larger discussions at WP:VPP#Scope of "Outline" articles and User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft and elsewhere. All (28) relevant articles are already included at Category:Cocos (Keeling) Islands. A navbox template might be warranted, but this outline won't particularly aid in its creation. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I resereve the right to change my mind if someone writes FA-class Glaciers of the Cocos Islands. NVO (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independently notable and serves no useful purpose for any other article (or indeed for any user). Hans Adler 22:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a little bit of a duplicate of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. There are no articles about outlines of countries on Wikipedia. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically a duplicate of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. However, I would not be so quick to dispute the potential of a Population of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands article and some of the other sub-articles. How the population made their way to the islands and the current ethnic and linguistic status of the islands' population is more complex than it perhaps looks at first. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously no objection if someone can produce an article on the population, I was being a bit flip, but Fjords of the Cocos Islands? Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe their parrots were pining... -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is part of a series of topical outlines for all countries and dependent territories included in ISO 3166-1. Just because a territory is not extensive or populous does not mean it should automatically be deleted. If the International Organization for Standardization thinks the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are significant, I think Wikipedia should too. Most of the red links should be removed, but the article should definitely be retained. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am not saying that the Cocos Islands are not notable. We already have 28 perfectly respectable articles on the Cocos Islands including Cocos (Keeling) Islands which says it all already. What we don't need is this nonsense.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Quiddity's reasoning. Minnecologies (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buaidh. Part of the wider Outline of Knowledge - Highfields (talk, contribs) 18:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously unnecessary given the tiny size of the islands and their population. The red links to Fjords of the Cocos Islands, Glaciers of the Cocos Islands, Cities of the Cocos Islands, Army of the Cocos Islands, etc, are entertaining though. Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hobgoblin consistency. Abductive (reasoning) 06:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half list, half category. Already have Category:Cocos (Keeling) Islands for an outline, and Cocos (Keeling) Islands for a reader's start. Nageh (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and strong delete - as said before exact replica or close to as Cocos (Keeling) Islands Whenaxis (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issues are the same as at Islam in the Pitcairn Islands from some time back. Orderinchaos 13:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Duplicate outline that provides no helpful information and should be combined with the main article. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Shift

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

Pure original research and completely unverifiable. It apparently is a fan-made term and is not used within the Digimon media franchise. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. —Farix (t | c) 21:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain the term wasn't used in the Digimon series? I see a lot of Google news and Google book results for the term, but none for the Digimon series. Did they have an official name for what is described in the article. Dream Focus 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you just answered your own question. The fact is that the article is on something completely made up by a fan. —Farix (t | c) 00:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - In complete agreement with the nominator. – allen四names 00:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a fansite and certainly not for made up stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRUFT and WP:MADEUP. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Michigan Tech. Black Kite 12:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broomball at Michigan Tech

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

This article was deleted by a WP:PROD in January 2010. It was restored on 16 Feb. after this discussion, but there is still no assertion of notability. I also don't see reliable sources for anything except a minor citation of the rink relocation. As such, the article seems to fail WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V; a tag saying as much has been in place a month. Furthermore, I can't find any evidence of notability via Google. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth mentioning that it is a different game than the main broomball entry. It is hard finding sources when stuff from the governing body of broomball at Tech isn't considered credible. I would ask for some more time to track down articles from The Lode (Michigan Tech's Student paper), The Mining Gazette(City of Houghton's Paper), and the alumini mailings. I have articles about certain games but nothing so much describing the sport as a whole, which is why I did not include them. If you wanted a bunch of articles relating to individual games, those could be included. --Donabin2012 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "worth mentioning", why is it not discussed in third-party sources? I just don't see notability here. You can certainly improve the article during this discussion to show notability, if you can. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. It's worth about two sentences at Michigan Tech. tedder (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it isn't important enough to have its own article. It should be within the university page or list of university-related incidients. Whenaxis (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Facebook, and this material is not analyzed by secondary sources. Just because something exists does not mean is deserves a Wikipedia article. Abductive (reasoning) 01:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth: Empires

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. Homebrew/spinoff version of another game that also fails WP:N and WP:V. The only sources are a forum entry, a blog, and a wiki. I am unable to find any references based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially those suggested in the WikiProject Video games list of sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No good sources found on top of the fact that the parent game, Earth 2025 is also up for AfD. --Teancum (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The parent game (Earth: 2025) has now been deleted. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are a relatively new game, and we're working on bringing in some more references from reputable sources. I realize there are issues with us as the primary source for our own game, and we are working to address these issues. As far as relevancy goes, Earth: Empires is as relevant as a game like Evony. We are not a "homebrew" of an existing game, it's moved far beyond that into something new and novell, and pushing forward. -Dmcvittie84 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search turns up no reliable secondary sources which are needed to establish notability, which is hardly surprising since virtually all download-only/low-budget MMOGs are in the same boat. No prejudice against reinstatement should sourcing appear, but it's not likely. Someone another 02:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I couldn't find any reliable independent sources that can provide any significant coverage here. I'm afraid it's not notable quite yet; it doesn't help when Earth: 2025 was also deleted for the same reason. Dmcvittie84, I understand your frustration, but first you can always ask for a draft of the article to work on if this deletion discussion closes in a "delete", and second keep in mind that you have a conflict of interest which may present some problems as far as neutrality is concerned. –MuZemike 03:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the proper way to post items, but I can say without a doubt that Earth Empires is a spinoff of Earth: 2025. I played Earth: 2025 since 1998 and can attest that Earth Empires is a spinoff. It is a relatively new spinoff, and there are other clones out there that are similar. I, though, as just an old fan can see that the community of Earth 2025 has moved on with Earth Empires. Delete it or not I don't care---I don't play it anymore; but Earth Empires is a spinoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.15.177 (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I actually believe we should merge this article with the parent article (the original game). Whenaxis (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article was deleted about week ago. See WP:Articles for deletion/Earth: 2025. — Rankiri (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secondary sources are not substantial, fails WP:CORP. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRO-CUT International

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

Non-notable. Single award is one of thousands awarded every year. Article's author has worked or still works at PRO-CUT. Rklawton (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is one of a series of articles about Pro-Cut that has been created, most of which were deleted for either CSD-A7 or CSD-G11. Creator is an employee of Pro-Cut and has a COI. No assertion of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Company is of same notability as the rest of the companies in it's category. rklawton and GregJackP are free to expand it or edit. Note Hunter Engineering and Just Brakes have same basic article formula.

Said users are the same who deleted past articles and do not have a Neutral Point of View about the company. Article is simple and non-biased. No adverts or spam.

Clarification - Thanks for clearing that up, GregJackP. COI: I do work as an in-field technician for EBS Automotive equipment. EBS has been a partner company to PRO-CUT International for 20 years now. I do not have a salary paid to me by PRO-CUT International. I have worked on their equipment (and other equipment made by: AAMCO-Coates, Kwik-way, Prime, Myers Equipment, MATCO, Snap-On and others) in the field for 5 years. I don't have a conflict of interest because I don't receive any compensation for promoting PRO-CUT or any other funds or considerations from them. I'm a guy that fixes things when they break, regarless of who made it. I have been an ASE certified under-car technician for 17 years now.

Clarification - I don't have the ability to delete articles, only to put out my opinion on the appropriateness of an article for inclusion in Wikipedia. This one hasn't shown notability. Secondly, I don't have to have an NPOV - I am not an article, I am an editor, and I am not editing the article, so my POV is moot. Third, Rklawton, although an admin, has taken a position on the article - typically admins that do so do not close or delete the article after they have done so. Fourth, we are not discussing the inclusion or deletion of other articles here, we are talking about Pro-Cut. Fifth, the creator has not addressed the COI issues. (GregJackP (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - CSD-G11, non-notability, unable to verify claim that it is a "multinational" company using a secondary source. Other articles mentioned above should also be deleted if they look anything like this one. Jisakujien (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Article is clearly being improved, no longer reads like an advert. Still unsure as to notability. Jisakujien (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source: English Brake Corporation See below point#3 on page. PRO-CUT International is multinational. Feel free to edit if thought otherwise. Chad595 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stand by CSD-G11. If company is truly notable and verifiable, and the article is updated to reflect this, I may change my opinion (note, this is not a vote, nor am I an experienced enough editor to really help you). That said, I do not feel the topic is sufficiently encyclopedic to warrant my time fixing it. Jisakujien (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G11 "On November 15, 2008, the Department of Defense presented the Patriot Award to PRO-CUT International. The Patriot Award recognizes employers for their support of employee participation in the National Guard and Reserve Force." reads like PR, and there are absolutely no secondary sources anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The ESGR Patriot award is given to basically anyone that requests it. The citizen-soldier/employee fills out an on-line form and the ESGR sends the company a printed certificate. Before I retired, we used to encourage all of our unit members to submit their employers for the award. It is not especially significant. (GregJackP (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - I'm a multinational "partnership" because one of my clients is in London! And no, I'm not notable, either. Rklawton (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Pro-Cut Europe This is the website for the UK office. The partnership with English Brake Corp is NOT what I was referring to when writing "multinational". PRO-CUT also has offices in Canada. I'll get that address if you need it, but the UK office by far suffices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad595 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any ESGR Patriot Award references have been removed from the article on advice from Ten Pound Hammer. Thanks, though, for your insight on the award, GregJackP.

Chad595 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MANY thanks to Eastmain for contributing reliable sources and citations to the article.

In view of the good contributions from many users that improved this article, I nominate to close discussion and remove delete template. Any thoughts on how to improve further?

Chad595 (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The advice you seek is here. The improvements made to the article so far in no way demonstrate "significant coverage". Rklawton (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' but the article needs significant improvement. Checking Google News, there is some secondary source coverage of this company and its products in national trade publications and in various newspapers. There's not a lot of it, but probably enough to establish sufficient notability for an article. The article as written doesn't really reflect that coverage very well, and is a pretty poor article. But, being a lousy article isn't reason to delete it.Fladrif (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a business that manufactures and supplies automotive service equipment including an on-the-car brake lathe. Any trade publications that cover such a business are of "limited interest and circulation", and as such can't confer notability under the business notability guideline. Sources like Fleet Equipment or Professional Tool & Equipment News don't have the kind of audience, and cover their trades in fine detail: coverage in that kind of source does not confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anyway. Sources aren't all that substantial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this "international" company has 34 employees and under $20M (USD) in sales. Rklawton (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - rklawton, I think the figures you are quoting are domestic. There are 34 "employees" of PRO-CUT International who manufacture the equipment and work in the office. There are about 190 contract employees of their subsidiary company, Brake Solutions, Inc. Note they have the same address in NH [2] [3]. Brake Solutions, Inc. operates as the official distributor of PRO-CUT equipment to Vocational/Tech Schools and to the US Government. Note that are a GSA Official Contractor [4].

PRO-CUT International does have offices in at least 2 other countries (already mentioned) and they do have salaried employees who perform office duties in those countries. PRO-CUT International has partnership agreements with about 300 distribution businesses aside from Brake Solutions, Inc., who handle everything after the initial sale. Not to mention all of the equipment companies who actually sell and repair the equipment. All in all, in my estimation, about 3000 people worldwide are closely affiliated with PRO-CUT International. So, yes, "PRO-CUT International" only employs about 30 or 40 people and only has about $18M (USD) in direct-to-consumer domestic sales annually. But, like many things, that's not the whole picture. Just a thought.

Chad595 (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is insufficient information or analysis in secondary sources to warrant an encyclopedia article on a manufacturer of on-car brake lathes. Number of employees and suchlike are completely irrelevant to WP:Notability. Abductive (reasoning) 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DCM motion technology

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

Contested prod. Technology with no assertion of notability. No assertion that the term is used outside of one company. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominatiom: a promotional coatrack article: Detection-Control-Monitoring of Brushed DC motors provides new ways of monitoring and controlling motors with commutators.... Without the use of external encoders and wires, the DCM Motion Technology makes it possible to Detect, Control and Monitor brushed DC motors based on a precise and revolving detection of specific physical points during each commutation.... Through the electronic encoding, it is possible to extract useful and valuable information about the real-time status and behaviour of any odd- or even poled brushed DC motor. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - by my searches, I wasn't able to find coverage by reliable, secondary sources. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mdantsane Breathing

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

Non notable book. Only relevant external link is to a local paper review. google shows a total of 38 hits. Book published by authors own publisher. Disputed prod noq (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr Mitra commemorates a crucial space in South Africa's legacy of human resilience, a township that warrants immediate recognition because of its importance in the saga against apartheid. Having already played a significant part in the history of its healing, he now brings his talents as writer and artist to evoke poignant moments in that history, and to bring awareness to the rest of the world." Shreekumar Varma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhoshreemitra (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Dr. Mitra is a fine writer and artist with important things to relate to readers everywhere. If has been my honor and pleasure to publish a number of his poems and paintings, and I highly recommend his work. His is a valuable contribution to post-apartheid South African poetry and art. (As far as the comment below, his credentials are in his bio)." -- Michael R. Burch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.255.162 (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes like that don't help. What credentials do those parties have? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing that's there is one review in the Daily Dispatch (here) and a mention in the same paper, here. Not a notable book. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about the author of the poem might be possible - I couldn't really say at the moment. An article about a self-published book of poems - no. Especially not when couched in such a load of peacock phrasing, and being rather redolent of spam.... Peridon (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shreekumar Varma is a well known author and poet and is included in Wiki. The focus is on Mdantsane which remains a victim of the apartheid era. Mdantsane never came in the limelight like Soweto because it remained under Ciskei, a homeland created by the apartheid government. With due respect, I must say that the Wiki reviewers are not aware of the history of Mdantsane. Even the article on Mdantsane in Wiki does not mention much. I included the role of Cecelia Makiwane Hospital in that article for which I would thank you for accepting it. This book is about a surgeon's life in a black township hospital from the apartheid years and depicted in watercolors and poetry. This is the first book ever written on Mdantsane. It would be a part of the struggle and after democracy has been achieved. I request you to please include this book which would bring an international attention to the sufferings of the people of Mdantsane.Shubhoshreemitra (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a campaign forum to promote things. The book does not appear to meet notability requirements and appeals like that above do not change that. noq (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shachne Zohn

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

This was listed as a speedy, and while I concur that the article should be deleted, I believe that a more comprehensive review is warranted since the subject received some press coverage and the nature of the article may make its deletion without a full discussion divisive. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that most of the Orthodox Jews are probably busy right now in preparation for the Passover Holiday, and probably won't get to see this discussion for another week... --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion has no relevance to this debate, which is primarily about notability. andy (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. The forum is certainly large enough to give this article a fair and proper assessment. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - good point about the nature of the article. He's a former dean of what is, basically, a school but he's not mentioned in the article about it. He doesn't seem to have done much else worthy of note except have a weird dream. So, fails WP:N and probably WP:FRINGE. andy (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is now mentioned in the article - someone added his name after this AfD began. Presumably prior to this nobody thought he was worth bothering about? andy (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what I said on Talk:Shachne Zohn. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No GS cites so fails WP:Prof #1 and other Prof categories. There are some gnews hits about his dream. Notabilty seems to be weak and in WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The only chance at a keep would be WP:PROF #6. He was the dean of a higher education institute. Joe407 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Prof per above. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per רח"ק and per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) #6, which states: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society". Dean of Yeshiva Torah Vodaas certainly fits the bill. Yoninah (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. As I understand it this Yeshiva takes K-12 boys. Footnote #1 at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) states: "School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics and may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. They are rather evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession". The definition of "academic" is very clearly intended to be someone in a higher education institute such as a university. Moreover "scholarly" has a very narrow definition in this guideline - e.g. footnote #2 states that "citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books". There is no evidence that the subject of this article held an "academic" post in the meaning of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), nor any evidence of peer-reviewed publication. Therefore other means of establishing notability must be provided. Which they haven't been. andy (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivas and secular academic institutions are two different things. Rosh yeshivas do not engage in "research" in the traditional sense, nor do they publish in "peer-reviewed" journals. If you're looking for respected yeshivas, though, Yeshiva Torah Vodaas is certainly right up there. I don't think the Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics applies at all to yeshiva personalities like Rabbi Zohn. Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? - you said in your !vote "Keep per... Wikipedia:Notability (academics)" but now you're saying "I don't think the Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics applies at all". So that's a Delete, then? andy (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I said "keep" because the subject is notable, having been a rosh yeshiva of a major yeshiva. (BTW, Joe407 cited the same Prof #6 to keep the Hillel Weinberg page[5], since Weinberg, as a rosh yeshiva, also "has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution".) Then you answered me by trying to prove from Prof #6 that Rabbi Zohn doesn't meet Wikipedia's academic notability standards. Then I replied, "You're right" — because the academic notability standards simply don't apply to yeshiva personnel; they are written solely for academicians in universities and other secular institutions. I think it's high time for someone to rewrite the academic notability standards to take yeshivas into account (which they don't at present), so we can easily see that a rosh yeshiva is someone of note. Yoninah (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 04:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 04:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 04:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arts and education

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

Simple case of essay / original research. Disputed prod. In the undelete request, the author cheekily claims: "the contents were and are being used for school assignments at Norfolk State University". But Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:No original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per johncd. thats the simple answer. of course the title of the article could stand, but not with this content. it would be a monumentally difficult article to create, and would probably be duplicated in the articles on education and the arts. this was deleted before. was it the same content? if so, why was this brought back? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first deletion was by PROD, and as those are intended for uncontroversial deletions the rule is that even after deletion a PRODded article is automatically restored on request, and cannot then be PRODded again. JohnCD (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, i see now. got it. thanks.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Art education. Agree with JohnCD that this article is not relevant and is lots of WP:OR, but it might be worth redirecting. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in American Samoa

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

List of redlinks (only blue link is incorrectly targeted), with no notability asserted and no references. Jameboy (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a plausible list as this is a top-level national football league. This is just one of many such lists (see Category:Lists of football (soccer) clubs) and, although this won't be a massive list, there's no reason why this couldn't be tidied up to a half decent standard. Bettia (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bettia (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defined list of a notable topic. Redlinks do not equal non-notable. Lugnuts (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this would need to be tidied up even to reach the standard of "half decent". At the moment, it's a pretty mediocre page. If someone would be willing to write an article about soccer in American Samoa (which, by the way, is not a nation), and make a list as part of that article, that would be fine, but this doesn't really add to the sum of human knowledge. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment American Soma is a nation, at least according to FIFA. They're ranked joint 203rd and last in the FIFA rankings. Lugnuts (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same sense that Puerto Rico is a nation, I suppose. It would be possible for someone to rely upon the FIFA and the RSSSF sources to make it something more than a slapdash list. Mandsford (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Lugnuts. Additionally, Mandsford, poor quality is not a reason for deletion, just for improvement. matt91486 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, defined list as part of a set of lists per Category:Lists of football (soccer) clubs, systemic bias says keep this list. If it is good enough to have a list of a clubs in a country ranked 202, it should be good enough for a country ranked 203.--ClubOranje^T 09:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs refs, but notability is given. Nageh (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ComixTalk

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

Some concerns were raised here about both the site's reputability (no editorial policy) and notability. Searching both under the current and former names, I have found absolutely no secondary, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. While there are some notable names that contribute to the site, and while it certainly has been around a long time in Web years, it has utterly failed to assert notability through reliable third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. I know this will upset some editors, but my opinion is that Wikipedia should remain fairly discriminating and cover only those subjects that are "part of the enduring historical record." If ComixTalk has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," then it should not have an article here. — Satori Son 18:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find evidence of significant coverage [6]. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it doesn't seem to meet the notabilty guideline for websites. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Blackmore

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

There are multiple "George Blackmores" who played cricket, but the only reference I can find to this specific individual is the cited reference at Cricket Archive. The coverage there is very superficial, so to me he does not satisfy the basic criteria of WP:PEOPLE: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage... may not be sufficient." Rnickel (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIN, as the player played first class cricket. I accept the argument put forward by the nominator, however with Cricket Archive (and CricInfo) entries, and a first class cricket career, he passes cricket player notability guidelines which satisfies me. SGGH ^ping! 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIN/WP:ATH. Has played at the highest level and therefore passes the notability criteria. The content is all verifiable through the provided source. —SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oh dear, how often are we going to have to do this? Keep as he has played first-class cricket, the highest level in domestic cricket. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a first-class cricketer. Cricinfo is a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. Johnlp (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it helps, his obituary appears in the 1985 edition of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, though admittedly it only runs to one long sentence. JH (talk page) 21:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I refuse to vote so here's a comment. In strict WP:CRIN terms (mostly written by me), this article has a notable subject because he did play a few first-class matches. But, really, shouldn't the cricket project be taking a step back and reconsidering which cricketers are actually notable? At the end of the day, what exactly is "notable" about someone who played in an odd match somewhere? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth, I entirely agree with this. WP:CRIN is of course not a guideline. WP:CRIN shouldn't be cited as a reason to keep in an AfD. My personal view is that first-class should generally count as "fully professional" for WP:ATH but factually I know that is incorrect as much first class cricket is semi-pro or amateur. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's worth a great deal, Mkativerata. However, you immediately encounter difficulties when you refer to amateur first-class players because the amateurs had a peculiar status in cricket that you won't see elsewhere. Some of cricket's greatest players, one of whom was indeed its greatest-ever player, were officially amateur. The problem is a huge number of players, both amateur and professional, who appeared in only a handful of matches and could be consolidated in a single article or list, defined by period, instead of individual articles. I should have put forward this view before but I "went gone along with the flow" and now I wonder if it is time to row against the flow. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. I'd be worried about applying the "fully professional" standard to cricket as full professionalisation of first class cricket has been so recent. We'd lose a lot of history. I think WP:ATH ought to be applied with common sense and liberalised in highly covered sports where athletes at a high level (first class) aren't strictly professional. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think WP:ATH adequately covers the situation in cricket from the late 17th century when "amateurs" and professionals played together because they did play at the highest level and the matches were essentially professional in that the majority of players were professional. The amateurs ostensibly played for "expenses" but the world knows that WG made more money out of cricket than any "professional". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the nominator, I don't think I'm allowed to vote, but something really fundamental is being overlooked here, and I want to call attention back to it. To wit: I don't think the subject-specific guidelines such as WP:ATH and WP:CRIN are intended to supplant basic notability as in WP:BASIC; rather, they are there to raise the bar, not lower it. They are there to rule out the athlete who, despite significant secondary coverage, only played in the minors and is therefore not notable. They are not, to my mind, intended to elevate the otherwise-anonymous scrub who played one game in the majors. I hope the cricket project will take to heart the advice of Jack, above, and seriously reconsider, within the larger community of Wikipedia, who is generally worthy of a free-standing article. If movie buffs used the same standard you all have adopted, we'd have every bit-part walk-on with their own article, and the next thing you know, we're IMDB all over again. If these guys are already recorded for history in Cricket Archive and the like, what is the point of repeating them here? -- Rnickel (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is very well put, Rnickel. I was the main (probably only) author of WP:CRIN and I am uncomfortable with it. I think the author of WP:ATH should be be feeling similar discomfort. I am coming around to the idea of lists that mention those people who were the "extras" and, to be sure, I've already done it myself in terms of 18th century cricketers per List of early English cricketers to 1786 which contains details of several players that I don't think can warrant a standalone article.
- The trouble with these votes is that a particular project becomes aware of the nomination and a herd mentality ensues. They all apply the guideline such as [[WP:CRIN}} without stopping to think if the guideline is right. I question it and I wrote the guideline! ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first-class cricketer YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I see that in one of his appearances, Blackmore played in the same Kent team as Ames, Evans, Fagg and Wright, among others. They were undeniably first-class. Was Blackmore of the same standard or was he making up the numbers? This whole thing needs thinking about. I sense a herd mentality here. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not going to !vote here either, because I'm probably guilty of creating a few stubs of this type and I'd like to see where this AFD ends up, but I will make this point: when it comes to players such as Blackmore with very few appearances who have died, I always check to see if Wisden bothered with an obituary; if they didn't then I don't create the article. All I will say on this case is, Wisden did bother... to type one measly sentence. Undecided. — AMBerry (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I think there must be a principle around sources in addition to the name in the scorecard. As you say, if Wisden or another good source ascribes some notability to a player, then he must be notable. But I have grave doubts about people whose names appear in just one or two scorecards only. Note – see comment about James Rice at WT:CRIC. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmore was a well known figure in London Club Cricket. His name appears in the summaries given each fortnight. He spent many years abroad in the Indian Civil Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.16.87 (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment @Rnickel: As the nominator your nom is normally assumed to be a "Delete" !vote except in teh case of purely procedural nominations (as when an editor completes a nom for an IP user, or when someone relists after closing a DRV). As to the supplementary notability guidelines, you are, in general, incorrect. They are intended, in general, to lower the bar, not raise it. To put it another way, if a subject passes the general notability guideline, and therefore WP:N, there is normally no need to even consider whether the subject passes WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:ATH, or any other specific notability guideline, the subject is notable. The supplementary guidelines are either shorthand or bypass. They indicate cases in which either it is highly likely that significant coverage exists so there is no need to look for it, or in which there is consensus that a subject is notable whether the coverage is there or not. For example, mayors of large cities are presumed notable, but are also almost certain to have significant coverage. Bands with multiple released major label albums are presumed notable. Athletes at the Olympic level, or its equivalent in non-Olympic sports, are presumed notable, but usually have significant coverage. Of course, the requirements of WP:V remain, there must be enough sources to verify the content. As to the notability of players who have played in first class cricket but only for a few games, I have no opinion. However, one should remember that for players of the 1940s there may be significant coverage that is not online. DES ^(talk) 01:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DES, thanks for the comment. If that's the case— that category-specific criteria are intended to lower the bar, not raise it— then I think it would avoid a lot of unnecessary contention to have that explicitly stated in WP:NOTE somewhere. (For example, I've seen this same issue come up in the question of the notability of individual high schools.) Obviously, revising Wikipedia policy is somewhat above my pay grade... Does anyone have any idea how to go about that? — Rnickel (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it is actually already stated, but could perhaps be made clearer. For example WP:BIO (which includes WP:ATH as a section, says (Basic Criterion) "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." and (Additional criteria) "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." (Emphasis added) The various field-specific criteria follow this and are all "additional criteria". WP:N says: "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right." (Emphasis added) The "guidelines on the right" are the 10 Subject specific guidelines including WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. "Also" here pretty clearly indicates (IMO) that notability under one of the specific guidelines is in addition to notability under the WP:GNG. To put it in another way, a subject is notable if it either meets the GNG, or meets any of the subject-specific guidelines. For most of those guidelines, a subject is considered notable if it means any of the subject-specific criteria. For example WP:PROF says: "This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." WP:Music says that "A musician or ensemble ... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria..." and the first criterion is essentially a restatement of the WP:GNG. DES ^(talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these last two comments are interesting, I had wondered what prompted the fact that his initial first-class games were in India - given the timing I had thought maybe he had been serving in the armed forces, but could find no evidence for that Indian Civil Service makes sense, and it would be useful to know just how senior he was - he could have notability on those grounds too. David Underdown (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lets start applying some common sense to this. Someone who has played one game at what is deemed first class cricket (though that itself is debatable in 1944), was never a professional player. If they meet the general notability guidelines independently then fair enough, but if all we have is some cricket database site then that certainly is not significant coverage. A couple of months ago I nominated Ronald Eckersley for deletion, on the basis that he had only played one game for Yorkshire against the RAF, and that was kept on the basis that he had played first class cricket, and so is automatically notable. In that AfD I pointed out that one of the RAF players had only played in that one game as well, and hadn't batted or bowled, but technically met WP:CRIC. Lo and behold someone decided it was a good idea to create the article, so now we have Neville Shelmerdine!

There are a few concerns about these sort of articles. One is that we are generally basing them on database sources. Another is that we are defining people who were essentially there to make up the numbers as first class cricketers on the basis of one game. What they did in the rest of their life is probably much more significant, but we don't know anything about it. I'm sure some of these people would be a bit surprised if they googled their name and found they were being defined by wikipedia as a first class cricketer. I encourage the cricket wikiproject to examine this issue. Try and come up with some sort of guidance that reflects real world notability, not just meeting the letter of the law of some wikipedia guidance. Quantpole (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 all to Orange (telecommunications). Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Réunion

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

No indication of how these single sentence articles might be expanded beyond noting that the company is actually part of the larger Orange (telecommunications). Redirects to Orange (telecommunications) have been reverted so bringing it here for a wider discussion. I am also nominating the following related page because they are already sufficiently covered in the main article on the company and a separate article is not warranted.:

Note that the following related articles are not part of this AFD as there is indication that they have sufficient histories and coverage in 3rd party sources to meet notability guidelines: Orange Slovensko, Orange Austria, Orange Jordan, Orange Moldova, Orange Polska, Orange Slovensko, Orange España, Orange United Kingdom, Mobistar, Mobinil, or Optimus Telecomunicações RadioFan (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All to Orange (telecommunications). I suspect that all these stubby country-specific articles are there to record the dates in which each national subsidiary started operating. That and other trivial info can be added to the parent company article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All to Orange (telecommunications). One or two sentence sub-articles do not need their own page. ^Pepper∙_piggle 22:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect All to Orange (telecommunications). Nageh (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nen (fiction)

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

Article dedicated to a single aspect of the fictional universe of one series, without the use of third party sources to demonstrate why it is a notable subject in it's own right. Notability can't be inherited from the series in this case. Parts of the article are basically a list of attacks, which is excessive detail and not necessary to understand the concept itself. Outside of mentioning the basic concept on the parent article, there is very little to merge. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reviews of HxH seem to frequently mention nen. --Gwern (contribs) 18:23 25 March 2010 (GMT)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better to briefly mention it in the article about the fiction than to recapitulate everything said about it in the original fictional work to create an article like this. Appears to fails notability due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Google search results are not a convincing evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fundamentally, this article is not needed to understand any of the concepts used elsewhere in the article series. And beyond a few brief comments by reviewers, there has been no significant analyst of this fictional concept by reliable third-party sources. The content of the article is entirely based on primary sources—thus failing WP:V—and is of interest to a small population of enthusiastic fans—thus violating WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". —Farix (t | c) 01:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails to assert why it warrants a spin-out article from its main one. --KrebMarkt 07:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus seems to be that the coverage is not substantial or nontrivial enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia NW (Talk) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Beast

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

Non-notable performance company lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. There are a number of press releases and listings of performances, but it does not appear there has been substantial coverage of the group. Appears to fail WP:ORG. ttonyb (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable theatre company, no independent references beyond local/special interest media. Fails WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Evalpor (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a statement with the published source: Eye Weekly. I know it fits into a subject, but am I right thinking that one published source is good enough to escape deletion? Minimac (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Eye Weekly is a free weekly newspaper. It is dubious whether it meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable#News organizations. Many similar newspapers rely on media releases from the subject of the article as the "source of truth". WWGB (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per the article within these pages on Eye Weekly, we learn that it is owned by Torstar, the parent company of the Toronto Star, and that it is currently published by their Star Media Group. I am willing to believe that Toronto Star and its affiliates are RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiable it is, but notable it doesnt seem to be. —Soap— 21:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. — Scientizzle 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Blackman

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

This article was the subject of a recent AfD which was closed as No consensus. I have no procedural problem with the close which was within the discretion of the closer; however, having looked at the article I felt that the subject did not meet our inclusion criteria, that the quality of the referencing was poor (Wikipedia being used twice), that the claims made were not supported by the sources (such as the statement "Lionel Blackman is a leading UK human rights lawyer", which was cited to this source which only says: "Lionel Blackman is a solicitor-advocate and senior partner of a practice specialising in criminal litigation."), and that following the guidance of WP:POLITICIAN, the article should "redirect to an appropriate page covering the election". I did this, and explained my actions on Talk:Lionel_Blackman. However, my actions have been challenged, so it seems appropriate to bring it back to the community for a wider consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or redirect to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency). SilkTork *^YES! 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have reformatted the references and removed the links to other Wikipedia articles. It seems to me that this man is exceptionally notable. Do I need to go find more sources? I'm sure I could do it. Silver seren^C 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm ignorant of British politics, but it seems he's not quite notable under WP:POLITICIAN items 1 and 2, having only sat on a ward assembly, but item 3 seems to fit due to other activities. I'm also ignorant of British Law, but it seems he is somewhat notable in that context as well. Jisakujien (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with the observation that the nominator exercised good judgment and good faith in bringing this nomination here, because I believe the decision is a very close one. I was curious as to whether this individual met our notability standards and decided to thoroughly investigate all the references provided; I also allowed myself to speculate on what might constitute notability with respect to a lawyer, because I believe it's clear that the subject doesn't qualify under WP:POLITICIAN or the general notability guideline. I readily agree with the nominator that the quality of the referencing was poor, and that some of the claims were not supported by the sources. Many of the references were ones that would simply allow the reader to determine the existence of a fact but not how it contributed to notability, and the context of the references was in some cases wrenched and twisted to suggest that there was more notability attached than was actually the case; this is why I approached their totality with a jaundiced eye. I was easily able to discount self-generated references such as (before revisions) nos. 1 and 2; these confirm that Mr. Blackman exists and is a lawyer. I discounted the material about Mr. Blackman's charitable advocacy efforts; in a system that doesn't allow lawyers to advertise in a traditional sense, this is a well-known form of advertising and doesn't really seem applicable unless it's being suggested that Mr. Blackman is notable primarily for his charitable works, which I don't think is the case. I don't think that the notability of a lawyer is inherited from his cases (unless the case is so notable as to invoke the general notability guidelines, like O.J. Simpson); the citations that refer to specific cases (such as the prosecution for possession of a rifle) merely attach notability to that case and not to the lawyer who is professionally engaged to try it. There were really only two references that I considered lent notability to the subject, nos. 8 and 10, where the lawyer was quoted, seemingly with approval, by his peers in what might be considered a professional journal. In the abstract, I considered that notability does attach to a lawyer in the form of recognition by his peers, notably by the Q.C. designation (in the British system) which Mr. Blackman has not attained, but also in the form of being asked to teach students, and it's that area that tipped the balance for me. The citations for Mr. Blackman's pedagogy are so confused that it almost seemed as if they were spurious, but I tracked down evidence sufficient to convince me that he is the equivalent (in my legal system) of a guest lecturer in a law school, a position which in my experience is not casually offered. I'm not suggesting that Mr. Blackman is "exceptionally notable", an assertion with which I disagree, but I do think that the sum total of his efforts is sufficient to bring him within the notability guidelines. I would suggest that the article, and the references, need a major overhaul by an impartial third party willing to prune where required. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The result of the first AfD was 'no consensus', which effectively meant no change, i.e. keep. I didn't take part in that discussion which is why I've perhaps got the energy to discuss this here. I say that because I know at least one (User:Opbeith) of the people who supported keeping the article last time gave up trying to stop it being redirected to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency) by SilkTork, i.e. being deleted despite the first AfD decision. I think if a decision has been made in good faith it should be adhered to - otherwise why bother with these discussions at all? If we don't keep to decisions then it is not rational discussion but persistence which will determine Wiki's content. See discussion at Talk:Lionel Blackman. N.B. it is SilkTork again who has nominated this page for deletion, despite, and I quote from their introduction above, this page having a 'recent AfD which was closed as No consensus'. My concern is not with the content of the page (although I'm glad to see the consensus seems to be to keep), but with users ignoring community decisions if they think their argument is good enough Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think "no consensus" means "no consensus" -- although it defaults to keep. I disagree with the idea that User:SilkTork "ignored" a community decision; there was no decision because there was no consensus. If your intent is to suggest that the nominator has broken a rule of some kind by renominating an article upon which there was no consensus, there are certainly places to which you can take that assertion; until then, you may find it more productive to assume good faith. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I am criticizing User:SilkTork for deleting this article after the result of the first AfD - as you say - defaulted to keep. It was only after I reverted his deletion that he brought this to a 2nd AfD. He probably did it in good faith as I think he thinks he is right, but IMHO doing something in good faith is not an excuse for ignoring other people's opinions. I don't really want to continue this as it is not productive. Aarghdvaark (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm rather losing the will to live at Wikipedia. That's not completely true, I'll stick with the articles that are of core interest for me, but there's no way I'm going to waste any more time and energy trying to contribute to articles of more general interest that are going to be flushed away. And nor am I going to waste five minutes more time going over all the old discussions of barely a month ago. I've deleted Lionel Blackman from my watchlist not because I don't think he justifies an article but because I'm not going to get tangled up in this sort of fatuousness again. Thanks to Aarghdevaark for not letting the argument go by default. Nevertheless, I'm afraid I disagree with what's just been said. I don't accept that barging ahead and disposing of the article a month after no consensus should be politely considered good faith. There are a lot more things needing attention at Wikipedia than a second potshot at the Lionel Blackman article and contempt for consultation. Opbeith (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...okay? I feel like you should be having this opinion only if this AfD was leaning toward delete, but it's not. From the current standpoint, it's going to be unanimously kept, so I must admit that I am rather perplexed where this came from. I guess...i'm sorry you feel that way about the project. I'm sure it won't help, but you can go read my feelings on the project. I might not know you, but i'm sad to see you go. We need all the editors we can get. Silver seren^C 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that blast was me expressing annoyance at having used up a lot of time and energy the last time around, when I was already getting fed up with the regular ditching of reasonably useful if not critically important articles. It's simply a deterrent to further effort. What is the point of you and all these other people wasting their time here on this discussion? I'm not going to be tempted to get into a discussion about whether human rights work by a specialist human rights lawyer as part of a team of prominent human rights lawyers commissioned by organisations in the field concerned about grave human rights abuses should be challengeable as self-promotion without the benefit even of in dubio pro reo. I'd decided not to waste time being concerned even about the mighty Kevin's grim reaper campaigns and then this one popped back out to sabotage my resolution not to worry any more. It's not just this discussion, Silver seren, it's the straws accumulating between the camel's humps. Opbeith (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just been through the article to clean it up and update cites. However, I am still struggling to see where Lionel Blackman meets our notability criteria. He was a local councillor - but local councillors are not notable by our guidelines. He is a solicitor who has taken part in two cases which have been mentioned by sources - but it is the cases that are notable, not the lawyer - and association does not confer notability. His human rights work appears minimal - he has taken part with others in a couple of visits, and endorsed a couple of non-notable letters. It looks like he is a reasonably successful and busy solicitor with some interest in where solicitors can get involved in human rights. His main claim to fame appears to be co-founding the Solicitors' International Human Rights Group - a non-notable possibly commercial organisation (it's not listed as a charity) aimed at giving solicitors information about how to deal with human rights issues. Hmmm. Be nice if someone could do some more research and dig up something more notable about this person. SilkTork *^YES! 12:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for updating the main page and putting in the references. I just put back in the name of the man sentenced for handing in a shotgun to the police, seemed to make more sense Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Constituency -- This is the standard solution for Prospective Parliamentary Candidates. If he wins he will be notiable, but not until then. For the avoidance of doubt, being a borough councillor is NN. Solicitors' International Human Rights Group is a probably a pressure group (and not commercial), but classifed as "political" and hecne not eligible to be a charity. Until we have an articel on it, we should assume it is NN, thus not conferring notability on its officers. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close The last AFD closed on 27 February 2010. If you don't get the results you want, you don't start another AFD a month later. Dream Focus 08:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Bike Steve

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

Film not in filming or even in production. No IMDB hit. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Check out Simon Pegg's twitter for confirmation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.44.1 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt: Only sources are tweets and images on twitter. No way to finding out if this supposed film has even started filming yet. —Mike Allen Speedy delete per Matt as a blatant hoax and salt it good. —Mike Allen 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pegg has confirmed an appearance on 6 Music on 26 March to discuss Jet Bike Steve. The film could be considered at the development stage. Violentbob (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How does this meet the criteria in WP:NFF? ttonyb (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete:Simon Pegg did verify the planned Jet Bike Steve movie during a 6 Music interview on 26 March 2010, and confirmed some of the cast. Violentbob (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I see no evidence of this interview in the article. ttonyb (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this was made up the day before yesterday, and is quite clearly just an internet meme. It's not really a film, guys. matt (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://twitter.com/bryanthebong/statuses/11090325002 matt (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are going "stop us". This needs to be salted as soon as possible. —Mike Allen 23:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: [7] and [8]. — Rankiri (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - All Twitter references cited in the article to the film "under development" are from Simon Pegg's verified Twitter account. As above he appeared on BBC 6 music on the Lauren Laverne Show (10:15am 26th March) to verify the plans, and this show is still available to listen to online if you would like to check.Pjhirst (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Pjhirst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is nothing but a joke, literally, a JOKE. It started from a tweet, see this article. —Mike Allen 07:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~^{(double vote)} This article could be listed as both (or either) a Fictional Film (such as Blue Harvest or Conan The Librarian), or an internet meme (such as Rickrolling), all of which have their own articles. The phenomena was started by Simon Pegg and is therefore notable due to his international profile. Violentbob (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Rick Rolling (etc.) have articles is that they're notable, and have existed for long enough to gather reasonable coverage in third-party sources (WP:GNG). Just because Pegg started it doesn't mean that it's notable – notability isn't inherited. If there's any coverage in reliable sources, it may be worthy of mentioning in Pegg's article – but certainly not yet. matt (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NFT. The subject is a non-notable Twitter hoax/meme that has no coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been covered in several places, such as the BBC, and the website of the UK digital TV channel Dave. Plus it appears on internet meme websites such as knowyourmeme.com Violentbob (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this does not fit the WP:NFT; 'If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia'. This meme has been followed be people arounnd the world, and has been featured in UK national media. Violentbob (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Know Your Meme is not a WP:RS source, and just because the author of the meme happened to mention it on a BBC show[9], it doesn't mean that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that section of the show was dedicated to Jet Bike Steve, and the purpose of the interview was to discuss it, rather than either Pegg or Laverne happening to discuss it. Violentbob (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "a non-notable Twitter hoax" - it's had plenty of notable coverage, and it's from Simon Pegg's verified account on Twitter and direct from his mouth. He has also since created a (again verified it's from Simon Pegg) character on Twitter, and should be treated with as much respect as any comic, book, TV show or film character. By all means correct the article to describe exactly what and who this character is, but to consider deletion now is just plain sad. Pjhirst (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How does this "coverage" meet the criteria in WP:RS? ttonyb (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why don't you go through the 12,000 hits on Google for ("jet bike steve" -wikipedia) and discount them all one by one? Pjhirst

You mean 97 unique hits? I did. — Rankiri (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's even fewer if you use "-flickr -twitpic" etc... matt (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to understand that you can't use Wikipedia to pimp out your supposed work. It is not used for free marketing. Announcing it on twitter isn't going to save this article from being deleted, and hopefully protected from being created in the future. Even IF this film was notable, it wouldn't merit its own article until filming has commence. Admins, do we really have to wait for 7 days for a decision? —Mike Allen 19:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're undoing your own arguement then, as this is listed as a fictional film and internet meme, not an actual film in production. Violentbob (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Simon Pegg with brief mention of the meme there. If the meme is more than just news, then the redirect could be undone to have a meme article. If a film does happen, then the redirect could be undone to have a film article, with the originating meme being mentioned in the production section. Currently, it does not seem like a stand-alone topic. Erik (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for that to happen provided that we could source it with more than a Twitter account (if Know Your Meme isn't regarded as reliable then I don't whether there's any more coverage that is independent of the subject). Whether or not Jet Bike Steve is mentioned in the Simon Pegg article, I think it's a valid redirect – the current article has quite a bit of traffic (2,300 hits on 26 Mar) so redirecting either way may be logical. matt (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems independent and covers it in some detail. Erik (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the site lists the author of this source as a blogger: http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/contact-blogger/joe-barton/. — Rankiri (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is not a personal blog nor a group blog but rather run by AOL-owned Moviefone. WP:RS says, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." This lists the "blog" entries he's written for the website, and they appear journalistic in nature. Erik (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Park way

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

There does not seem to be anything to establish the notability of this particular street in London. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No claim to notability. And, rather than improving the article, an editor keeps removing the AfD notice, demonstrating bad faith. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no notability and completely lacking in encyclopaedic content. Canterbury Tail talk 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per leading sentence in the article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article should have delete written all over it to one with any familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines. I was shocked to come across an article like this. I don't mean to rant, but hopefully, the writer will understand about notability with what I have written below: Dew Kane (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This article, is just a small guide for people who often visit, or live in the local area" - Wikipedia is not a guide, and this clearly goes against that.
"Park Way is a small quiet road in NW11, London. It is a dead end road, with a park at the end of it" - Important streets sometimes get articles, but never common side streets.
"Please click on the link to go straight to Google street view of the road" - Sounds like advertising the street
"Nearby is Golders Green Road, on it there is a massive selection of restaurants,and cafes for all religions. It is also near the Brent Cross shopping center, a large mall, consisting of high class, brand name shops. It is also a 30 minute tube ride from Oxford Street-The heart of central London. The RAF museum is close nearby, It is a nice place for all ages to go and visit, and learn about the royal air force." - Sounds like advertising.
Other information in the article, like its ethnic population, sounds interesting, but is not sourced in any way. Nothing has been provided to verify this.

Delete, for utter lack of notability. However, with respect to the comment above, I suspect this is just a case of someone who, in perfectly good faith, thought it would be interesting to write a little article about their own street. No harm done. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that the references that have been added to the article during the course of this discussion are sufficient to allow the article to stay. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City of Boston Archives

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

Nothing suggests that this municipal government department is notable. Article was previous fluffy; now, contains one source (primary) and nothing to indicate notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that is it notable due to a lack of knowledge about it in the general Boston populace, due to the fact that historically Boston's records have been held by individual departments and only recently have they been moved to the archives; this is also of interest to other archivists and genealogists. I can change the page to reflect this. User: zyarchive —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Upon further review, I agree that it does lack the notability element, as there are no high profile articles about the archives, despite the role they played recently in the email scandal in Boston's city government. I had modeled the page after the pageNew York City Municipal Archives [10]page to serve simply as an additional resource for users looking for information or for those coming from the Boston page or the West Roxbury page. If it must be deleted, it is understandable. User: zyarchive 14:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could speed the process up by blanking the page, making it available for {{g7}} speedy deletion. OR, you could watch the process unfold here and learn someone from it. Your choice. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes in an effort to better reflect the importance of the archives. I would rather not blank the page, as I think it is an important resource of knowledge and deserves a spot on Wikipedia. User:zyarchive 15:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Personal belief that the subject is important is not a legitimate ground for retention, and WP:NOT explicitly bars a wish to publicize a subject as the reason to keep an article. What part of WP:V, WP:N or WP:ORG does this fulfill, and where are there independent sources substantively about the subject, as WP:RS requires? Ravenswing 19:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added articles from Boston Globe on significance of archives/moving archives to West Roxbury. Also added email from City Councilor on importance of archives. Unfortunately I was not logged in at the time, but the changes are in the process of being done. Still learning Wikipedia; it is a somewhat overwhelming process. Zyarchive (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)zyarchive[reply]

Keep Added references appear to satisfy WP:N. --Crusio (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the additional references satisfy notability. -- Clifflandis (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two articles in the Globe do a lot for me, and the potential for the article to explore the contents of Boston's archives is great-- there ought to be material here not only of interest for city politics but also as part of Wikipedia's treatment of Boston's history.Avram (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 AFD withdrawn by nominator and closed (without prejudice to future renomination). –xeno^talk 15:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator pitch

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

I'm nominating this for the very same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Sales Pitch. This is an unreferenced dictionary definition with vague statements like "studies show...". It adds no value to Wikipedia as it stands. Biker Biker (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unlike "virtual sales pitch" which is just "virtual"+"sales pitch" an elevator pitch is a specific concept as evidenced by 2240 news hits (the links are the first page are all articles about the concept) and 702 book hits (including entire chapters in several books). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you are right. I'm very happy for this AfD to be withdrawn. Is there a process for doing that? --Biker Biker (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 250 TV series

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

I originally PRODed this with "Votes cast by users of IMDB is not a reliable or notable source". The author has queried this on the Talk page, so I guess that means it needs to be brought here for discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR / WP:NOT#STATS. IMDB's ranking system is deeply flawed and completely unreliable. — Rankiri (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and not notable. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this user generated list does not appear to have received any coverage from independent reliable sources and so is not notable er the general notability guideline (despite being featured on a notable wesbite).
Delete This is a snapshot of what a list on imdb.com looked like on January 17. The context is that registered users of imdb.com can give their ratings of films (I'm not sure how TV series are handled) and one can look at a "Top 250", which the author apparently did a couple of months ago. Since it's an ongoing process, the list changes. Wikipedia users are fond of parroting the phrase "unmaintainable list", but this one really really would be an unmaintainable list. Who knows what it looks like on March 26, 2010? For that matter, who cares? Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list itself isn't notable, is subject to change, and has a serious issue with recentism: nearly all of the programs in the article are from the 1990s or later. U.S. network transmission began in 1946, but this article lists almost nothing from TV's "Golden Age": it only has four TV series from that era (I Love Lucy, 1951; Alfred Hitchcock Presents, 1955, Leave it to Beaver, 1957; The Twilight Zone, 1959). Are readers truly supposed to believe that nearly all of the best programs of all time came from the past 20 years? I certainly do not. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mouthpiece of the Kremlin

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

Whilst this is somewhat a neologism, it is essentially a non-notable topic. In politics, all people and organisations are invariably accused by their detractors of being mouthpieces of one government or another. The article as it stands now does not pass the notability threshold, in that the term itself is not discussed, but rather is simply a dumping ground of people/organisations who are accused of being Kremlin mouthpieces by their detractors, which could raise BLP concerns also. Consider, that if this article is kept, that opposition forces in Russia could also be added to an article like Mouthpiece of anti-Russian forces, and they could be referenced. Such things are not encyclopaedic. But if by some stroke of the imagination this article is kept, can someone please add me; I've been called a Kremlin stooge often enough, i'd kinda like to make it official :) Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a figure of speech and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The subject also fails WP:GNG: significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. — Rankiri (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content should be moved to Freedom of press in Russia. Biophys (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Sources and external links typically don't mention the specific topic, or are company literature or advertisements. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xlear Nasal Spray

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

Fails WP:Product, reads as an advertisement. Indication of notability is unsourced and contentious. Aka042 (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally agree that it fails WP:PRODUCT. The second statement in the article "only nasal spray etc." sounds like an ad. There is a source from the British Medical Journal (reliable) that establishes that the medication does apparently have its uses, but there's nothing from major sources to prove that it's actually notable - the BMJ after all does experiments with hundreds and thousands of drugs. In short, no sources from outside the medical field, who otherwise test all these medications anyway. The 888th Avatar (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a medication found in journals. If it is included in the journals, it is probably written about elsewhere too. Dew Kane (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a number of other sources about it that weren't journals and I also formatted the references that were already in there. Silver seren^C 01:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic's notability has been established by the numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this article is not about Xlear at all. It is partly about the active ingredient xylitol and partly about Lon Jones; but not one of the inline citations actually mentions the product by name. This is bad sourcing at its ugliest and most misleading. Reyk _YO! 07:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the external links, what about those? Just because the article is badly written is not one of the criteria for which it should be deleted. Silver seren^C 07:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the external links is the company's website. Another two, the MarketWire ones, are advertisements. The RedOrbit one is a rehash of the company website and of MarketWire. The Buzzle one is written by a paid marketer ie. it's another advertisement. The last, the Q&A at Natural Foods, is an interview with a guy who's spruiking the product (yet another advertisement). So yeah, none of it's any good. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can determine an interview to be an advertisement. And the reason why the article describes so much about xylitol is because the creation of xylitol was instrumental in the creation of the nasal spray. Silver seren^C 08:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That interview is just like those "interviews" you see on daytime TV talk shows where someone comes on to give a spiel about their wonderful product and the "interviewer" asks them a whole lot of convenient leading questions. And saying all those sources about xylitol that don't mention Xlear anywhere demonstrate notability for Xlear is wrong. It's like, if I wrote an article on the coffee shop down the road from my house and claimed it was notable because I can find a whole heap of sources about the Coffee bean. Reyk _YO! 08:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and those last two links you added? Guess what they are. Ads. Reyk _YO! 08:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reyk, above; my assessment is the same. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets news coverage which are apparently all reliable sources, or at least Google news source says so. And the information here, is not found in the article for xylitol. One doctor decided to take something, and spray it in a new way, a new product to cure ear infection. Dream Focus 09:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. 7 gnews hits [11], which merely verify its existence. Wikipedia is not supposed to cover every medical product in the world. LibStar (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Wikipedia covers every plant, animal, and mineral in the world. If the medical product is notable enough to get coverage in the news somewhere, then why not have an article for it? It meets WP:GNG. What's the harm in people being able to look up information about any medication they use or have heard of, and finding information about it on the Wikipedia? Dream Focus 22:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - information is verifiable and sources seem to establish ample notability. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sinclair Sanders

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, only sources I can find on the internet are self-published

Sorry, forgot to sign it! Brickie (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have put in a number of reliable sources and rewritten the article. Sanders is notable. Silver seren^C 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly my Google-fu fails. All I could find were the self-published sites, or other things quoting or mirroring them. Looks like there is more out there that I couldn't find, so I agree, keep. Brickie (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very difficult to judge an article like this when it is such a minute stub. He sounds a bit FRINGE. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...you should be judging the sources, not the article. AfD is just to establish notability. You should be using the sources to determine if he is notable or not from the available sources. FRINGE or not, he has valid sourcing. Silver seren^C 21:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kapp Software Pvt. Ltd.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:Company. Cannot find any verifiable sources with significant coverage, and no notability is implied in the article. Only sources referenced are primary sources from company's own web site. Aka042 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another business to business tech/service firm using Wikipedia for free publicity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly zero independent, verifiable, reliable secondary coverage of this company. Fails notability standard.Fladrif (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per A7, tagged. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUGS!! The Musical

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

Unremarkable play Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure everybody did a fine job on this high school play, but there are no reliable sources writing about it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 per WP:SNOW. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Earl Hughes

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

Delete. Supposedly once the world's heaviest man, but I'm not sure thats a legitimate claim to notability in the encyclopedic sense. The lack of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications is troublesome as well. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the substantial coverage in reliable sources. See this article from the Los Angeles Times (titled "1041-Pound Man Flying to New York for TV"), this article from Kentucky New Era (titled: "It's All in How You Look at It: He Kept Growing"), this article from The Miami News (titled: Casket for World's Largest Man). Hughes receives a mention in a Sports Illustrated article ("And who could forget Robert Earl Hughes? Certainly not his tailor, for the 1,067-pound Breman, Ind., native (and world's heaviest man) always wore bib overalls in Guinness and was buried—as every new edition felt compelled to report—in a modified piano case.") This 1966 article from the Los Angeles Times confirms that the Guiness Book of World Records considered Hughes to be the heaviest man of all time.
A book has been written about Hughes; see Big heart: remembering Robert Earl Hughes, 1926-1958 by Kenneth W. Faig. Hughes is also written about in Incredible! by Kevin McFarland and Luis Dominguez. Here is a full-feature article in Life magazine. Hughes passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to reliable sources as per above. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added in the sources that Cunard gave above and formatted things a little. He is clearly notable. Silver seren^C 08:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. There are significant sources to establish notability, in line with WP:BASIC. The 888th Avatar (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - world's heaviest man is clearly notable, just like the world's oldest, shortest and tallest. And it is well sourced, and there is a ton of coverage. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably sourced (and though this is not a keep criteria, I distinctly remember reading about him in Guiness books and Ripley's Believe or Not as a child). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JB you ninny!!!: LOL. No doubt you just read my blogpost.[12]. There is loads of coverage of this man, he was incredibly well-known. KEEP. My point as regards to donna was that of a recency effect ETA: Perhaps you nominated before I posted, but that's a weird coincidence! Or actually, I cited him in the donna simpson AfD, you probably saw that.--Milowent (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Passes WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give me a break. Like Robert Wadlow, he's well-known to anyone who ever picked up the Guinness book, which a lot of people do tend to think of as a "reliable" reference work. A news search [13] suggests that he was notable in the 1940s and the 1950s and the 1960s and the 1970s and the 1980s and the 1990s and the 2000s etc. etc. We don't vote on whether he "ought to be" notable. WP:SNOW for this one. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spend a brief moment clicking on Google news BEFORE you nominate something. I see results immediately on him being the World's Fattest Man, he quite famous. Dream Focus 22:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's getting pretty snowy around here. Mind if someone or I could close this as snowball keep? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. :) With this many Keep votes and no delete votes besides the nominator, it's clearly a case for WP:SNOW. Silver seren^C 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death Row: The Lost Sessions Vol. 1

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

Non-notable, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the Nominator- you have been nominating a lot of album articles for deletion lately, but you have to say more than just "non-notable" as your reason. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Here you have given absolutely no reason for why you think the album in question is non-notable. And just because the article is "unsourced" does not automatically mean it should be deleted. That's what edit tags are for, to encourage improvement by the WP community. As far as I can tell, being unsourced is only a good reason for deletion if the article is a biography of a living person. Give an article a chance for community improvement before deletion, or if you think it should be deleted, you could at least say why. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's true. What I had in mind was "this article is assumed non-notable as an unreleased album per WP:MUSIC and no sources demonstrate its notability," but that's not being communicated with pithy AfDs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - definitely a notable artist, the album has been reviewed at Allmusic here, it was definitely released ([14]), reached #22 on the Billboard R&B Albums chart ([15]) and has been mentioned in some independent news sources in the hip-hop business, which can be found pretty easily with a Google search. More WP:BEFORE work should have been done on this one. The article needs improvement, not deletion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage and chart placing easily demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I just noticed that the article was in the "Unreleased Albums" category, which was wrong. I have removed that category. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Doom.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Children Assistance Network

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

fails WP:ORG. in 10 years of existence it gets 13 gnews hits some of it passing mentions [16]. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and added a number of links. Not everything is on GNews, sometimes you have to dig. Silver seren^C 08:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

many of these external links added are merely passing mentions like [17] and [18], and not in depth coverage that establishes notability. articles like this [19] merely verify they do work in vietnam but is not coverage primarily about the organisation. This is merely a press release with major input from ICAN so it is not an independent third party source. This is merely a directory listing of a whole lot of organisations and really stretching it as actual coverage. This qualifies as indepth coverage of Quyen Vuong and suitable if you want to create an article about her. LibStar (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article looks okay to me right now, and the references added show the organization is notable enough. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 23:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD shows results. Plenty of links added to the article. I read through some of them. This is clearly a notable charity. Dream Focus 11:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a weak article that can and should be improved. An infobox with logo, location, and other information would be a good start.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of how it meets WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It meets WP:GNG, clearly. Read through the news summaries at least, and you can find something that should indicate notability to you. Dream Focus 04:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hardly, 13 hits in 10 years of existence, some of these hits merely verify its existence (one hit is a reader letter) and are not in depth coverage, Wikipedia is not intended to cover every organisation in existence. clutching at straws to say this meets WP:ORG. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Many sources are for 1 newspaper, this organisation claims to be International but gets no real international coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those above - the coverage indicated above seems to be ample is establishing notability. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lasha Dardagany

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

This director fails WP:NOTE; a quick search shows no reliable sources covering the subject. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable bio. It's nearly incomprehensible as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article screams. The screams are saying burn with fire. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources, Georgian or otherwise, are brought forward to show possible notability. The article was indeed a mess... so I gave it a cleanup (good exercize) to make it comprehensible. I even found the man's partial filmography on IMDB and found his official website... but the article needs sources toward notability in order to be kept. The fellow seems prolific for a Gerogian filmmaker, so maybe sources exist... but I can't find 'em. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that you've cleaned it up to make it look so nice, I find myself regretting the lack of sources. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Me too. If sources can be turned up, it would be a keeper. Sadly, if there are no sources...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Vincent Cespedes. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 68, Philosophy is in the Street!

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

Referred from CAT:SD to AfD, original rationale was:

This book does not exist. Plus, of course, no source is given, and the whole thing is "original research" (well, "research" is a bit far-fetched). The title of this article is a translation of the French book title. One more article from a serial spammer on fr:, now it seems he is also on en:. Sigh. Oyp (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither this article or its French equivalent achieve any indication of notability. The article is merely a publicity synopsis; May68 books are 10 a centime and nothing looks notably new here - reheated leftovers. And no book of this title exists; if the French book was ever translated it may not even have this title. Also noting COI concerns on equivalent French Wikipedia at [20] and [21]. AllyD (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For non-French speakers, AllyD is referring to suspicions that Cespedes wrote his autobiography on fr: and articles about his books. In fact, those articles were probably written by someone (or several persons) very close to him, but not himself. Not that it makes this book any more notable, of course. Two articles about Cespedes are already listed for deletion on fr:, with probably more to follow. Oyp (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Vincent Cespedes. This book's article-worthiness by itself seems borderline, but assuming the article on the author himself is sufficiently notable to avoid AfD itself, I see no reason why some of this material couldn't be salvaged and placed there. The over-the-top promotional tone is obviously a problem, but some (perhaps small) portion of this material is just a synopsis of the book, which in condensed form would be a fine addition to the article on the author. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your suggestion, though a further consideration is that merging to the author article would be increasing the weight of unreferenced information (French blog ref aside) in an already fragile BLP. AllyD (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Deleted speedily by Dloh cierekim as a hoax. As noted before, this unsourced BLP turned up unverifiable in a search for information-- no 2009 outsiders and and no josh Klein child actors. 13:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Klein

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

The article is unreferenced and I could find no sources to verify any of the content. There is no listing for this individual at IMDb, a search for "Josh Klein" + actor turns up no useful results, and the mention of a 2009 version of The Outsiders also cannot be substantiated. This appears to be a hoax, but at the very least this individual fails WP:NOTE. ShelfSkewed Talk 04:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax. No entry at imdb and there was no 2009 version of The Outisders. Woogee (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unusually specific hoax. "Ponyboy Curtis" is an unusual role to falsely attribute to someone. Usually these articles are a cut-and-paste of a real actor with names changed, or the pattern of roles chosen is clearly someone's idea of a joke. But yes, there's no 2009 version of The Outsiders and no Josh Klein I can find with a remotely similar career. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 of all the articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain at the Asian Games

This nomination includes 38 articles (below). This is a set of articles created by en-mass by an indefinitely blocked user for sock puppet concerns. Case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polylepsis/Archive.

The ones nominated here, as of the nomination, have no substantive content other than the infobox and lead sentence. Of the original set, I've removed Syria and Afghanistan (and maybe some others) because they have actual content.

They fail WP:DIRECTORY, as well as generally being created by a banned editor (although I'd support the Keep of any articles with actual content). We don't need to encourage route, meaningless stub creation (in this case done by a problematic editor anyway) that has no content useful to any reader. I believe stubs are good scaffolding to build on, but the articles I've nominated don't have that.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. WP:AFD is not WP:CLEANUP. AfD is not a stub-expansion project. AfD is not a place for destroying the good (if limited) work just because it was done by an editor banned for unrelated problems. And it should be perfectly obvious to every editor that these are WP:Notable subjects, which means that deleting them would violate the actual deletion policy.
Finally, if I were going to pick articles to delete, I'd have started with the year-by-year stubs, like the ones listed at Template:NOCin2009AsianIndoorGames. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all While these articles may not be very useful right now, they will become more complete in time. See similar articles at "(country) at the Olympics". Also, these are countries/regions which have fewer English wikipedia users, so they don't have the focus of an English language country or its users to quickly build the articles. Finally, the status of the banned editor is not really relevent here. Cheers-Cbradshaw (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. If the user was indef blocked for problems specifically related to these articles - disrputive editing or some such - then yeah, I can see deleting. But the fact that some have been expanded should indicate that the others can be expanded as well. If there's some other factor that points to deletion for one or more articles (For example, if Brunei had never played in the Asian Games), then nominate those articles separately and let them be debated on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. All these articles can be expanded and many will relate to medal winners. A blanket deletion would not be reasonable. Cjc13 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to clean up. These are articles with 0 content. We're opening the door to any editor, in this case a banned one, to just come in and copy-paste create a huge number of zero content articles. For context, of the at least 40 created, 2 were expanded. This wasn't a first-day nomination either. These articles sat around for nearly a month before this nomination.
I appreciate the idea of a consistent style for a set of articles, and having a "scaffolding" in place for that, which is something I thought about before this nom. But I would weigh that against the wholesale creation of huge numbers of articles by problematic editors with no intent to expand them and no content. Shadowjams (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did you ask WP:OLYMPICS to expand the articles? 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being snarky aside, which articles are you talking about that need expansion? Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - no valid reason for deletion given, articles are notable and need expansion. matt91486 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JForget 00:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR Sprint Cup Series last place finishers

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

A list of last place finishers runs into trouble with WP:N, WP:FANCRUFT, plus issues with WP:STATS and potentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE Falcadore (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We can verify most of this article with reliable secondary sources. If there is any cruft left, we can clean it up. GVnayR (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is a list, there is little or no scope for language alteration and secondly the cruft is inherent in the subject and cannot be cleaned out. --Falcadore (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this could somehow by verified. This is a non-encyclopedic topic that highlights people's failures. I believe that we run into problems with WP:BLP since it only serves to disparage the people on the list. I agree with WP:STATS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE assessment. We don't have lists of baseball pitchers with the league's highest ERA. Royal broil 04:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe that both successes and failures should be equally highlighted in this encyclopedia. What the sense of having a list of the world's tallest buildings or the longest roads if we aren't also willing to make a list of the world's smallest buildings or the world's shortest roads? GVnayR (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to comment - Wikipedia, specifically WP:Notability does not share that belief. --Falcadore (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further response - Ok. So you're saying that Richard Petty's 200 NASCAR Cup Series victories is more notable than J.D. McDuffie's 32 last place finishes? That's outrageous. People are just as unlikely to beat McDuffie's record for last place finishes as they are to beat Petty's record for career wins. GVnayR (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Further response - It's more notable in the same way that winning a 100m foot race at the Olympic Games is more notable than winning a 100m race at a county fairground. The notability of a statistical achievement is not purely defined on its rarity. Prestige and desireability also important criteria towards notability. --Falcadore (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Royalbroil. Also, I can think of no reason why a list of last-place finishers in any sport would be needed. It might be interesting to a limited number of people, but that does not mean it should be included. NotAnonymous0 (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Everybody loves watching sports blooper films on DVD or VHS. By having articles like these on Wikipedia, they can serve as a kind of "historical blooper film." GVnayR (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - But do the people who messed up like being laughed at over and over again? NotAnonymous0 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response to comment - America's Funniest Home Videos often appear in reruns on ABC and they still show some of the clips of the funniest videos people made of their kids 20 years ago. Of course, people can still laugh at themselves years after the fact. GVnayR (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response to comment - That does not mean it is Wikipedia's role to document this, any more than it is Wikipedia's role to document individual episodes of America's Funniest Home Videos regardless of how many times they may be re-run. --Falcadore (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply ridiculous. do we now have last place list for Olympic finals, tennis tournaments etc, swimming competitions? LibStar (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic has no encyclopedic value. The point of a competition is to make note of the best of the field. Everybody who doesn't win, loses. (Though sometimes second and third place are recognized). There's no encyclopedic reason to single out people who did the worst, other than to rub salt in their wounds. Fletcher (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Australian National University. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John XXIII College (ANU)

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

Article on a non-notable residence hall. It's been around for a couple of years, long enough to collect some reliable sources, but it's got none--and here's why: there are no sources. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Australian National University. Woogee (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a good solution--I should have thought of that. If you're feeling bold, please go ahead. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Woogee. Can't help but feel this SHOULD be notable - speaking as a Canberran, it's a pretty iconic part of our most iconic university - but that might just be because I had friends living there during the late 90s. Despite thorough searches in the Canberra Times and ACT historical sites I'm unable to find significant coverage for it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Australian National University. Could always be expanded upon and branched out back into its own independent article at a later date, if enough source coverage in secondary sources is found such that WP:NOTE could be adequately satisfied. -- Cirt (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Australian National University, with the rider that the other ANU college pages receive the same treatment. Fenner Hall, for example, is hardly any more noteworthy than John XXIII. 203.173.11.227 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's discuss that separately. Fenner Hall I'm reasonably sure I could save, if it came to AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if the article gets deleted and then reinstated without the content relating to sexual harrassment (which is, I suspect, the true reason for the suggested deletion), I will take it upon myself to re-insert the offending passage. Truth will out! 130.56.71.50 (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. But the problem you'd be facing is that (a) it's a passing event of no lasting significance and thereby fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS, and (b) you'd have a hard time convincing me that your primary source, the student newspaper Woroni, is a reliable source with a reputation of journalistic integrity. If you'd like to discuss those matters further I'm happy to elaborate on the article's talk page or on my talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 'culture of sexual harassment' is an item of real interest. The specific article in Woroni cites its sources clearly, and the events cited have not been denied by the College. I invite you to post your impressions of Woroni on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.220.52 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. None of the other articles about ANU colleges are being deleted. So this one should not be. Its just extremist deletion policies again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. If you feel the other ANU residential colleges don't meet our notability policies you are welcome to bring them to articles for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy

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

Non-notable secondary journal from a law school which has not yet published an issue; when it does, it'll be online, not in hard copy. Fourteen Google hits, including Wikipedia. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article. I have an interest in the article as a member of the organization it is about. I have added a number of additional references to the article to prove that it is notable. The fact that AJELP is an online journal should not make it non-notable, if anything it should make it more notable as there are very few purely online journals and it is predicted that they will become the norm soon. [see http://faculty.law.pitt.edu/hibbitts/lastrev.htm]. Wikipedia has a whole article dedicated to the idea of [online magazines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_journal]. If anything it is ironic to make this argument on wikipedia. Moreover, it clearly meets [wikipedia's general notability guidline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-0]. It has received both ["Significant coverage" http://uanews.org/node/30194]. The [UA News http://uanews.org/about] Article is reliable and independent. Even though it is produced by the University that AJELP is affiliated with, it is run by editorially independent professionals and it is well established. Moreover, the article contains a number of insignificant coverage references from reliable and independent sources that support the article's facts.ArizonaLaw (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC) — ArizonaLaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note - The UAnews is a University newspaper Shadowjams (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Journals, particularly online only, are not notable without outside coverage. Secondary journals at law schools may be notable, but only if there are external reliable sources that indicate the journal, as opposed to a mere citation. Moreover, a new, unpublished, and online secondary journal is not. For those unfamiliar, most law school journals are published by students, with oversight by the facility. I am not sure about this journal, although most are, with some exceptions. While this does not itself make it non-notable, it provides some context. Shadowjams (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Student-run environmental journals are cropping up at law schools all over the country. Some of them are better-established than others and even the best established journals (see, e.g. Tulane Environmental Law Journal) have had little or no independent media coverage. This makes it difficult for any journal, even the most legitimatem to achieve the notability standard set forth in the deletion criteria. My own University of Washington Law School is working to establish a student-run environmental law journal, although it hasn't left the ground yet. I see no reason why AJELP should be removed, especially in light of the national trend. 24.18.227.247 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC) — 24.18.227.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. No sign that it passes any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are hundreds, if not thousands, of online-only journals and many of them have become notable in time. However, very few journals, if any, are notable even before they have produced a single issue. This one is no exception and article creation has been very premature. --Crusio (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student run journals of this sort are indeed becoming much more common, but I do not see how that makes them notable. some will be, but there is no way to judge the importance of a journal like this until it is at least published. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not a notable journal on it's own (at least yet), I would rather see this merged with an article on the law school itself if it exists. If not, ArizonaLaw could probably create on, and this could become a section of the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Thanks for the suggestion Headbomb. Would you be willing to help me merge this with the law school's article? I am quite new at wikipedia article writing and would greatly appreciate any help you would be willing to offer. Perhaps this would appease all those calling for the article's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.185.218 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Sorry I forgot to sign in, that last question was from me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArizonaLaw (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability yet, per either Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Rough consensus is that the topic is not necessarily a content fork, and that its essay-like characteristics are fixable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

AfDs for this article:

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

Essay. ~~Inherently POV in that it takes the position that "anarcho-capitalism" is a form of anarchism, which not everyone would accept.~~ Pointless in that the similarities and differences between any two given ideolyogies are not a suitable subject for an article - discussing each ideology properly, in their own separate articles, would make that unnecessary. In this case, any useful content could go in anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles respectively. UserVOBO (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the POV part in recognition of the fact that POV problems in an article are not a reason for deletion. The other reasons - that this is an essay, that it violates WP:POVFORK, and that any appropriate content belongs in other articles - stand in my view. UserVOBO (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.--Cast (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need or justification for this article. UserVOBO (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that you say the article "takes the position that 'anarcho-capitalism' is a form of anarchism", and the last deletion nomination said, "The whole purpose is try to distinguish anarcho-capitalism as something other than a legitimate form of anarchism." I think this is an excellent example that if you can't tell which POV is being advanced, perhaps it really is NPOV. Tb (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm judging the POV issue from the article as it is written now. What someone else thought about how it was written four years ago has nothing to do with it. In any case, the problem isn't simply the particular POV being advocated by the article, but that the fact that it does not deal with an encyclopedic subject. Discussing "similarities and differences" between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism in the abstract is not the same the thing as discussing the debates between the proponents of these ideologies, the alleged importance of which appears to be the main argument for keeping the article. The arguments for keeping the article look like a case of WP:ILIKEIT. UserVOBO (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my point, I think. A deletion request needs to be about the topic, not about the particular way it's currently addressed. The later is simply a content dispute, and the article should be improved. The deletion request makes sense only if no possible improvement could be made. To delete an article as a POV problem, one needs to argue that it the article would necessarily advance that POV, no matter how it's written. That your predecessor thought the opposite as you, suggests that the topic is not inherently POV in that it takes the position that .... If anything, the particular treatment has a POV problem, in which case you should address it on the talk page of the article. Tb (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a side issue. The essential problem with the article is that "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" is not an encyclopedic subject, since the relevant content belongs in the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles. I'm not seeing any convincing counter-arguments here. UserVOBO (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "This article discusses similarities and differences between anarcho-capitalism and other types of anarchism." It's an essay, and therefore not encyclopedic content. Also issues of WP:OR, WP:SYN, and content forking from related articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Treating anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism is a common practice. There are secondary sources to support it, and the alternative keeps us embroiled in various editing wars. In this case, the "similarities and differences" are the terms of one of the most important theoretical debates within anarchist/libertarian circles in recent decades. If this is going to be deleted we need a better reason. Libertatia (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that of its nature it must be WP:SYN. The standard approach would be to have articles anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, well-describe the concepts at those articles, and let readers draw their own conclusions as to the similarities or differences. Wikipedia doesn't generally engage in weighing various philosophies against each other in dedicated articles. See also WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What this misses is that writers using those labels themselves discuss exactly this question, as such. It is not as if we were comparing two things which are not much compared in the literature. Unlike the "communism and conservatism" notion, it is an ongoing topic of considerable importance, about which there is lots of 2ary literature we can and do cite. This makes it far more similar to Filioque than to the hypothetical communism and conservatism. Tb (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What your argument misses is that this doesn't create a need for a separate article. Deal with it in the anarchism article, the anarcho-capitalism article, and in criticism of anarcho-capitalism, to the extent that its importance warrants. Note that while Nazism and communism are much compared, there is no Nazism and communism article. Again, while there are ongoing disputes about whether sex-positive feminism is real feminism (feminists opposed to pornography have often argued that it isn't), there's no derivative article on Sex positive feminism and feminism, and nor should there be. UserVOBO (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody argues that Naziism and communism are the same thing, or that one is a kind of the other. Tb (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, actually. See the revision history of National Socialism, for instance. In any event, so what? Your comment doesn't in any way address my arguments. UserVOBO (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The similarities and differences between two distinct ideologies would not be an encyclopedic subject no matter what the ideologies in question were. How about an article on Communism and conservatism, discussing the various ways in which communism and conservatism are similar to, and different from, each other? That would make about as much sense as this article. There is absolutely nothing special about anarchism and anarcho-capitalism that gives them the right to special treatment - I'm sure that what conservatives think of communism, and vice versa, is also pretty important, but it doesn't deserve an article to itself. UserVOBO (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what is "special" about anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is the fact that an NPOV approach does not allow us to simply treat them as either "distinct ideologies" or shades of the same one. This entry is essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing. The rationales for deletion seem dependent on non-NPOV assumptions, which, for me at least, substantially undercuts the other appeals to "standard approaches." Libertatia (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is "essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing" that in itself makes it completely unacceptable and a violation of NPOV. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to take sides in disputes between rival ideologies - "explaining" the issue by not setting aside the question of whether anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are variants of the same ideology or not does exactly that. UserVOBO (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Couldn't follow the grammar or the logic in that response. But the procedural issue is this: the citable sources allow no clear factual distinction between anarcho-capitalism and (other forms of) anarchism. There are, however, plenty of sources willing to weigh in, in a presumably scholarly manner, on the distinction or lack thereof. NPOV is no guide here: either a choice is made about anarcho-capitalism's relation to anarchism, based on sources that don't allow a NPOV choice, or an attempt is made to address the issue (which at this point is a procedural/definitional issue arising from Wikipedia's own somewhat flawed policies) and it is left alone elsewhere. The present arrangement developed out of endless edit wars and attempts to apply Wikipedia policy. Faced with positions "that not everyone would accept," Wikipedia is short on elegant solutions. This one is inelegant, but useful, since it addresses the debate. And there is nothing inherently "non-encyclopedic" about addressing a significant debate. Libertatia (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then permit me to explain myself. "A long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing" is unacceptable because NPOV applies everywhere and equally on Wikipedia. All articles have to present the issue as reliable sources present it - if they disagree, then we say that they disagree, which in principle ought to be perfectly simple. If there are editors who find NPOV difficult to follow, that is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the principle at stake, or make "a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries" (in plainer language, an essay) appropriate. Your comment above seems to amount to a contorted attempt to say that NPOV should be disregarded. To say that "NPOV is no guide" is to abandon NPOV, and that won't do, will it? UserVOBO (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood Libertatia. He did not say to abandon NPOV, he said that NPOV doesn't help the particular question. Of course we should hold to it. What he is saying is that there are plenty of sources for the dispute, on one side or another, and the sources need to be presented. Either we pick a side (which we can't do), or we address the issue. If we address the issue, we either do so once or many times. If we do so once, we need an article to do it in. It is an independent topic, which scholars can and do address in itself, and which is quite adequately sourced, and not as WP:SYN, as I argue below. Tb (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a somewhat awkward and muddled argument. If there is a disagreement among reliable sources about whether anarcho-capitalism is a kind of anarchism that can be mentioned separately in the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles. It certainly should be mentioned there, if the articles are to be written properly, not shifted into a separate article. The mere fact that whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism or not can be formulated as a distinct issue doesn't mean that an article devoted to this question should be established. UserVOBO (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is proposing not to discuss it in Anarchism, but rather, to follow the usual practice of having a brief discussion at Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism, with a "see also" pointing to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Your proposal is instead to have the fuller discussion in both Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism, which is an outright content fork. Tb (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what you're saying is completely irrelevant. This is an essay about the differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. It's not, except incidentally and secondarily, a discussion about the disputes between self-identified anarchists over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism (which probably wouldn't be a notable subject anyway). I've tried to explain carefully that Libertatia's arguments for keeping this appeal to precisely the reasoning that WP:POVFORK rejects, but both you and he have dodged this issue. UserVOBO (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not WP:SYN, the references include many things which do in fact address specifically the topic of the relation between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Note that my own opinion is that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, though the nominator says that the article presumes the POV that it is. If anything, the problem is only in the lead where it says "other types of anarchism", but this is a small problem with the article. There is nothing POV about having the article, even if some phrasing in it could be better improved to be NPOV. Moreover, this is the second deletion nomination. Can we have an explanation for why the previous consensus should not be respected? What has changed in the past few years to make the article worse than it was then? The proposal of DustFormsWords that the relevant material should be in multiple other articles is exactly the reason the article is necessary: to have in one common place exactly the material which would otherwise be necessarily forked. Tb (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That there is a dispute over whether anarcho-capitalism is a kind of anarchism or not does not create a need for a separate article such as this, which isn't even about the dispute per se, but about someone's opinions as to the similiarites and differences between the two ideologies. Regarding forks, let me quote WP:POVFORK: 'In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.' Libertatia's arguments for keeping this article unfortunately resemble advocating exactly what WP:POVFORK says we shouldn't do. Finally, there was no consensus four years ago. The article was kept only by default. UserVOBO (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone's opinions"? It's an extremely well sourced article. If this is a POV fork, can you say where exactly it was forked from? Where is the other version of this article to be found? Tb (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be considered a fork of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism. It is inappropriate for that reason alone. The relevant point is that the reason Libertatia has given for retaining the article conflicts with WP:POVFORK, which explicitly rejects exactly the kind of reasoning he is using. UserVOBO (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A POV fork is specifically when content is taken from one place, and duplicated in some other place, so that it can then express a contrasting point of view. If there is no fork (as here) then you are simply another specious deletion request because you don't like an article, and for no other apparent reason. Tb (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. WP:POVFORK does not say anything of that kind. UserVOBO (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. As with the previous nomination of this article [22], I doubt the good faith character of this nomination. The same nominator recently nominated Progressivism ([23]) for similarly specious reasons.

Note. That's a personal attack, and you should withdraw it immediately. UserVOBO (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reasons are specious. I have not attacked you; I have attacked the reasons you proposed as specious, and as part of a nascent pattern of deletions for specious reasons. Tb (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If good faith is at issue here, it's enough to say that had I come across this article I would have nominated it myself, and my editing history shows that I have no connection to any subject connected to it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another article I nominated for deletion is a different issue, and there is no reason to discuss it here. If you're confident of the reasons for keeping this article, you don't need to criticise anything I have done in regards to unconnected issues. UserVOBO (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. It is part of a (nascent) pattern of nominating articles you Don't Like for specious reasons. Your past action casts doubt on your current action. (Note the specious "fork" bogosity above; it's not a fork if it wasn't forked from something.) So, since it manifestly isn't a fork, and doesn't express any particular POV (except perhaps for occasional phrases, which should be addressed there), what are your real reasons? Tb (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really deserve a response, except that you're misunderstanding the point of content guidelines, which need to be read in accord with common sense, not legalistically. The intention of WP:POVFORK is partly to prevent just the kind of editing that Libertaria has advocated. UserVOBO (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tb, please assume good faith, have a quick read of WP:ADHOM to see why attacking VOBO's motives isn't helping your case, and then have a careful read of WP:CFORK. "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." This is quite clearly a content fork in that the information covered by the article is, or should be, dealt with in the existing articles anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, and that is where any independent reader would expect to find this information. For treatment of a similar issue in a different context, refer to Creationism-evolution controversy, which you will note does not attempt to explain the differences and similarities between these philosophies but rather documents the verifiable history of the disagreement itself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tb, please stay on topic. I don't know if you're right, but it looks weak. Dust, I'm intrigued you gave two article suggestions when CFORK says "the same subject." Maybe it isn't clear what article this is a fork of. I'd say it describes the interaction of two subsets of anarchism, social anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, which might be described within Anarchism but would be difficult to do so in a reasonable space. Fletcher (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The extent to which anarcho-capitalism incorporated anarchist theory belongs in the anarcho-capitalism article. Also, I see no reliable sources for a comparison of the two ideologies in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell it is very POV since it takes a stand directly in the first sentence, "This article discusses similarities and differences between anarcho-capitalism and other types of anarchism.", i.e. it says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism while in reality it only shares the name. However, the topic as such has been the subject of many heated debates so the article may have some merit. // Liftarn (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent reason for improving the article, not for deleting it. Tb (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands now is a meandering, semi-coherent essay about the differences between anarcho-capitalism and other kinds of anarchism (or between anarcho-capitalism and anarchism, if you prefer to see it that way). It could be improved I suppose, but that would simply turn it into a less incoherent but equally unencyclopedic essay. To make it encyclopedic, it would need to be totally rewritten and renamed something like Allegations that anarcho-capitalism is not a genuine form of anarchism. I see no evidence that that would be a notable subject. UserVOBO (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per summary style. The vociferous dispute between anarcho-capitalists and -socialists is complex and would be hard to cover in a larger article. That said, this article should be trimmed of exposition that's covered elsewhere, and any synthesis should be removed. Fletcher (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article about "the vociferous dispute between anarcho-capitalists and -socialists" - it is an essay about what the differences between the two ideologies are in the abstract, quite a different matter. If an article about the disputes were thought worthwhile (and it would be if it were really a notable topic, which I doubt), then one should be started from scratch. The fact that this article might conceivably be worthwhile if it had a different title and was about something else is hardly a reason for keeping it. UserVOBO (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute between ideologues and a difference between ideologies strikes me as a largely semantic distinction, since ideologies don't exist purely in the abstract but are argued by the people who believe in them. And indeed the article describes both. The question is whether the topic, however phrased, is a notable one. It really concerns the definition of anarchism from various perspectives. Ideally that could be addressed within the anarchism article, were it not so hotly disputed. Fletcher (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the differences between two ideologies considered as ideologies and describing the disputes between their proponents are in principle completely different things. Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism states that it does the former, and indeed, that's what most of the article does, with a relatively small amount of information about the disputes. The relevant content guideline (WP:POVFORK) suggests strongly that separate articles such as this are not the way to deal with disputes at other articles, thus, a better way should be found to manage disputes at Anarchism. UserVOBO (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tb and Libertatia. This is a topic and an area of research of some academic (and non-academic) interest and as such is notable. Whether the current article is POV or not is irrelevant to whether it should be deleted; POV is simply NOT a criteria for deletion (per guideline), but rather a reason to improve the article.radek (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertatia's reasons for keeping (Tb was simply echoing them) in my view amount to a proposed violation of WP:POVFORK. Rather than merely agreeing with them, it would be more helpful to say why you think they're right, or why the POV fork guideline is not being violated. The article, let's remember, is an abstract discussion of how anarchism and anarcho-capitalism differ, not a discussion of the debates over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism or not - and there is no evidence I'm aware of that the latter is a notable subject. UserVOBO (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood what Libertatia and I have said. Consider a common practice, where an article for say Italy has a brief section on history, and a pointer to History of Italy. This is not a content fork, it is instead good practice. It would be out-of-shape for Anarchism to have the full contents of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism in it, but adopting something like the usual practice of History of ... articles makes sense. This is why I ask how it is a fork? Where is the other content? Fork implies some kind of duplication of content, and there is no forking here. Your second point is here brought up for the first time, that you don't think the topic is notable. Notice that An Anarchist FAQ was originally written preciesly to address this question. Chomsky as well has written about it multiple times, as have the authors who have taken a contrary point of view. Tb (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be helpful to add the full contents of this article to Anarchism, but it remains to be shown that they belong anywhere on Wikipedia. As an essay, it is my argument that they do not. WP:POVFORK indicates clearly that creating a new article because of POV disputes at other articles is a bad idea - yet that's the only justification Libertatia has given for Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism being a separate article. If you want to argue about the guideline, then quote it directly, it's not helpful or relevant to say what the term "fork" implies in your view. If you want to show that debates over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism or not are notable then it would be best to present such evidence directly, but remember that discussing such arguments is not what Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism does, so even if such debates are notable that wouldn't be a reason for keeping the article. UserVOBO (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, and you don't seem to want to deal with, Libertatia has not said that it's a POV fork, nobody has said that it would be a POV problem or that Anarchism can't have the content for a POV reason. A WP:POVFORK is when a new article is created so that two articles can each be written from contrasting points of view. That is not the case here; instead, the point is that the topic is long and complex, and needs treatment somewhere, and it's too long to have it in Anarchism except in summary form. Tb (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction, or lack thereof, between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is a scholarly problem which cannot be definitively resolved by the application of Wikipedia policies. Addressing this issue, which lurks in the background of a large number of articles is not a POV fork, any more than any of a large number of other articles elaborating on points in top-level articles are, nor is it in itself NPOV (as was initially claimed, but now appears to have been retracted.) There doesn't seem to be a solid argument for deletion here at all. Libertatia (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, no one (except perhaps you, though I'm not entirely sure since your comments are not very clear) is arguing that Wikipedia needs to resolve the distinction between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism - so that should be irrelevant. The normal, neutral way to deal with such disputes is to describe them at the relevant articles, presenting all major views in reliable sources fairly. I'm not seeing any solid argument for keeping this essay here at all (eg, no argument that it's not an essay, and no argument against my claim that you've appealed to precisely the reasoning rejected by WP:POVFORK). UserVOBO (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, just to be clear, you propose to have the discussion at the relevant articles, which is to say, in at least two, possible three or four different places. That is, in fact, an actual fork, instead of the imaginary fork you keep talking about here. Tb (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we remind ourselves what WP:POVFORK actually states? "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." Note the articles part. Discussing something within an article is appropriate to the extent that it is relevant to the article - it isn't creating a separate article, which is what Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is. According to Libertatia, "an NPOV approach does not allow us to simply treat them [eg, anarchism and anarcho-capitalism] as either "distinct ideologies" or shades of the same one. This entry is essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing". Compare that to WP:POVFORK: "In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion."

In other words, do not do exactly what Libertatia has said this article is here to do. There has been much obfuscation and dodging of the issue in reply, but no relevant response. UserVOBO (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not here to be one of "multiple separate articles all treating the same subject", but rather, as with, say History of Italy, to be the only article discussing the subject, with brief treatments elsewhere that should point here. You have been asked to identify what these other articles are, and all you have done is say where the discussion might be, but actually isn't. Instead, you are actually proposing moving this discussion to the multiple articles you think relevant, which is, in fact, a duplication, a fork, and inherently likely to produce POV problems as each of those articles begins to discuss the same question in different ways. WP:POVFORK asks that each subject be discussed once (or with brief treatments that point to the main treatment) and that is exactly what this article is here for; you, by contrast, are ironically arguing that we should split the treatment, and repeat it multiple times in multiple articles. Tb (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is supposed to be a discussion of the similarities and differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. As such, it is an essay (see WP:NOT#ESSAY), and not proper content for Wikipedia. You, Libertatia, and the other keep voters have ignored this and offered no reason why this essay (or "long explanatory footnote", as Libertatia calls it) should be considered acceptable. It seems obviously unacceptable regardless of how one reads WP:POVFORK, and in any case your reading of the guideline is mistaken. Its clear intention is to prevent the creation of new articles to resolve POV disputes at other articles, something Libertatia seems to consider acceptable practice. He wrote above that it is here to avoid the need to "set aside" the question of whether anarcho-capitalism is a kind of anarchism or not (something NPOV would require doing everywhere, if reliable sources disagree).

In effect, Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is simply an essay about anarcho-capitalism, discussing it from the point of view that the key question in regards to it is whether it is a genuine kind of anarchism or not - it is being discussed in a different way from how it is discussed at Anarcho-capitalism, but that doesn't turn it into it a genuinely different subject, and it misses the point of the guideline to think it does (a discussion of the disputes between different self-identified anarchists over the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism would be genuinely distinct, but that's not what this article is about). UserVOBO (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this "Libertaria" guy, and where does he say that "to prevent the creation of new articles" is "acceptable practice"? This seems to have degenerated to trolling and silly misrepresentations, which leaves me less and less certain there is any good-faith objection here. So -- one last time -- for my part, I don't see a fork, and you have retracted your POV concern. Like most Wikipedia articles, this one could use work, but I don't see a case for deletion. Libertatia (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for getting your username wrong. I've corrected it. Returning to the actual subject of this AfD, I didn't say that you did think that "to prevent the creation of new articles" is "acceptable practice". I said that you appear to think that the creation of new articles to solve POV disputes is acceptable practice. If that wasn't what you meant when you wrote, "This entry is essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing", then just what did you mean? It certainly looked as though you were supporting exactly what WP:POVFORK rules out. And if the article is, as you asserted, a "footnote to other entries", then how is it not a fork? UserVOBO (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words, in defense of the implication of bad faith and/or wiki-misconduct. You've been hammering away at a phrase that you pretty clearly don't understand. You might concentrate on figuring out what's being said before you start spinning stories about what "seems" to be the case with other editors -- particularly when you have no evidence I have any interest in preventing the creation of new articles. By your rationale, it seems that every sub-article addressing specific topics would be subject to criticism as a "fork." That's obviously silly. The article is "a long explanatory footnote" to various anarchism articles, in the same way as Mutualism (economic theory) or Panarchism. We don't debate whether or not "property is theft" or whether a "free market in governmental systems" is actually feasible or anarchistic in every anarchism article -- and we don't do it because we don't need to, since there is a separate article. If we had multiple articles on anarchism -- say, one which emphasized the market anarchist tradition, and drew lines from Bastiat, Molinari and De Puydt to Rothbard and the Mises.org crowd, and one that left all that stuff out to focus on anarcho-communism from Dejacque on, and maybe another that presented only mutualist figures (since Proudhon was the first self-proclaimed "anarchist") -- then we would have "essays" and POV forks. And it wouldn't matter one way or another if the surrounding debates were addressed in articles like the one in question, but, arguably, NPOV would probably be better served if they were. Assuming some level of good faith all around, it looks like the differences are over how NPOV is best served and what is considered "encyclopedic." Libertatia (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have wrongly accused me of suggesting that you want to prevent the creation of new articles, and it's the second time that I'll tell you that I never suggested that. The problem, with respect, is that, to judge from your comments ("This entry is essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing"), you regard the creation of new articles as a way of resolving POV disputes at other articles. WP:POVFORK is clear that that isn't the correct way of dealing with such issues; it rejects pretty much exactly what you have suggested is acceptable. By saying that this article is an "explanatory footnote" to other anarchism articles in the same way that Mutualism (economic theory) or Panarchism are, you seem to be shifting your ground, implying that Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism does deal with a distinct subject. If an article is an "explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing" then by definition it is not dealing with a different subject, it's simply approaching the same subject (anarcho-capitalism) in a distinct way - eg, by adding a discussion of whether it is a genuine form of anarchism or not. You're right that "We don't debate whether or not 'property is theft' or whether a 'free market in governmental systems' is actually feasible or anarchistic in every anarchism article" - because debating such issues is not what Wikipedia is for. In principle, no articles should do anything like that - "debating" things in Wikipedia articles is not in accord with WP:NPOV, and it's not encyclopedic content anyway. We describe debates in articles, not engage in them. It does not become acceptable to have a "debate" on an issue in an article just because the issue is not discussed elsewhere. UserVOBO (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be another quibble, this time on the term "debate," along with some annoyingly personal remarks. Saying that I have "shifted ground" doesn't make it so. I'll take your word that you intended the opposite of what your sentence seemed to say. I'll also abandon the word "debate," since you apparently find it distracting; use "explore," if you find it more "encyclopedic." In any event, I've said my bit on the topic of deletion. Libertatia (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to call something a debate, one would presume that's because you think it is a debate (and debating things just isn't what Wikipedia articles are for, as I hope you agree). I'll repeat that if something is "essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries", then by definition it isn't about a distinct subject, in the way that, for example, Mutualism (economic theory) is. And there isn't any sense in implying that I asserted that you want to prevent the creation of articles, because for the third time, I never said or implied that: it is rather the creation of misconceived articles, eg Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, that appears to be the problem. UserVOBO (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is all your rather forced and unfriendly interpretation of what I mean when I say "footnote" or "debate" in the course of a debate between us. You have retracted your POV objections, but seem intent on portraying me as "shifting ground." You can't keep my username straight, but insist that everything I has written must be my precise thought, precisely as you understand it. My apologies, again, for misunderstanding your point about the creation of articles. I misread your slightly tangled prose. My bad. Get over it. But you have yet to show that we are dealing with a POV fork. You may think I am really, really wrong-headed in not interpreting the WP:FORK policy in the way you do. That's fine. But it doesn't change anything. The topic looks sufficiently distinct and encyclopedic to me. Nuff said. Libertatia (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you're talking about my getting your username wrong? Is that all you can think about? Is it even relevant, in any way, to the issues being discussed here? I've already apologised for that mistake - if I got it wrong, it's probably because I'm more interested in the substantive issues than in editors' individual personalities. If you want to try to show that an abstract discussion of the differences between two ideologies (which is totally different from a discussion of the debates between their adherents) is an appropriate subject for an article and not an essay then do so - but simply asserting such a position is not helpful. UserVOBO (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth observing here that Tb and Libertatia have given what seem to be inconsistent reasons for keeping the article. According to Libertatia's comments above, it's "essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries" - if that is the case, then it is not about a genuinely separate subject, it's simply a set of comments about the same subject as other articles. Yet according to Tb, it's distinct from other articles, in the same way History of Italy is from Italy, which would make it genuinely separate. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. UserVOBO (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not having it both ways. Produce the article that addresses Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism from a different POV and we can talk about forks. But a "footnote" is not a fork, and this article is a sub-article every bit as distinct from the various anarchism articles as Tb's Italian examples. Nothing very complicated here. Libertatia (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not acceptable even if it doesn't promote a single POV. A discussion of the disputes between self-identified anarchists over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism or not would be acceptable if it were a notable subject; an abstract discussion of the issue of whether anarcho-capitalism a genuine form of anarchism or not, or what the differences are between it and anarchism, is not acceptable in any event, because it's an essay. UserVOBO (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, others don't see it that way. Libertatia (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may not, but they also aren't attempting to explain why it isn't an essay. How much are unsupported opinions supposed to count for in a discussion? UserVOBO (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the issue of whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism and how it differs from anarchism should be part of the anarcho-capitalism article. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as it in fact is, spun out separately, because Anarcho-capitalism is already quite long. It would be a problem if this article addressed the subject from a different POV. I've checked pretty carefully, and I didn't find such cases. Anarcho-capitalism discusses the question in summary form, and points to this for a fuller treatment, just as WP:CFORK suggests is good practice. Tb (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Libertatia, "This entry is essentially a long explanatory footnote to the various other entries where the question has been set aside in the interest of peaceful editing." Note that he didn't give the length of any article as a reason for this one. That's entirely your argument. His argument was that we need to resolve POV disputes elsewhere, and the intention of WP:POVFORK is to prevent precisely that. It misses the point of the guideline to complain that a single POV is not being promoted here - the fact that the issue is being discussed in the manner of an essay makes it utterly unencyclopedic. Finally, as often pointed out, there is no evidence that disputes over anarcho-capitalism being a genuine form of anarchism is a notable subject - so even leaving other objections aside, the article would still be subject to deletion for dealing with a non-notable issue. UserVOBO (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why this is not a POV fork. The above conversations have gotten so distracted by other issues, I thought I'd address specifically the claim that this article is a not content fork, with reference to WP:CFORK. A content fork is when there are "multiple separate articles all treating the same subject". In this case, we have an article, Anarchism, which is a subject. It has many sub-subjects, corresponding to different schools of anarchism. The main article makes brief reference to some, and includes a side-bar to many other articles all part of the general topic of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a political school which some believe to be anarchist, and some believe not to be anarchist. It is listed under "schools of thought" in the sidebar. It is highly controversial among anarchists whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine school of anarchism or not: this is a POV concern, and it is not Wikipedia's job to determine whether it is or is not. However, the question is complex, with many writers having opinions on the subject and writing about it, and it deserves encyclopedic treatment. To include the full treatment in Anarchism would stretch that article beyond bounds; even more clearly would it be in Anarcho-capitalism. Indeed, including that full discussion in Anarcho-capitalism would be tantamount to implying that the most important thing about anarcho-capitalism is the question of its relation to anarchism in general, which would be a misrepresentation. Instead, this is a "spin-out", an attempt to allow Anarcho-capitalism and Anarchism to point to this article. (Not enough work has been done in those articles to include proper summaries and pointers to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, but that's a content problem with those articles, not a problem with this one.) Centrally, to be a content fork, there must be at least some actual forking; there must be some way in which the same topic is being addressed multiple times. At most, we have that some pages discuss this topic very briefly, in summary fashion, with a much longer discussion at Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. This is, in fact, a big topic area. Anarchism points to Anarchism and capitalism in summary fashion, which in turn, in summary fashion, points to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I can see no case where a topic is being discussed with one point of view in one article, and then in with a different point of view in Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, and repeated requests for examples have been ignored. I think it's not useful to have deletion discussion be constant back-and-forth; I assume that the nominator is going to reply to this, and insist that once more, nobody has answered his arguments. I would suggest that while he may not like the answers, he has received them, and it isn't helpful for him to continue to pretend that nobody has addressed anything he has said. It is not necessary for him to be convinced for the page to stay. Tb (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of anarcho-capitalism being a genuine form of anarchism or not is in no sense encyclopedic if it's dealt with as an essay or abstract discussion, which this article, ridiculously, does ("This article discusses similarities and differences between anarcho-capitalism and other types of anarchism."). If it were about the actual debates between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists it might be acceptable - providing that such debates are in fact a notable subject, with significant coverage from outside parties, something I see no evidence of whatever. It would be surprising if real evidence of notablity existed, partly because there does not appear to be any "debate" as such between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists - simply members of rival fringe movements talking past each other. To the extent that that needs to be discussed, it can certainly be discussed at Anarcho-capitalism; it's foolish to suggest that it's some profound issue that would require a separate article, nor would :including that full discussion in Anarcho-capitalism" be "tantamount to implying that the most important thing about anarcho-capitalism is the question of its relation to anarchism in general".

The technical issue of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism being a fork or not is a secondary point - that this article is an essay is quite enough reason for deletion. What the guideline states actually is, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." You somehow missed the usually part. The article could count as a content fork even if it doesn't meat the precise description you gave. The subject of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is essentially Anarcho-capitalism again, only here it's discussed in an inappropriate, essay-like way, the existence of a separate article being used as a lame excuse for that kind of writing. UserVOBO (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually unintentional. It is always a fork. A fork has more than one branch. Tb (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was created as part of a larger "Anarchism and ___" series. Each is intended to elaborate on an element of anarchist philosophy and history, and includes Anarchism and nationalism, Anarchism and violence, and Anarchism and the arts, among others. Each is intended to provide an objective presentation of an ongoing discourse within anarchist philosophy which has generated a large amount of third party sources Wikipedia could potentially draw upon and present to researchers. However, each topic would be of such breadth and depth that they cannot be contained within small sub-sections on the Anarchism article itself. To delete this article would leave no space on Wikipedia for the subject of Anarchism and its relationship to Anarcho-capitalism. Similarly, deleting the article on the Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner would leave no viable platform to discuss the topic. If the nominating editor is so concerned with the way this article presents Anarchism and it's relationship to Anarcho-capitalism, I would recommend an attempt at bold rewriting, rather than nominations to AFD. --Cast (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What this article states is, "This article discusses similarities and differences between anarcho-capitalism and other types of anarchism." I have no idea what the intention of the creator and past editors of the article may be, but it does not do what you claim it is meant to do ("provide an objective presentation of an ongoing discourse within anarchist philosophy"). Instead it offers an abstract discussion of differences and similarities between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, with a small amount of information about disagreements between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists in the "Dispute over legitimacy" section. So, it's an essay - and the very small amount of information it contains about disputes between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists hardly suggests either that there is an "ongoing discourse" on this subject, or that it is notable if there is. UserVOBO (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then we can agree that this article could benefit from a strong rewrite. Glad that's settled. I mean, it doesn't look like you've got any real concerns with this article that couldn't be improved with better writing, focused research, verifiable sources, and proper citations. If the article isn't properly serving its purposes, make it. Don't just accept that it isn't going to be a good article. You have the space. Now put it to good use. --Cast (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider what is actually in the article.

Although anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are both supposed to be political philosophies, the article starts off, strangely enough, with a discussion of economics (the "Economics and individualist anarchism" section). The economics discussion is largely about Murray Rothbard, and is very poorly written and confusing, providing barely enough context to help readers understand how his views differ from those of Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. The fundamental problem with it is not the way it is written, however, awful as that is, but what it attempts to provide - an abstract, essay-like discussion of how Rothbard's ideology differs from earlier individualist anarchism. Comparing different ideological views isn't what Wikipedia articles should be trying to do - they should simply describe them, so that readers, if they are interested, can form their own views about how they differ. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia offering a simple description of Rothbard's views somewhere (including what he thought about Spooner and Tucker, if that is significant enough to mention), but there is absolutely nothing right about it offering an abstract comparison of him with them. Since Rothbard's views can be more appropriately described in the article on him and in Anarcho-capitalism, the solution would be not to rewrite the section, but simply to blank it.

The next section is on "Capitalist structures", which again seems rather odd for an article that compares two different political philosophies. The point of the "Hierarchy, class and employment" subsection seems to be to describe anarchist objections to capitalism, but then it weirdly veers off that topic into an explanation of the fact that such views differ from those of self-defined anarcho-capitalists, next weirdly veering back to leftist anarchists again, thereby giving them the last word. I can't see how any of that is appropriate content. It's just fine to describe what leftist anarchists think, and it's also fine to describe what anarcho-capitalists think, but it's inappropriate to have a long discussion pointing out that these two groups of people think different things (as well as senseless, and something of an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedia's readers). So the problem, again, is less how the material is written than its actual content. The next subsection, "Property", is even longer, sillier, and more poorly written. It provides an extremely contorted description of how various anarchist philosophies differ from those of anarcho-capitalists, an inappropriate and misguided thing for Wikipedia to even attempt. I dare say that "Property" could be rewritten to make it more coherent, but that would not make its content itself (a comparison of differing ideologies) appropriate. It's the same basic problem with the "Markets" section, where there is a long, laboured explanation of how anarcho-capitalism differs from the views of anarchists, and only incidentally some few fragments of information about a debate that might be occuring between these ideologies. UserVOBO (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To continue: the next section is on "Rights." It is also poorly written, and it too does something basically unnecessary and inappropriate for an encyclopedia - comparing two ideologies and explaining how they differ from each other. There are problems there with POV (eg, the implication in the "Defense" subsection that Rothbard wasn't a "real" anarchist, which contradicts the apparent assumption in the lead sentence that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism) and bad writing, but while they could be corrected, doing so would simply make the section a better written essay comparing anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, and thus equally inappropriate in principle. UserVOBO (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The next section is "Profit and theory of value". It seems rather poorly organized, though it's by no means as bad as some of the other sections of the article in that respect. Again, it is almost entirely an abstract discussion of how anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are different, with only a very brief mention of actual debates between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists (in one vague, unsourced sentence: "This has been a major point of contention between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists, most of whom see this as a form of hierarchy, exploitation and privatized statism".) I grant that the debates themselves may possibly be a legitimate subject, but only if there is evidence that they are notable per the guideline, evidence that I don't see in that section. UserVOBO (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the "Other forms" section, which has a confusingly vague title: other forms of what, exactly? It is very poorly written and cluttered, providing, in its first paragraph, a series of descriptions of what various individuals think about anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, arranged in no useful order. There is some more information about Spooner and Tucker, though it seems misplaced in that section, since they are first discussed at the start of the article; the information about them (assuming it serves a useful purpose at all) should be arranged in one place rather than scattered through different sections. Yet correcting such details wouldn't make the section or the article as a whole acceptable. Notice how, in one paragraph (the one that starts, "Benjamin Tucker supported private ownership of the product of labor"), we veer from a description of Tucker's views into criticism of Murray Rothbard ("However, individualists argue that capitalism cannot be maintained in the absence of the state.") and a quote from Kevin Carson, and then back again into a description of Tucker. It's dreadfully written, but that is hardly the main problem - it hopelessly blurs the line between an appropriate description of someone's views and a totally inappropriate, essay-like analysis of them and of some differing, contemporary views (those of Rothbard and his followers). Following that paragraph, we get more descriptions of the views of various anarchists and anarcho-capitalists (Wendy McElroy, mentioned in the first paragraph of this section, is discussed again), a long quote farm, a mention of the fact that some individualist anarchists do not regard anarcho-capitalism as anarchism (which does nothing to suggest that there is an actual, ongoing debate between these groups), more material about Rothbard's views of Tucker and Spooner that suffers from the same problems as the material in the "Economics and individualist anarchism" section, and to round things out, a brief description of some differences of opinion among anarcho-capitalists, which is not uninteresting but would better belong in Anarcho-capitalism. UserVOBO (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next is a subsection that for no obvious reason is called "Social anarchism", and consists of Brad Spangler's view of Rothbard. It is quite interesting, but is the sort of material that would belong in the Anarcho-capitalism and Anarcho-capitalism article, and doesn't require housing in a separate article such as this one. UserVOBO (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's "Related philosophies", another section with a uselessly vague name. It is largely about Benjamin Tucker's criticism of Auberon Herbert, and there is nothing about it which suggests that it wouldn't be better in the Tucker and/or Herbert articles. UserVOBO (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally we reach the "Dispute over legitimacy" section, which has a very strange and eyebrow-raising title: dispute over the legitimacy of what, precisely? Supposedly, the article as a whole is about the similarities and differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, which leaves the reader with no idea whether the "dispute over legitimacy" section will be about a dispute over the legitimacy of anarchism or of anarcho-capitalism. It turns out to be about the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism, something that reinforces my suspicion that this article is not a proper description of anarcho-capitalism or anything else but rather a critical discussion of anarcho-capitalism, which certainly has no place in an encyclopedia. The section is poorly written, like the rest of the article, but again, that's not the fundamental problem with it. There is some reference here to what anarchists and anarcho-capitalists think of each other, but mainly we are offered an abstract discussion of the merits of their respective views, giving some (unsourced, as it happens) information that is supposed to reflect positively or negatively on them (eg, "However, virtually all dictionary definitions define "anarchism" as opposition to the state. Significantly, few anarchists who called themselves "socialist" defined "anarchism" as purely opposition to the state.")

Even if this stuff was properly sourced, it wouldn't be appropriate, since it isn't the purpose of a proper article to list facts that count for or against particular views, simply to describe them. The listing of facts that are meant to count against anarcho-capitalism and for other kinds of anarchism is on the whole not done in a blatantly POV way, but it is still far from acceptable. The final sentence ("However, most anarchists would agree with scholar Jeremy Jennings statement that it is "hard not to conclude that these ideas [anarcho-capitalism] – with roots deep in classical liberalism – are described as anarchist only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is.") certainly suggests a very strong anti-anarcho-capitalist POV, and one that contradicts the first sentence, which apparently implies that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. So the article, in the last resort, looks like a rather muddled critical discussion of/attack on anarcho-capitalism. There is some interesting content here that might be suitable somewhere on Wikipedia, but there's only a very small amount of it, and I hardly think that this article is needed to store it. There's a very, very small amount of material here that may be worth saving by transferral to other articles, and a whole lot of confused, pointless stuff that it would improve Wikipedia to totally wipe. UserVOBO (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely long criticism of content, not the existence of the article per-se. You seem to be using a deletion review as a substitute for a content discussion on the page. We get it; you don't like the article. Can you stop repeating yourself now? You haven't said anything new, except to continually protest that what you say hasn't been addressed. Well, it has, and now your down to criticisms that something "is poorly written", has misleading section titles, and so forth. We get it, you're against it. Bully for you, but you haven't convinced the other participants here, and we don't have the obligation to convince you. It seems clear there is no consensus in favor of deletion. So far, I'm impressed with your ability to even strike out the POV nonsense you started with at the beginning, and yet continue to raise it here. It's not worth it any longer to continue to address your points one at a time, especially now that you've just written over fifteen hundred words of content criticism. It's appalling that you should be this much of a time-sink on a repeated deletion review. I wonder what your next disruption will be. Tb (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content vs. article is a false distinction. What on earth do you think the article consists of, except for its content? Nearly all of it is an abstract essay (and a poorly written one, not that it would be acceptable if it were not poorly written). What little acceptable material there is (and sure, some of it is quite interesting) deals with criticisms of anarcho-capitalists by anarchists and vice versa; I see no evidence either that such criticisms are an independently notable subject, or that they require a separate article and could not be more usefully included in other articles. The POV issue is somewhat confused by the fact that the article starts out by implying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and then at the end reverses itself and implies that anarcho-capitalism is not a genuine form of anarchism. Reconsidering the issue, it does seem to me that a POV is being advanced here, and it is a POV hostile to anarcho-capitalism. The article is a discussion of anarcho-capitalism from a critical standpoint, and thus amounts to a POV fork. AfDs are not majority votes. There have been several delete votes and I think slightly more keep votes, but the final result may depend on which side makes the strongest policy-based case. That you end your comment with a personal attack on me does not help you make your case. UserVOBO (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content vs. article can be a fair argument to make, if the article title refers to a legitimate subject, while the content is unrelated to it. For example, what if Barack Obama's biography article was completely unsourced, and referred to him as a Kenyan illegal immigrant? That would not be an argument for deletion, but rather a rewrite. This is my argument for keeping the article. It is not serving a proper purpose, but may with a rewrite. Looking at the article history, it would seem that the vast majority of the edits were performed in 2006 and 2007. This is also when the majority of discussion takes place on its talk page. Relatively speaking, it has sat moribound since then. Anarchist related articles during that period were berift with POV infighting among editors, and I would say this article's haphazard shape is a result of that. With the passage of several years, and the founding of the Anarchist Task Force, which seeks to promote a culture of inclusion and pluralism among anarchist editors and within anarchism articles, now would be the right time to restructure this article. Take note that during the period of the mid 'ougties, the Anarchism article was among Wikipedia's most heavily contested. Thanks to a push by the ATF, it is now a GA article. I think that if the ATF could pull that off, it could handle an overhaul of this article as well.--Cast (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with you that a good deal of this article is out of place and should best be deleted as unencyclopedic. It doesn't seem to be written in the proper tone this article should serve. It should not be an originally researched exposition on the differences between various schools of anarchist thought, and anarcho-capitalism. It should delve into the history of these philosophies in relationship to each other, commentary made by various philosophers on this history and on the general philosophy of each, and on notable comparisons made in political, social, and economic history and philosophy. If it were to do this, this would be an excellent article for Wikipedia and possibly of high value to various WikiProjects, such as WP:Philosophy and WP:Socialism, not to mention the Anarchist Task Force. Now, exactly what the size of the article would be cannot be known at this junction. Such things can be difficult to estimate in fringe philosophy studies. I think it would be best to delete large swaths of this article, rewriting it closely along cited guidelines, and once those citations are exhausted, determining if a various merges or a single merge would be useful with a merge proposal. --Cast (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused now as to your position. You seemed to favor keeping the article, but now you suggest that it might be appropriate to eventually merge it with something else. In which case, there wouldn't be a separate article; that would have much the same effect as deletion. Having reviewed the article, I think the legitimate content here might amount to a paragraph at most. There certainly isn't so much material that one could convincingly argue that it would bloat other articles out of shape to include it in them. So why keep the article, especially in the absence of sources suggesting that debate over whether anarcho-capitalism is a genuine form of anarchism or not is a notable topic? UserVOBO (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, the final sentence of my comment looks like I only favor a merge. I meant to state that a merge could be discussed and possibly decided upon, though an alternate choice might just be to keep the article all together. You may be right that little more than a paragraph of verifiable, cited content may be left after all sources on the discourse involving the philosophical and historical relationship between Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism are exhausted, but that would seem unlikely to my thinking. Consider the age of Anarcho-capitalism. It is a socio-economic school of thought going back 70 years. That's a lot of time for third party sources to build up. Now consider the age of the internet. Most of the sources for this article would not likely be found through a google search. A university library and the assistance of a research librarian would be of better use. It may be the case that this could be a potentially large article, or least of enough size and potential quality to justify GA quality. It needen't be particarlly large to achieve such status. Consider the anarchist biography article of Lev Chernyi. It is currently 74 kb in size, comprised of 3 main sections and only 5 paragarphs. However it is of substantive enough quality to have achieved GA status. I don't see why this article couldn't potentially achieve the same distinction. Though small, it may be well written and of ecellent use to researchers. Wikipedia as a project would benefit for the existence of such an article, and I do not see how that project would be furthered by the deletion of this article instead. I would fully agree to delete this article if I felt this was a situation that warrented it, and have when I've encountered hoaxes and non-notable biographies. I believe this to be an article which can prove its own value in time. --Cast (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to have largely served its purpose. My position remains the same. The article is an essay, the real subject of which is anarcho-capitalism, which it discusses from a critical standpoint. It is not "inherently POV", in that it could be rewritten to be genuinely neutral, but it is POV as it stands, and WP:POVFORK is therefore being violated here. That there are plenty of sources on Anarcho-capitalism is not a relevant reason for keeping, since there is a separate, properly encyclopedic article on the topic, and a second (unencyclopedic) one should not be needed. It might be a reason for keeping if there were sources to show that debate over whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is a notable topic, because the article could be rewritten to describe the debate rather than as an analysis of the issue, but I don't see any sign of them. UserVOBO (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This deletion discussion reminds me of the nomination for the deletion of Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche. That discussion was substantially shorter, but the nomination rational was the same. The content appeared to the nominator to be an essay. It was instead a well researched article by a specialist (and Anarchist Task Force member) which focused on the historical relationship between the two subjects. Largely crafted by a single editor over a few days, it's development was very different from Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article, however that just displays that too many cooks can spoil the pot. Again, this article was created during a highly contentious period. The first comment on the archived talk page quips "Yeah, that's what Wikipedia really needs... another anarchism-related page for the socialists and capitalists to edit-war over!" Five years later, I think that cooler heads could now prevail to craft a better article. --Cast (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 by UserVOBO Olaf Davis (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progressivism

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

This is simply a collection of random political information, much of it trivia, about political groups that happen to use the term "progressive" in their names. They have nothing necessarily in common with each other, so this isn't a suitable topic for an article. UserVOBO (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Progressivism in the United States. The American Progressive movement is the one most likely to be associated with the term "Progressivism." Everything else in the article is useless, since it doesn't refer to a unified movement or even a related group of ideas, but only to the effectively meaningless term "progressive." UserVOBO (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Progressivism in the United States, which appears to be the only other similarly named article. Maybe it could be a dab page (although to what else), but that would justify a delete and then re-creation. Shadowjams (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral - Actually, given that this covers a broad range of countries, I'll reserve an opinion until there's more discussion. I'm concerned with overemphasis on "progressiveness", as a word within the title of a particular party, which might not be politically accurate, but for that level of detail there needs to be more discussion, and probably isn't a reason to delete unless the OR concerns overwhelm the article. Shadowjams (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After the musings above, I don't see any compelling suggestion that there's an WP:OR problem here, or even a reason to prefer the U.S. version over the current version. While if forced to redirect the U.S. one is the most likely, the general discussion of the topic is preferable. Shadowjams (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While many may come to this page in search of the "American" definition of progressivism, the difference between national US progressivism and woldwide progressivism is clearly outlined. Bottom line, this is a term used around the world, no question it deserves a page, whether the views are sometimes inconsistent from nation to nation or all encompassing is irrelevant. "Liberal" and "Conservative" ideologies are not entirely unified movements on an international scale either.

--Jackbirdsong (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's definition of Progressivism is, "Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform." That's obviously completely meaningless, but what proper definition could be substituted? I can't see any way in which this could be considered an encyclopedic subject. I don't believe for a moment that there are good sources which would suggest that "progressivism" has any recognised meaning whatever, except in the sense of specific movements (like the American Progressive movement) that happen to use that term. It's different from conservatism or liberalism, where there are also problems defining them, but which have at least some general concepts in common to give them meaning. Please reconsider. UserVOBO (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article's been around since 2002. There's hardly anything radical about it, and in its current incarnation it covers a broad range of "progressive" political parties. I have concerns about how that term applies across languages an cultures other than in the U.S., but I don't think that justifies deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. I'd like to see the article deleted, but I can see that's not going to happen, so nomination withdrawn. UserVOBO (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This is a very informative article, and brings together the various examples of Progressivism from around the world. While it is still being defined in the US. This article leads the way in showing what progressivism is througout history and the world. The actual definition may need tweeking, as I believe progressivism promotes "transitioning to different political philosophies" however this all remains to be seen, and is clearly defined whith respect to progressivism not being a long term political philosophy. Please continue adding content, and history to the various progressive movements throughout the world.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Nickelodeon

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

Has no sources and has been orphaned since 10/2008. There is no official term that is used for these shows. So this is pretty much fancruft Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I've never heard the term "Old School Nickelodeon" and there aren't even any sources. Str8cash (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Yet more fancruft with only Nick fans caring about this unreferenced nonsense. We're not TV Tropes (and they wouldn't even take this either). Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neogolism or weird fork. Either way not notable. Unsure what speedy criteria would apply though. Shadowjams (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Completely subjective trite nonsense.--WaltCip (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. I was the one that made the most recent edit before this nomination was proposed. This is neither nonsense nor speedy deletion criteria. Look it up on Google and you'll get over 34,000 hits. That being said, the notability is questionable (its popularity is largely driven by Internet postings) and could definitely use citations. I do not oppose a Delete, but with some sources I do believe the article is salvageable. (I do not know how this lasts over a year with no objections, yet when I try to expand the article to something closer to Wikipedia standards, within hours, it gets nominated for deletion.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, we're not TVTropes. There are no sources in the article. Any serious search isn't going to consist of this one term except for a few select searches. This reads like a poor essay which in my eye consists of a 'Nick was good back then and it's awful now' bent you can find on any Nick forum and is hardly encyclopedic. We should be writing about known topics rather than concepts that exist among a select fanbase that overran the site and posted poor articles about items which are only of interest to a select few before a semblance of control was established over them. Nate • (chatter) 04:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment While that is certainly criteria for deletion, it is not criteria for speedy deletion, which is what you recommended. Nonsense as a criterion for speedy deletion implies an article that is complete gibberish and completely incomprehensible by any method of interpretation, which this article is not. A lack of sources is criteria for deletion, but not speedy deletion. Furthermore, fancruft, in and of itself, is not criteria for deletion. As I stated, I do recommend deletion unless someone comes forward with more reliable sources before this discussion is closed. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This material is perhaps worth a line or two on the Nickelodeon page, but only with a source.-Cbradshaw (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Adventures With Rebbe Mendel. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All About Motti and his Adventures with Rebbe Mendel

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

NN book. DimaG (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It would be better to have a page on the Adventures With Rebbe Mendel series by Feldheim Publishers (now holding at 5 books in the series), which is part of the exploding Jewish book market for children, than this orphan. Yoninah (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Move/merge/redirect to Adventures With Rebbe Mendel per Bearian. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move/merge/redirect to Adventures With Rebbe Mendel. Bearian (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - I have created the article for the series. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Back (band)

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

The article is crosswiki spam, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and the subject of notability of this band had been disputed on several Wikipedias (Hebrew Wiki, Czech Wiki - cs.wiki will delete this article on 4th April). Even though the notability was disputed, no reliable sources have been added. There are only 3 external links that are primary sources (youtube link) which are inadmissible, because the band itself is author. There are no reliable secondary sources that would prove the notability. Faigl.ladislav (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find any reliable sources to indicate this band's notability. Intelligentsium 22:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. I recommend that anyone who understands Hebrew will go and read the VFD in he.wiki. It has some vert interesting findings. Broccoli (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Sharing

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

Not remarkable to be included in Wikipedia, this is yet another file sharing application and notability is in question. Given references in the article are of normal submission review sites, not reliable and not independent. Google returns only references to non-independent review sites. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The two reviews of the product are not by submission review sites. Having two+ sources is enough for inclusion. 16x9 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be serious? Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackra1n

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

Not remarkable or noticeable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Google returns mainly references to what it seems to be a press release and a reference on how to use it. Other references seems to be people's blogs. The article do not contain one single reliable and trusted references that backs it up. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - see previous AFD [24]
Keep At the previous afd, some references were listed, but nobody added them to the article; I have now done so. They seem substantial to me--and not just me, the previous AfD was a unanimous keep, except for the nominator. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the references and the previous AfD (for the records, was for another app, this one was second listed on the same process, so I did not see it), I agree it should be kept. Still the article requires some re-write. Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Zeitgeist

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

Contested prod. This book fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). De728631 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability of the book; published by iUniverse.com, which describes itself as a "self-publishing company". AllyD (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can turn up no relevant coverage to suggest this book's been reviewed, awarded, added to curricula, adapted into a film, or otherwise covered in third party sources at all (provisions of WP:N/Books). Gonzonoir (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. The issue of merging can be bought up on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer Ben Yehuda´s residence

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

This page is more about the on-site, for-pay conference center than about the residence, and neither garners any secondary coverage. Unreferenced since June 2009, and does not meet notability. Yoninah (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced portions with Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, remove the rest. Owen× ☎ 18:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has references, but needs to be reformatted to meet Wikipedia MOS guidelines. Dew Kane (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dew Kane: Did you look at the references closely? They are all about Eliezer Ben-Yehuda and his accomplishments, not about the on-site conference center which is the subject of this page. Yoninah (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JB's Dudley

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/JB's Dudley

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

Notability of the venue is not discussed. Article consists largely of a list of performers who have appeared there. No significant coverage of the venue is shown in the references. Frank | talk 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. This AFD wasn't sorted so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage specifically of the venue in reliable sources found here, here and here. Article obviously needs massive improvement, though. Also, what determines the list of "interesting" gigs included? JBs must have hosted at least 4000 gigs down the years, so even to describe the list as incomplete would be very charitable ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think this is a converted cinema, now used for live music. However such venues are not so commonplace as to be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kettlewell

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

Article about a non-notable sound engineer that doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Google doesn't turn up anything reliable, and his one mention on IMDb is as an "additional sound recordist". He almost passes WP:ANYBIO, but he was only nominated for a Gemini Award once. Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable accomplishments, no reliable sources. When and if he wins a Gemini, re-create. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Bear. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Window (album)

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

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostfit

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

Contested prod. Non-notable software. GregJackP (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising: full fledged and extremely flexible Management Information System(MIS) for Microfinance(MFIs). Patent nonsense: It is an hosted MIS provided in SAAS model to the MFIs. (Oh, that.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
github Here is the github repo of complete mostfit code. http://github.com/piyushranjan/misfit and since when hosting it for MFIs who cannot host it themselves a crime/nonsense ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyushranjan123 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither a crime nor a nonsense, but also not notable: no relevant coverage at all in Google scholar or books, and a single one-line reference, unelaborated, in a niche news source. That doesn't represent the substantial, independent coverage this subject would require to merit an article. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that there is sufficient coverage, although it is minor, to meet our inclusion criteria. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sinatra Sings the Select Cole Porter

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

Delete, poorly written and the only link is unhelpful to the article SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Major label album, only minor coverage but it's enough to carry it IMO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable compilation album containing no original material. I think this user is a sockpuppet of User:MSW1291. These minor Sinatra album compilations keep popping up. We need to remind usersof what is and isn't considrered a Sinatra album. If we carry on like this, there will be thousands! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an SPI has been opened on MSW1291 suspecting him of using SinatraKing91 to spread mis-information. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 16:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note User:SuperSonicSpeed has been indefinitely blocked as a Confirmed sock puppet of de facto banned user User:GEORGIEGIBBONS. –MuZemike 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this despite the nominator being a banned user because there's a delete !vote and it's probably simpler to continue this nomination than to have someone start a new one. —SpacemanSpiff 01:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess it's still an official album, so there's no reason to delete it. Str8cash (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an official album, per User:TenPoundHammer above. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 David Benedictus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Antique Collector's Guide

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Antique Collector's Guide

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

not notable at all, not even an article Alan - talk 21:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an article. It's called a stub:) But not much scope for expansion, and I don't think it meets WP:NB. I would suggest a redirect to the author David Benedictus.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the editor who objected to the prod a while back, based on being able to find information about several reviews of the book. That said, it is obviously a minor work, so a redirect the article about the author seems fine to me. --RL0919 (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. I'm going to enterpret Eluchil404's comment as a "weak keep" so I don't have to say "no consensus". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Artist Award

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

Not notable. No coverage in independent reliable sources provided or found. All coverage found is either from the organization itself or blogs. SummerPhD (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a little bit of coverage, but quite a bit less than I expected.[25][26] There are also a fair number of article behind paywalls that look like they might be reliable sources based on google snippets. Most mentions are fairly trivial listings as part of various people's biographies. On the one hand those aren't the kind of sources we need to build an article. On the other, they're mentioned often enough that not having an article could look like an oversight on our part since it's fairly easy to reliable source various artists having won them. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporizing Keep. Eluchil1404's comments pretty much sum up my feelings here. I notice, checking out the organization's web page, that this year's awards will be given out in less than two weeks. I see no harm, and probable benefit, to waiting to see what kind of coverage they receive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:CRYSTAL. If the album is ever released, consider an article then. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Rule the Night

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

Unreleased album with no media coverage of significance. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - In the sense of WP:SNOW that I don't get to use a lot: "Use common sense and don't follow process for the sake of it." The album's by a notable band, it's going to release in 10 days, and at that time there's sure to be reviews. Yes, technically WP:CRYSTAL absolutely supports a delete, but given that by the time this AfD closes it'll be three days out from release, are we really well served to delete the article now and see it recreated a week later? Can we all just maybe agree to revisit the issue in early April and if the album for whatever reason hasn't been released or reviewed to bring it back to AfD at that stage? - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's May 28, not March. TheJazzDalek (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops. They're basically the same month, right? :-) I'm still inclined to keep this to save us effort later, but I'll concede that that's no longer a position that's really supported by any policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of the sources ARE from myspace but the band is notable and there is virtually no doubt the album will be released in the next few months. Str8cash (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its release has already been pushed back two months (to July 30) since this AFD started. Who's to say it won't be pushed back again and again or even shelved? TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You can userfy it until May 28. Racepacket (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate until the album closer approaches its release date. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, although just barely, thanks to improvements during the course of the discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Vietnam Heritage

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

fails WP:ORG. so they do a few presentations, but no real indepth coverage. [27]. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is about an org based in Hanoi, we should be careful of the language gap. Unfortunately, I don't know Vietnamese. —siro χ o 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero indication of how this is notable. Zero references. Google news search isn't bringing up anything to indicate that theere might be significant coverage looming out there. RadioFan (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty sad to have to resort to Frommer's, but I added that along with some of their publications as found in Gbooks. It's going to have a problem stemming not just from the language gap, but an internet-based-coverage gap. Altho it does get mentioned in a couple of embassy websites - New Zealand, [28], Belarus [29]. Under the circumstances, I think we should give it the benefit of the doubt. Novickas (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Novickas' work. Still a little questionable; is WP a guidebook for tourists? I can't see why else this should be included in it's current state. That said, there's obviously room for improvement, perhaps by someone who's familiar with their publications. Jisakujien (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as User:Jisakujien said, there's room for improvement, but is seems to have at least barely ample notability. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hott Beat

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

fails WP:BAND. no significant coverage only limited. [30]. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Filest (aktl) 09:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Marzouka

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

Notability is not shown. DimaG (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing significant in Google news, books, or scholar to indicate the subject meets WP:BIO inclusion requirements. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability, no references, a general failure after reasonable search for anything that is definitively this guy. Bing turned up a weak match (roughly right age, right middle initial, investment related, but no other corroboration so coincidence is reasonable too), but this is the only thing, not a WP:RS and is not even close to sufficient to pass WP:GNG if it were and if it's even him. Probably should have been prod'ed first, but whatever works for improving the encyclopedia. Studerby (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Filest (aktl) 09:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Thornton (politician)

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

A PROD tag was removed without discernable improvement. This individual doesn't appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN and there are no other reasonable sources of notability suggested; no reliable sources that would allow anyone to verify the assertions have been provided. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Deleteas failing to satisfy WP:BIO. Found two sources at Google Book search and added to the article. One, a book on the Orange Order quotes him on two pages. The other, a snippet from U.S. News and World report, says he was a Protestant leader in Ulster. A bit slim with respect to notability. Edison (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This gentleman was my grandfather, everything i have stated is correct and i would appreciate it if you left this alone thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian805 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure what counts as notability on those parts, but he sure doesn't sound sufficiently notable for our purposes here. Rklawton (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where i live his name is very well remembered, in fact if you ask anyone in our local county his name they will no who he was and what he did. It would be a great shame to delete this page as I know local schools and the local museum are using it for research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.7.133 (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we call that "local" or "regional" notability, and that is exactly not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added as many refrences as i can find on the internet. I created the page because schools where looking information on him and this was the best way to do it. It is 100% accurate and will be a great shame to lose it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian805 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : as per nom fails WP:POLITICIAN and looks like a WP:COI Codf1977 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. He has more notability than your typical councillor, but it is still way short of the notability standards for people. Julian805, if you want to demonstrate notability you may need to search a bit further than the internet because he was clearly active pre-internet. Was he written about in books/newspapers at the time. If so, that may make him notable. But we can't just indiscriminately accept articles based on one person's assertions that it's true and important. All such claims must be verifiable. If you really want local schools to have access to online information about him, you can always try another wiki. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He wildly fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited by being friends of nobility. My grandfather was a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that does not make him notable, either. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all suggested possible categories of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Filest (aktl) 09:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wide-awake

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

No refs are cited to show this barge or cargo boat satisfies notability. Found no results for "The Wide Awake" "Lough Erne" at Google Book search or Google News archive. " Notability" and "unreferenced" tags were removed from the article by its creator, without the addition of any references.. Edison (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article was created by novice user unfamiliar with our rules about notability and reliable sources. Go gently with him/her. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Rklawton Codf1977 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This is a poor article on a subject of limited (rather than no) notability. The present article on Lough Erne is very thin on its history. I thus wonder whether the article might not be merged there. However, this would require it to be properly referenced. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not find any online refs but some print refs might well exist offline, or someone might be a more skilled searcher online, and merge to Lough Erne would be a fine idea if a reliable source can be found to satisfy WP:V. Edison (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Filest (aktl) 09:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative development

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

Appears to be entirely WP:OR. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. andy (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, and meaningless: It's about creating yourself. Or re-inventing yourself. Becoming one of your best ideas. Turning the design process on yourself. A person who needs to create, goes through their own incubation phase. Then hopefully, emerges with a new idea about whole they are and their role. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps it could be rewritten as a non-marketing, encyclopedic piece. As it is, it is a mess on so many levels, that I am not sure much could be salvaged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure how that would be different from, say Creativity. Perhaps this should be a redirect. --YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 19:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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