Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 27

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 26 June 28 June >

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. T. Canens (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Goal

edit
Third Goal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already sufficiently covered in 1966 FIFA World Cup Final article. Triple RRR (talk) 23:56, 27 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank L. Lambert

edit
Frank L. Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original Research, NPOV, Notability Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lambert This appears to be a self-promotional article. Worse, it promotes the subjects website, which itself gives a false impression that Lambert's controversial opinion (“entropy is not disorder”) had become generally accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/COIReports/2008,_Feb_7 01:23:22, Thu Feb 07, 2008 - user:FrankLambert (contribs; 1/1) scores 100% (U->P) & 92.3% (P->U) (ratio: 92.3%) on calculated overlap FrankLambert <-> Frank L. Lambert (Frank L. Lambert - diff - COIBot UserReport)

I believe that this article is just a thinly disguised link to Professor Lambert's website, http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/, which promotes the controversial assertion that “entropy is not disorder”. Dr Lambert asserts that only “a minority of US general chemistry texts for majors still describe entropy in terms of 'disorder' “ I believe that this is a conttoversial assertion, based on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy “Entropy is a measure of how disorganized a system is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28order_and_disorder%29 In thermodynamics, entropy is commonly associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system To highlight the fact that order and disorder are commonly understood to be measured in terms of entropy, below are current science encyclopedia and science dictionary definitions of entropy: Entropy – a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work; also a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder.[5] Entropy – a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder.[6] Entropy – in thermodynamics, a parameter representing the state of disorder of a system at the atomic, ionic, or molecular level; the greater the disorder the higher the entropy.[7] Entropy – a measure of disorder in the universe or of the availability of the energy in a system to do work.[8]


Reference Links in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lambert : 1, 9, 11 broken links 2 ,3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 are all links to Professor Lambert's website, http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/. That website does include reprints of Professor Lambert's articles from the Journal of Chemical Education and The Chemical Educator, along with his other assertions, which are not peer reviewed. 4 unsourced footnote making a controversial statement “Although all U.S. chemistry texts for first-year university classes prior to 1999 had some sort of illustration of a disorderly room, or shuffled cards, or a mixture of red and green marbles as depictions of “increased entropy”, in 2007 no major text used such illustrations.” 10 (not referenced in the body of the article) is a link to the first page of the course catalog for Occidental College. 13 http://shakespeare2ndlaw.oxy.edu/ (Another of Professor Lambert's websites.) 14 is a legitimate link directly to a 2002 article by Professor Lambert on the website of the Journal of Chemical Education The External Link, “Entropy Is Simple — If We Avoid The Briar Patches!” is another link to Professor Lambert's website, http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/

This article is linked to by 2 other articles which I believe should also be deleted:

This article seems to be original research from Frank Lambert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29

I suspect that this article has been heavily modified by Frank Lambert. See the talk page for some valid objections to the Lambert influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

  • Keep. Now that all the earlier arguments about Frank Lambert's ideas in entropy articles are long past, it is time to clean up this article. I will try to have a go at it in a couple of days, but welcome others having a go. Nevertheless, he is notable, because his efforts to change the way entropy is taught to chemists has resulted in major changes to the major textbooks used across the world and this is recognised in those texts and elsewere. There have been no comparable changes to texts on physical chemistry for several decades as physical chemistry is generally recognised as well settled. It does not matter whether Lambert is wrong or right. "Objections to the Lambert influence" affect the articles about his influence on entropy, not this article on the man himself. He has had an influence and it is a notable one. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep -- I'm inclined to think this one passes WP:PROF, and any need for revision per nom's complaints does not really constitute an argument for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "his efforts to change the way entropy is taught to chemists has resulted in major changes to the major textbooks used across the world and this is recognised in those texts and elsewhere." I have seen no evidence for that. All the "references" just link to Frank Lambert's own website. Please show me a short quote from any chemistry textbook where the author acknowledges that he has been influenced by Frank Lambert. A handful of articles 20 years ago in the Journal of Chemical Education do not make him "notable".

Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the text "Physical Chemistry" by Peter Atkins (with another author in later editions), which clearly adopts Lambert's ideas. He may not directly acknowledge that, but I'm sure there are other sources that points out that he has. Atkins' text is one of the major Physical Chemistry texts. I will try to address this later in the week, but I am busy now. It does not look as if you know about the teaching of physical chemistry. You might have a look there. I would suggest that !voting "delete" by starting several comments with the bolded word "delete" is bad form. You can comment here without doing that. Your nomination is quite clear. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "Introduction to Entropy" article contains the statement: "More recently there has been a trend in chemistry and physics textbooks to describe entropy in terms of 'dispersal of energy'." This is unsourced original research. Where has this so-called "trend" been documented and published? What if an "Introduction to Evolution" article tried to get away with saying "More recently there has been a trend in biology textbooks to describe Creationism has a better alternative to Evolution"? Such an anti-Darwinian trend could be backed up, as this article backs up the anti-Boltzmann trend, by referring to a few personal websites and a handful of inferior textbooks (from Texas, in the case of the alleged anti-Darwinian trend). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have struck out this and the next "delete" since you already expressed your opinion in favor of deletion in the nomination statement and in the previous comment. You are welcome to comment multiple times but please indicate subsequent comments with "comment" instead of "delete" so that the closing admin can more clearly see what level of support the nomination has. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Entropy is a measure of disorder" http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA3/MAIN/ENTROPY/PAGE1.HTM

I guess the Journal of Chemical Information forgot to update their website after Lambert set them straight. They missed the trend that was launched in their own journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't have a copy of the 8th edition of Atkins's Physical Chemistry, but I do have a copy of the 7th edition. Page 91: "We shall see, in fact, that collapse into disorder accounts for change in all its forms." Page 92: "We shall see that the entropy (which we shall define shortly, but is a measure of the molecular disorder of the system) lets us assess whether one state is accessible to another by a spontaneous change." On his website, Lambert claims: "A minority of US general chemistry texts for majors still describe entropy in terms of “disorder” – an unfortunate subjective concept whose source appears to be a naïve statement by Boltzmann." The reason I'm so upset about this issue is that I've read and enjoyed Atkins's "The Second Law" and I've been looking forward (after I complete an intensive review of calculus, physics, and basic chemistry) to studying my copy of the 7th edition of "Physical Chemistry". But if it's really true that Atkins's has completely reversed himself on such a fundamental issue, then I'll have to toss out my copy of "Physical Chemistry" and look for a more reliable author. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not access Atkins' 8th edition this week, but it does make extensive use of Lambert's ideas and several other text books do also. Lambert's ideas are not the only story, but they are part of the story and the way entropy is best taught to chemists. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Lambert isn't changing the definition of entropy, which is a mathematical one, but he is changing the way the concept is presented verbally at an introductory level. That's why the main impact is on introductory textbooks and popular science writing, not on advanced-level publications. However, the impact he has had is a clear pass of WP:PROF #4, in my opinion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer the vote for another week.

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-notable Since no one has yet presented any evidence to support Professor Lambert's notoriety, I propose that, instead of voting to keep based solely on undocumented opinion, we should defer the vote until somebody has had time to find some evidence for keeping the article: an acknowledgment of Lambert in a textbook, or a journal article by somebody other than Lambert that cites one of his articles. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • On Amazon, Frank Lambert posted a very negative review of Arieh Ben Naim's "Entropy Demystified". In his response to that review, Professor Ben Naim quotes a letter he had previously received from Lambert after he had sent Lambert an advance copy of the manuscript with a request for comments: "...your goal was to write a ms. to destroy me and the sea-change in chemistry texts that I had achieved in the last decade. Unbelievable chicanery". Ben Naim's response on Amazon is followed by a long series of additional comments by Frank Lambert. Please read them and decide for yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1N6XF1PO5P0Z7 Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Entropy (S) the amount of molecular randomness in a system" - Glossary, G4

Custom edition for Glendale Community College of Chemistry by John E. McMurry and Robert C Fay, Fifth Edition, copyright 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._McMurry The author of more than 100 research papers, Professor McMurry is best known scientifically for his development of the McMurry reaction... McMurry was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1985 and received a Max Planck Society Research Award in 1991.

In addition to his scientific work, McMurry is the author of numerous undergraduate chemistry textbooks. More than 2.2 million copies of his books in eleven languages have been used throughout the world. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is sufficient evidence in the literature that he has had a significant influence in how entropy is taught and thereby passes WP:PROF#C4. The nominator seems mainly to be arguing that Lambert's ideas are wrong, but this is irrelevant for determining whether they are notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have access to Scopus, but it's available to university faculty and students. Could one of you please use Scopus to check whether any of Professor Lambert's published articles has ever been cited by any article written by anyone besides himself? That would constitute at least some evidence for his influence. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. People have said that there is a significant amount of evidence for FLL's impact on the way entropy is taught and thus that he qualified by rule #4 of WP:PROF. My only problem is... where is this evidence? At this moment there are 8 citations of this in the lead. However, if we examine the sources closely. Citation [1] is a broken link to a CV, citations [2]-[7] are publications of FLL, most of them with him as sole author, and citation [8] is original research. It is clear that FLL works and promotes viewing entropy in this alternative way, but it is not at all clear that this has had a major impact on how entropy is taught at most universities. If someone can find several credible sources (that are not original research, or FLL's publications) then I will change my vote. (Also, Ray Eston Smith Jr... chill... you have made your point, you are starting to look a bit hostile) --DFRussia (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with changes In light of the above references I change my vote to "keep". However, the articles should be modified to remove the impression that Lambert's ideas have replaced the idea of "entropy as disorder" in the majority of textbooks, unless somebody can cite published research on textbook content which supports that conclusion. Based on the above references (which should be cited in the article), he can be said to have influenced the teaching of entropy (and the content of some textbooks, if specific mentions of Lambert in textbooks can be found), but any "sea change" is a matter of opinion until documented by published research in peer-reviewed journals. All that a Wikipedia article can say is that there are some textbooks which use the idea of disorder and some that don't. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to add a couple personal comments. I started this deletion process in good faith, because (1) these articles lacked proper Wikipedia references, and (2) the articles make a couple claims which I still believe to be false: (a) that the majority of textbooks no longer explain entropy as disorder, and (b) that "energy dispersion" is a better explanation. (Although point (b) is irrelevant for deciding whether to keep the articles.) I believe that Boltzmann was on the right track with "entropy is disorder," although, pending further reading, I am inclined toward Professor Ben Naim's position that "lost information" is a better explanation. The Lambert article should be kept, because apparently he has been influential, even though, in my opinion (which matters only to me), that influence has been harmful.

Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The quote ("work of Frank Lambert, integrated into virtually all recent chemistry textbooks") from Lynn Margulis should be included in the article, but as a direct quote, not as an encyclopedic statement of fact. One assertion in a popular science book (for which her only source may have been Frank Lambert himself) does not make it a generally accepted fact.

Lynn Margulis is a recognized and respected authority on biology, but she is not an authority on what constitutes "mainstream chemistry". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis#Controversy, "In addition to rejecting Neo-Darwinian evolution as an explanation for diversity (on the grounds that speciation due solely to random mutation and differential survival has yet to be proven), Margulis holds a number of opinions outside of mainstream science....In 2009 she also pushed the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to publish a paper by Donald I. Williamson...As a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Margulis has the ability to "communicate" scientific papers, allowing them to be published with minimal review. Williamson's paper provoked immediate response from the scientific community, including a paper in PNAS [10]. Developmental Biologist and Professor at Duke university Fred Nijhout was quoted as saying that the paper was better suited for "National Enquirer than the National Academy.". Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the "Introduction to Entropy" article, the Wikipedia editorial community will have to make a judgement on the truth of Lambert's assertion that disorder should not be mentioned in introductory treatments of chemistry. If Lambert is judged to be correct, then "disorder" should not be mentioned in "Introduction to Entropy" - it would only confuse the readers. Whatever the decision on that issue, this is an introduction to entropy, not an article on methods of teaching (or not teaching) about entropy and/or disorder in high schools. Therefore the following statements should be removed from the article:

[For most of the 20th century textbooks tended to describe entropy as "disorder", following Boltzmann's early conceptualisation of the motional energy of molecules. More recently there has been a trend in chemistry and physics textbooks to describe entropy in terms of "dispersal of energy".] [Traditionally, 20th century textbooks have introduced entropy as order and disorder so that it provides "a measurement of the disorder or randomness of a system". It has been argued that ambiguities in the terms used (such as "disorder" and "chaos") contribute to widespread confusion and can hinder comprehension of entropy for most students. A more recent formulation associated with Frank L. Lambert describing entropy as energy dispersal describes entropy as measuring "the spontaneous dispersal of energy — at a specific temperature."] Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Radagast3 has considerably improved the "Frank Lambert" article. I see only one remaining problem: Note 4 [^ Although all U.S. chemistry texts for first-year university classes prior to 1999 had some sort of illustration of a disorderly room, or shuffled cards, or a mixture of red and green marbles as depictions of “increased entropy”, in 2007 no major text used such illustrations.] "Some sort of illustration" implies any explanation based on disorder. This has no source other than Frank Lambert's personal website. "No major text used such illustrations" is non peer-review-published original research on all "major texts" and a subjective opinion on what constitutes a "major text". In a previous comment, I quoted McMurry's 2008 textbook, along with objective evidence suggesting that it is a "major text." Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct about that quote and I will look at this later today (early here in Oz right now). Getting sources on texbooks is not easy as nobody reviews all of them together or carries out investigations of what book covers what approach. However, I would not give a lot of weight to McMurry. His massive sales are from books on organic chemistry, not physical chemistry. I will also be able to access Atkins tomorrow. Relative to the above, he starts off on entropy with the bouncing ball, where dispersal of energy is more intelligible than increasing disorder. Others have done likewise, replacing the shuffled cards, or similar. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a new article on how introductory entropy should be taught, I believe it would be useful to refer to this 2010 article:

[PDF] Different Senses of Entropy—Implications for Education File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Abstract: A challenge in the teaching of entropy is that the word has several ... potentially misleading or uninformative when used with the uninitiated. ... www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/3/490/pdf This article, which mentions Lambert several times including in the final summary paragraph, has clear descriptions and evaluations of 5 alternative ways to describe entropy. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although the article I linked to above ("Different Senses of Entropy—Implications for Education") seemed to be well-written, I'm now uncertain about the credibility of the MDPI Journal. See the discussion page for the Gibbs Paradox Wikipedia article. It looks like user Linshukin added a lot of OR stuff to the Gibbs Paradox article that had to be removed. On her user page, Linshukin identifies herself as the director of MDPI which is a private research company that publishes online Open Access journals "to promote...the project." It looks to me like Linkshukin was well-intentioned and the "Senses of Entropy" article and the journal are high quality, but maybe not objective and peer-reviewed enough for Wikepedia standards. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cleaned up the article making use of some of the links given here. I will add more tomorrow after I check Atkins and other books. Now the nominator has effectively withdrawn his nomination by saying the article should be kept, could a non-involved admin please close this discussion as keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Entropy (energy dispersal). "Peter Atkins. . . . but then relapsed into confusing and problematic terminology" is NPOV. Atkins "Second Law" discusses both "energy tends to disperse" and "collapse into chaos". This article is about a "new approach [which] avoids ambiguous terms such as disorder and chaos." So I don't see how Atkins "Second Law" is part of the history of that new approach. Atkins "Second Law", which does not avoid those terms, seems to be just part of the mainstream interpretation going back to Boltzmann. I don't think the old mainstream approach denied energy dispersal, but it explained energy dispersal as a consequence of increasing disorder rather than as a primary cause. So the history of the new approach would be the history of criticisms of the disorder explanation, not the history of all discussions of energy dispersal as a type of increasing disorder. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not discussing Entropy (energy dispersal). We are discussing Frank L. Lambert. If you want to discuss the former, please do so at Talk:Entropy (energy dispersal). This AfD should focus only on the latter. It is already over long. It would really help too, if you gave proper wiki links to the articles you are discussing. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my original delete proposal at the top of this page. My understanding was that this was the way to propose the deletion of a group of related articles:

Repeating from first entry on this page: This article is linked to by 2 other articles which I believe should also be deleted:

This article seems to be original research from Frank Lambert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29

I suspect that this article has been heavily modified by Frank Lambert. See the talk page for some valid objections to the Lambert influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

As for this AfD being overly long, I think that is largely because some editors repeatedly posted meaningless comments claiming documentation without citing it. This whole AfD would have been unnecessary if the articles had included valid references to start with, instead on relying totally on a bunch of links to one personal web page. I see from the history of these articles that my objections to lack of valid references in these articles had been raised before and ignored. Thank you (and thanks to Radagast3) for finally adding valid references. The subject "Introduction to Entropy" is a very important one. I think it is worth taking the time to get it right. None of us wants to confuse beginning students. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 17:16, 4 July 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. T. Canens (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of The New York Times

edit
Criticism of The New York Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An indiscriminate ragbag of unrelated complaints under a title which frames the treatment to be implicitly hostile contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The core policy cited in the nomination states:"A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 3 July 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. CSD G5, creation by a banned user. T. Canens (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MDB (Linux)

edit
MDB (Linux) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing beyond a bare assertion of notability - the references given don't mention "MDB" at all, the external links are primary sources -- the Google Code page and a press release. Non-notable and unreferenced. ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE AND MAKE REDIRECT - the same argument can be used for KGDB since this article has NOT ONE SINGLE secondary or third party reference, unlike MDB which has news articles (dozens) from third party sources referenced. Given this rationale, none of the kernel debugger articles meet Wikipedia's requirements except MDB, which is not reasonable or lucid as an argument. There are sufficient sources to keep the article. The general idea of free software and kernel development makes most references to kernel debuggers contained within the development lists of linux itself. in such a case, its unlikely a kernel debugger for Linux would be mentioned outside of these sources and its the one case I think use of even primary sources and secondary sources may be valid and defensible since Kernel debugging tools are contained within dicussions of Linux development itself. I have reviewed the vandalism by a single purpose "attack" account which vandalized the article in question, don't understand this persons rationale at all after reviewing the comments. Linuxmdb (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I think this article should be merged into KGDB and/or Open Source NetWare. I reviewed the KGDB article and both have the same problem. I think a merge is a better choice. Linuxmdb (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the contents which have sources into the Timpanogas Research Group article which has tons of secondary and third party references. I think this as a standalone article does have some challenges but it certainly fits well in the TRG article. The KGDB article has the same problems but I guess that's a problem to solve on another day. Also, should keep the stub as a redirect to Timpanogas for anyone who is looking to download this software and use it. Linuxmdb (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments : (1) then maybe KGDB needs to be sent to Articles for Deletion as well. (2) By no means are there sufficient sources to keep this article. The three links given in "References" don't even mention MDB! The other two "sources" are a link to the Google Code page and a press release. There is no indication that anybody except the author has taken note of MDB -- the very basis of the lack of notability argument that I believe dooms this article. (3) Just because somebody has a (probably unhealthy) fixation on deleting text suspected to originate with Jeff Merkey doesn't make this article any more notable. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4187 references on google to "merkey debugger". MDB is a name for the NetWare kernel debugger. The articles discuss the open source netware OS and debugger. Maybe you should read through the materials rather than glacing at the headlines? Linuxmdb (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those google references simply point to the author's announcement e-mails on various lists? Do any of the google hits mention anyone actually using the debugger? If we take google hits as a substitute for notability, then can we add "litigious *******" to the SCO article? Pfagerburg (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Neither the article text, nor the references proffered in the article, support notability. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Maybe I'm a sucker for Any computing articles- but the debugger itself is notable, although it probably should be asserted better. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:35, 28 June 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) 00:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NCAA conference realignment

edit
2010 NCAA conference realignment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uh, it didn't really happen. We didn't, and probably won't, get superconferences. Only 2 teams switched BCS conferences (1 moved up to a BCS conference, one switched non-BCS conferences). Not a realignment--should be renamed to something more accurate if kept. Purplebackpack89 21:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...but it didn't happen. It wasn't a realignment. Superconferences are a no-go. Purplebackpack89 21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't mention superconferences that you do, I think the first line of the article sums up what it's about: "The 2010 NCAA conference realignment refers to several proposed and actual conference expansion plans among various NCAA conferences..." Just because "superconferences" weren't created doesn't mean the event isn't notable. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then the term "realignment" shouldn't be used. This isn't 2004 or 1994-6 Purplebackpack89 22:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A name change discussion (on the article's talk page) is different from an AfD. If it was a mistake to AfD this by a new or inexperienced user is there a way to expedite the process and end it, rather than a typical AfD dragging on for a week?Bhockey10 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that I've made 4,000+ edits over the course of 18 months, that'd be a mute point. There is WP:SNOW if it gets lopsided, but don't count your chickens before they hatch...it's only 2-1 Purplebackpack89 22:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know about the WP:SNOW. If you have any rename ideas we can start brainstorming on them and other users' on the articles talk page. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too at first, but apparently not :-P Bhockey10 (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed it because it's a non-event that doesn't deserve coverage. The 1996 and 2005 realignments featured more than 20 teams switching conferences, and in the 1996 case a major conference self-destructing. This is no bigger than 1992, when Arkansas and South Carolina joined the SEC. The title should be changed to 2010 Pac-10 and Big Ten expansion: there was no realignment, just a couple schools switching conferences Purplebackpack89 04:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have 5 conferences directly involved and numerous reliable sources referring to it as conference realignment. It's a realignment. A modest realignment compared to the 2005 realignment, but a realignment all the same. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would seriously doubt that it has been referred to as a realignment since Oklahoma, Texas, &c decided to stay in the Big 12. I'd like you to find some realible sources that call it a realignment after those schools stayed put; I'd be willing to bet there aren't many, if any. Your 5 conferences statement is misleading because no conference has more than two schools moving; again not that different from when Arkansas and South Carolina joined the SEC in 1992. Purplebackpack89 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sports Illustrated and Sporting News websites both still appear to be referring to it as a realignment as of last week, and I find nothing misleading in any of my previous statements. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SO I think I understand, b/c Purple doesnt think it was big enough compared to what it could have been it's not notable and should be deleted and/or renamed. So maybe we should delete the Cold War since it never lead to World War III. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a flawed example, as I'm sure you knew that when you placed it Purplebackpack89 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — Probably the biggest story in U.S. college sports in 2010, possibly the biggest since the major 2005 realignment. Reported by countless reliable sources, with ESPN and SI only being the most prominent. And, even though major realignment didn't take place this time, at least one well-known columnist believes major realignment will only be a matter of time. That having been said, I have no objection to a change of title. — Dale Arnett (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is weird...over at simple, United States presidential election, 2012 was one vote away from being deleted, yet I can't get one concurrance that this non-event/mass of hot air isn't notable? By the way, Dale, your columnist could be construed as WP:CRYSTAL, especially since it may not be a wholly realiable source. As I said, if kept, title should be 2010 Pac-10 and Big Ten expansion, as the main onus for it was for those conferences to get championship games and fat TV networks Purplebackpack89 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that there couldn't be a better title, but the title you suggest is much worse than the current title. As I've said before, there are currently 5 conferences involved in this event and you seem to want a title which encompasses only 2 of them. And AfD is not really the place to have a discussion on changing the title of an article. What the title is has absolutely no bearing on whether or not an article should be deleted. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but of the only four schools involved, 75% of them moved to either the Pac-10 or Big Ten; and the remaining 25% moved as a replacement for a school lost in Pac-10 expansion. And your "five conferences" argument carries little weight, because no conference had more than two schools actually moving, in or out. Purplebackpack89 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we just disagree. Though from some of your comments, you seem to be unhappy about this whole conference expansion process. Perhaps that displeasure is influencing your view that this article should be deleted. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP:Crystal argument doesn't work, because it's varifiable, notable, sourced information that certain schools, such as Texas, were in talks with other coferences and ready to move. And like myslef and others have said the title is fine, it wasn't the huge shakeup that it could have been, but it was still a realignment with a handfull of big schools changing conferences. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this event nearly completely destroyed and rebuilt the NCAA Division I for all sports, not just football, and some said it endangered several Division I schools with dropping down to Division II. Such a significant event should be a part of this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — I understand the argument that no major realignment resulted in this huge mess. However, it was a major story and this article covers the speculation and considerations made by many more colleges and conferences aside from just what did happen. I would propose changing the title to some like "2010 NCAA Pac-10 / Big-10 Expansion" ... Yes, I do realize those were not the only conferences involved, but that title is accurate and the explanation surrounding the other conferences would be found in the article itself. Change the title if necessary, but don't flat out delete the article. -- Frontrange (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really the proper forum to discuss a name change. If, after this AfD is closed, there is still a desire for a name change, then it should be listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm not arguing for a specific name change, only that I'd prefer a name change over the article being deleted. -- Frontrange (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user who nominated it for deletion opened the door for naming included in his original reason for deletion: "Not a realignment--should be renamed to something more accurate if kept." maybe confusing Wikipedia:Requested moves with AfDs. I's been said already and I agree, the name is fine, it was a NCAA conference realignment (smaller than what could have been) but still one. 2010 NCAA conference realignment is a reasonable title. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article title is fine as well. I was merely pointing out that what an article is named has absolutely no bearing on whether or not an article should be deleted. The 2 questions are mutually exclusive and should not be blurred together as they seem to have been in this nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pretty much they were blurred together for some reason. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! I retract my renaming recommendations and I will simply say I think this was a hugely news-worthy event and that this article should remain. -- Frontrange (talk) 19:54, 2 July 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantium

edit
Adamantium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional metal which does not meet WP:GNG, since there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The article is in violation of WP:BKD and WP:PLOT - it's providing overly detailed in-universe coverage of what is essentially a minor plot element. Claritas § 19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially trivial coverage - it's either in-universe plot description (as in the unofficial X-men guide) or single sentence mentions. It doesn't directly substantiate the notability of the topic, by discussing it - all that is mentioned in those sources could be summed up in a few sentences on the Wolverine article. Is there any more significant coverage, for example, a few pages in a book or article simply focusing on the fictional metal ? Claritas § 15:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, it is your job to eliminate the possibility that such exist before nominating. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm thinking you didn't look at the sources I provided. This is neither in-universe or trivial. It's about as real world as it gets, and it's all about adamantium. It seems like you want this deleted regardless of what sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I read all of them. This is the entire content of that coverage: Adamantium, a rare (fictional) metal derived from meteor debris, is bonded to his biological skeleton. The metal is somehow liquefied, and then made to combine with his bones (and claws!) to create an almost invulnerable hero - most of this isn't even about Admantium, but about Wolverine. All we've learnt from the source is that it's a "rare fictional metal" and "derived from meteor debris". That's simply a trivial contextual mention, not in-depth coverage. There's no coverage of Admantium in greater depth than the Wikipedia article in any reliable independent source. Claritas § 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Marvel Universe While there are a few sources mentioning the topic, on the whole the bulk of sources seem to be fanguides and what not, rather than truly third-party sources. There is enough sourcable information to warrant a serious trim down and merge to the existing universe article, but not enough to consider significant enough coverage for its own article. If kept, article should be given a serious wiping of all the excessive WP:PLOT and WP:OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as among the most no-brainer keeps I've seen. The fact that the nominator is unable to find any references reflects poorly on him, not on the fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it reflects the contrast between what you would like the inclusion criteria to be and what the inclusion criteria are. Claritas § 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I tend to agree with Peregrine and Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is easy to find scholarly works which cover this such as Serials Review. There's perhaps a case for merger with Adamant as this covers the broader fictional usage which is much the same. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Many, if not most, articles on subjects from contemporary popular fiction are in a poor state, written primarily from an in-universe perspective, and lacking in third-party commentary. But where, as here, we are dealing with a fictional subject that is decades old, has figured in many different kinds of media as part of a indisputably notable franchise, and has been woven into many separate serial works, there should be some presumption of notability and an effort to address the article's flaws through editing and discussion FIRST rather than through a deletion nomination. There will always remains a question of what level of detail an indisputably notable franchise/serial fiction topic should be documented, and what elements of that franchise/serial work merit standalone articles. But in this context at least, that is ultimately an editorial decision, not a deletion decision, because this element needs to be discussed somewhere, and it is not of relevance to only one article topic. In any event, as shown above, sources have been found and I am confident that more will be found over time. The nom's comments suggest that he did not look, but rather took the article as it appeared and presumed it could not get better. That might be a proper assumption if we were dealing with a one-off supporting character from one TV episode, or something from fan fiction or otherwise self-published, but that's obviously not the case here. postdlf (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BEFORE, it's necessary for me to check Google Books/Scholar/News before nominating an article, to check that an article I'm about to nominate isn't indisputably notable. However, the burden falls on you or others proposing keeping this article to find the sources and establish notability. Claritas § 20:27, 29 June 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 Howling:_New_Moon_Rising#Sequel. JForget 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Howling : Reborn

edit
The Howling : Reborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about unreleased film, possibly not even filmed yet, violates WP:CRYSTAL in many ways. WuhWuzDat 18:49, 27 June 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 (CSD G12) TexasAndroid. NAC. Cliff smith talk 04:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effectionhate

edit
Effectionhate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notability, vanity page. Band has no released music, see also Shannon Gardner-Gausten for related discussion. OldManNeptune (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This really should have been deleted anyway. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:36, 28 June 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 Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). T. Canens (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Lost Me (Christina Aguilera song)

edit
You Lost Me (Christina Aguilera song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:NSONGS. it has not charted, not recieved any independent coverage and has not been performed/covered several times by other artists. Moreover the overiding argument is that there is nowhere near enough information to warrant a detailed page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm confused by this article. It claims that the song is not yet released but that it has already charted. If this is a single release then it's almost certain to chart.--Michig (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the source provided does not show its charted hence it was removed and secondly on WP:NSONGS nowhere does it say that it is acceptable to create an article in anticipation of a song charting as that would be a crystal ball. WP:NSONGS clearly says when a song has charted etc. and also says that articles must be of detailed/sizeable length. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article meets all predefined rules by Wikipedia, and the user opened the page for deletion does its own interpretation of the rules for their own benefit, and inappropriate since it is an encyclopedia that relies on help from others to be true and correct. The exclusion precludes users to become better informed.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved response by article nominator (me) because user above has made an accusation which I have asked him to clarify on his talk page as it seems unfair. I do not want to be see as trying to steer the conversation. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 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 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Gardner-Gausten

edit
Shannon Gardner-Gausten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person, fairly transparent vanity page. See also Effectionhate, which is essentially the same page but referencing this person's band. OldManNeptune (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. As well, the book she appears in his her husband's book so it isn't really an independent source. Furthermore, it's self-published through LuLu so there is no evidence of editorial oversight in the selection of the content for the book that would establish the source as usable for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN artist, maybe down the road...Modernist (talk) 19:21, 3 July 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) 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mantofight

edit
Mantofight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find anything particularly notable about this company and none of the article's references, which seem to lack independence, seem to show notability. Article has been tagged for notability for two years so I decided to bring it to AfD. I don't have strong feelings on this, but I thought it would be good to get a consensus opinion on this article (and perhaps some better sourcing). Papaursa (talk) 17:43, 27 June 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 as creation of a banned user. Jack Merridew 04:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasia (film series)

edit
Fantasia (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary article on a non-existent "series". Purely redundant to Fantasia (film) and Fantasia 2000, and seem mostly a copy/paste of the two with a horrible table/template thing added to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:42, 27 June 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 01:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley Pyros

edit
Paisley Pyros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable British University sports team. British University sports teams are rarely notable. Often they are unheard of even on their own campus. This does not appear to be an exception to this rule. Google returns only sites related to the team and its rivals. Article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of reliable and independent sources, there is little prospect of being able to reference the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems little basis to assume that BUAFL members are inherently notable even in the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please demonstrate that such coverage exists. Pfainuk talk 17:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is serious question if the league is notable, so the team would be not likely notable unless there was significant coverage... which there isn't. No independent sources. Try another wiki?
  • Delete - complete failure to meet WP:ORG since there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. TerriersFan (talk) 00:19, 2 July 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 01:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling Clansmen

edit
Stirling Clansmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable British University sports team. British University sports teams are not generally notable. Often, they are unheard of even on their own campus. This team does not appear to be amongst the small number of exceptions to this rule. Google turns up only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. Article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of independent and/or reliable sources on the team, I see no prospect of being able to reference the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems little basis to assume that BUAFL members are inherently notable even in the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please demonstrate that such coverage exists. Pfainuk talk 17:14, 30 June 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha and Omega (Bizzy Bone album)

edit
Alpha and Omega (Bizzy Bone album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod of an article that does not assert the notability of the album it covers. The band is notable and so the article was not a candidate for speedy deletion, but not every album by a notable band is itself notable; cf. WP:NALBUMS. No reason was given for contesting the prod other than to add a tag saying additional citations were needed. RJC TalkContribs 16:53, 27 June 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) 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deafless

edit
Deafless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be about a blog-created neologism, a subject which does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Prod removed by creator; no response from creator to my attempt to discuss. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:25, 27 June 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) 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Braves

edit
Derby Braves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable British University sports team. British University sports teams are not generally notable. They are often unheard of even on their own campuses. This team does not appear to be one of the small number of exceptions to this rule. Google returns only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. The article's single reference is to the team's own web site, which hardly qualifies it as independent. Given the lack of sources, there isn't really any prospect of referencing the article further or expanding it. Pit-yacker (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As I've said time and again, there are very few British Uni sports that are notable. This isn't one of them and since a Google search reveals nothing sans their own website and their rivals, I doubt they ever will become notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The breathless declamation "British University sports teams are not generally notable" can be taken as PoV. The subject here is a team (i.e. a group of people) who are in a league (a larger group of people) supported by a fanbase (an even larger group of people) watched by an audience (you see where I'm going with this, right?). They are clearly of some public note, even if it's tiny. As for sources, they may easily be forthcoming from UK newspapers, academic publications, etc.: Google is not the only source of verifiability in the world! I say as long as it's a reasonably informative article (which it is), there are far worse infractions of the notability rule to worry about. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps demonstrate some of these sources? Simply stating speculatively that sources "may be easily forthcoming" is insufficient to demonstrate notability - because you could use the same speculation on just about any subject.
You talk about a fanbase, and an audience. Perhaps you could point to some evidence for this? Fan websites, for example, that could be used as independent reliable sources per WP:GNG? I can't find any evidence of any significant fanbase. Which is not surprising: in the UK, it is unusual for a university sports match to get any spectators who aren't actually members of one of the clubs involved. And when you do get spectators, they're generally friends and family of squad members - or else players from the women's hockey match that just finished on the next pitch over. And that's even in major sports (American football is not a major sport in the UK).
You say there are far worse infractions of the notability rule. Maybe there are - and you're welcome to nominate articles that you consider a problem in this regard for deletion - but that does not mean that this article should not be deleted. Pfainuk talk 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is ONE UK University sporting event that I can think of that can truly be declared to be noteworthy and that is the boat race. For the rest, they are lucky if they get coverage in the institution's in-house paper. If they are extremely luck or extremely adept at PR they might get patchy coverage in a local newspaper. There is certainly nothing in the nationals.
Go and have a look at the galleries on Derby Brave's own gallery, the Huddersfield Hawks gallery is a typical "crowd" you would expect for one of these matches. Google's news search which carries most news sources of worth in the world and returns nothing relevant in an archives search. Google scholar which returns academic work returns absolutely nothing at all for "Derby Braves".
Whether or not the article is informative is irrelevant if the article covers something of next to zero notability. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF isn't really an argument, for the present AfD. Or by that stretch, is Wikipedia going to start having articles for the hundreds of Working men's club and pub soccer teams throughout the UK? These have teams which consist of numerous players, playing in leagues of numerous teams. What's more they also have fans - not least the members of the club/regular customers together with anyone who happens to be walking their dog in the local municipal park/recreation ground. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SteveStrummer's argument breaks down completely when it gets to "supported by a fanbase (an even larger group of people) watched by an audience (you see where I'm going with this, right?)". The fanbase and the audience (who are actually spectators rather than an audience, unless you think that people prefer listening to sport than watching it) for just about any university sport in the UK are smaller in number than the participants. How many of England's association football World Cup squad who are flying home as I write this do you think ever played for a university team (clue: the number is the same shape as the ball)? My son was placed in the first twenty in UK student championships in four individual sports, but I'm sure he would consider it ridiculous if someone was to write an encyclopedia article about him on that basis. In the UK universities and serious sport are two completely separate worlds, apart from the Oxford and Cambridge rivalry in rowing and rugby union, and those universities' cricket teams' historical first-class status. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, gentlemen, the argument does not break down at all from your unsourced and entirely baseless claims. No fanbase?? Do organized sports ever exist without them? Why the websites, the statistics, the league itself? Why do they have cheerleaders?? You may demean them all you like, but the players, organizers, sponsors, students, and spectators certainly exist, and they disagree with you. Maybe university teams sent no one to the World Cup this year, but I think it likely that more than one ended up in NFL Europe (which was the original home of Kurt Warner, among others), and they certainly permeate the crowd at the NFL International Series (the 2010 series is in London, btw). As for the Google worship, I don't know how you conducted your investigation, but a simple search for "british university american football" (in quotes) yields 13,800 hits, and another for "derby braves" yields 4,760. It requires no citation for me to say definitively that enthusiasts of American football worldwide would be delighted to read about the teams of the BUAFL, and they should rightfully expect to find that information in helpful, unbiased form right here on Wikipedia - unless you cause a mass deletion of these sound, dignified, and well-constructed articles. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You ask if organised sports ever exist without a fanbase. Yes. They do. Frequently. You don't hear much about them precisely because they don't have a fanbase.
You argue that British university American football teams are notable because some of their players may or may not have participated in NFL Europe, a league that is now defunct because it was losing a lot of money. This would not make the university teams notable. You argue that some of the British university American football teams are notable because some of their players may or may not have been in the crowd for an NFL match. Members of the Swindon Tiddlywinks club may have been in the crowd as well, but that doesn't make it notable.
On Google, you do the opposite of what you accuse us of doing. You take a raw number without reference to the independence or reliability of the sources. 4,760 doesn't seem a lot for a Google search - particularly one that apparently includes Wikipedia and its mirrors. Your remaining arguments boil down to it being interesting and well written - maybe it is interesting to someone, and maybe it is well written, but that doesn't make it notable.
What we're asking for is, as I say, not a high standard. It is for, in the words of WP:GNG, evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I contend that such coverage does not exist. Pfainuk talk 06:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Yes organised sports frequently exist without a fan-base. In what way is a fan-base a pre-requisite for starting a league? How come you are sure that these fans exist? You accuse others of not having sources, but where are yours? Did you or do you, attend a British University? Do you know the culture of UK Higher Education? I spent 10 years in various guises at my university. I was vaguely aware of the existence of a soccer and netball team, which got limited coverage in the student newspaper (squashed in below reports on Manchester United and Manchester City). I was also aware that the Athletic Union fielded teams in literally dozens of less notable sports (of varying notability and interest to a general audience). However, and my experience, appears not to be untypical, I had absolutely no idea what any of the teams where up to, nor that my University had an American Football team.
Why have cheer-leaders? I guess it gives something for the players' girl-friends something to do to keep warm. The cheer-leaders are frequently the only other ones at matches. The other side is of course it is something for a separate cheer-leading society to cheer-lead (besides the dancing in a gay bar that one now deleted cheer-leading team article claimed as a reason for notability). On the cheer-leading subject (perhaps also applicable to the teams), its worth note that it is piss easy to set up a student society at a British University. From memory, you need a single figure number of members and to sign up to a number of principles (such as being non-discriminatory). Once you do that, the University Union (ergo The University - ergo HM Taxpayer) will stump up a not insignificant amount of money to run the society on. Of course, to continue getting that FREE cash you need new blood to replace those that leave. At that point, as a niche interest sport, a bit of cheap publicity in the form of your own website (and a Wikipedia article) comes in useful ;). (In my experience getting a web-space within the university ain't difficult either. My uni positively encouraged students to create their own web-sites. In fact writing web pages was part of a mandatory course for non-technical subjects. The organisation was so loose that it was harder to get rid of old out-dated websites, because that frequently involves actually physically locating the computer hosting the site).
On your point about various people going onto other things. Notability should not be inherited. The team should have notability to stand on its own feet. If all you can say about a team is that X played for them for 3 years whilst at university, the team can't actually be that notable. Equally, a team cannot be notable because some of its members once went to watch a match of notable teams. Is my employer notable because one of my colleagues went to watch Manchester United?
As for you statements about Google searches. You aren't actually parsing what you are getting. What counts are sites, or anything reliable that can be used as a reference and to establish notability. In that regard there is nothing or very close to it. As previously stated the results consist of a pile of sites affiliated in some way with rival teams, various mirrors of the Wikipedia article, various mirrors of current and old versions of the team's own site and various other sites belonging to the University of Derby. As early as page 4 there are results unconnected with the team. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't care about fan base or cheerleaders, for those things do not make anything notable. My position is simple: there are no independent sources to cite with this article. Policy is clear. Give us independent sources, you got a different game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - catastrophic failure to meet WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. An indication of just how low the profile of sports in the University of Derby is, is that there is no specific mention, at all, of any of the sports teams in the University article. No indication in the article, or this discussion, of any claim to notability. Indeed, I am wondering whether their league, itself, is notable since the league article has almost no independent sources. TerriersFan (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - never mind the university's article on WP, the sports clubs aren't even mentioned on the university's official website, which goes to show how major a part of student life in the UK student sports are(n't). Delete as 100% non-notable off-campus and probably 95% non-notable on it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It leaves me incredulous that anyone would try to claim that an enormous human enterprise like the BUAFL is without any "notability". However, here are some "independent, verifiable secondary sources" about the BUAFL and its many teams:

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2005/11/29/sport_american_football_feature.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/northampton_town/8416162.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2008/03/20/american_football_stallions_feature.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-igvKToKcw&feature=related

UK Channel 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnGhrMDxcKk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBFOcwYr7ZI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgV0DCCg1Tk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDKb6PVDqYM&feature=related

Additionally, the UK Daily Mirror maintains a very active American Football blog on its website, and it features the BUAFL regularly:

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/fourth-down/2009/04/buafl-national-chamionship-fin-3.html

SteveStrummer (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These are not relevant to the present Afd. Being generous, there is one approx 20s reference to Derby Braves in the whole lot, being less generous there is about two 4s of a person introducing themselves as a player for said team and then attempting to chuck a ball at a car. There is absolutely no use for this as a reference. The rest concern a number of different subjects. They cannot be taken as a group to keep any single article. Each article should be discussed on its own merits. For example, take those related to BUAFL to the as yet unstarted BUAFL AfD. If there are enough sources for a single article it should be kept. However, as yet and I have come across the BBC local pages and mentioned them in previous AfDs, there is not enough on any single team to keep their article. Link by link:
  1. Two sentences mentioning the existence of Staffordshire Stallions (not Derby Braves) in an article about American Football in the local area. Page is a now defunct local service.
  2. Report that Northampton Town's stadium will be used by BUAFL. No mention of any team let alone Derby Braves.
  3. as 1, report on Staffordshire Stallions on now defunct local service. No mention of Derby Braves.
  4. 2 min filler segment on (?show that goes out after midnight?) discussing the names of BUAFL teams.
  5. 4 min filler segment (another edition of same show) where 5 BUAFL players attempt to throw ball at car window. Features About 20s of a Derby Braves player.
  6. About BAFL NOT BUAFL.
  7. Filler on same Five show. About Birmingham Lions and Bath Killer Bees, thus not relevant to this Afd.
  8. Blogs don't usually constitute reliable sources. Contains a grand total of 17 posts of matters BUAFL (16 between Feb and April 2009, with 1 in Dec 2009). 6 of the posts concern the same match. Thus, I would hardly call its coverage of BUAFL "active" or "regular". There is only one mention of Derby Braves, the subject of this Afd, which is nothing other than a single match score in a whole list.

Pit-yacker (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those YouTube videos appear to be copyvios. If so, we certainly can't reference them and shouldn't be linking them here. The show concerned was a show about the NFL, put out on Channel 5 at about 7am on a Sunday. Apparently, they used to do filler items on domestic American football - though nothing, obviously, on the university teams, that we could base an article on as Steve suggests. Pfainuk talk 06:51, 3 July 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compendium Books

edit
Compendium Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was moved by me to the article creator's userspace to avoid speedy deletion. The article was sourced and it seemed to me that this could potentially be a subject of more interest than what was immediately obvious. After all, it is not unknown for even small bookshops to be significant in some way (cf. Shakespeare & Company). Maybe further work on the article would reveal that this bookshop was the meeting place for some literary group or something? I warned the user that he would have some more time to work on the article, and reminded him after about a week that this was only a temporary solution (see User talk:Moses Whyte). That was in early May. As nothing has happened and the user has disappeared, I am now reverting my own move of the page and nominating it for deletion. Hegvald (talk) 15:42, 27 June 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) 01:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fern G.Z. Carr

edit
Fern G.Z. Carr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable poet lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:33, 27 June 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, with thanks to User:Location's research and improvements to the article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen's agreement

edit
Gentlemen's agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced, even after existing as an article for 8 years. Essentially just WP:OI. Probably could be transwikied to wictionary. Oddly enough, the first version of this article was a reasonable little stub, specifically about Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 which has turned into a perfectly good free-standing article on its own. But what we have here is pointless. A google search comes up with lots of uses of this term, but nothing which talks authoritatively about the topic.-- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doing citations was probably more difficult in 2002 than it is now, although it appears that none of the subsequent contributors believed in such things as mentioning where they got their facts either. About a year ago, it got stripped of all of the unsourced stuff, but at the same time it was transformed into this essentially useless article that completely misses the point that a "gentlemen's agreement" refers to an injustice that is perpetuated by an unwritten rule (such as "we need to limit American pro sports to white athletes"). As far as content, this appears to have been the best version [10]. Whether it's a completely unsourced list of gentlemen's agreements throughout history, or the silly "gentlemen's agreements sure are wonderful" version that we have now, it's an embarrassment. I'm sure it's listed on Wiktionary. Mandsford 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. A disambiguation page would make sense here with a link to the wiktionary article and the wikipedia articles Gentleman's Agreement, Gentlemen's agreement of Andhra Pradesh (1956), Gentleman's Agreement (novel), and Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907. Gobonobo T C 04:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly do you want now? You critisize me for voting "keep" and others for voting "delete". Simply claiming that an article should be deleted for lack of sources without bringing ANY effort of TRYING to verify (I'm not really referring to you here) is the REAL PROBLEM of Wikipedia in terms of article deletion. It is super easy to critisize distructively in this way rather than contributing constructively. What my phrase "much more" was referring to was the fact that the article's title phrase is covered by several major wikipedias, which in part clearly contain content beyond what is offered here. And by expressing my vote here I am not automatically obliged to write on the article myself, I would say. Nageh (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, and I also should have checked prior revisions as pointed out above. So is this what we want on Wikipedia, simply delete anything and everything that is found unreferenced rather than bother checking whether the statement could be verified in principle? If that is the case I should delete 90% of the articles or article content I am finding on Wikipedia on the subject I am expert on, even when correct. Good deal!
I must admit that considering the history of this article I don't know how to proceed best (without getting into it myself). Nageh (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation if someone manages to produce an encyclopedic article on this topic. In its current form it is little more than a dictionary definition for a common colloquial phrase. Surely, 8 years is more than enough time to produce at least a moderately reasonable encyclopedia article, which has not happened here. In the meantime, making a disambig page for the term sounds like a good idea. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sources documenting gentlemen's agreements in general, and not the specific books, novels, and treaties. White 720 mentions difficulties in finding them with Google. That means that you have to work harder, White 720, not that one can get away with handwaving. Put the effort in.

    There are sources in EU competition law (ISBN 9789050954655 pp. 150, ISBN 9789041198228 pp. 24) that mention a 1970 European Court of Justice ruling that a gentleman's agreement qualifies as an agreement as far as EU competition law is concerned. ISBN 9780199264766 pp. 323 mentions a 1960 Swiss court ruling that gentlemen's agreements are not legally binding in Swiss law. One can probably get another sentence or two from the Justice Vaisey characterization of gentlemen's agreements on page 165 of ISBN 9781590315729 (and many other places). A fair amount can be obtained from ISBN 9789050950411 pp. 91 et seq.. One can even bring in Desmond Tutu on the subject, if one uses ISBN 9781859847107 pp. 35. ISBN 9780949553232 pp. 135 discusses the difficulty of considering gentlemen's agreements to be binding (and also quotes Vaisey).

    Those with more access than I should check out the 1957 Northwestern University law review, which appears to have a lengthy discussion of what gentlemen's agremeents are not, as far as the law is concerned. No, Mandsford, a gentlemen's agreement does not necessarily embody an element of injustice.

    I agree, Mandsford, that there's often a long-term problem with people who don't believe in citing sources. Unfortunately, participants in this very discussion exemplify it. It's not merely a 2002 problem. ☺ But there are sources that address the actual concept of gentlemen's agreements (also gentleman's agreements) as points of contract and competition law. There is scope for expansion of this article from its current stub status. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we are at a disadvantage to you. The comments directed toward "participants in this very discussion", particularly the insinuations against User:White720 (who has not done a thing to you), are unnecessary. Neither I, nor White, have the phrase "Yes, I am an administrator" on our talk pages. If White is somewhat reluctant to talk back to someone with a badge, I can only say that I am not. It may not be your intent to pick a fight, but it's certainly coming across that way. Mandsford 18:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the page is basically about a colloquial English phrase rather than about a legal concept. If someone with some knowledge of the subject can convert the current version to a semi-reasonable stub, with a few references, about the legal concept, I'd be fine with keeping it. But my impression is that such a potential stub would have little overlap with the current text of the page and would have to be written essentially from scratch. Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. There appear to be two huge branches of discussion for this topic: one on international relations and another on steel/iron industry concerns in the late 1800s/early 1900s. A "gentlemen's agreement" was actually a specific type of business arrangement in the later. Tons of mentions in the US House: [11]. Location (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The concept is quite notable and it would be shocking for wikipedia not to have an article on it. Its not shocking that the article is in poor shape.--Milowent (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Changing my vote based on the great improvements done by User:Location, and asking that this be closed as a snowball. Location has done an excellent job not only on making this a well-sourced article, but in summarizing the different meanings of the phrase "gentlemen's agreement" depending on time and... location. Nice work. Mandsford 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I have no objection. The current version is a perfectly reasonable article. I still agree with the person who said the picture was kind of lame, however :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. A true gentleman would not fail to wear a long-sleeved shirt when shaking hands upon an agreement, nor display his hairy arm in crass promotion of his masculinity. It is clearly a breach of etiquette. Mandsford 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And what self-respecting gentleman wears a watch on his right wrist? (See also Pleased to Meet Me.) Location (talk) 20:40, 29 June 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. needs some work Tone 19:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SiSoftware

edit
SiSoftware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable company - only claim to significance is it's product "Sandra". Codf1977 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and flesh out with information about their flagship product "Sandra". Coverage is not particularly in-depth, but is counterbalanced by the breadth. A google book search provides a lot sources that provide small writeups including Leo Laporte declaring it one his favourites. -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For several years Sisoft-Sandra was one of those tools installed on my one or other pc. I don't know if Sisoft or Sandra is more worthy of an article but there is certainly some cultural and historical significance here.Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 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 01:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Gay Porn Awards

edit
European Gay Porn Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed for deletion with the reason "Short-lived and apparently defunct only poll, not notable, no significant GNews hits, coverage appears restricted to self-published blogs." Brought here for wider discussion because of possible relevance for actor biographies in that area. Tikiwont (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my original PROD (which should have read "online poll," not "only poll"). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it has some sourcing available from AVN [12], and XBIZ [13]. I'm not sure it warrants a keep, but Hullabaloo apparently not even looking is problematic. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another flimsy pony theory. Most of the contents of the AVN and XBIZ sites is sourced directly from press releases and similar promo material, and fails WP:RS. If you're not going to bother to check for reliable sources yourself, don't make groundless accusations against those of us who actually do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both AVN and XBIZ pass WP:RS, and have factored into numerous AfD. You've taken part in enough of them to be aware of this, and your apparent failure to even look at either site is problematic. Less so than following it with yet another personal attack. This is the second position this week where you maintained that all previous AfD were wrong based on your latest whim of interpretation. If the topic makes you incapable of respecting previous consensus, or acting civilly, then you shouldn't participate in porn related Afd.Horrorshowj (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:V is policy and cannot be varied by local consensus. There's no denying that both sites publish press releases and other publicity material which fail the GNG requirement for independent sourcing. The fact that you don't like these standards isn't a valid excuse for your making groundless and invalid personal attacks on editors who follow them. The relevant provisions of the GNG are quite specific, excluding "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." Since you resort to uncivil personal attacks rather than applying undisputed policy and guideline requirements, you're the one who shouldn't be participating in these AFDs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What specifically are you claiming are "groundless and invalid personal attacks on editors"? For that matter, why are you referring to yourself in the plural? I'm aware that WP:V is a policy. I've never claimed that it wasn't. Nor have I claimed that press releases counted towards notability. The articles on the two sites are a different matter. The applicable project has reviewed them, and came to the conclusion the staff written articles are a reliable source. That this has been accepted at dozens of Afd discussions means that we can safely view it as a widely held view. You disagree with the interpretation, good for you. However, that doesn't mean that every editor who disagrees with you is disregarding or ignorant of policy. It certainly isn't changing the "policy by local consensus." Horrorshowj (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "applicable project also reviewed AInews.com and declared it to be a reliable source, even though it seems to do nothing but republish press releases. Nonindependent sources aren't enough to establish notability under the GNG, no matter what contrary local consensus may be reached at an individual Wikiproject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, fails GNG. DiiCinta (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nom appears to be correct. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:59, 27 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albion (Marvel Comics)

edit
Albion (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character(s) who fail(s) WP:N. There's simply no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources for either of them. Notability isn't inherited from the comics they appear in. Claritas § 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, there's a policy called WP:NRVE....if you can't find sources, "it's difficult to find sources" isn't a reason to keep......Claritas § 18:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:58, 27 June 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) 14:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penu Chalykoff

edit
Penu Chalykoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find nearly enough coverage for this individual. —fetch·comms 17:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Penu Chalykoff is notable because Spellfury the webseries is notable, they have been reviewed and featured by Wired.com[1], Tubefilter[2] and Ain't It Cool News[3]

Added a better link to a recent full page newspaper article (EMC Perth) called "Perth-based online show casts spell on viewers" about Spellfury and Penu Chalykoff's role in the show.[4]

He was also an actor in an award winning short called "Revelation" at the 2008 Houston Worldfest International Filmfest. [5] He has a IMDB page.[6] The show he is in is the top-rated show on visioweb.tv and the second most popular show on koldcast.tv

Keep Because Spellfury is a notable show and the newspaper article mentions him as a key team member "Another key team member is actor Penu Chalykoff, who appears in many episodes."Toronto23 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Previous post Next post. "7 Webotainers Worth Watching | Underwire". Wired.com. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
  2. ^ "'Spellfury' is Low Budget, High Fantasy". News.tubefilter.tv. 2009-07-08. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
  3. ^ "AICN COMICS REVIEWS: AVENGERS! JLA! VENOM! SAMURAI 7! dot.comics! & MUCH MORE!!! - Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news". Aintitcool.com. 2009-04-01. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
  4. ^ http://www.emcperth.ca/20100624/Entertainment/Perth-based+online+show+casts+spell+on+viewers
  5. ^ http://www.worldfest.org/downloads/winnerslist2008.xls
  6. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3742098/
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Relisted due to the SPAs, so a couple of comments from non-SPAs would be needed even though it seems it is leaning towards delete. JForget 14:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need to relist, there are three deletes plus the nominators delete rational and two single purpose comments. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 27 June 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) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruinz Ason

edit
Ruinz Ason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Label and producer of his album are unknown to Google except on Myspace and Wikipedia. The "album" is called a mixtabe here. I suspect lack of notability. Schuhpuppe (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Links have been added to prove notibilty, Label is an independent production label by Ruinz Ason And his Brother J-Flames.
The reviewer starts off calling the Album a mixtape then at the ends says "In fact this is a street album not even a mixtape. "
In all links it mentions J- Flames as the producer of all Ruinz Ason's 3 releases. The article has been edited to address notability issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriber1 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the producer is his brother, it's effectively self-published. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:51, 27 June 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Can't Dance (band)

edit
We Can't Dance (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band, per WP:BAND and WP:GNG - but only just, so probably not a speedy candidate. Reached the lower postions of the indie chart, but not the national UK chart per the requirement on WP:BAND. One item in their local newspaper (which documents their bad luck and failure to chart) is not generally the level of coverage which meets WP:GNG. I42 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This band are now targeting an irish chart success, due to Gary Doherty being Irish, online magazine Ybig (You boys in green) have taken the song and are campaigning to make it number one in Ireland. http://www.ybig.ie/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19604&PID=379677 Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.245.44 (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:51, 27 June 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) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian environmentalist now at Vijaypal Baghel

edit
Indian environmentalist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced that Vijaypal Baghel meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. While the article about him does cite some sources, of the five sources cited, two are purely local in scope, two barely mention him, and two are not independent of Baghel. I did my own Google news search and found only one hit, which didn't establish that he is more significant than any other local activist. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:50, 27 June 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) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ONEXENO

edit
ONEXENO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a non notable card game that extends into a game guide. No evidence offered and none available on searching of where the significant, independent coverage in reliable sources exists. Hence, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Author has WP:COI as developer of game Nuttah (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Favonian (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. There are sources that demonstrate V, but the two reviews (boardgamenews and BoardGameGeeek)are utterly unremarkable. Most damning is the recent press release: cached here stating in part "After little more than one year, Penrose Press has sold out of the first ONEXENO edition of 2,000 copies." which seems to be entirely non-notable. It asserts a magazine-specific award I've never heard of, but overall, the whole web presence for the game smells of carefully crafted marketing, rather than any real notability. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save as RL Just because NL never heard of the magazine seems irrelevant [15]) and utterly unremarkable. Frankly, selling 2,000 copies of a new card game during its first year of publication is rather remarkable. BTW there is a list of reviews at (http://www.onexeno.org/links.php) 14:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.216.176 (talk)
  • Weak Delete Only the boardgamenews review seems to be reliable and I've been unable to find anything else. (BTW, the reviews being unmarkable isn't a reason to delete). If there are other reviews that aren't self-published I'd likely change to a weak keep. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:41, 27 June 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. NW (Talk) 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan-Denmark relations

edit
Azerbaijan-Denmark relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

neither has country has embassies, no known agreements. current article mentions one state visit but I can't find anything else. the current article mentions a Danish program that applies to a group of countries not just Azerbaijan. those wanting to barrel scrape the President of Azerbaijan sent a letter to the Queen of Denmark wishing her a happy birthday and Azerbaijan buys ink-jet scanners from Denmark for election. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 27 June 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) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hideyuki Nakayama

edit
Hideyuki Nakayama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find the notability for this person in this badly written and unreferenced article. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 27 June 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) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted School

edit
The Haunted School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. The unrelated film of the same name should occupy the title this article currently occupies. Neelix (talk) 12:03, 27 June 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) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inner and outer product algebras

edit
Inner and outer product algebras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notablity of this concept per WP:N. The only reference given is a 2004 Master's thesis that does not appear to have been cited anywhere, according to MathSciNet and GoogleScholar. Also, seems to be a WP:COI case. The ref cited is by 'Cassamo, Claude Michael' and the page was created by User:Cloudmichael‎. Nsk92 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The terms "outer product algebra" and "inner product algebra" are certainly used (see e.g. this book) but I don't see that this combination article is helpful. In any case, the content is WP:OR for Wikipedia purposes, since it relies on an unpublished thesis. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact, my understanding is that the definition of an inner product algebra given in this article is significantly different from the definition in the book that you cite. The definition given in this WP article seems to be an analog of the standard notion of an inner product on a vector space. This definition appears to be mathematically reasonable, but not notable. Nsk92 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which goes to show that simply googling the term tells us nothing. Perhaps the useful parts of the material here are already/could be covered in existing articles on vector spaces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radagast3 (talk • contribs)
Actually, there are already articles Inner product and Outer product about the standard notions for these terms. Nsk92 (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For what it's worth, it appears as though both structures are just non-associative algebras. The inner product is commutative and the outer product is anticommutative. Although surely they are well-studied as algebras, I am unaware of anyone calling them "inner and outer product algebras". At any rate, this appears to be something of a misnomer, since the inner product is scalar-valued, but the product here is vector-valued. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per notability criteria. Google books did turn up a few hits on "inner product algebra" and "outer product algebra" but I coundn't find anything to support the material in the article.--RDBury (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nsk92 pointed out that those ghits aren't necessarily for the same concept. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the terminology is all from the cited master's thesis, which is online [17]. The thesis does not give any citations for the two terms in question, and it seems they are original in the thesis. If that's right, then I believe there hasn't been enough research on these topics to warrant an article at this time. We are generally very flexible in covering research topics on Wikipedia, but we would like to see several authors independently cover the topic, or at least a single author publish multiple independent papers on it. In this case, the only coverage appears to be in a single master's thesis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:20, 2 July 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) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Medina

edit
Elizabeth Medina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor writer and translator. No evidence of notability, no reliable sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:RS andy (talk) 11:14, 27 June 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn; no remaining advocates for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jobbie nooner

edit
Jobbie nooner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User:Mike Rosoft prodded this article as "No evidence of notability, minor local event", I endorsed it, saying there were not enough resources, but IP just removed it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Eliteimp (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a significant cultural event that occurs in Detroit twice a year. Most recently it had 10,000 people in attendance. Please see the following articles.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100626/METRO/6260345/1409/METRO http://www.freep.com/article/20100626/NEWS05/6260329/Jobbie-Nooner-party-gets-boost http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978328103 http://www.providingnews.com/jobbie-nooner-2010-a-party-to-remember.html

This should have a place on the Wikipedia website. Please do not delete.

One opinion per person, please. TNXMan 18:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large amount of local coverage and photography; getting mentions in national wire services: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/26/Mich-may-toughen-law-on-drunken-boating/UPI-51191277590160/ Worthwhile as a reference item inasmuch as it's hard to figure out what the event is from the name alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.145.98 (talk) 03:10, 28 June 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 Riverdale (Archie Comics). There's a strong consensus that this should be redirected but the !votes are split on the target. Therefore, I'll choose one as an editorial decision (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale High School (comics)

edit
Riverdale High School (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BKD - entities in works of fiction should not have articles unless they meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) independently of the fiction which they appear in. Most of the article is overly detailed plot summary which is in violation of WP:PLOT. Claritas § 10:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notewrothy characters from this secondary character list is already at List of Archie Comics characters. Removing the unnecessary character list repeat, the actual claimed topic, Riverdale High School, is unnotable and has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. It is simply the known setting of the series (which in and of itself does not make it notable). Fails WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:WAF. It is not a viable redirect for the school name as the "comics" disambig gives it the appearance of being an article about a comic strip named "Riverdale High School" than a fictional setting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I get the feeling that the town of Riverdale is next... maybe Dilton the smart guy can save it from being nuked. Mandsford 18:10, 1 July 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. Editors, feel free to redirect post AFD closure, as an editorial decision. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic School (Charmed)

edit
Magic School (Charmed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BKD, we shouldn't have articles on fictional plot elements which do not meet WP:GNG, and there's no significant out-of-universe coverage of this fictional school independent of the series. Contested proposed deletion. Claritas § 10:21, 27 June 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) 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Flametrick Subs

edit
The Flametrick Subs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm just not seeing sufficient notability for this band Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:13, 27 June 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. NW (Talk) 14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Nayak

edit
Sanjay Nayak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not show why the person in notable. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 10:00, 27 June 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 List of tallest buildings in Slovenia. As I suggested before, all the content at the moment already is in the list article. Redirecting for now, if more content is found, the article can be brought back. Tone 16:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R5 building

edit
AfDs for this article:
R5 building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting nomination as no consensus was established in the last AfD due to lack of discussion. The building does not meet notability standards. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 09:20, 27 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MetriQ

edit
MetriQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deleted as spam a week ago, although that article focused more on the company than the software. Fails to establish notability. The two "references" are abstracts of papers co-written by a Metriq employee who also created this article. Fails WP:COMPANY dramatic (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, new to wiki, but have added a short page on talk about this. Thanks, nile Nile1964 (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but do these mysterious citation say why the software is notable? We have plenty of verification that the software exists.
  • Delete. Lack of independent coverage. The papers listed as references, although apparently in peer-reviewed journals, are co-authored by a MetriQ employee. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. This then becomes an interesting discussion. The co-author is, in this instance the second and event third author, never lead. However this presents a paradox. Would Einstein be refused reference to relativity on Wiki because he authored the refereed paper? The whole point of peer-review is to ascertain the 'novelty' of the work, and in so doing state its noteworthiness and hence Encylopedic content as verifiable. By being peer-reviewed, the author of the Wiki page detailing this work must surely become irrelevant.JuryEales (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point would only be relevant if the Metriq software was the subject of the cited papers - which does not appear to be the case based on the title, abstract and appendix that those of us without a subscription can see. We can best assume that metriq was used as a tool in the study. Quelle surprise! The fact of a company founder using his on software in research for an academic paper does absolutely nothing to support a claim of notability. dramatic (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Accept. I think that if researcher develops a measurement tool, then it generally done so as part of a larger body of research, for specific job, and look at metrics. Use that tool and produce data for researcher and part of peer-reviewed study, is of useful to know. If that tool is now commercial I think this does not detract from it is use and not matters. I know this tool used in University of Bologna for example. Sorry my English not so good. Carlos Estandu (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prefer to vote for keep than delete for articles BUT a) The site of the software company is under construction b) There are no accessible links to the referred articles so I can not check how relevant they are with the product c) The article needs serious work to become encyclopedic. For example there is no real explanation of what Metriq is and how it is used when it dedicates most of its length describing the company. Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be small startup with no indication of shopping product, number of employees etc. Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in any way. I note that most of the accounts voting accept appear not to have previous done any edits - SimonLyall (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feedback - Some interesting threads. I have re-written the article, i hope removing the objections put forward to date, which included an incorrect link to Metriq.com. Ooops Nile1964 (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It now contains more statements which are in need of direct citation, and there are still no independent references. If you wish to save the article, finding independent non-trivial references is the only way to go. dramatic (talk) 07:28, 4 July 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) 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kumar Beura

edit
Manoj Kumar Beura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely-referenced WP:Autobiography, with none of the references given supporting claims of subject being a prize-winning writer and thus notable per WP:CREATIVE. Zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Difficult to tell from online sources whether both awards mentioned actually exist: only mention of the Chalapatha Award is a Google books link mentioning another recipient in "Who's Who of Indian Writers 1999", zero mention online of the Kallola Sahitya Parishada Award. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:14, 27 June 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. definitely enough consensus to keep the article JForget 01:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Christ (Assured Way)

edit
Church of Christ (Assured Way) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another sect within the LDS movement. No evidence of notability offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the fact that this sect exists at all as a distinct, separate church within the LDS movement (proven by a photograph of its HQ's and a link to its official certificate of incorporation) is "notable" enough to warrent inclusion in this encyclopedia. What, exactly is further required of this sect to attain enough "notability" to warrent inclusion here? Do they need to eat fire? Sacrifice dogs and cats in their parking lot (God forbid!)? Stand on their heads? (They do none of these things, BTW!) The "notability" here is that they exist at all, as a separate, distinct sect within the LDS movement. I would understand if a long, detailed article had been composed about what is, admittedly, an extremely minor sect. But that is not the case here; the article is rather short and to-the-point. To dismiss the Assured Way church so cavalierly as "yet another sect within the LDS movement" and accuse them of having "no evidence of notability" (when their existence is notable enough) is incorrect and seems to me (rightly or wrongly) to show a hint of bias. Do we write off each and every minor religious sect out there, however unique and distinct, merely because they lack numbers or name-recognition? Or is it just the minor LDS sects we treat that way??? - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If a collective is notable, then each member of it is also notable. Since the List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, Latter Day Saint movement, and History of the Latter Day Saint movement have established the notability of these small churches, it stands to reason then this article as well as the other articles about other LDS movement churches should be created and maintained. This analogus to articles on tv shows - each notbale show has subarticles on each character. Many, if not most, of these sects or their founhders have articles of their own. Is there going to be a wholesale purge of these articles because a single editior objects to them while several reviewers (Surv1v4l1st, Artist4Echo) say that they past muster. The claim that "the assurred way is just another sect" is immaterial because there is no Wikipedia rule that limits the number of notable subjects of a particular category that can be covered. Prsaucer1958 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Since my name was referenced here, I do feel the need to address what was said. My comments about a sect being worth mentioning was within the context of the List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement article. As said article is a historical cataloging of organizations within the LDS movement, I think we should cast a wide net and include most organizations on the list. That does not necessarily mean that any group mentioned would automatically meet notability for a separate article. Many do not and information about the sect is contained within the article of their founder or some other related topic.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep They do appear to be a real group and their organization may prove to be notable. That said, all but two of the references appear to be from church publications and not "third-party, independent, reliable sources." If the sourcing can be corrected with outside sources, I think it is worth keeping. If not, not. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A word on "third-party, reliable sources". I understand and accept the "third party" thing, and understand its relevance and importance here. Certainly if I were not the one who had personally visited these people and photographed their HQ's, I'd wonder, too, if the whole thing wasn't some kind of scam. I get that. Problem is, there just isn't much out there, right now, on this particular sect (I've looked!). But I did find (and offer) two outside references. Not much, I admit; but it is something. In terms of "reliable", why is it so difficult to let any given church or sect describe itself? Who is better to describe their beliefs and practices than their own publications? Why are these "unreliable" (as seems to be insinuated here)? Again, I understand the desire, and even the need, for third-party sources to verify that the sect's published beliefs/practices are indeed what they actually adhere to--but how many third-party sources can one reasonably expect to concern themselves with this tiny sect? And with those who do, I would be willing to bet "good money" that practically all of them will simply repeat what the sect says about itself. One might reasonably counter that this demonstrates the "non-notability" of this sect, to which I counter that however tiny, it is still a distinct, separate denomination within the Latter Day Saint movement. PRSaucer1958's comments, above, are pertinent to this point. - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect to citing their own literature when describing their doctrines, there is absolutely no problem there. I agree with you that it is an essential source of information for a religious group and am not implying that it is somehow unreliable. It doesn't, however, provide much in the way of establishing notability with respect to an organization. The sources we so far (corporate filing, Adherents.com, photograph) more that prove that it is a real sect, so I don't think anyone doubts that. As to finding sources on a smaller sect, all I can say is "I feel your pain." As someone who contributes to religious articles on smaller organizations, I know how hard it is to do the research. I would like to see this article stay up long enough to be improved. On that note, since you are in the area, could the church split, organizing, and activities have been covered in the local media (newspaper, etc.)? It might be worth looking into.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I have contacted Apostle Leonard Draves of this organization, and asked him if there are any third-party sources for this article beyond the two I've already quoted. I'm hoping to hear back from him in the next day or two (God-willing!). - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Excellent. Look forward to what you find. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - P.S. I wish to apologize for blanking the article page earlier this morning. This isn't much of an excuse, but I recently buried two close friends of mine, and one way I was trying to cope with my loss was to "divert myself" via writing on Wikipedia. However, my personal "fuse" isn't quite what it should be (and usually is), and I let my emotions get mixed up and get the better of me once this dispute arose. This was uncalled for, and I do apologize. - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this. Sorry to hear it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I just now noticed your reply. My apologies for not getting back with you sooner; thanks very much for your condolences. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that Wikipedia editors believe that they are using Modus Tollens: such as, If Subject A is notable, then it will have independant sources:(N implies Q). There are no independant sources:(not q). Therefore, Subject A is not notable:(not A). However, I believe that statistical syllogams are really being used because no editor has access to all sourcesa: Most notable churches will have independant third party sources. X does not have several third party sources. Threfore, X is an not-notable church. The statement that "it is just another LDS movement church" is evidence for a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid of the accident kind - a form of deductive logical fallacy. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Speedy keep. I would certainly tend to view all bona fide denominations as notable. Some extremely small Australian denominations have articles, but for Australia inclusion in the book Religious Bodies in Australia is probably a minimum criterion for notability, and no books seem to mention this group. It's confusing though, with so many different organisations called "The Church of Christ With the Elijah Message." I would also like to see some indication of the number of people in this group, or at least of the number of congregations (is it more than 1?). I would also like confirmation that W. A. Draves did indeed found this church in 1994, since he apparently died on 28 June of that year, and the article on him doesn't mention it. In fact, the subject of this article seems to have been founded in 2004. I can't help but feel two different groups may be being confused in this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I only know what Mr. Draves' son, Leonard Draves, told me at the church HQ's when I interviewed him. He stated that his father had founded this sect in 1994, after a leadership struggle in the original EM organization, and I took the man at his word. No confusion, there. I'm awaiting a reply from Mr. Draves on the question of number of members and congregations, and location of congregations (all of which I asked him for in my email). Of course, all of this is "original research," but you'd find the exact same thing in any book that's likely to mentiont his sect (meaning it would be obtained the exact same way I am getting it: by asking them). In terms of notability, why does inclusion in any published reference work in and of itself have to be mandated as a criteria for notability, if the sect or denomination in question can be otherwise independently verified as existing (as Artist4Echo has pointed out)? Abingdon's Handbook of Denominations in the U.S. and Canada has long been seen as one of the primary reference guides in this country on denominations, yet it only mentions about eight or nine of the 100 or so LDS sects. Does that make the others "non-notable," and thus inelligible for inclusion in what ought to be the most comprehensive compendium of knowledge the world has ever seen? With all due respect to what was written above, I think not. But that's just my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has policies on notability and original research that certainly apply here. As to this group, The Journal of Latter Day Saint History may provide the required 3rd-party source. I would also ask: has the group been mentioned in any local newspapers? That would at least be something. -- Radagast3 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the local papers--nothing, at least not so far. I think, however, that a third-party source has already been located; indeed, two of them: Adherents.com, and the MO Secy. of State's certificate of incorporation for this church. No offense intended, but I think those two things--especially the last--are indeed "something" in and of themselves. And this whole "notability" thing is a huge part of what's being argued here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Adherents.com is really an independent third-party source in this case, since it seems to rely mostly on a letter by Leonard Graves. The certificate establishes that the group has existed since 2004, but that doesn't necessarily make them notable. How about The Journal of Latter Day Saint History? That's one obvious third-party source. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I am NOT trying to start an argument here, but what do the rest of Adherents' entries rely on? Self-reporting, just like with Draves. There's no agency that I know of out there that goes out and counts the number of adherents in any particular religious group. Abingdon, Adherents.com: all of them rely mostly upon self-reporting for any details they give about a denomination: beliefs, membership statistics, etc. You acknowledge that the Assured Way Church exists, based upon their certificate of incorporation, so what's the "notability" issue? I've seen articles on this encyclopedia about footballers that nobody's ever heard of or cares about (beyond their own local fans); what's so "notable" about them? And yet, I do not in any way oppose their inclusion in this work, which I've always seen as striving to be the most comprehensive collection of knowledge ever assembled--no matter how minute any particular subject might prove to be in the overall scheme of things. But what makes some footballer with a two or three sentence article in Wikipedia more notable than a separate, distinct denomination of a religious movement, whose existence has alredy been demonstrated by at least one reliable third-party source (MO Secy of State)? Why is that not "notable" enough??? - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the notability criteria, which requires more than simply existence. And there's no evidence in the article that the organisation existed between 1994 and 2004. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. Please don't think I'm trying in any way to get "personal" here--that's not the case at all. I do understand where you are coming from, and you raise some legitimate points. As I said above, if I hadn't interviewed two of their apostles myself, and visited their church hq's, I might be raising the same issues you are. And I understand that the personal interview, etc. constitutes "original research," and is thus inadmissable as evidence in this case. So I guess we just trash an article on an entire sect of the LDS movement because it doesn't satisfy a set of criteria that are not flexible enough to take into account situations like this, where there just isn't a viable body of third-party sources on a subject. Never mind that the subject has been clearly demonstrated to exist, and be distinct within its category (sects of the LDS movement). The Assured Way Church exists, but it will "fall through the cracks," anyway. And Wikipedia, in my opinion at least, is the loser. I understand the rules, and I know you didn't write them, and I hold nothing of what you've said against you. And as I said, if I were in your shoes, I'd probably be saying at least a portion of what you have said. I just think it's a shame, that's all. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly prefer to see the article improved rather than deleted. We probably should have articles on every denomination. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. I just don't see how this article can be improved much beyond what it is now, given the dearth of sources we have on hand at the present time. It seems it will have to stand or fall "as is," unless Mr. Draves gets back with me (which he hasn't yet) with some third-party sources we don't know about or haven't found. I am going to try to get to the Community of Christ library in the next few days, and see what I can find there, if anything. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • New Developments: An update: I spoke with Apostle Leonard Draves this morning, and explained what we need (a reliable, viable third-party source to verify the existence and pertinent details of his organization--preferably, more than one such source). He's involved in a church conference right now, but says that will end Wednesday, and he'll try to get back with me by the weekend. He mentioned some lady from England who interviewed him and said she'd write an article on them, but he doesn't know what became of that intention, as he never heard back from her (if I understood him correctly). I do know that there's a published work by historian John Hamer that speaks of this church,[20] and while neither Apostle Draves nor myself has a copy, I'm hoping to get by the Community of Christ temple library later this week and see if they have one. That would be an excellent source, if I can procure it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to be worried about possible breaches of WP:COI/WP:NPOV here, in that the subject of the article shouldn't be selecting the sources used. As I said, you might like to look at The Journal of Latter Day Saint History for 1994/95. There have also been some recent books on LDS history (such as the one you mention) that might have relevant information. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The existence and history of this church is referenced in a book I edited with Newell G. Bringhurst, entitled Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism, published by John Whitmer Books in 2007. The church even appears in a diagram on the book's cover. I added references to the wikipedia article and I also made some corrections. The Elijah Message church story is fairly complicated because the Hedrickites are somewhat prone to schism compared to the other branches. However, this church exists and neither I myself, nor Newell, nor the article's author Jason Smith, nor Steve Shields have any special connection to it; we're just writing about its history and its relation to other Hedrickite churches.John Hamer (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That book reference, and the fact that most of my questions have now been answered, is enough for me to change my !vote to "keep." I still have questions about some aspects in the article (I'm not sure the organisation founded in 2004 has any congregations in Australia, for example), but that isn't an issue for this AfD. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, in it's current form, the article is probably a speedy keep under WP:SNOW. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The addition of the book references also addresses my primary concerns. Changed from a Weak Keep to Keep.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who knows next to nothing about this whole process, I have a question: what happens now? Who decides if this article is a "keep," and when do they decide it? I'm not going to mess with the AfD tags in any way, as that's "above my pay-grade," but I'd just like to know. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed. An admin will eventually close it, and an uninvolved editor can do so too (which rules me out). However, the standard 7 days are not quite up, so give it time (there are also quite a few older unclosed AfD's in the queue). With all !votes except the original nominator being "keep", there is no doubt what the final decision will be (it would need a majority of "delete" !votes to be deleted). -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it's best to be careful with headings here, since it can mess up the parent page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 27. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Like I said, this is all pretty new to me (though it probably shouldn't be, as I've been on Wikipedia for about three years now; I should know these things!). Thanks for the info, and I removed the heading. Hopefully no damage was done. Thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was fine -- I had already downgraded it to an OK level. And this article is pretty much under control now: time to think about the next one. :) -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:39, 3 July 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned from Argo

edit
Banned from Argo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - lacks independent reliable sources that are substantially about this song, no notability. PROD removed a while ago based on "mentions" of the song in sources-which does not establish notability-and the winning of a Pegasus Award, which is awarded by a regional fan convention in whose voting process anyone may participate. Song is not notable. Otto4711 (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep -- Probably the best known example of the filk genre. Included on Doctor Demento's "Hits from Outer Space" Any AfD based on the non-notability of the Pegasus Award can be presumed to be bad-faith. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, mentioned in The Adoring Audience: fan culture and popular media by Lisa A. Lewis, page 227. "...Leslie Fish's 'Banned from Argo' (1977), one of the earliest Star Trek songs written and one of the most well-known filks within the fan community...."
  • Again, notability is not established through a sentence or two in a volume of several hundred pages. The Lewis book is 245 pages long and spends a couple of sentences on the song. The Jenkins is 343 pages and spends four sentences on the song, two of them recounting the plot. DeCandido is fiction and mentions the song in one sentence. The Trimble book is 286 pages long and again restricts its mention of the song to a single sentence. These are, literally, textbook examples of what does not constitute sources that establish notability, per footnote 1 at WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the "best known example" of the genre then there should be a plethora of sources that are substantially about it. Please provide them. Inclusion on a compilation CD does not equal multiple independent reliable sources that are substantially about the song. Unfounded accusations of bad faith are themselves sterling examples of bad faith and say much more about the character of the accused than the accuser. However, I will do what you failed to do, assume good faith, and assume that you confused the Pegasus Awards presented by the Ohio Valley Filk Fest with some other Pegasus Awards presented by some body other than a regional science fiction folk singing convention whose main claim to fame per its article was that it hosted a wedding in 1987. Otto4711 (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me, are you planning on discussing the article here, or just insulting me?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me, are you planning on retracting your unfounded accusations of bad faith on my part? Or do you not believe as I do that false accusations are an insult to the accused?
Now, since we've each had the chance to thump our chests a bit, I'll ask again: what independent reliable sources provide significant coverage of this song? Otto4711 (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leslie Fish. I thought about this one a lot and ultimately, I don't think it meets WP:NSONG. I arrived to that conclusion because I do not think that the source claiming how well known the song is meets WP:RS. I also don't think that deletion should be conidered as WP:NSONG states "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." I'll admit that I was tempted to !vote keep based on the Pegasus Award, but I am on the fence as to whether it constitutes a "significant awards or honors". Certainly it is within the filk circle, but outside... Movementarian (Talk) 09:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that I am back in the land of unfiltered, high speed internet I was able to search around a bit more. It is mentioned multiple times in paper published in the American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law discussing gender influence on copyright in the Filk community.[21] Movementarian (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the song is mentioned once in that 60-page paper, which is on the subject of the influence of gender on the attitude toward copyright in the filking community. It is not about the song in any way. Second, to once again point out the relevant guideline, WP:N, a subject is presumed notable if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:N goes on to note specifically that one-sentence mentions in larger works are trivial and do not establish notability. Everything being offered here as a source establishing notability is a mention in a much larger work, something that even those pointing them out acknowledge. "It's mentioned" or "I've heard of it" or "I like it" or "Even nominating this article is an act of bad faith" do not constitute reasons within Wikipedia guidelines and policies for keeping this article. [User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "mentioned once", but that mention is as the exemplar of the sixth type (of eight) of filk. htom (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall correctly, it was referenced multiple times. It was used as an example due to the importance of the song in the Filk community. While the paper was not on the the song directly, the song was an important part of the central argument. Movementarian (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one reference but admittedly did not do a close read of every page. Even if it's mentioned in passing a few times that doesn't make this a source that establishes notability. And no, the song is not used to illustrate any part of the central argument of the paper's topic, which is the effect of gender on opinions about copyright amongst filkers. If there were multiple independent reliable sources that significantly covered the song, this paper could be used to source what type of filk song it is, but on its own it does not serve to establish the notability of the song, as its coverage of the song is trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm using it in exactly the way that it is used in WP:N: "The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. ) is plainly trivial." Being the best known example of an obscure subject doesn't mean that the best-known example is notable per WP policies and guidelines. WP:IKNOWIT doesn't translate into notability. Multiple independent reliable sources that significantly cover the subject does. Otto4711 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, no, not parallel cases there. Three Blind Mice is only notable for Clinton's membership -- BFA is notable for, among other things, being so popular that an entire songbook of parodies was released a few years back. Also, if Filk music is notable enough for an article, surely its best known exemplar is as well....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. Notability of the music genre does not confer notability on examples of the genre as notability is not inherited. Multiple independent reliable sources that are significantly about the song establish notability and you have failed to provide any such sources. I get that you lurve this song but there are no sources and thus no notabilioty per WP policies and guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example, TVTropes,

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BannedFromArgo uses the title as the name of a trope

Your merry band of travelers is crossing the stars/the earth/the county line, and you find a nice fun planet/country/town for some shore leave. You don't actually mean for bad stuff to go down, but these things happen. There was nudity, violence, stuff blowing up, certain substances may have been imbibed/smoked, and whoops, you just started a revolution. Possibly, your name is Mike Nelson, in which case, you're probably screwed.

Whatever happened, when it's all over, you're not allowed back. EVER. Nor is anyone else on your crew.

Trope name is taken from the definitive filk by Leslie Fish, regarding the illustrious crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise and why they're not allowed back on Argo. May or may not be considered a Noodle Incident. The redheaded stepchild of You Cant Go Home Again.

Does not have anything to do with the Cool Boat from the Classical Mythology.

htom (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except of course they aren't sources; they are one- or two-sentence mentions of the song in several hundred page books. Have you actually reviewed these supposed sources? Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 3 July 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) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture war in Canada

edit
Culture war in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page features neologism, original research, is highly US-centric, a highly selective review of what it claims to describe, and flat-out wrong about both the concept and terminology in Canadian politics, at least at the national level. Previous proposed deletion was contested. Peter Grey (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Argument

edit
  • Neologism - a new word, meaning or usage. This is not new. This has already been reported in Canada's major national newspapers (read the links on the bottom) as well as on Canada's major news broadcasters (CTV and CBC).
  • Original research - is this not the point of wikipedia? I don't see "original research" sources anywhere. Everything is a compilation of news journalists and authors who use the exact term "Culture war" within this same context.
  • US-Centric? Please point out anything American about it. Every single section has to do with a Canadian case. In fact, the Canadian article is longer than the American article.
  • Flat-out wrong? And you decide this? That's completely subjective on who decides when to use the terminology and where. This article ONLY uses sources that make the Culture War part clear. The two major authors, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levent, dedicate their careers on research on the culture war.

I would question your motives in deleting an article like this. Consider the argument that most Left-wingers deny a culture war exists, whereas right-wingers are heavily involved in the debate on culture. From this stand-point, just because one side thinks it doesn't exist, does not mean you can delete the article. The Culture War in Canada is a major topic in conservative circles, and the media attention recently brought to it justifies having an article on this issue. If this bothers you so much, edit the article as you see fit, or add an alternative viewpoint. User: Matthiasobrien, 27 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

  • I think you should familiarise yourself with some of the content policies on Wikipedia. In the instance WP:RS, WP:NOR,WP:NEO, WP:V, and WP:GNG. I'm not trying to overwhelm you with policy, but I think you might have a better understanding of why the page was nominated for deletion if you look into it. If you still disagree, you can try to make a convincing point by showing how the article is in compliance. Movementarian (Talk) 08:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research/personal essay. Be in Nepean (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - agree with Movementarian that this would have use as a category; but the present article itself seems very much like a synthesis (a specific kind of WP:OR). More than that, most of the sections in this article have absolutely no mention of "culture war", and seem to be inserted just to illustrate a left-right divide or something; that suggests to me that this is just a political opinion piece dressed up as a Wikipedia article. Specifically, it looks like a right-wing opinion piece: I'd counter to User: Matthiasobrien that the radical left also believe in something similar to a "culture war", they just don't call it that, and that makes it difficult to write a good article on this topic. A good article can indeed be written, I think - perhaps you can start with Marci McDonald's new book. But as far as the present article stands, you may as well nuke it from orbit and start a new one from scratch. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical context is necessary to get an understanding of the topic. For example, the Great War lasted from 1914-1918, but would you not agree that the 10-15 years previous to that war are vital in understanding it? Now the Culture War is not a literal war in any sense, but information about human rights, protests, and unions that clearly depict a huge left/right divide are necessary in understanding the Culture War. Now as for Marci McDonald's new book, I agree (it's mentioned at the very bottom as a Further reading). If adding a section on that is necessary to add balance, I'll most certainly do that. But again, I don't see much of a point in deleting a topic that is clearly gaining momentum in Canada, and has more media exposure than ever. And with the new Sun Media TV station about to debut, I can guarantee the "culture war" is going to be a major topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthiasobrien (talk • contribs) 07:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Culture war" does not mean any political difference, even if US (very rarely Canadian) media incorrectly use the term that way. Political or socio-economic distinction is not a conflict of culture the way, say, an English-Canadian/French-Canadian clash would be. There have to be historians or other reliable sources that 1) recognize the phenomenon, 2) agree on what events, persons, etc. belong to it, and 3) apply that terminology to it. If "culture war" becomes a mainstream concept in national political discourse, then it would have encyclopedic value, but until then it's neologism and original research (not to mention factually incorrect). Peter Grey (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again I would question all motives relating to deleting an article on subject matter like this. The point of wiki is to contribute. Simply deleting topics you don't like doesn't add much quality. I refer back to the comment on merging, on how the topic is frequently mentioned by newspaper editorials, bloggers, journalists, and the soon-to-be Sun TV. I would accept a merger, but a deletion only seems to provoke the culture war hypothesis. Matthiasobrien —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
We're not deleting topics we "don't like". We're saying that this article should be deleted because it has no reliable sources, and because the article is original research. You should read the rules (especially on original research, on verifiability, and on reliable sources) before contributing. Also, we have rules against casting aspersions on editors' "viewpoints": this is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia and not a place to pick political fights. If you want the latter, go hang out at Conservapedia and see how long you last there before they ban you. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: re the Globe and Mail articles, that's good... 2 journalists using the word "culture war" in a sentence. I don't see a real analysis, though, just bald assertion. You won't be able to source an article from those two little sources. As for the rest: leftist blogs and rightist blogs are not reliable sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That's exactly the point, here. All we're seeing is an article that asserts there's a culture war, whose sources rarely even use the word "culture war" except in passing or as an accusatory note. This doesn't even measure up to the US-centric article culture war, which itself is a poor example of a Wikipedia article with very few scholarly sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:44, 3 July 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) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Six Feet Under deaths

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Six Feet Under deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been proposed to be merged into the episodes list for years but the only sourced information is of minimal use (and probably just OR) it may be better just to delete this. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:48, 27 June 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 iar delete on the grounds that this can't end well no matter who does what. Policy-based consensus below appears to support deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Administrator abuse on Wikipedia

edit
Administrator abuse on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some of this material undoubtedly belongs in the article Criticism of Wikipedia, where it was previously merged and then undone. Some of it belongs nowhere on Wikipedia (e.g., attacks on non-notable living persons who happen to also be Wikipedia administrators). None of it belongs in a separate article, unless it can be established that the topic of "Administrator abuse on Wikipedia" is notable in and of itself - high quality sources being a requirement, and being in my opinion quite unlikely to be found. Note, this nomination is not intended to be a forum on Wikipedia's administrators, on Wikipolitics in general, or on any particular adherent of any particular sort of Wikipolitical viewpoint; rather, by our own normal standards for which subjects deserve articles, this subject does not deserve a separate article, and in the case of self-referential material like this, we ought to enforce contents more strictly rather than less so. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correction - The merged material from the "Abuse" article is still in the "Criticism" article; only the redirect of the "Abuse" article to "Criticism" has been reverted. If "Merge" is the consensus here, it's already been done, all that would remain is to restore the redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC) I've unmerged the material, pending the outcome of this AfD: the "Abuse" article has now been heavily edited, so the material should be re-merged if merge is the outcome of this AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added suggestion per Jayron to rename to a title that doesnt include the word "abuse" because it's too inflammatory. Minor4th • talk 05:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -- GregJackP and I know each other in real life and sometimes work on articles together. Since we are being called co-authors of this article, we would both be expected to vote keep irrespective of any off-wiki connection. Minor4th • talk 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to state the obvious, at the time of your original comment and my "note" to it, you and Greg were the only two editors to have made substantive contributions to the article, which the two of you put together in Greg's user space before moving it to mainspace. I thought that was sufficient to describe you as the "two authors" of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I intend the plain meaning (or at least the plain meaning in Wikipedia jargon) of each of those words. The article discusses specific living people, who happen to be Wikipedia administrators. While William Connolley is arguably notable, tho others mentioned are not. The living people mentioned are named only in association with attacks upon them. Per WP:BLP and WP:CSD#G10, that is not acceptable material for the encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So edit his name out, but the context is appropriate. There is no rule that an article cannot mention something negative about a living person. The source is verifiable and reliable. Minor4th • talk 05:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. There's no way this could be considered notable enough in scholarly and media sources to be able to stand alone, and I'm concerned that there's some WP:POINT issues in the creation of it as well. If we get a large number of sources that are specifically referring to "administrator abuse on Wikipedia" as a specific topic, then maybe it'd be worth an article. Right now, the sources are a laundry list of negative material about administrators and decisions that were interpreted by someone or another as being abusive, incorrect, etc. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclaimer: yeah, I'm an administrator. Apparently because of that, I don't have a neutral view of the article, according to one of the creators of this article. WP:AGF is being depreciated soon, then? Nice. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to take offense at a request for disclosure of admin status. Support vote with policy and it becomes less of an issue. Minor4th • talk 05:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that the rationale for merger since it seems that the proponents have not actually read the article or the sources cited in it. It is notable on its own for a stand alone article as the 12 or so cited sources indicate. If there are sources that balance the article, include them. WP:MERGE says:

: There are several good reasons to merge a page:

  1. Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
  2. Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. [/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Wikipedia is not a dictionary]; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on [/wiki/Flammability Flammability].
  3. Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
  4. Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also [/wiki/Wikipedia:FICT WP:FICT].
Merging should not be considered if
  1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
  2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
  3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

This is not a short article. The topic is notable in its own right, it does not require the context of the other article, it would make the other article too big and chunky, and it's not duplicative and does not significantly overlap (as evidenced by two editors' knee-jerk merger of the article in toto)Minor4th • talk 04:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • MY knees had no involvement in any actions. It was mainly my brain and my fingers, with some minor contributions from other parts of my arms which guided the fingers. --Jayron32 05:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any well-sourced information into Criticism of Wikipedia and Delete the rest. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Isn't there a BLP violation here using Solomon's nonsense in the way it's used (I changed "according to the Financial Post" to "according to Lawrence Solomon'. We all know, hopefully including the person who added this, that Connolley did not use "his administrator privileges to create or rewrite over 5,200 articles, removed over 500 articles, and blocked over 2,000 individuals who, according to Lawrence Solomon, took positions that he disapproved of." Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 1

edit
  • Merge to CoW. Criticism is provable, it's in the refs, but abuse is something decided by consensus. The few cases of real admin abuse were notable enough to have their own articles, and there is nothing here to deserve it's own article. However, the Criticism of Wikipedia article is too long, so maybe if this article is merged there will be scope to split the CoW article up. I just don't see how, even if split up, one of those pages could be devoted to 'admin abuse'. (@Minor4th, none of the article sources mention the word 'abuse' even once) Weakopedia (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the AN/I I agreed that the word "abuse" is too loaded and should probably be modified. Minor4th • talk 05:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I think any administrators voting or participating in this discussion should disclose their status as part of their comment, since they will not have a neutral view of this article. Weighing admin's votes should take the conflict into account. Minor4th • talk 05:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that we also have everyone identify their political affiliations and religious beliefs, which can have a strong effect on people's viewpoints. Also, more weight should be given to those with higher IQs and more degrees. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, you might just have invalidated yourself from commenting here. Weakopedia (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we shall frolic hand-in-hand together, my darling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not being sarcastic and there is nothing unreasonable asking for disclosure of status that indicates conflict since the article is about administrators. Minor4th • talk 05:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What an awesome catch-22 you have found. Just write an article about admins, and no admin can delete it, because they have a conflict of interest!!! What a great way to keep this article around forever. Since only an admin can close an AFD in favor of deletion, by your logic, no admin could act on this AFD to delete the article, so any article writen about admins, no matter what it is about, can ever be deleted. Brilliant!!! --Jayron32 05:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not necessary. Can we keep this about the article and the deletion discussion please. Minor4th • talk 05:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you are the one who keeps insisting that admins can't be counted fully in this discussion because they are admins. If you didn't want the issue of admin involvment in this discussion, then why did you bring it up? --Jayron32 05:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt insist that admins cant be counted fully. I said they should disclose their conflict. I'm certain admins will continue to vote and participate despite the apparent conflict, and they should try to actually support their votes with policy. Don't you think? If this were an article about a BLP, you would want the BLP to disclose his conflict if he is going to participate in the discussion right? Minor4th • talk 05:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be a hypocrite, Minor. Why don't you disclose that your creation and work on this article directly followed your complaint against an administrator - a complaint that nobody else considers serious? If you wish to attach a scarlet letter to a group of people whom do not share your opinion, then you had better be willing to stand up and admit your own conflict of interest. Resolute 15:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Wikipedia does not republish information which is demonstratably false, even if it is published. The statement "Verifiability not Truth" means that something must be verfiably true, not "false, but printed somewhere". --Jayron32 05:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the article before weighing in. Minor4th • talk 05:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that. How can you be so certain that everyone that votes for a merge or a deletion hasn't read the article. Perhaps they read it closely, considered the options, and arrived at "merge" as a reasonable conclusion. Please don't assume that people aren't reading the article before weighing in. --Jayron32 05:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware I was supposed to read articles before commenting on their AfDs. This is quite a revelation. Who would have thought? Prodego talk 06:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you know. Minor4th • talk 06:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 2

edit
  • Merge The article title by itself is an attack on administrators and merging it with the criticism page would make the coverage less biased sounding. Otherwise it has some good points when the attacks are taken out. I wonder how long it will take until Fox News finds this discussion and writes an article on it with a subsequent debate by many "experts" in the field. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We agree the title needs to be changed, and I'm not surprised to see that the article is being heavily edited, with at least one referenced statement removed and an unsourced discription on Connolley as following the scientific data, which is the opposite of what the cited source said. GregJackP Boomer! 06:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know no sourced statement has been deleted, only unsourced statements. The description of Connolly was nonsense: "a proponent of global warming" means someone who is in favor of global warming. I changed it to a non-POV statement of what he is a proponent of, that is the scientific consensus that there has been anthropogenic global warming. That's not POV, it's an acurate statement of his position.

    The real problem here is that you guys feel like you got shafted, and you're pissed about it, and you wrote an article to support your POV. The whole thing starts from a non-encyclopedic place, and although you tried hard to make it NPOV and sourced, the real origin of the thing leaks through at every seam. It's not an article, it's your opinions masquerading as an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it is accurate, then provide a source. The other username you deleted was specifically sourced and mentioned in the article. Also, please assume good faith - or would you prefer that i alleged that admins and their friends are doing their best to gut and delete the article because it reflects poorly on them? I am not saying that of course. GregJackP Boomer! 06:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look up, then look down, you'll see that only you and your co-author have voted to keep; almost everyone else who has weighed in has said to merge, the rest say to delete. But here's a prediction: you keep reverting stuff taking out for BLP concerns, then your article is going to be deleted in toto, with no or only very minimal merging. You're obviously on a WP:POINTy mission (AGF doesn't mean we don't evaluate the evidence staring us in the face), so you may not care, causing a stink may be enough to satisfy you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wikipedia:Administrator Reform and delete the resulting redirect. Wow. Lots of familiar names attached to this one. Now before I get outright dismissed, let me explain. The article that I propose merger with was discussed very little and has not been edited since 2008.
I AM NOT AN ADMIN, though I did nominate and withdraw myself once in 2005 or 2006. Consider me disclaimed.
As far as the article is concerned, the title and content are not instep with the NPOV policy. You can almost see the agenda oozing through the spaces. The issue is adequately discussed in a much more neutral way in the Criticism of Wikipedia article.
That said, this is obviously an important issue for some editors. I haven't been back to editing very long, but I have seen two RfCs involving admins (both of which I opined in, for disclaimer purposes) where edit conflicts and admin statements were pushed to dizzying heights in what I see as an attempt to visit the issue of admin "abuse". (Abuse is in quotes, as the term would obviously be a point of contention.) So, let them have their say and have a community discussion the issue. Movementarian (Talk) 06:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the disclaimer :) WP:Administrator Reform is an unsourced essay and is much shorter than the article being discussed. I don't see how they can be merged. I think merger into Criticism of Wikipedia wouldn't be a bad idea but merger of this article would create a totally unwieldy larger article. And the fact is, if this were not about administrators, this discussion would not be taking place because the article is well sourced and reliable and clearly meets the WP guidelines on its own. And by the way, I contributed to the article but I did not know that it was going to mainspace at this time and I had suggested to Greg that the title should be toned down as well. My participation should not be taken as a complete endorsement of everything in the article or the way it was written, etc. That said, it is not only an important issue with some Wikipedia editors, it is a subject that has received significant coverage in secondary sources, so let's not have any illusion that this is a pet issue important to only a few editors on Wikipedia. Minor4th • talk 06:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is an unsourced essay and that what I suggested is irregular, but this really seems pointy. If you and Greg are pushing for a community discussion, then lets get to it. That is what WP:Administrator Reform was trying in 2008, very unsuccessfully, and that is why I suggested moving the content there. Movementarian (Talk) 07:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:CIreland has helpfully pointed out that licensing issues prevents a page from being directly merged without redirect. In that case. I have reworded my !vote above accordingly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sourced information is being removed, and I can't revert any more without running into 3RR. Minor4th • talk 06:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is not a sufficient condition for the inclusion of content. This article is an excellent example of why that is so. CIreland (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't even make sense. The information that was removed was appropriate and in context and improves the article. It was well sourced and inexplicably removed. Minor4th • talk 06:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 3

edit
  • Delete I'm an administrator. I'd also like to point out that the impetus for this article appears to be an RfC filed by the articles two main authors in regards to an administrator. Despite consensus that the RfC was without merit, they decided to keep it open and then began crafting this article. Jclemens sums up my reasoning for deleting this article quite well, so I won't repeat what he has said. AniMate 07:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's any viable content relevant to the Criticism article, can go there. But no redirect...inherently POV title. I just read the "criticism" section of the article, which I assume to be the core of the topic itself (not intro/setup about what WP Admins are, etc.), and its cited sources...they don't support the context of their use in the article. In other words, the whole article is WP:SYNTH. They just support that admins have extra powers, both in general and over non-admin editors. I don't see support for the claim of "abuse" of these powers. (disclosure: I'm an admin, not that it matters--part of adminship is not using position of authority in content discussions) DMacks (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with DMacks and JClemens well opined statements. Inherently POV. Off2riorob (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep appears well sourced, regardless of how some people might be trying to misuse policy to remove content. Just a reminder WP:BLP doesn't say we can't say anything negative about a person. It says it has to be well sourced.--Crossmr (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To meet WP:NPOV and WP:NPA, however, it should be made clearer that the negative statements are criticisms which editors and others have raised about Wikipedia, and not the "opinion" of the article itself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is very easy to do without removal. A simple "According to Solomon etc".--Crossmr (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this much is simple, but as I mentioned below, even if you move the article to no longer include the word "abuse", the article is also an inherent violation of WP:NPOV as it focusses exclusively on the criticisms of wikipedia; if anything, a reduced version (only the most informative and encyclopaedic information) should be merged into Wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policy states that an admin should close AfD discussions; why should we make an exception here? You should assume good faith and trust the closing sysop to follow Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality and close the AfD according to consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid further drama? While policy states that an Admin should close AfD discussions, when the AfD discussion is an article about the admins, there is the potential to appear to have a conflict of interest whether or not one genuinely exists. Arbcom members are given a higher level of trust than Admins and in the interest of less drama and avoid WP:COI making an exception shouldn't be seen as assuming bad faith. its a suggestion to do the best thing for the encyclopedia. The people who decided on that policy may never have anticipated that there would be an article about the adminstrators themselves up for AfD.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since ArbCom itself is mentioned, and is comprised of admins, I don't see the benefit in wasting ArbCom's time with something which could and should be handled by an admin. I would urge the closing admin to remember WP:NEUTRALITY and make sure that there is a clear consensus before closing the discussion, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this need someone other then an admin to close? Consensus is quite clear at this point and reading that consensus, with the overwhelming numbers, does not appear to be difficult or sway-able by bias at this point. -- ۩ Mask 15:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 4

edit
  • Delete WP:POINTy WP:ATTACK page which is a clear WP:POVFORK and is born out of an RfC on an admin that has not gone their way. I am not an admin, but I do try to abuse them regularly. Verbal chat 09:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles on internal Wikipedia processes are extreme navel gazing, so even if this were somehow a neutral treatment I would oppose it. There are many examples of the media being completely wrong about how Wikipedia works, and we just do not put junk in articles "because it's sourced". Therefore this article can only contain statements of the bleedin obvious, such as "Complaints about abusive administrators are fairly frequent". Predictions of the downfall of Wikipedia are frequent from The Register, and their speculation about secret mailing lists is fun, but not encyclopedic. This warrants deletion because it is a POV coatrack from a failed RfC. I might support an article titled There is no perfect system of government, or Admins make mistakes too, but this "abuse" stuff is nonsense (of 1100 admins, how many "abuse" their power?). Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POINT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Author (sock- or meatpuppet author team) failed RFC and appeal to Jimbo. So they returned with a mission: "I still intend to retire, but have one last article to complete", followed 14 minutes later by Administrator abuse on Wikipedia ‎(start article). DVdm (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a side note (from an editor who is in favour of moving and then partly merging a small amount of the content of this article), I think it's unfair to refer to GregJackP and Minor4th as sock/meatpuppets. I have been on the receiving end of such accusations in a previous discussion, simply because myself, GregJackP, and Minor4th agreed on a subject. A sockpuppet investigation and checkuser of User:Dmartinaus was already carried out as a result of this previous discussion, and presumably any link between GregJackP and Minor4th would have been established by that if one had existed. As for meatpuppet: sharing similar views is not what meatpuppetry is, and you should consider the involvement of all users and their individual contributions before deciding that one or more are simply meatpuppets of another user. Having said that, I do feel that these editors have set out on a mission as a result of the failed RfC, and the result is an article whose very title fails WP:NPOV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That SPI of Dmartinaus would not have determined or checked any connection between User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th, neither of those accounts were included in that report, checking any connection between them would need separate report. Off2riorob (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) While the names weren't included in the report, the checkuser action revealed a couple of sockpuppets of Dmartinaus which hadn't been included in the report, which leads me to believe that the checkuser was carried out for everyone commenting on the AfD affected by the sockpuppetry, which would include myself, GregJackP, and Minor4th; since I can't state that with certainty, however, I won't pretend that it's impossible that the two users are socks. I would like to note that I have previously been accused of being a sockpuppet of both of these users simply because I agreed with them however, and I can state that this accusation was false, and accusing editors of sockpuppetry without evidence or even the willingness to file an SPI isn't very pleasant. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(without any opinion on the issue) Not as I understand it, the checkuser had authority to check Dmartinius and a couple more were turned up, there would or should have been no check crossing as you are understanding. Just because you commented on the SPI does not allow checkuser to add you to the bundle and you were also not named and would have not been checked. Off2riorob (talk) 11:10 am, Today (UTC+1)
Fair enough, I'm most likely misunderstanding how the process is completed by the checkuser. To clarify: no opinion on sockpuppetry, agree that this article was established as a personal mission, which is a bad enough start to warrant deletion on that basis, IMO. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still as an aside, it clearly is a personal mission by a team of two usernames (GregJackP and Minor4th), one of which started here saying in his first edit: "I am new to editing wikipedia, so I will take some time looking around and familiarizing myself," and having become an expert editor in a mere few hours, as is evidenced here. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into an essay on the dangers of either admins abusing others, or others abusing admins; whichever. Of course, since becoming an admin is a personal choice, it's more Administrator self-abuse on Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whiny in-universe attack piece by a person or people who didn't get their way. Lots of admins suck, this is true. Lots of people with power suck. So what? Maybe something like this could be done as an essay, but in mainspace? No.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Irretrievably slanted writing making use of dubious sources to attack living persons. We already have Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia. This is a redundant POV fork by disruptive individuals with personal axes to grind. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although I guess merge would be possible, if there's anything deemed worth merging. I'm very familiar with the academic sources being used, due to some off-wiki research I've been conducting recently, and I was very surprised to see how those sources were being misrepresented. I can give examples, but having cleaned it up as best I can, (so that the sources are, at least, better represented), I'm still more than a little uncomfortable with the result. At any rate, the topic doesn't warrant an inherently-POV article of its own. - Bilby (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 5

edit
  • Delete This is an attack piece. This is a POV fork and reduntant. It also is in violation of biographies of a living person. This looks like sour grapes to me. The editors used synthesis to come to the conclusions. There is just so much wrong with this that I don't think there is anything worth merging. Delete is the only way to go since this is written against a lot of policies, names editors who are or were administrators. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty good example of what I mean when I talk about the chilling effect of BLP. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious flaw in this debate Those who are administrators have a conflict of interest since they are voting on themselves. I have not decided at this point but my decision will probably largely be based on what the references say. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who are not admins and wish they were and anyone who has been blocked may also have a conflict of interest here. Actually, anyone who has interacted with an administrator could have a conflict of interest. AniMate 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument rests on the false premise that all admins are abusive, i.e. "voting on themselves". Tarc (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is, admins are appointed by the community; an administrator is simply an editor who has earned the trust of the community to uphold the responsibilities placed on them, and make correct and effective use of the admin toolset. By suggesting that all admins are abusive or corrupt, you're implying that the wikipedia community is itself corrupt (and therefore that the entire community has a conflict of interest), and in that case, perhaps this article is better suited for a different medium, where such unsupported statements are freely permitted, and where the decision isn't made by the wikipedia community, given its apparent conflict of interest. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users have been blocked for editing their own biography. The reason given is "conflict of interest". Similarly, administrators voting on their an article about administrators may represent a similar conflict. So are people who are not administrators but have been subject to alleged abuse. Again, the key question is to examine the references. The article is poorly written but quality is not supposed to be a factor. Notability, as defined by references, is the key. My guess is that the references are not good enough but I haven't researched them yet. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To the extent that there is any notability to the topic, it is only so "in universe" and thus not a separate topic suitable for the encyclopedia. That it has been written (this time) by two who did not get community support for their recent "admin abuse" claims gives it less credibility even in universe. Oh yes, and per #37. Bielle (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from article space. Could be retained as essay, possibly first in user space somewhere. For structural reasons I object to any self-referential article. --Pgallert (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 6

edit
  • Keep - I think this is a good idea and (unfortunately) I think it will be easy to expand it over the coming years. However, I also agree that this is currently an attack page. As a result, I think that the page should be locked so that only current administrators can edit it. Regular editors would be able to add comments and sources on the talk page, but then an administrator would have to actually place them in the article. In addition, admin user names should not be used in the article unless they are specifically mentioned in the references and pertinent to understanding the points raised. (Not an admin) Q Science (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a terrible solution. What about having an article on Queen Elizabeth where only the Royal Family can edit the article? Or an article about the United States Army where only Army officers can edit the article? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per blatant WP:SYNTH, attempting to spin old outdated sources and op-ed pieces in an attempt to push a particular POV. -- œ™ 23:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Minor4th. Criticism of Wikipedia is already fairly long, so a merge then split later doesn't make too much sense. I think we all need to be able to look our shortcomings from a neutral third-party perspective. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a secondary choice if consensus prefers – merge any useful non-BLP content into Criticism of Wikipedia as others have suggested, and has already been attempted. It's an obvious synthesis of cherry-picked sources to push a particular attack / wounded-vanity POV. Allowing this article into the encyclopedia would be a sign we are taking ourselves too seriously, and exaggerating the importance of the "community" that writes this thing. (That's a judgement for others outside to make, not us.) Our internal politics, divisions, and squabbles aren't nearly as interesting or notable to the world as they are to the people who spend dozens of hours a week doing the squabbling. Antandrus (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Antandrus, not to mention it's a violation of WP:SYNTH. The creators also appear to have been blocked for disruption, and to that end, this article violates WP:POINT as well.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Notable subject, well-sourced. Material will be lost in a merge, as always (and I'm sure some people would like that very much!). "Merge" is the cow-ard's delete vote, and should never be permitted in AfDs. All merge votes should be stricken. 174.111.116.162 (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentSince the merge !votes are not Keep, and most if not all would be Delete, are you sure that would be a good idea? I'm sure all those saying merge really love being called cowards. But since there's a long history of permitting such !votes, I guess we'll just leave them there. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (edit conflict) For the record, my merge vote is basically a complicated way of saying salvage what little there is of value on this article into a more appropriate article and then delete it. I have no idea what sort of nonsense you're talking saying that merging an article is somehow "cowardly", as far as I'm concerned it's constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (The previous comment was mine, from one of my IPs.) Yes, let people go ahead and vote delete and just be honest about it. I'm a longtime anti-merge guy; I belive merging is destructive to Wikipedia in most cases. Of course, I don't actually expect merge votes to be stricken - I just think we should stop allowing them, because they're a "soft"/sneaky/insidious method of content removal, and the honesty of outright deletion is preferable. If merge voters don't like being called cowards, I will call them cow-ards instead. I have redacted my earlier comment with this adjustment. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the contrary, merging is not destructive at all. Because, if done correctly, it retains useful content which would otherwise be deleted, and that obviously does not benefit our readers much does it? Your statement above tells me you care more about your editing philosophy and proving your point rather than actually improving Wikipedia by preserving encyclopedic content. -- œ™ 10:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The idea that "merge" !votes are really "delete" !votes in sheep's clothing is totally ridiculous. My comment above was the second "merge" in this debate, and I was (and am) quite capable of calling for deletion if I thought it was appropriate. A merge would allow whatever material in the article which is appropriate to be kept in a relevant article, and a redirect (a proper on, without "abuse" in the title) would direct interested readers to that material. Thus, a merge is essentially non-destructive, and is not in any way equivalent to a deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • We've all seen how it works - content gets moved to another article in a merge...and then gradually leached away over the months and years, on the grounds of "undue weight" or irrelevance, until nothing, or almost nothing, is left. At the very least, nothing useful will be added. Once an article is sucked into the gravitational pull of another article, it is usually all but destroyed. Articles are best left to blossom independently. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I should note that this article does need significant re-writing and possibly a new title. As it stands, there is too much documentation of a specific, and illegitimate, grudge. We need more general coverage of the topic, not this crap. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:POINTY and not notable. (Was thinking of going with "Merge" until persuaded otherwise by Mr. IP's anti-merge argument above.) (Not an admin and never will be). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attack type uncivil comments like that can and will be removed. If the commenter wants to comment again, a bit more politely, he is able to. I will also note that adding that uncivil comment was the only contribution the account has made to wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - why are keep !votes being deleted? Granted, the rationale was piss-poor, but that is for the closing admin to determine, not someone who is participating in the debate, and especially on the other side of the argument. Could someone look into this [24]? GregJackP Boomer! 17:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into it for you, its an uncivil personal attack against a group of editors here at wikipedia and it has been removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked into if for you ;), but it is very apparent that it is a personal attack directed at sysops, and being that the vote was the account's only edit (all three edits were to this discussion) it would generally be stricken anyways as a WP:SPA. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, one keep vote was deleted, for the reasons given above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are Wikipedia admins really so goddamned fragile that the phrase "disruptive scumbags" is too much for them and needs to be removed from the page? Also, is it really a "personal attack" when it is directed against a group almost 2,000 strong, and a powerful/dominant/elite group at that? Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Just counting noses at this point, without regard to the quality of the arguments presented, I see:
  • Comment-- I agree that that particular vote would really carry no weight since it was an SPA and included an insult in the vote, but calling a group of people "scumbags" is not the same as calling them motherf-ckers or child molestors (although I've seen comments on an RfA accusing the candidate of pedophilia, and no one removed that comment or vote). But I don't think votes should be deleted from an AfD discussion by anyone except maybe the closing admin, and maybe not even then -- the closing admin can give it the proper weight it deserves. Minor4th • talk 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a comment is grossly disruptive, and it would obviously carry no weight at closing, then removing it to prevent gross disruption is fine, since the close would not be affected. If you or GregJackP really want some record of that comment, you can move it to the talk page with an explanation that it was removed from the main discussion, but pure disruption has no franchise here. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I really just intended a nose count, and not any kind of adminish evaluation of quality, I've amended my count. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone cares, that account along with several others has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Dunno who it really is; don't care. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sockpuppet !votes are routinely deleted or struckout from AfDs and elsewhere, so I've adjusted again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have no problem at all with discarding the !vote of a sock. GregJackP Boomer! 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 7

edit
  • Delete I personally think that the topic of admin abuse on Wikipedia is an important subject that needs to be delt with and is one that we've made some great progress on, I don't think that it should bleed over into our article space, I personally removed an unsourced statement that was an attack on admins from the article but the whole article is in many ways represents and internal problem not something that should be shown to our readers as it is our goal to provide the best most polished encyclopedia possible. Because, despite our internal struggles, out goal as editors, admins, b'crats, rollbackers, etc should be and is to present the best encyclopedia possible to our readers not to bleed out internal issues out into the rest of the encyclopedia. Disclaimer I do have an admin flag on my account All the Best, Mifter (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An alphabet soup of acronyms could be quoted (SYNTH, POV fork, etc.), but really this is the exactly the sort of petty claptrap that's killing this project. Trees, meet Forest: this is an encyclopedia. Durova412 18:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In watching this article it has come to my attention that an out-of-process cut-and-paste copy (and copyvio) of this article has been created at User:Stillwaterising/Admin_abuse and this should probably be deleted. Verbal chat 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, a copyvio? Wikipedia material is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License: there's no copyvio there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia. It would nessesitate the keeping of this article (or its editing history at least). Hence it is out of process. The user should request userfication if and when the article is deleted. Verbal chat 20:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, insufficient attribution can be repaired by use of the {{Db-histmerge}} or {{copied}} templates, as noted at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. The section specifically states that "While technically licensing violations are copyright violations, pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted." GregJackP Boomer! 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    However, what we have here is an out of process copy of this article which would require this article not to be deleted in order to satisfy the copyright requirements. It should either be deleted at the same time as this article or deleted now and any user can request userfication in the usual manner after the AfD has closed. Verbal chat 20:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Verbal, that is not what the policy states. It states what I quoted above, and I freely release my portion of the copyright under CC-SA-whatever to Minor4th and any other Wikipedia users that wish to use it. The policy states that an out of process copy can be cured by the methods listed in the above post, as well as other methods. Note that the only two editors of the version at Minor4th's user space are myself and Minor4th, so there is not an attribution issue. If you want it deleted, you'll have to come up with a different reason, since the policy you are quoting doesn't support that. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also release my copyright to my contributions to the article Administrator abuse on Wikipedia to any Wikipedia user for use on Wikipedia. Minor4th • talk 21:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All editors of the page would have to give their permission to Stillwaterising. But that doesn't alter the fact that it is an abuse of process. The copyvio issue was an aside (it was in brackets like this). Verbal chat 21:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, all editors of the page up to the move would have to do so. In the case of Minor4th's copy, the only two editors that had worked on the article in the revision he copied were the two of us. And out of process or not, the policy you cited does not support deletion. The policy cited also lists other methods to cure an out of process copy - none of which require deletion. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very poor argument. What is to stop people copying the article to another name in mainspace? By your logic that would require a new AfD. Is that what you are intending? Verbal chat 21:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, if an article is deleted via AfD, it is vandalism to re-introduce the article unless the article is substantially different, not intended to circumvent the deletion process, and the reason for deletion of the original article is no longer applicable. GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I feel like someone has been snooping around in my medicine closet :) As one of the two authors of the article as it went to mainspace, I will attribute the other author prominently on the face of the article as it exists on my userspace and/or seek a written release of his rights to me. I will clean it up so that it exists exactly as it did at the time it went live on mainspace. That should take care of any potential copyvio. I'd also be willing to have it userfied to my space once it is deleted (as it looks like it will be). Minor4th • talk 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guys, lets not bow to the letter of the rules to break there spirit, even if you release your rights to the text, I am fairly confident that an admin could invoke WP:IAR in order to delete the pages because using a loophole in the rules can be seen as violating the spirit of the rules thus allowing IAR to step in. Also, I'm curious, what exactly drove you to such lengths to create this article? (Not to be offensive) But, this article seems to be turning into just one WP:POINT, and I was wondering why you want to go outside Wikipedia internal process and create and article that some would argue is meant to create an argument and cause controversy over BLP and other things that can be construed as an attack? My motive for asking this is I am interested in what motivated you to go to such lengths and if it was a negative experience to try to prevent if from happening again. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded on your talk page, as it is really too long to post here, but the short version is that it is not my intent to game the system or break the spirit of the rules. GregJackP Boomer! 23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to break the spirit -- I wanted to make sure the copyright concerns were addressed properly. Clearly we could copy the code and store it elsewhere if that is the more appropriate thing to do, and no doubt admins could delete it if they were so inclined. My purpose in keeping the article in userspace is so I can work on expanding it into a broader subject about wiki governance. The soon-to-be-deleted article forms the basis of the "criticism" portion of such an article. The BLP issues were completely inadvertent -- neither of us had a clue who William Connolley was, and it was my assumption that it was some old timer who was no longer active. I learned differently. I certainly understand how the tone of the article is construed as an attack. Can't speak for Greg, but for me the article is somewhat borne of frustration and a perception of fundamental unfairness of process as well as the culmination of several unfortunate events on the heels of each other. Minor4th • talk 00:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 8

edit
  • Delete How a page came to be created is not relevant (WP:ATA). But after careful review I cannot find evidence that this is notable.
Policies/norms:
  1. While Wikipedia may be large, its active editing community is small and niche. We tend not to host articles on the goings on within small niche online communities unless they truly have gained wider notability (eg, we would be unlikely to have an article on Microsoft forum moderator abuse or Doctor Who wiki administrator abuse unless truly notable).
  2. We also do not cover indiscriminately (WP:NOT) and would need genuine significant coverage by the wider world (WP:N).
  3. The basic definition of "administrator abuse" on Wikipedia as stated is original research (covering whatever the author/s deem "administrator abuse" to mean) - ie unsourced/unverifiable/not agreed, and no reliable source is provided. Hard to write on a subject if it is too ill-defined.
Evidence is very poor:
  1. This cite and this and this contain general (and for the most part neutral/positive) discussion of administrators and Wikipedia governance, they do not appear to show that "administrator abuse" as a subject in its own right has gained notability outside its niche;
  2. This is a paid article that I can't read;
  3. Cite 4 ("Konieczny, Piotr") is a writing by a Wikipedia administrator and does not seem to evidence "the world taking notice" of "administrator abuse".
  4. Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance (Forte et al) is used to evidence that administrator powers have grown over time (which they have - admins can now perform community bans, operate edit filters, redact revisions, etc), but does not seem to evidence "administrator abuse" being a notable topic in its own right;
  5. This cite is also restricted access only but the cited point seems to be that admins are less "on a par" than they used to be, which taken with the abstract does not suggest its authors considered "administrator abuse" to be a notable topic in its own right.
  6. This cite states that not all readers are equally able to be aware of all pages as administrartors and that public statements and reality vary, but again does not suggest its authors considered "administrator abuse" to be a notable topic in its own right.
  7. This cite is by a journalist with a well known reputation for seeking Wikipedia-related matters that could be described as "scandals" and portraying them in lurid tabloid style. (Past criticisms: a journalist whose writings should not be given much credence, and that is putting it politely [25] bizarre rantings [26] report[s] only those whose views serve [his] agenda [27] long-standing agenda against the project [28] (nested))
  8. This cite cites from the same journalist's view in a brief mention of one case. There is no sign the author considered "administrator abuse" to be a notable topic in its own right. It gives only tiny coverage (114 of 2663 words on the last page) and even so going no further than a comment "There will always be discontent" (citing the above case as an example only) and "some disillusioned former Wikipedians gripe about such bureaucratic heavy-handedness";
The description of "admin abuse" is incredibly "thin", mostly "criticisms of Wikipedia culture that involved admins in some way", rather than "admin abuse":
  1. In one case editors differed on a sanction which therefore wasn't enforced and was revoked - does not suggest "abuse" just disagreement;
  2. Policies are enforced by administrator discretion - that users including admins differ in how they act, is widely agreed by the community; "admins having discretion" or "strictness of approach varies between people" is unlikely to be citeable as "abuse by admins" (although could be a criticism) unless reliable independent sources actually state it is "abuse";
  3. Vandals get blocked without always being warned - also a long term community decision hence not a "decision by admins to abuse". (See for example: user accounts that do nothing but simple vandalism may be blocked without controversy Blocking policy, December 2003);
  4. A writing of the same journalist above.
In summary, I can't see any evidence that any sources outside the "Wikiverse" have treated "Administrator abuse on Wikipedia" in a manner that suggests genuine notability. It does not appear to be treated as "worthy of notice" in its own right by reliable independent sources outside the niche online community of wiki-editors. It does not appear to meet policy standards or communal norms. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Perhaps a better topic as far as notability would be "Wikipedia Polity" or "Wikipedia Governance" and the article can be expanded to include both positive and negative aspects. Looking at the availability of secondary sources on the topic, the issue of governace does seem to be more notable than the niche issue of "abuse" or problems within the structure of governance. Minor4th • talk 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an even better idea would be to edit the Criticism of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia articles to introduce information you feel is not being covered. We don't want to do too much navel gazing here. AniMate 00:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so. But each of those articles is about 3Mb already.Minor4th • talk 01:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, you have not demonstrated there is a need for a new article. Rather than creating a fork you should work on the articles I suggested and then decide with others who regularly edit those articles if there is a need for a new one. We edit here collaboratively, and perhaps my suggestion is a better tactic than the one you have been using so far. AniMate 02:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, that's crap, and you really shouldn't be telling people what articles they need to work on. Why don't you look at the articles he's created and edited rather than maligning his whole experience here? You don't like this article, but that doesn't make every other contribution of his or mine "ill-advised" or "ill-conceived" or whatever it is y'all love to say. We both said we would scrap this article and work on something more Wiki-appropriate, so why don't you ease up? It's that attitude that spawns articles about unpleasant Wiki culture. Dang. Minor4th • talk 02:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spelled out my purpose and the genesis of the article very clearly above in response to Mifler's very direct question. Nothing tacit about it. Minor4th • talk 03:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(reinserting inadvertently deleted comments)

Tarc, it was not written out of spite, but I was still upset. I shouldn't write at those times. GregJackP Boomer! 03:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AniMate, I know how to write articles. I have written 18, with 1 being a GA, and I expanded another one to GA status. I have 2 more I was working on, both of which will go to GA, and 1 may make it to FA. This is the first one I've had go to AfD, and it's because I wasn't calm when I wrote it - which was my error. With all due respect, it is not your place to tell me what I can or cannot write - I'm not under an ArbCom topic or article ban. If we cannot make an article relevant and notable, we'll abandon it, but I would request that you AGF and see what we come up with first. GregJackP Boomer! 03:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, calm down, no one is telling you what you can and cannot write or edit, just giving you opinions about what might be better or worse choices. I would doubt that an article on "Wikipedia governance" or "Wikipedia polity" would pass muster for notability, although they could make an interesting essay. Remember, the audience that the encyclopedia is aiming for is the general public, (which could really give two hoots about the internal mechanisms of Wikipedia) while it seems that you really are writing for Wikipedia editors, inwhich case an essay is the better way to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not upset and wasn't upset. It appeared to me that I was being told what to write. Since that is not the case, my comments were not needed. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that the whole world is aware that administrator abuse is rampant in Wikipedia. Unfortunately the abusers now seem to have become the majority, and to have gained the favor of the Foundation; so (as the above discussion shows) they now define themselves as the heroes who are saving wikipedia, and refuse to look at the numbers which clearly say the opposite. Yes, editors are leaving Wikipedia in droves; especially the best editors, those that used to contribute and edit contents. On the other hand, few if any new editors are joining. Those who remain are mostly doing robot-assisted formating tweaks, that add absolutely nothing to wikipedia's value or quality; or guys who get their kicks by writing bizantine rules, defacing articles with disparaging tags, deleting perfecly good work because it does not fit their tastes, and generally bullying other editors. The steady decline since 2006 is strikingly different from the steady growth from 2001 to 2005; and that abrupt change coincides with a fundamental change of attitude by the admins. The "abusecracy" that has been dominant since 2006 is the only plausible explanation for the exodus of old editors (confirmed by many anecdotal cases I have witnessed) and the dearth of new ones. Five years ago Wikipedia could be defined as "1.5 million articles that anyone can edit"; now it is best described as "a decadent social networking site for wannabe chief editors of the Britannica, whose 1500 1200 1100 1000 members have 3 million articles to play with". Sadly the Wikipedia management is still in full denial mode, insisting that all is well and downplaying the decline with euphemisms like "saturation", "maturation", "consolidation phase", etc.. Sigh. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo, Jorge! You have nicely summed up what has gone wrong at this dying site. A band of honest, dedicated, humble encyclopedians, people who value freedom and knowledge, is being replaced by an elite class whose only concern is the preservation of their own privileges, whose only joy is the removal of information, whose only goal is the creation of new structures through which they can exercise their power. Those of us who still oppose them must join together. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, very poor evidence.
  • This is about the reported reduction in editing and not about "admin abuse";
  • This is blog sourced and its sole mention is the sentence "the perceived hostility of some Wikipedia admins, aka 'the deletionists', but as the previous source states these are editors in general not admins and the claimed source does not actually appear to support the statement (and does not describe the behavior as "admin abuse" in any event) this is more accurately an example of why blogs aren't usually considered reliable sources;
  • urban dictionary lists any expression coined by anyone and that anyone chooses to add, and reports the term can be used for anything from teachers to "[a] person who has a strong hatred for wikipedia"; and
  • [29] and [30] and [31] do not mention admin abuse, they say an edit is more likely (in the author's view) to be reversed but doesn't state who by or accuse admins of "abuse" (and bullies who need to "mark" a page for speeedy deletion are unlikely to be admins).
These pages do not evidence anything like "the world taking notice of admin abuse". FT2 (Talk | email) 06:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the abuse is real or immaginary may be open to debate. But those refs (which are by no means exhaustive, they are the result of a couple minutes's worth of Googling) show that the topic has got wide exposure in major media outside wikipedia. Retitle the article as "Alleged abuse" if you will, but please do not try to supress it by claiming that it is not "notable". (And by the way, the notability guidelines themselves, and the way they were enacted and enforced, are prime examples of this "alleged" admin abuse. Unfortunately, "consensus" in wikipedia has come to mean "consensus by a handful of abusive admins". That was prettly clear in the "unsourced BLP" debate earlier this year, when the admins who abusively started deleting BLPs tried to justify their actions a porteriori by trying to turn thier abuse into a rule; and since that did not happen at first, they and kept re-starting the RfC until all opposers got tired and left the discussion. Many other abusive practices in Wikipedia, such as article-side tags and robot-assisted mass editing, were instituted in the same way. Check the logs if you don't believe me.) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a pointy POV fork of Criticism of Wikipedia. Any allegations of "admin abuse" are POV by their very nature and any encyclopedic coverage of this material should be placed within an article with a more neutral subject (ie: Criticism of Wikipedia ThemFromSpace 04:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Those objecting to this article might try to contribute some substantial comment within the article, rather than trying only to eliminate it. The article documents difficulties in a pretty low key manner, but any other purpose appears limited. I'd like to see some additions in the nature of proposed remedies. The section Attempted solutions is in the right direction, but is mainly historical. I'd suggest this aspect be expanded to look at the role of proposed guidelines like WP:ESCA and how they have been treated, and experiments like those on Global warming or Climate change, where attempt was made to control Talk pages and article editing without involving administrators unduly. The object should be to identify ways that try to handle the issues and to document how they have been received by the Admins and the community. That could turn out to be an asset for helpful evolution of the editing environment on WP. Brews ohare (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment seems to fit in with that of Minor4th. Brews ohare (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Criticisms are pointing out the failure to meet basic core content requirements. Some of the issues have been fixed, but the basic problem doesn't seem to be fixable.
  1. None of the reliable sources seem to speak to "admin abuse" (PREVIOUS REVIEWS),
  2. The original article was founded on original research and synthesis (EXAMPLE).
  3. Core definitions and claims were (and are) asserted by editors (OR) not described from reliable sources (EXAMPLE),
  4. "Loaded" redundant wording is added to the detriment of quality (EXAMPLE),
  5. A careful read shows the few reliable sources cited are not giving significant, or indeed any real, coverage to "admin abuse" on Wikipedia.
Your response to being told the article is unsustainable is to complain that people should not delete this kind of content but that more original research should be added to fix the issue (reliable sources have not associated "proposed guidelines like WP:ESCA" or "experiments like those on Global warming" with a context of "admin abuse") and to suggest other users further its advocacy purposes (to "handle issues" and "improve the editing process").
If you feel "[t]he object should be to identify ways that try to handle the issues and to document how they have been received by the Admins and the community", or to provide "helpful evolution of the editing environment", then you might be better rewriting it as an essay or project page. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FT2: Your remarks suggest the following question to me: given proposals like WP:ESCA and the activities to moderate conflicted Talk pages like those related to Global Warming, what is the mechanism for evaluating and reporting on such experimental guidelines and Talk page management? We see in Administrator abuse on Wikipedia a embryonic attempt at such an assessment. Do we have to wait for the NY Times to do an article on the failures of administrators and administrative procedures so as to escape the rubric of WP:OR. That approach seems to chop off sensible evaluation by WP itself and place it in the hands only of outside amateur observers. The use of Talk-like forums for such assessment has limitations of rambling and diatribe that occurs on all Talk pages, while creation of an article like this one has the potential of presenting a cogent appraisal. Brews ohare (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a bullshit article created by an editor who was peeved because someone accused him of being a sock. Man, Greg, stop being so butthurt over that, I encouraged you to be an active editor, not a shit-stirrer grinding a useless axe forever. Guess what, wikipedia is just like life - sometimes people dole some abuse, sometimes people take it. We don't have an article on "Administrator abuse at Sweet Valley High School", etc., either. To the extent there is valid information not already in Criticism of Wikipedia, move it over. Oh, I am an editor, not an admin, and I wrangle with admins from time to time, and vehemently disagree with them sometimes. But this article is absurd and should be taken out and shot.--Milowent (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not helpful or encouraging if you're trying to inspire Greg to be his best and do his best. Shaming someone usually brings about the opposite result. That's just my opinion for whatever it's worth -- which is nothing in this discussion I suppose. Good night. Minor4th • talk 05:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you guys create this? Its not cricket.--Milowent (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was Greg's creation, and since I'm his sockpuppet I was along for the ride by default :) Seemed like a good idea a the time? There's actually a decent explanation that has more to do with Greg's personality and mine, but that's a bit esoteric for this discussion and I'd have to disclose personal information to explain it. I still think it's something worth talking about, and I think it's an issue that resonates with a whole lot of people. But I'm not here to save Wikipedia from itself and will probably lose interest quickly. Minor4th • talk 05:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the same reason that you show such !sensitivity here and in your article edit summary. Thank you for your input, I'll get right on changing my entire world outlook now that I know how you feel. GregJackP Boomer! 07:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to it, chief.--Milowent (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope that you are not using the word "chief" as a racial slur based on my heritage. If you are aware that I'm part-Indian, I would remind you that such comments are prohibited per WP:NPA. I will WP:AGF and believe this time that you were not aware either of my race nor that "chief" is considered to be very insulting. Please do not address me that way in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 11:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Greg, seriously I had no idea of your Native American heritage or even that the use of "chief" as slang was derived from that. Growing up, this was commonly used in my area to refer to someone claiming they were the boss (like the "chief of police"), and while some snark was implied by me, nothing racial was implied at all. I see how it could have offended you and I apologize for that blunder.--Milowent (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I really did not figure that you meant it in that manner, but every ethnic group has words or phrases that have been used to insult them in the past and that their members are hyper-sensitive about. If I didn't tell you, you wouldn't know, would you? So I hope we can move forward in a friendly manner (though not necessarily agreeing on everything). Anyway, thanks for clearing it up, I really appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I use "chief" in the same manner in real life, but it comes from an old Dave Letterman skit called "Stop Calling Me Chief", where he'd have one of his assistants go out on the street and ask people a series of annoying questions, e.g. "whatcha eating there, chief?"; if the person said "stop calling me chief!" or similar within 60secs, they'd win a prize. I loved it. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 9

edit
  • Transwiki to Citizendium and Conservapedia. Both sites criticize Wikipedia, and if the two primary authors release their work, then the version that contains only their contributions can be safely moved. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't transwiki to a non-WMF wiki - they can grab the content if they want it, but we can't tell them what to accept. All contributors by virtue of contributing here have already released their work anyway under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. Orderinchaos 06:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:POVFORK. Probably the most supreme effort in navel-gazing I've seen outside of project space in my time here. Orderinchaos 06:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what can be salvaged with Criticism of Wikipedia, then move to a less loaded title (without a redirect) and redirect the more appropriate title to the criticism article. Alternatively or additionally, the authors may wish to have the content userfied where they can keep it as an essay. The tone of the article as it is is nothing more than an attack on administrators in general and a particular small group of administrators, but some of the well sourced content could form part of the criticism article valid. There is valid criticism of Wikipedia, but this isn't the way to document it in an encyclopaedic fashion. Oh, and yes, I am an admin, I realise that makes me the root of all evil (bar Jimbo and ArbCom), but the conspiracy theorists won't accept the result of this discussion (which, ironically, will be closed by an administrator!) anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is almost exactly what I suggested with my !vote (and I am not an admin), though I later suggested also that Criticism of Wikipedia should itself be merged into Wikipedia as well, since an article simply for criticism is inherently negative and thus a violation of WP:NPOV. This would be a matter of further discussion beyond the scope of this AfD though; for now, just merge into Criticism of Wikipedia and then a merge discussion can handle anything not directly related to this article). I would be interested in seeing if there would be any interest in the further merge I proposed however, though I realise it involves merging two very large articles. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The proper approach with inherently non-neutral titles that constrain an article to a one-sided discussion is to find the encompassing neutral topic that contains the non-neutral partial topic. In this particular case, that would be Wikipedia administrators, a subject that has been studied in depth, not the least by Martin Wattenberg, Fernanda B. Viégas, and Katherine Hollenbach, who have studied the edits made by Wikipedia administrators, to determine the patterns thereof, and who presented a 15-page paper on that subject at INTERACT 2007. Analysis of administrator social standing is simply one facet of the proper topic.

        There's a lot been said above on how sources fail to discuss this particular facet of Wikipedia administrators in depth, but 9 section breaks later no-one — most sadly none of the experienced editors who have participated in this discussion and who should be familiar with how to turn inherently non-neutral topics into neutral ones — has yet pointed out our standard renaming and refactoring solution to non-neutrality-by-dint-of-part-topic. Of course, taking this approach would involve the axe-grinders stepping back and taking on board another basic tenet of Wikipedia: writing neutrally about something that one has strong personal views upon (sometimes characterized as ignoring all of one's personal knowledge or writing for the enemy). Unfortunately, it's often an inability to write neutrally that motivates the creation of inherently non-neutral articles in the first place, and that leads to conflicts with other editors, administrators and others.

        It's similarly sad to see that Wikipedia administrators is bluelinked because it is a redirect from the actual encyclopaedia content to the internal plumbing, leading people to believe that there's no possibility of some proper encyclopaedia content at that title. (But then we've always had a problem with such petty aids for editors pushing out actual encyclopaedia content that readers might want to see, here and on Wikipedia mirrors. Minor convenience for the editor who doesn't want to type too often takes precedence over the actual thing that we're supposed to be writing. Witness this, for example.) Uncle G (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as essentially an exercise in axe-grinding. Yes, I have the admin bit, though I don't use it much. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This observation is a good starting point for looking at the discussion on this page. Useful discussion suggests sources and approaches that make the article more useful and contribute to a better WP atmosphere conducive to exchange of ideas. Brews ohare (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does making it into an essay immediately marginalize the article by making it appear incapable of standing scrutiny? Brews ohare (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that the authors of this article want to present a case which is not possible to do in the form of a regular wiki-article as that would lead to conflicts with various wiki rules. I'm in fact writing up an essay about Wikipedia off-line now, and you have also written up an essay about problems on Wikipedia. But you could not have presented your text in the form of regular Wiki-article without severly compromizing on what you want write down.
It may be true that this means that the presented ideas are marginalized relative to those presented in a regular article. But then that's unavoidable...Count Iblis (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any conceivable topic about administrators, governance, etc. that can be an article rather than an essay? This seems more like a process or politics issue as opposed to a consideration of whether the topic is truly notable and proper for inclusion as an article in an encyclopedia. What if the topic were not slanted and based solely on criticism, but a treatment of both sides of the governance issue? There are sub-headings in various articles or essays to this effect but I think enough has been written in reliable journals and scholarly works that it could stand on its own. Incidentally, there have been numerous "votes" to merge it into the Wikipedia article or Criticism of Wikipedia, and this almost seems to have taken on the quality of an informal or unwritten policy -- when a proposed article is negative toward Wikipedia, dump it into one of those two catch-all article burial grounds. They are both already so large and cumbersome that they need to be split -- I have a feeling that is the result of many discussions just like this one. Minor4th • talk 16:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are published articles about statistics of administrator activities, like what fraction of their time is spent on vandalism. These articles suffer from being very gross, large scale assessments, and form weak if any conclusions regarding what actions benefit or detract from WP. There are articles like Why Do People Write for Wikipedia? Incentives to Contribute to Open-Content, which ask some interesting questions but steer wide of how Talk pages actually work. Maybe we could look at the essay concept more carefully to see if it can be made more influential? What is the experience in upgrading an essay to a guideline? Should this article be redrafted with a view toward developing some guidelines for admins or arbitration, and if that happened would it at all affect admins or arbitration? Brews ohare (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another user guided me in that direction as well -- essay with an eye toward community discussion and ultimately guideline. It is not an easy or short process. To answer your question about whether it would affect admins or arbitration, I would say probably not unless it is a proposal that is submitted by admins or arbitration-minded admins. That's part of the catch-22 here. Admins (very generally, stereotyping here) have a stake in preserving the status quo and not upsetting the balance of power. I don't see a group of admins supporting a policy that restricts their authority or imposes accountability parameters on them. Maybe the issue is not ripe yet because Wikipedia is not suffering enough as a result of this problem. It's always a good idea to be looking forward though because things do change. Actually, the length and number of comments on this discussion is somewhat heartening even if the article gets deleted. It has spurred community conversation and shined a light on an issue that is important to many who participate here. It's always somewhat validating to discover that others have experienced things the same way you have and can relate to the difficulty. Minor4th • talk 03:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your assessment. In fact, very widely accepted guidelines like WP:NPA are enforced by admins only upon participants they do not agree with, while others are free to trample all over the guidelines with impunity. One real problem here is intrusion by administrators in areas where they have no competence (like arbitrating content issues), and failure to enforce civil behavior upon all parties, rather than selectively. In other words, present behavior suggests that no guideline will insure improved behavior by administrators, who will use the guideline only when it suits them, but it might aid in embarrassing them when they do outrageous things. Brews ohare (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing @Beyond My Ken what's with this: [33], [34] Minor4th • talk 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would really appreciate it if users not continue to edit or delete other users comments on this AfD. If a particular editor's position is not clear, it is better to contact them on their talk page and ask them to clarify, rather than editing their comment to show delete. In this case, the original editor came back and reverted the change. WP:GD states that "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith" - showing someone's comment to be delete when they did not indicate that was their intent skews the AfD process. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ken was trying to tally the votes, but you shouldn't add a "keep" or "delete" if the editor does not offer it--some of us like some ambiguity in life.--Milowent (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't exactly trying to "tally", just attempting to make it easier to see the purpose of the comment -- that's the point of "slugging" a comment with a bolded summary, after all. Still, I take the point about not adding a slug to others' comments, although I'm still curious to know if my slug of Chris Cunningham's comment was a mischaraterization.

The other stuff is just formatting, making the page easier to read. There was no alteration of content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of ambiguity: it's a matter of moving past this mentality of "!vote counting" which appears to make otherwise intelligent adults unable to decipher the meaning of a comment unless it has a bit of bold text in front of it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with emboldening the jist of your views: the process goes a lot smoother if the closing admin can clearly see which users have expressed which opinions for closing, and then read the text after each "slug" in order to weigh the arguments. Such a summary should only be added by the discretion of the user who left the comment, however, and failing to do so doesn't subtract from that user's argument, nor should it prevent the closing admin from understanding their argument and taking it into consideration along with all the others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience the "count then weight" system is little better than simply counting, but that's not a debate to be had here. The point is that editors who have chosen not to cheapen their comments by reducing them to the level of a show of hands shouldn't have that pushed on them by other editors. I believe that BMK is now aware of this position, so this thread is done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:44, 29 June 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) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Raju 4

edit
MMA Raju 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article simply contains the results of a non-notable amateur MMA organization's event. The organization, MMA Raju, was previously deleted via AfD. WP:N clearly states that "routine news coverage such as ... sports coverage ... is not significant coverage." This article fails both WP:GNG and WP:N.

I am also nominating the following related page for exactly the same reasons:

MMA Raju 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 27 June 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 deleted. utcursch | talk 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Om Dutt Joshi

edit
Om Dutt Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Less than twenty Ghits, and even from reading those, it's hard to tell if the subject of this article is really a person after all. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:06, 27 June 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 Zone of alienation. T. Canens (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl stalking

edit
Chernobyl stalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. This article amounts to little more than advertising/encouragement for an activity in which the article's creator has a vested interest. Anything relevant here (like the criminal code that makes these activities illegal) can be included, or already is included, in the relevant articles on Chernobyl and the exclusion zone. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to merging the relevant information into that article. But, as you say, this term is not encyclopedic, and seems to have been made up by the SPA who created the article. His name indicates this is his singular obsession. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:51, 27 June 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) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albawardi Group

edit
Albawardi Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a paid-editing piece developed via a conflict of interest through this posting on freelancer.com. The bid reads So we tried to publish our own wiki article but unfortunately it was deleted and we cant post again because of the marketing purposes. We need a professional writer to do the article again. We will provide him with the whole material ( text and writing ) all he has to do is to publish them correctly.

Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. The subject of this article also appears to lack notability as I haven't been able to find significant coverage of the group in reliable sources independent of the group itself. All of the sources cited come directly from the group's home page, which isn't enough to meet our notability guidelines. ThemFromSpace 01:53, 27 June 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 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons episodes rated TV-14

edit
List of The Simpsons episodes rated TV-14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - unnecessary arbitrary list. The ratings TV episodes receive are not permanent (they frequently change in syndication) and this list serves no useful purpose. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:37, 27 June 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) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGAST

edit
AfDs for this article:
AGAST (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article does not indicate encyclopedic notability. Oo7565 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 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 (G12) as blatant copyright violations of [35] and [36], in which all the content was copypasted from. –MuZemike 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CanadaSecretLaw

edit
CanadaSecretLaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable enough and information is not substantial enough to warrant a dedicated article. Topic is already covered (better) at 2010 G-20 Toronto summit#Concerns. Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:09, 27 June 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) 01:00, 4 July 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 delete. JForget 00:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude Rock

edit
Dude Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't worked in a top promotion. Also doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:21, 27 June 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Satan (book)

edit
Hail Satan (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence nor indication of notability, given certain other edits by article creator (who seems to be the only person pushing for it), appears to be subtly promotional. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did it ever occur to you to try to look at actually look at why the article is being deleted? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — A WORK OF ART! MUST KEEP THIS IS VERY WORTHY OF NOTORIETY!IF YOU SEARCH THE EXACT WORDS "I CAN READ WIKIPEDIA" INTO GOOGLE, THERE IS ONE WORD THAT STANDS OUT IN THE FIRST RESULT TO THAT SEARCH AND REST ASSURED THAT WORD IS FAR MORE OFFENSIVE THAN ANYTHING ABOUT SATAN! SATAN IS NOT AN INSULT AND IT DOES NOT PUT DOWN ANY RACE OR BELIEFS UN LIKE CHRISTIANITY WHICH IS JUST AS BAD AS THAT WORD THAT COMES UP WHEN YOU SEARCH " I CAN READ WIKIPEDIA" INTO GOOGLE. I BET ALL KINDS OF CHRISTIANS ARE OK WITH THAT RESULT! I HONESTLY DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR GUIDELINES AND I THINK THE CONTENT OF THE BOOK 'HAIL SATAN' OR ANYTHING BY IT AUTHOR IS MUCH TO GOOD TO BE FEATURED ON SUCH AN EXOTERIC CLOSE MINDED PAGE. THE INTERNET ISNT FOR DELETING EVERY THING THAT CERTAIN WHINY IRRELEVANT PEOPLE ARE DONT AGREE WITH, AND IN MY OPINION ANYTHING BY MYKHAILO CHORNYISYN IS FAR TO ESOTERIC AND MEANINGFUL AND THE INTERNET SHOULD BE FOR REASEARCH OF ALL TYPES, NOT JUST THE ONES THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE THINK ARE WORTHY AND WHICH ONES ARNT, IT PEOPLE LIKE THIS THAT MAKE THE MAJORITY OF TV PROGRAMMING AND COMMERCIALS AND OTHER SHIT THEY HAVE MADE GUIDLIES TO SHOVE WHATS IRRELEVANT TO RIGHT AND WRONG BECAUSE WHEN ITS ART AND SPIRITUAL BELIFS, ITS ALL A MATTER OF OPINION AND NO CAN DELETE AS MUCH WISDOM AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE ROOM FOR SOME CERTIFIED GUIDLINE MET IGNORANCE!!!!! CAPS LOOK IS ON BECAUSE IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE VERY WEAK AND CLOSE MINDED! --≤Ḫ₳ẮŖḮ ʍʘ৳ʜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.135.7 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — 76.175.135.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
CAPSLOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL! Turn off your capslock and read the notability guidelines. The article is being deleted because it does not meet those. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, 76.175.135.7, if all you're going to do is scream walls of text that really do not have anything to do with the subject at hand (NOTABILITY), then why should we consider your edits something other than vandalism? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the tone of the article reads like the front- and back book covers, I don't think that it is over-the-top promotional. What is the fatal flaw, however, is failure to demonstrate coverage of this book in independent, reliable sources. The references cited in the article tend to be to older works that are the source of quotes used in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Below the references section is included an Online Sources section with topical artwork, excerpts and related news. C.Fred you might not have seen the section since Ian.thomson rapidly deleted the sources, stating the kiamagic.com source is a forum when, he simply saw the word "forum" in a navigation bar without realizing he was on a page within a reputable Occult community. These sources are added in the process and spirit of compliance. This dialogue is healthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackson (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not see that section, but looking at it now (this version), I see four links: a forum page with a couple of poems (and a link which may need to be removed due to copyright issues), a picture of sigils, cartoon artwork, and a blog/"people powered news" page. None of these meet the definition of reliable sources. Two are artwork without clear links, one appears to be content taken from the book, and the fourth, while it a critical piece covering the book, is not published in a reliable publication. I stand fully behind my previous statement, that there is no coverage in independent, reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be self-published - our old friends at www.lulu dot com, the rest of the link being /product/paperback/hail-satan/4830515 - which makes notability that much harder to demonstrate. In fact, the references given do absolutely nothing in this direction, being references to very much older works by other authors. These are fine for scholarly annotation, but for the current purpose in hand, no. The Serpent's Tongue interview might be a first piece in the mosaic, but unfortunately I can't get into it on this machine. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The odd form of the link above is because the spam filter won't allow it in its natural form. I feel the link is necessary to this discussion, and is not being used for spam purposes. Peridon (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon will list almost anything. Being online only, they can sell books printed 'on-demand', and only get them when required (if...). High Street sellers have to buy in stocks of a book. If the book was regularly stocked on the shelf by Waterstones (for example) I'd be more impressed. Peridon (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The top links of this project page point to Google books as a method to find source, in affect condoning Google books as a valid database. Incidently, the book is available through Waterstones. Blackson (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2010
  • Delete - Any notable book will have been professionally reviewed, if only by Publishers Weekly. Inclusion in Amazon's catalog is hardly a badge of notability, as they have several million books, not to mention frying pans, toys and pet food.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing to attest to the notability of this book that even remotely satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. Links provided by User:Undead warrior certainly are inadequate in this respect. I will also give a heads-up about canvassing from User:Blackson, and I have placed a warning about this on their talk page. __meco (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's notable in itself that there's someone from Russia who thinks Satanism is important enough to study. Interesting implications about the legacy of the Soviet Union on the religious beliefs of the Russian population, which appear to be nearly nil. Anyfors (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Anyfors (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - Please read the this site's guidelines on notability, what you are refering to is not what notability means in this context. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And to add onto the above, Anyfors, you have the right concept, just not the right words or way points to getting to it. In my opinion, a bunch of these sources will be tough to find since the book is Russian. However, if we can find a Russian translator, we may be able to find some better sources for this book. Granted, I did dig up a few things on the book's writer. Also, if this is kept, which I do believe it should be, it definitely needs re-written. (Not completely, but a good overhaul would be in order) Undead Warrior (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book appears to be in English, but good Russian references would help. They can be understood by someone here. As it's self-published, you've got to get rather good refs - Amazon won't do. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Njb2990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 75.120.80.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - I'm not a Wikipedia expert on this kind of material, or the notability topic - my involvement only being with fact articles - but trying to differentiate this one from the mountain of other books on here is not easy. Ultimately, I ask myself, would I expect Wikipedia to have a reference to a controversial, specialist item like this? Yes. Would I expect it to have its own article? For something this unique (simply meaning one of a kind)? Yes. I defer to you experts on criteria fulfillment, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneke1 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Stoneke1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How do you know that we all 'disagree' with it? I'm neutral on the matter of the subject, not coming from either side of the God-Satan conflict. I'd be quite interested to see a copy of the book (but don't intend to buy it unseen), but that doesn't mean I think it notable enough for an article here. I have quite a few books in my collection by authors that wouldn't make it to article status on Wikipedia. I don't need to have read it to determine my position on this one's status. I don't doubt that the information given is correct. It isn't enough. There needs to be an indication of coverage and/or reviews in reliable independent sources. I am quite prepared to change my mind if the necessary info comes up. The presence of so many single purpose or anon posters suggests to me that the evidence isn't obtainable. This is very often the case here at Articles for Deletion. It doesn't work. Peridon (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've said repeatedly on the talk page, I'm far more strict with Christians on this site. It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with me, it's agreeing with the guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk)
  • Keep - Deletion is the enemy of free speech, even if content is not 100% correct or to someones liking it is opinion and the internet is built on the opinion of millions of individual users from all faiths and walks of life. Therefore it is not up to one individual to decide what stays or goes. Carbraxas (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — Carbraxas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
In AfD, the decision is made after a review of the valid arguments given by users. It IS the decision of the closing admin, based on the discussion, that is by one person. That is the Wikipedia rule, and if you don't like it, you can start your own encyclopaedia and make your own rules. Note that I say valid arguments. Numbers of posters saying they like something, or accusing the regulars of bias while ignoring the points they are making, just count for nothing. Listen to what we say, find what we are asking for, and the article can be saved. Go on waffling and it'll disappear. Peridon (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Peridon. Carbraxas, "Free speech" does not apply to Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2010 (U
  • Keep The point of all art is to cause reaction which leads to new thought;which this work does quite admirably.Not to mention that it is a beautiful expression of the LHP, which in its self is a rare phenomenon .--72.95.228.42 (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)— 72.95.228.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - I'm a strict inclusionist on anything having remotely to do with religion, be it Satanism or Catholicism or Scientology, but the fact is if this book were notable somebody somewhere would have written something about it in a reputable magazine or other forum. Unless substantive references can be found, in English or Russian or whatever, this will have to be deleted.Minnowtaur (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is due to be written about in a webzine set for September 2010 publication and release, The webzine is not associated with the author. Does this count? Kimberley Zellers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.45.220 (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — 72.95.228.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is the webzine notable enough to have an article? If not, then not likely. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's nothing wrong with this article that isn't wrong with tens of thousands of others. The sole reason this was marked for deletion is it's content, which offends the religious. Someone should merely note the book on their website and use it as a source, then rewrite the article to be more factual and less biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.233.143 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — 97.96.233.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You have no idea what you're talking about. Look at the notability guidelines and the reliable source guidelines. Someone just mentioning it on their website is not going to solve the problem. The book needs something like an article about the book in a magazine or newspaper that serves a general audience to establish notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a bit offended by these people and THEIR religious bias. They seem to assume that everyone who is not a Satanist is a Christian and out to persecute them. Well, I ain't. I'm not a Satanist and I'm not a Christian. 'Religious' does not equal 'Christian' or 'anti-Satanist'. If someone wants to worship the lamppost outside my house, fair enough (so long as he/she does it quietly...). I don't say what my religion is, as it's my business not yours. But don't accuse me of being biased. Read my first post again and see what bias there is in there. I even suggest there may be notability in a ref I can't open. FIND REFERENCES THAT FIT THE WIKIPEDIA POLICIES instead of parroting about art and beauty and bias. Do something positive to save the article. Get the refs, and I will look at them and if they fit the bill, I'll change my !vote. Peridon (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (who has just had a very hard day...)[reply]
Hopefully some folks besides these fundies will come in and either present references, or the article will be deleted and the peanut gallery will leave. Honestly, I would not mind one bit if someone found sources, it'd get those apes to shut up. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is BS, if it were a book on any other religion then we would not be having this discussion, The Christian Bible has a page and I'm sure that that is well published elsewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.217.5 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New stuff goes at the bottom, read why the article is actually being deleted (It does not meet WP:NOTABILITY) and address that. If you don't, you're just wasting everyone's time. The Satanic Bible has an article because it is written about in outside sources. This article is just about a book of some flake's poems that noone in the media gives a shit about. If that flake happened to be a Christian, Scientologist, Jedi, or whatever, the article would still be deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The people who care about Wikipedia don't give a fuck about the CONTENT of this book. We are interested in its verifiable notability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, and there are inadequate independent verifiable sources to establish this book's notability. Wikipedia is not a forum on which to seek publicity. I suspect we have numerous SOCKPUPPETS leaving opinions on this page. Tsk tsk tsk. Naughty Satanists! I won't hold it against you though; from Hindu gurus to schismatic Catholics (and everyone in between) people of every belief system imaginable come to Wikipedia and try to gain some notability by ignoring its policies and creating articles that don't belong here. --Griseum (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep". This rubbish about "...get the refs and *I* will look at them..." is in itself, dictatorship. Who the HELL appointed YOU the watchdog? References from tabloids and other media sources are, at best, unreliable. What references can be quoted that are totally reliable? There are none. Even the Christian Bible cannot be considered `reliable reference'.

Do I personally LIKE this `Hail Satan' book? No I don't, but the fact remains that there are enough people that DO like it to warrent its retention. Quote: ..."Wikipedia has a principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large." False remarks such as "Noon give a shit" are nothing less than your own biast opinion. Give me reliable references to back up your statement, or retract it.— 165.145.51.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You don't understand what consensus is. Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia is not an anarchy. If you don't like that this site has standards for what qualifies as notable or what qualifies as reliable sources, you can leave. I'm not the one that determines notability, we have guidelines for that. I'm not the one that determines what sources are reliable, we have guidelines for that. All you have to do is find sources that meet the guidelines. Bitching ignorantly won't do anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is absurd. Some Christian feel a little uncomfy about a book, and others don't get to know information about it? Would you do this for a Taoist wikipedia? A Buddhist, a Muslim, an Agnostic, Deist, Atheist? No I don't think you would. I feel offended by him wanting to take down any article because it's "demonic". That's unacceptable. This is ridiculous. There is no way in the civilized world we should be down to the beliefs of others. If it complies with Wikipedia's rules and standards, LEAVE IT NO QUESTION. We don't remove certain people like Teller because he's an Atheist and he OFFENDS other beliefs? No? Should this book be removed. I strongly say: NO! No. No! No; No! Thank you for opening a discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.244.222 (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what you are talking about. I tagged the article for deletion, I own texts from various religions, multiple grimoires, and I believe Satan is only a bad idea. I was not bothered by the content at all, I tagged the article for deletion because it does not meet the guidelines for notability. What would you say if the religious situations were reversed? What would you say if a Satanist tagged an article for deletion for not meeting the guidelines, and the Christian article author lied to his friends about the situation, saying it was only because of religion? Wouldn't the folks that come in screaming about persecution, completely ignorant of why the article is actually being deleted look pretty stupid? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my post above where I state that I am NOT a Christian. This is the first article involving Satanism that I have been involved with. I have been involved with the demise of quite a few articles involved with Christian matters. Then again, why am I bothering to say this? Peridon (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's simply not sufficiently notable. I imagine all the supporters here were responding to [37]. --04:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
They likely are here because Blackson/Mykhailo prettily lied about the situation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. After reading the notability guidelines for "BOOKS" on this site if you will read under Subject specific guidelines under the BOOKS tab it says specifically : A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources one or more of the following criteria...I am citing criteria number 3: The Book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture,or other art form,or event, or political or religious movement...I Sheila Miller am a Satanist, High Priestess and Ordained Reverend..you Ian are not..I say the book "HAIL SATAN" is a significant contribution to the Satanic movement, Satanic thought and Satanic religion as a whole because as a Satanist I welcome other Satanists independent thought, beliefs and art as part of my own religious beliefs and embrace them as my own. Satanism and the Satanic movement are in its early stages and considered young in its years compared to other Religions of the world. A movement is described by definition as: actions or activities, as of a person or a body of persons. Satanism is considered a religion by our United States government therefore cannot be excluded as one.

[1] Satanism as a recognized religion [2]LilithbethMiller (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Sheila Lilithbeth MillerLilithbethMiller (talk)— LilithbethMiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We are not saying Satanism should be excluded. There is, in fact, an article on Satanism. This was created in November 2001, in the first year of Wikipedia. Checking through the first five years of the article, I can see no attempt having been made to get it deleted. We are saying this book is not verifiably notable. We are not saying we don't like it. I have stated I would quite like to read it. We are saying we can find no evidence of notability BY WIKIPEDIA'S STANDARDS of notability. And I an once again urging the article's supporters to find evidence. Do any of the people here calling for deletion say they disapprove of Satanism? Or is it just this book they find non-notable? Peridon (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what the US Government decides internally is only slightly more relevant to me than is a declaration by the Pope. It is not my government, as I am not an American citizen or resident. However, I do admire their decision to recognise Satanism as a legitimate religion. I too regard it as valid as Christianity. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm king Joffy-Joffur, ruler of Zamunda, and I can assure you that my farts are culturally significant, too. - you completely missed the reliable source guidelines, WP:RS. We can't verify anything from your personal statement (or even that it is your personal statement). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Satanists have as much a right to practice as anyone else that whose religion is not harmful (I'll avoid cracks at the Church of Scientology for now). Making sure an article about a book stays on an encyclopedia is not part of any flavor of Satanism, though. This article changing by either acquiring sources, or being deleted, does not threaten anyone's right to practice their religion. (Would have put this earlier, but I've been editing from my phone until recently, and it takes a several frustrating minutes just to put single characters I use unconsciously with a keyboard, which probably has affected my mood). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom; complete lack of reliable sources to indicate notability. The majority of keep !votes fail to address the actual reason for nomination – obviously a consequence of the dishonest canvassing that has occurred off-wiki. Even those that do address the issue of notability don't seem to understand it. AJCham 01:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Satan Page.Corred (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the Satan article. That's staying. This is about a book that does not have any sources showing it to be notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I originally posted as a "keep;" however, after reviewing Wikipedia's notability page and most of the arguments I am now for deleting the page until it gains further notability. Right now it simply does not have the required notability, maybe in a few months to a year it will and then the page can be remade. Let it be known I am a Satanist and would very much like the "Hail Satan" article to stay up, but alas rules are rules. 24.163.9.106 (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)njb2990[reply]


  • Keep - Re: Wikipedia:FAILN (Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines)

This book is only 12 months old, it is written by a new author, on an obscure topic. This does not mean however that the subject will fail future attempts at notability criteria. A lot of past authors & artists only became famous after their death & notability did not come about until late in life, or after life. I understand Ian's arguments, and had I not read the Wikipedia:FAILN article I would've agreed.

However, when googled there are over 12 pages of links to the author & book, at least 2 webzines have stated that they have (will) run reviews, (I am aware that they are not considered relevant in the argument, however if they have a large readership & can provide evidence to support this, then I think it should be at least reviewed, not solely dismissed) and taking into consideration that Satanist books & literature are a very unique topic readership & notability can take time to build.

If Ian is not swayed by these "Keep" arguments, perhaps merge some information into a more mainstream topic, and re-write the article after the September reviews are out from peer "zines".

Wikipedia:FAILN If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

  • Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources.

In this case, the peer review 'zines' should at least be considered, not solely dismissed (eg: "Marie RavenSoul, Founder/Publisher 'The Serpent's Tongue'" and "It is due to be written about in a webzine set for September 2010 publication and release, The webzine is not associated with the author. Does this count? Kimberley Zellers"). (a new account, but happy to be contacted for individual verification). Msklb (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This does not mean however that the subject will fail future attempts at notability criteria." True. "It is due to be written about in a webzine set for September 2010 publication and release" - maybe. In both cases, however, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Please understand that we have looked for sources, and that under WP:BURDEN it is really up to the creator to supply referencing anyway. We have asked the posters on this page (which includes the creator) to find references. We still haven't got them. (I currently can't get into the Serpent's Tongue.) Webzines are a doubtful place for sourcing. It is sometimes difficult to establish their notability/independence from their contents. Some approach the level of print mags like Time, others are glorified blogs. And blogs aren't allowed for establishing notability. (Nor is Wikipedia...) I'm afraid that individual verification isn't within the rules (unless I've missed something). Peridon (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "keep" arguments completely miss the reason the article is being deleted, some of them are just ignorant accusations of me and other editors being fear-mongering, bible-thumping, torch-bearing fundies (the talk page is much worse), despite my thoughts and actions demonstrating that is not the case, and only one of the other regular editors involved identifying as a Christian (who I won't point out, but considering the interests he lists on his userpage, I'm quite sure there's no intolerance on his part, either). Pardon me if I have missed someone presenting something that would actually meet WP:RS that would make the article meet WP:NOTABILITY, without trying to turn wikipedia into a crystal ball. Msklb, off the top of my head, you, Undead warrior, LilithbethMiller are the main folks that have been paying attention and thoughtfully contributing to the "keep" side (I am not including Blackson because of his dishonest canvassing on facebook). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I'm not a fan of poetry, but a written work on a unique topic should have an independent point of reference from an encyclopedic stand point. It also has multi-cultural implications from a soviet-religion stance. Absinthe (Talk) 16:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the problem: there are no independent points of reference at the moment. There aren't any sources that show that the work is notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Accusations of systematic bias on Wikipedia are beyond ludicrous considering articles such as The Satanic Bible and Might is Right exist. Nevertheless, this article reads almost exactly like an advertisement for the book, and fails to put it in context of why it's important. A book of poetry is a sticky situation, since unlike a nonfiction book it cannot be argued to contain unique or vital information, and thus must rely on the vindication of time and critics (or reputation of its author) to establish itself as truly noteworthy. Unfortunately I see neither here, the text of this article is about what I'd expect from a sales blurb on Amazon. - OldManNeptune (talk) 20:30, 3 July 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 Firewood. Tone 19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wood conversion to Btu

edit
Wood conversion to Btu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like it's searching for a topic. This would much better be merged into Combustion or perhaps Firewood, it's a minor point and I don't think the references support a stand-alone article. I would have merged it but I don't think this is a likely search term either. Shadowjams (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Anon vote stuck. —mono 00:46, 27 June 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) 00:15, 27 June 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) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Grode

edit
Lance Grode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Worked with some notable people, but this doesn't of itself confer notability. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article currently needs de-hyping, but that's not an AfD issue.--Technopat (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the alternative standard also says "When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average". The subject of this article is an adjunct professor, according to the references cited, and so appears to fail both standards for WP:ACADEMIC. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:38, 21 June 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) 00:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly not notable as an academic: only an adjunct professor, with no evidence to indicate passing WP:PROF. No evidence of significant specific coverage to show passing WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:PROF. He does technically meet the criteria "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" in the literal sense that 50% of academics meet this criteria, but I think the spirit of the criteria is that he is significantly more notable than the average college prof, which Professor Grode doesn't appear to be. That's subjective, of course--just one wikiman's opinion Vartanza (talk) 05:03, 29 June 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 Sarah 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stambolziev

edit
AfDs for this article:
Robert Stambolziev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has not played in profesional league, not notable. Contested PROD. First AfD was never transcluded or even referenced on the article page.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:44, 20 June 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) 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, WP:GNG states that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. As far as I know, consensus is to follow WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N, when it comes to footballers. So, unless it's proved he's notable for something else other than his football career, I can't see why he should be on Wiki. — Luxic (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually ATHLETE and FOOTY state A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability, so they do not trump GNG. Nobody disputes that Stambolziev fails these dubious criteria but I contend that he passes GNG, specifically by recieving significant coverage in third-party, reliable secondary souces. In the sources supplied he certainly gets "more than a trivial mention" though he "need not be the main topic of the source material" in any event. Eliteimp (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luxic certainly provides a novel interpretation of the policy, but I remain convinced that if WP:GNG is met then the article is notable and should remain. Contributions here which evince a preference for WP:ATHLETE, while doing nothing to dispute or even address the claim to WP:GNG don't carry much weight in my eyes. I'm sure the closing admin will note that no-one here has credibly challenged the WP:RSs or the claim to WP:GNG when they hand down their judgement. Eliteimp (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been on this site for years and as far as I recall, footballers failing WP:FOOTY/N have always been deleted, regardless of any significant coverage of their youth/amateur careers. So, rather than a novel interpretation of mine, I'd call it consesus (which, of course, you may not agree with). — Luxic (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources listed in the article, I looked at a few, and all were either passing mentions or broken links. In this Google News Archive search, I was unable to find significant coverage that discussed Stambolziev's life. I consider this article from the BBC, though about Stambolziev, to be insufficient to establish notability because it lacks depth. If Eliteimp can provide links to two reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Stambolziev (and more depth than the BBC article I mentioned above), I will reconsider my position. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In these discussions there is a tendency to override WP:GNG by pretending any and every source supplied is "trivial". In addition to the those in the article, I found [38] and [39] within a couple of minutes. I don't understand your request for coverage discussing Stambolziev's life in depth - surely the notability attaches to his career as a footballer? As far as I can see there are numerous reliable third-party sources which are wholly and/or explicitly to do with that. Eliteimp (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources are not enough to cause me to change to keep in that they contain little information about his life and seem to be news reports that contain little depth (for example, little of this article contains little secondary information about Stambolziev himself — I count three sentences about him and the rest of the article being composed of excerpts from an interview). However, these sources are enough to cause me to strike my delete vote and switch to neutral. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In my view, Luxic is absolutely right. We have to remember that both WP:ATH and WP:GNG are guidelines that give rise to presumptions, not guarantees of notability. With that in mind, neither "trumps" the other. This person clearly fails WP:ATH, which is the community's most generous inclusion criterion. On the other hand, his case on GNG is marginal at best - the sources appear provide isolated sports news coverage of events in his career rather than in depth biographical material. So in my view any presumption caused by the subject meeting the GNG - which is weak - is outweighed by his clear failure to meet the objective criteria of WP:ATH. Only with this approach can we mitigate the randomness and unpredictability of the GNG with sensible objective standards of notability. At the end of the day, notability is about being "worthy of note", and it is only in special cases that a non-professional footballer in England is likely to be worthy of note.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Orderinchaos 10:12, 29 June 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. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 5

edit
Kickin' 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 20 June 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) 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series). Collectively I think we have notability given that albums in the series have featured on the NZ top 10 compilations chart. dramatic (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep entirely, or merge as per Dramatic. Does not appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) as that page is (as far as I can tell) silent on the subject of compilation albums except that a musician or composer may be notable if they have appeared on a notable compilation album. Albums of this series have charted in New Zealand (the earliest chart at http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp has "Kickin'" volume 11 at #8 in the compilations chart, thus if a brand of compilation album can be compared to the works of one artist, this would make the series of compilations notable, even if the individual albums may not be. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:53, 30 June 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. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 7

edit
Kickin' 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 20 June 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) 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series). Collectively I think we have notability given that albums in the series have featured on the NZ top 10 compilations chart. And why weren't these handled as a group nomination? dramatic (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep entirely, or merge as per Dramatic. Does not appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) as that page is (as far as I can tell) silent on the subject of compilation albums except that a musician or composer may be notable if they have appeared on a notable compilation album. Albums of this series have charted in New Zealand (the earliest chart at http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp has "Kickin'" volume 11 at #8 in the compilations chart, thus if a brand of compilation album can be compared to the works of one artist, this would make the series of compilations notable, even if the individual albums may not be. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:53, 30 June 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. Actually there is a weak consensus to "merge" but the target doesn't yet exist. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 10

edit
Kickin' 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 20 June 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) 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kickin' (New Zealand series). Collectively I think we have notability given that albums in the series have featured on the NZ top 10 compilations chart. dramatic (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep entirely, or merge as per Dramatic. Does not appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) as that page is (as far as I can tell) silent on the subject of compilation albums except that a musician or composer may be notable if they have appeared on a notable compilation album. Albums of this series have charted in New Zealand (the earliest chart at http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp has "Kickin'" volume 11 at #8 in the compilations chart, thus if a brand of compilation album can be compared to the works of one artist, this would make the series of compilations notable, even if the individual albums may not be. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:53, 30 June 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) 14:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atleo River Air Service crash

edit
Atleo River Air Service crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Really nn? I think as it do not occure that much air crashes, i think all plane crashes is notable. Esp. if 4 people were killed. I removed the prod so we could discuss it on AFD instead.


And please, do not tell me it fails WP:AIRCRASH, just because it doesn't. KzKrann (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It fails WP:NOTNEWS. I'd add that WP:AIRCRASH looks different now than it did a year ago. "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability (from Wikipedia:Notability)" Some people think that all plane crashes are notable, other people do not. This could probably survive if it were recast as an article about Atleo River Air Service itself. Mandsford 00:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Common sense is valuable when applying policies and guidelines, however the policies seem to speak for themselves here. —mono 00:48, 27 June 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper's Train

edit
Reaper's Train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos area assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Again - are you sure this is a "demo" under the meaning of that term in WP:NALBUMS? The article text says it was released as a cassette-only album. This AfD may not be legitimate if your rationale for deletion is because it's a demo when it might not be. Perhaps a different rationale within WP:NALBUMS could support deletion if you would slow down a bit. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 23 June 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) 00:02, 27 June 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Turn

edit
You Turn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Again - are you sure this is a "demo" under the meaning of that term in WP:NALBUMS? The article text says it was released as a cassette-only album. This AfD may not be legitimate if your rationale for deletion is because it's a demo when it might not be. Perhaps a different rationale within WP:NALBUMS could support deletion if you would slow down a bit. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 23 June 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) 00:02, 27 June 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 Kat DeLuna. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Push Push (song)

edit
Push Push (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:NSONGS. Has had reference issues since February 2010, and has virtually no sourced information. it should be merged to Kat DeLuna. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 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) 00:02, 27 June 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 Fred Hampton. NW (Talk) 14:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Hampton's murder as a catalyst

edit
Fred Hampton's murder as a catalyst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written as an essay, incorporates WP:SYNTHESIS, better to merge into Fred Hampton if content is notable NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 19:46, 20 June 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) 00:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dilemma with merging this content with the biographical entry on Fred Hampton is that it is not, strictly speaking, about his life or work. Rather, the content here has to do with the way his life and work proved pivotal for other activists. In this case, the reference is chiefly to the Weather Underground. For this reason, the entry does not seem biographical in nature. Neither does it fit squarely in the Weatherman (organization) narrative of Weather actions. Historytrain (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any reason information on the effect that Fred Hampton's killing had on the WUO couldn't be covered in that article.Prezbo (talk) 02:59, 3 July 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 It Won't Be Soon Before Long. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Falling Apart

edit
Not Falling Apart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I like the song, but fails WP:NSONGS, no significant coverage, nothing on G News and only trivial G results CTJF83 pride 18:20, 20 June 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) 00:01, 27 June 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) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Lounge

edit
Juice Lounge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A chain with only seven outlets after five years trading. Two sources, the first of which is clearly taken from a press release, the second is far from being a dispassionate review (the author appears to be a True Believer in kook health food, note comments on "memory booster"). Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 June 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) 00:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP--Sodabottle (talk) 06:39, 29 June 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 Sainthood (album). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alligator (song)

edit
Alligator (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication why this song is notable and deserves its own article, nor are there any apparent ongoing contributions to the article. The majority of this "song" article is a track listing of the remixes on the Alligator LP. I think mentioning the single and LP on their discography page is sufficient. Klubbit (talk) 16:56, 20 June 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) 00:00, 27 June 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) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Chartered Treasurer FCT

edit
Fellow Chartered Treasurer FCT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. PROD was removed without stating a reason. Schuhpuppe (talk) 14:57, 20 June 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) 00:00, 27 June 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) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Institute of Professional Financial Managers

edit
Chartered Institute of Professional Financial Managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Creator removed PROD tag, but did not give an explanation. Schuhpuppe (talk) 14:46, 20 June 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) 23:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Google search finds only self-referential sites and this article. The article claims that its members refer to themselves as CFM meaning Chartered Financial Manager, but Google indicates that the usual meaning of CFM is Certified Financial Manager - making this organization seem even more irrelevant. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 1 July 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) 00:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Oswald Mosley, 4th Baronet

edit
Sir Oswald Mosley, 4th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is not sufficiently notable, baronet (not to be confused with baron) is a very minor title, e.g. they do not and never did sit in the House of Lords, I am not aware of any guideline that they are inherently notable. His main claim to fame is that he was the grandfather of the best-known Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, but notability is not inherited. PatGallacher (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Baronet article has a "List of notable baronets", suggesting that not all baronets are notable. PatGallacher (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Listed in Who's Who, and that wouldn't be the case if he wasn't notable.--Michig (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC) It's also worth noting that this Sir Oswald Mosley died before his more famous grandson became famous, so his entry in Who's Who would have had nothing to do with being related to Oswald Mosley.--Michig (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I quote the Who's Who article: "Who's Who has been criticised for its conservatism. For example, all members of the English, Scottish, British and United Kingdom Peerage and Baronetage are included, however minor their achievements, but many better-known people are not." If we decide that everyone in Who's Who is inherently notable, we are casting the net very wide, in particular this means deciding that all baronets are inherently notable. There are around 1380 baronetcies at present, it's a sign of their marginal importance that the exact number is not definitely known. If we decide that all former holders are included this is a very large number of people. Within certain limits, Wikipedia is entitled to decide its own threshhold of notability, which is multiple reference. PatGallacher (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who has a somewhat higher bar for inclusion than Wikipedia. How many minor soap actors, pop singers and US college sportsmen are included in Wikipedia, who would have no chance of inclusion in Who's Who if they were British? The criticism you quoted is unsourced opinion from a Wikipedia editor that needs to be deleted from that article, not a valid critical source.--Michig (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who's bar of inclusion is not necessarily higher, it may just be different. PatGallacher (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I honestly can't imagine anyone getting into Who's Who these days who wouldn't be a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. The opposite certainly isn't true.--Michig (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michig. I have also been able to find a few newspaper articles about the subject online, notwithstanding the fact that he died 95 years ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure if all baronets today are notable, or all Who's Who listees, but a baronet was rather more important, I think, in 19th century Britain, and there seem to be reliable sources Vartanza (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michig, Metro, and Vartanza. While I agree with the nominator that not at Baronets are notable, this person was notable, as show by being on the front page of a major British magazine, being in Who's Who, and online presence a century after his death. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion may be getting a bit confused. If there are signficant online mentions of this person it would help to see what they are, and maybe we should add them as links to the article. As Who's Who treats all baronets as inherently notable, if we treat inclusion in this publication as making someone notable we are effectively treating all baronets as inherently notable on Wikipedia. It's not entirely clear from the mention that he was on the front page of the magazine, although possibly he was, and there could have been hundreds of such people over the years. Although baronets may have been more important in the past than they are now, should we have a clear point before which all baronets are inherently notable? PatGallacher (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source for your claim that Who's Who includes all Baronets? Or anything to justify your opinion that Baronets weren't notable in the 19th century?--Michig (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source, see near the bottom of this page on Who's Who's website, they include all baronets: [40]. Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits. It is well established that e.g. we do not treat all election candidates or all local councillors as inherently notable, I am not aware of any grounds for regarding baronets as any more notable. PatGallacher (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful to know. Whether or not baronet's are all considered notable today by WP standards I don't know, but I think the crucial question is whether a baronet in the 19th century would have been considered notable, and I think the answer is yes. If Mosley was notable by 19th century standards, which he appears to have been, then we should include him.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 28 June 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.
  1. ^ Modern Language Association (MLA): "movement." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 01 Jul. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/movement>.
  2. ^ U.S. Army includes Satanism in its pamphlet, "Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_June_27&oldid=1142640937"