Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 4

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 3 March 5 March >

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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CryptGenRandom

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

Non-notable. WP is not a place for articles on individual Windows APIs. There are over 300,000 APIs in Windows (counting all the methods in all the COM interfaces, etc.) An article on the old CryptoAPI set (CAPI) of which this is a part, or on the new Cryptography Next Generation (CNG) set, would be appropriate for Wikipedia, but an article on one API (however interesting) is a level of detail appropriate for a Windows programming Wiki, not here. There does appear to be some fine work done on this article, and this nomination is in no way intended to opine otherwise. Jeh (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Microsoft CryptoAPI. The topic might not appear notable, but the content certainly seems. —Ruud 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hmm.... I agree with the desire to not throw away the work done on CryptGenRandom. But since Microsoft CryptoAPI is basically a stub as far as CryptoAPI is concerned (its coverage of CNG really should be in a separate article, as CNG is not an "update to Crypto API", it's a different API altogether) that would be a very unbalanced article. Then again... Maybe move this to "Windows pseudorandom number functions" and add coverage of, for example, BCryptGenRandom? It already talks about other RNG functions, after all. Similarly Microsoft CryptoAPI could be probably be moved to "Windows cryptography APIs" with very slight editing... most of the "See alsos" in there could be absorbed into it, too... which would make for a decent-sized article instead of a bunch of stubs... but that's another discussion. Jeh (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This would appear to be a content dispute. There is enough referenced material in the nominated article to be worth saving somewhere. I'm not sure the nominator disagrees. I also think that Windows cryptography functions and random number generators, and their software components, are probably going to easily meet the general notability guideline. How the material should be arranged and presented is a matter I'd leave to those who know more about the subject than I do. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an article on a cryptographic primitive that deserves its own article just like many other, even more so that it is clearly notable. Some of the information in the article can certainly be condensed but there is no reason to shove this off to some other article. Nageh (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Saying that there are 300,000 APIs in Windows so this one is not notable is like saying that there have been millions of murderers throughout history so John Wilkes Booth is not notable. CryptoAPI is notable because so many programs rely upon it, because it has been analyzed and examined more than any other API I can think of, and because the consequences of finding a weakness in it would be so large. Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Mandsford 03:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayflower College

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

Cites no outside sources, not notable, written as a promotion Jehorn (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teany

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

Does not meet criteria for inclusion. Yes, it was founded by Moby, and yes there was a fire, but that's about it. Article is quite old, so I felt it should see more than a speedy or PROD. Notability is not inherited, and being popular or well-know doesn't make a topic notable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Probably scrapes notability, nobody other than the nominator has argued for deletion. Discussions about upmerging to a new Game jam article can proceed on the talk page. Fences&Windows 22:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC) p.s. Day early close due to tiredness not malice, please feel free to revert. Fences&Windows 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Game Jam

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

No clear notability. Minimal independent sources, most google results are for other, unrelated game jams. Appears to primarily exist for linking to wikipedia pages for game developers of varying degrees of notability. The concept of a game jam is certainly notable, but this particular one is not. Any salvageable material could be merged to Global Game Jam as a history section. Kuguar03 (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamasutra is the most impeccable source available for electronic game industry articles. There are no less than 14 articles at Gamasutra on this topic in the Google News search (button at the top of the article), and 12 other sources as well. The erroneous assertion that "most google results are for other, unrelated game jams", and the flurry of bar-raising and dancing around the fact that the citations available are from most reliable source possible, below, convinces me of exactly the opposite of what was intended. Anarchangel (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:DELPRO to understand how the deletion process works and how you should present your arguments, as well as WP:GOOGLETEST to understand why your statements are erroneous. If this topic is notable, please establish it by showing significant independent coverage by reliable sources. That's what we're trying to do here. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, when one, as you suggest, clicks on the Google News button above, most of the results are for other, unrelated game jams. That is a fact that any editor acting in good faith could easily verify. It may turn out that this topic is notable, but "some stuff turned up on google" is not the way to establish it. No bar raising, no dancing, just basic application of wikipedia's most fundamental guidelines. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And as I've pointed out, nearly all of those Google results are for other game jams. Given that, can you expand on your argument for notability? "It's notable; the article is poor and does not show it; but it's notable" is not very compelling. Kuguar03 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I mean is: notability of the subject is not dependent on the current quality or sourcing of the article. It is either notable or not. And in this case, I am arguing it is, because reliable secondary video gaming media coverage exists, even though no links are referenced inline. I'm not sure what the results produce for you, but the very first links are: [2], [3], [4], [5], etc.; and are all decent coverage of the topic. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another nominator assumes GNG is the requirement for deletion, when that is the requirement for content of articles. There is a distinctly different standard afforded articles when deletion of the entire article is considered: WP:DEL, which stands for DELETION. It's sort of a no-brainer, really, DELETION covers deletion. "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" is the cutoff point, of which H3llkn0wz's arguments demonstrate an understanding, and nom's do not. Anarchangel (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, other than the one that is about a completely different game jam, of course. Some minimal coverage in game-specific blogs doesn't seem to constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG, so I'm interested in what it is that makes you think this subject is notable. And no one's said nothing about the quality of the article, so I'm confused as to why you say "notability of the subject is not dependent on the current quality or sourcing of the article". Is that really relevant to this discussion? If the topic is notable, than it can easily be fixed. That is not a consideration in the nomination, at all, as evidenced by the fact that it wasn't given as a consideration. The consideration is the notability of the subject, which needs to be addressed, and using specific reference to how it satisfies relevant wikipedia guidelines such as WP:GNG, not simple assertions. Kuguar03 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links are about year-specific Indie Game Jams. Not sure how you see this as different game jams. And the coverage is not minimal, in fact the articles are about the topic alone. Sources are not just blogs, but reliable secondary video gaming sources (WP:VG/RS). I mentioned "quality of article" because you asked to explain my quote. I mentioned it in the first place because the sources had not yet been incorporated in the article and you suggested there were none available, so I pointed out there are. You may not agree, but my rationale (while not explicitly stated) is of course WP:GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where sources are one of the best VG/RS. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really ought to look at the links you posted. One is for a completely different game jam. Not a different year, but a completely separate unrelated game jam. In the google search you linked, half of the 1st 10 results are about completely separate game jams. On a normal google search, there are no independent references on the first 2 pages. A game jam is a general concept. Every reference to a game jam is not about this particular jam. Just because the phrase "game jam" appears somewhere does not mean they are talking about this particular jam. If they are about completely different game jams then you can't use them as references for this article. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Toronto one was my bad. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get some serious responses here? Per WP:DEL (mentioned above) "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" should be deleted. Not a single respondent so far has made a good faith attempt to establish notability. Neither "I googled it and got some results which I didn't actually look at" nor "The article is poorly written but can be improved" are good arguments. Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
This really is so typical in game-related deletion discussions: editors are so willing to lay down in front of the bulldozer to defend an article but don't demonstrate even the most basic understanding of wikipedia guidelines. You're not helping the efforts to improve coverage of game-related topics on wikipedia; you're hurting those efforts when you try to hold certain articles to a different set of standards. Gaming is a highly important topic worthy of critical discussion and coverage, an important part of that process is separating the wheat from the chaff. This article is clearly chaff. Kuguar03 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my opinion, arrived at from my examination of the article and the available sources, wikipedia guidelines, and my personal knowledge of the subject area. As opposed to the other opinions presented here, which are pretty classic examples of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:GOOGLEHITS. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People have been listing several reliable sources. It's almost ironic that someone who referenced how he could not find any reliable sources in the first two pages of Google hits as an argument of his would criticize others for using Google. If you want serious replies, write seriously. And acknowledge the sheer existence of its coverage in Newsweek, two published books, Gamasutra (twice), and The Escapist. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the 2 Gamasutra articles (both written by participants, so not independent), but this is the first mention of coverage in Newsweek, two published books, or Escapist. Care to share this with the rest of us?
And I though my argument was very clear WRT the Google results: Other editors were arguing that the shear volume of google results was justification for keeping this article, I was merely pointing out that 1. this wasn't true, due to many of the results being for unrelated game jams, and 2. Generally Google results are not considered a good argument under wikipedia guidelines. If that's not clear and you're still confused, please consult the links I've shared. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[7] [8] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since it seems that a cadre of editors are determined to resist Wikipedia's core guidelines and keep this article inspite of its clear lack of notability. It's pretty sad and obviously a terrible result for the project as a whole, but let's at least work together to make the article reasonable until such time that you're willing to acknowledge your mistake. As there there was more information in the article than was available from the few non-independent sources I trimmed it down a bit - we certainly don't need the list of random participants and there is no mention anywhere of this event continuing past 2005. A lot of the remaining text still needs trimming, once this article actually reflects the available material it will be incredibly apparent how misguided the efforts to keep this article are. Really, I don't understand what you were hoping to accomplish and maybe someday you'll explain it to me. Certainly every argument made here is nonsense, we all know that, so whatever the underlying motive is I'd like to know. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you possibly be any less civil than you are? If you can't act maturely in this discussion, then I suggest you leave this discussion. Also, I'm curious as to where it suggests that notability is temporary. I agree that there is some nonsense here, specifically from your end, and clearly, you have no interest in discussing this above childish insults. If you plan to bring another article to AfD, consider actually discussing it before blindly assuming that deletion is the necessary first step. So while you violate several policies in the post that you just made, we will improve this article with the several reliable sources that we have procured. And by the way, just because the two Gamasutra authors participated in an event does not make them unable to comment on it. There is no demonstration that they are discussing it with some ulterior motive in mind, and being for a reliable web site, there is an expectation that they compose themselves well enough to not lower themselves to that. tldr; don't cry that people don't agree with you. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, if we do decide that the final product is not suitable to be its own article, we will have a discussion in the appropriate venue on whether it should be merged or not. As opposed to bringing it to the Articles for deletion and proposing a merge. The AfD has never been and will never be about merges - your argument never even proposed deletion, so why is this even here? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but it's clear that I'm the only person here who has attempted to engage in serious discussion. If you can honestly look back at this page and feel that you or anyone else has been acting in good faith, then you should retire from wikipedia immediately. This last comment in particular was blatent in misrepresenting my efforts and the arguments I made.
      • I made a clear argument for deletion based on lack of notability, no one has made any serious attempt to counter that, so deletion is inevitable. This discussion is clearly a trainwreck and should be closed, but since the topic is not notable it will surely be nominated again, though not by me. Merges and redirects are often proposed as part of AfDs, so it's clear you either don't know what you're talking about or are acting in bad faith. As I've said before, a general game jam article would be great, and I would expect some of this material to be a section in that article.
      • As It stands, I've substantially reworked the article so that is it at least readable and resembles an actual wikipedia article. There are still no independent references, though I left what was there as external links/additional reading so there's no need to discuss them in the next discussion. Kuguar03 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Non-independent sources are not suitable for notability determination, but there is no policy against including them in the article. The only "non-independent" source is the article by Justin Hall, but even that is published by an independent and one of the most reliable video gaming sources. You simply removed every inline citation, thus making every fact in the article unreferenced. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The nominator removed every inline reference from the article and changed some of the material directly supported by citations. Seeing that this is the best place to comment on this: I reverted the edits. Even if some of the sources are "primary", because the author has been present at the IGJ does not break any policy on including them. All references (even interviews) have publishers that are independent. Gamasutra is a peer reviewed website of high standards and a COI reporter would most definitely not pursue any personal agendas, as New Age Retro Hippie has already stated. Furthermore, as I am the only recent contributor besides the nominator, the {{COI}} is less than warranted. My good faith on this nomination has now run out. Having carefully attached inline references to every statement and only used reliable sources, I cannot see how removal of every citation if warranted. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Raffetseder

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

Previous AFD only involved WP:SPA accounts, possibly WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Starting a new AFD for a fresh discussion from previously uninvolved users. -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, you still delivered no reason why this article is notable. "Multimedia talent. Excellent photographs. Cute camel" is no valid argument. If Raffetseder is notable, where is the more-than-regional media coverage? --bender235 (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I need to repeat myself. He is a multimedia talent who has been published numerous times, has appeared on television a number of times, he has won an award, he has setup an organisation to promote what he is most interested in, he even organised a Concorde flight so that an eclipse could be observed for a longer period of time. How much notability do you need? You clearly have a problem with Werner Raffetseder. Your nomination is hostile.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with Raffetseder. I have a problem with unimportant persons adding self-promotion to Wikipedia. To your arguments: organizing a Concorde flight does not merit notability, appearing on television does not merit notability, publishing books does not merit notability. Winning an award may merit notability, depending on the significance of the award. But in my opinion, it still takes more than that. I may repeat: if Raffetseder is notable, where is the more-than-regional media coverage? --bender235 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ORF_(broadcaster) is hardly a regional broadcaster. Raffetseder has appeared on more than one television and radio broadcast.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about something we can actually verify, e.g. a written source (newspaper article, etc.)? --bender235 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have added this reference to the article: http://www.faz.net/s/RubF3CE08B362D244869BE7984590CB6AC1/Doc~E9D5370806F4C40E292567042066AFA05~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hi. Promised at 15:39, 4 March 2011, to find out some mention about Raffetseder in notable German language papers, NOT written BY the discussed multimedia artist but written by others ABOUT him and his published works. There is a lot of evidence of R’s notability to be found in libraries. Here are only a few (translated) examples arranged in chronological order, that may also be scanned and uploaded to Wiki or emailed to any you, if needed in German original:

26 March 1995, Martin Himmelbauer in Kurier “Awarded: Photographic Report about Life in Rubbish. Guest of the Rubbish People. -- Eight Months An Austrian Spent With the Poorest of the Poor: About 30.000 Who Live on A Giant Rubbish Mountain on the Fringes of Manila.” (1 page, text and 2 pics).

07 May 1995: Theodor Scheffl in Wiener Zeitung “Life in Rubbish: About A Photographic Project of Werner Raffetseder” (1 page, text and 5 pics)

31 March 1996: Trude Sagmeister in Kronenzeitung „I lived with the Rubbish People. -- Babies Play with Rubbish, Old People Die in It, Men Collect It And Women Cook Dead Dogs. The World of the Rubbish People of Manila Is A Foul-Smelling Cesspool. Werner Raffetseder Has Put on Record the Unimaginable.” (2 pages, text and 5 pics).

02 August 1999: Unidentified author in News 31/1999 (Austrian weekly, see German Wiki) “Record of A Total Solar Eclipse. -- How the Viennese Book Author Werner Raffetseder Experienced A Total Solar Eclipse on the Island of Aruba.” (1 page, text and 4 pics)

02 August 1999: Unidentified author in Germany’s BILD “I Have Experienced the Latest Eclipse. – This Is How the Scientific Writer Werner Raffetseder Experienced the Latest Total Solar Eclipse” (nearly one page, text and 2 pics)

08 August 1999: Trude Sagmeister in Kronenzeitung „And Again And Again the Sun Rises. -- Total Solar Eclise. The Sky and Media Event of the Year. An Austrian Wrote THE BOOK for It. Reveals Tips And Tricks. And Makes the Business of His Life with the Superstar, That Is the Sun.” (2 pages, text and 5 pics)

12 August 1999: Norbert Swoboda in Kleine Zeitung „Next Time ‘Live’ -- Solar Eclipse: Viennese Author Werner Raffetseder Reported Live for the ZDF at Mainz Yesterday. He Missed the Wonder of Nature. But Soon He Will Travel to the South Seas And See the Next Eclipse in 2001.” (1 page, text and 1 pic).

Moreover, there are lots of book reviews to be found. Here are only two:

22 July 1999: Miloš Vec in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Nr. 167, p. 53: „Der Mast ist zu niedrig, der Mond zu hoch. – The Mast Is Too Low, the Moon Is Too High“.

07-08 August 1999: Helmut Hornung in Süddeutsche Zeitung Nr. 180: „The Travelling Night“

Besides radio and TV-appearances where Raffetseder was interviewed about his multimedia works and other topics in Austrian and German stations, he was at least twice invited to ORF TV-broadcasts as the guest of honour:

31 March 1996: broadcast “Seniorenclub”, ORF channel 2.

07 August 1999: broadcast “Millionenrad”, ORF channel 2.

Hope this will help. --VuestraMerced (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: library allows to scan and upload or send all this printed matter. ORF Vienna maybe reached day and night under 0043-1-87878-0 from abroad--VuestraMerced (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
These are all reviews of some of his books, like FAZ, Süddeutsche, not descriptions of him as a person. All I want is single article like the one mentioned above on Stefano Pilati. --bender235 (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles by Vec and Hornung in FAZ and Süddeutsche Zeitung are book reviews, all the other articles mentioned above are not at all. They focus Raffetseder's work or knowledge or life under extreme conditions on the garbage mountain of Manila but do not at all review his books. They deal with two of Raffetseder's projects, that have by far yielded more output than just a book, namely multimedia-productions and lots of printed stuff (that is also still around) and for which Raffetseder has gained a lot of public presence in Austria and Germany before starting his United Festivals initiative. Of course, the articles do not touch his privacy, nor are they to be found online: It took me hours to find them in this library, so if you need physical proof, let me know. I am ready to upload or send --VuestraMerced (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with this. Just an advice to the admin reviewing this: don't be fooled by this obvious meat-puppetry here. Check each user's contribs before assessing their comments. --bender235 (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have added this reference to the article: http://www.faz.net/s/RubF3CE08B362D244869BE7984590CB6AC1/Doc~E9D5370806F4C40E292567042066AFA05~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hello, I am Werner Raffetseder, just found out that, unintentionally, I became the subject of the upper discussion. I confirm what the Wikipedia articles are stating about me and our “United Festivals” program. The articles are alright even though displaying only facets of my professional life and this project, of course. If I can contribute to reach a consensus, you may contact me at: [email protected]. greetings, WRA. --195.70.232.230 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. The epitome of meat-puppetry. How pathetic. --bender235 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Egad! Sorry for the links I set to the "United Festivals" article. I was not aware that this is considered spamming and should have asked an admin before. I am not Mr. Raffetseder, but previously had some contact to the United Festivals office through an acquaintance. My main contributions were made to the German Wikipedia (extensive rewriting of articles that had already been worked out in the English Wiki, so there was no need to import them here). My research about Mr. Raffetseder conforms to the details stated above and more, my articles were always carried out to the best of my knowledge. The informations I gave about United Festivals and its founder correspond to informations printed in local, regional and supraregional papers or aired on TV, some stored in the United Festivals office, as well. --Dr. mullah (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — Dr. mullah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As if anyone would believe that you weren't Raffetseder. When you're uploading Raffetseder's pictures and comment "own work", you were either lying back then and being honest right now, or the other way around. I suspect the latter. With so much WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT (please see WP:SPI), this article has to be deleted. This is getting almost comical. --bender235 (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is either unfair or a misapprehension to be clarified. Where do you read “own work”? When I uploaded the pics I declared my sources in German saying: “vom Urheber (Rechteinhaber) übermittelt”, which means in English “forwarded by the author (copyright holder)” and that is what happened. The pics were forwarded to me be the author (copyright holder) respectively his office via email. And one last remark concerning your allegations of puppetry: Willy Puchner is also a renowned Austrian artist working for different media. How could anyone abuse his name to give statements here? Thank you. --Dr. mullah (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry to tell you but Werner Raffetseder has asked me to confirm that his work is published in the newspaper where I work as a freelancer. I confirm that "Wiener Zeitung" has published articles about him and his projects. That is the reason why I am involved in this thread. (Willy Puchner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.138.77 (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandran Media

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

This company fails WP:CORP, as there are no independant sources that discuss it. Angryapathy (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITimeSheet

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

Advertising for non-notable timesheet telephone app. Google News Search finds no sources for this other than brief reviews that confirm it exists, such as a listing on "Hottest Trends for 2011"[9]. Article contains no information other than a features list and suggestions as to where you can buy this. No suggestion that this phone app has had significant effects on history, culture, or technology. Article was created by a single purpose account sharing a name with the publisher. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete Article makes no claim regarding its significance and I was unable to find any sources that it is an app that has had significant, secondary source coverage. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 12:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that Maury Markowitz said in an edit summary "widely covered in multiple mainstream mac sources, including Macworld". If somebody is able to point me in that direction, then I'm more than happy to move across to keep, but so far the only MacWorld mention I could find was a product page which doesn't do anything in the way of validating its significance (not that it necessarily should); besides, I suspect that most apps have similar pages, and not all apps merit an article here - only if they stand in their own right. Perhaps it's coverage in the printed magazine that we're talking about here: I'm not subscribed and so can't comment on that itself. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 14:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course not. But so far have not seen either the MacWorld source to judge that, or any other source of significance. So far I'm saying delete. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 23:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African Globe Theater Works

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

No inherent notability, seems to fail general notability guidelines. BurtAlert (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BigDom talk 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Caine

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

Second nomination, the previous nomination was in 2006. It is a very well-written article, and seemingly well-sourced, but all sources seem to be first-party sources. I cannot find any independant sources to confer notability for the subject. She seems like a nice woman, but she at this time doesn't meet the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain in more detail your conclusion that Outreach Magazine is not an independent source? It's not her magazine, and it appears to me that it's a legitimate publication within the evangelical field. Given the coverage in Fast Company (as well as Christian Post) and on the TV stations, I'm left with the strong perception that there has been coverage of her for three different things in three different geographical areas, all within the last six months. To me, this adds up to multiple coverage in reliable sources and ought to pass WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable independent source is where someone else says something non-trivial about the subject and it is published in a reputable outlet. The Outreach article is no more than a series of extensive quotes from the subject with pithy headings added by the source "journalist" - probably sourced from a press release and certainly promotional in style. Considering that the content is almost completely quotes by the subject it is not independent of the subject. A reliable source must have been published in an outlet that has a reputation for fact-checking. Outreach is not a mainstream media outlet. Without a widespread reputation, another means is required to substantiate the status of Outreach as a reliable source.
Again The Christian Post is not a mainstream media outlet and gives all the impressions of being a subject focussed web-blog. Again not a reliable source. The piece on the conference is a promotional press release effort by the organisers. From the article, "The Global Leadership Summit continues Friday with speakers including Daniel Pink, former White House speechwriter; Blake Mycoskie, founder of TOMS Shoes, Inc.; and Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric Company." All we needed was their phone number to call and buy tickets. The rest of the article consists of large slabs of direct quotes from speakers at the conference straight from the press release. These are not reliable, independent sources and the dear subject is not notable.
See WP:NRVE where "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity."
I just looked at the Volunteer TV reference. The subject of the article is Human Trafficking in Eastern Tennessee, not Ms Caine. She is just quoted in passing and is only trivial coverage of her. Bleakcomb (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. AfD is not the right venue for this discussion. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 04:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Six-red World Championship

edit
Six-red World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no need for a summary article for a tournament, which was only held once, if that years event has an article. There is also a tournament with a similar name (Sangsom Six-red World Championship), which should be moved to this title and with this we could remove the sponsors name from the title of the article. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 21:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This was a one-off event and is already covered at 2009 Six-red World Championship, and the umbrella article is unnecessary. The Snooker Project would like to free up the name for the current Six-red world championship residing at Sangsom Six-red World Championship, since this is the event most readers will be looking for if they are searching for the "six red world championship". Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this should be moved to a disambiguated title, not deleted. wjematherbigissue 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. As far as I can tell this is not intended to be a deletion discussion as evidenced by the total lack of rationale for deletion. What we actually have is a kind of complicated merge and move request that does not belong here. Best withdrawn and a better venue found. wjematherbigissue 11:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content from here into 2009 article and delete this. The reason being that this article was wanted as all year this event was set to take place but it didn't now likely to be just a one off event. KnowIG (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A one off tournament does not need the year in the title of the article, so your reasoning would require the other article to be merged into this one. wjematherbigissue 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The option KnowIG proposing is also a nonsense, you can't merge and delete an article per WP:MAD. Furthermore as I see, there is nothing to merge. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • From looking more closely the main article is appalingly written with far more prose in the year article so I'm changing my mind and saying delete as it says the same stuff.
        • Er, no it doesn't. For a start nowhere in the 2009 article does it say it is the inaugural edition or that no further editions have been held. Equally this article does not contain any of the details of the tournament (draw, maximum breaks, etc.). I repeat, this is not a deletion request. If another article should have this title per WP:PRIME then move this one to a disambiguated title. If a merge of the two articles is desired, either just do it or discuss it somewhere else and then do it (or not). wjematherbigissue 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural (and speedy) keep, for reasons given above. This isn't the right venue for a merge discussion, per WP:MERGE (one does need to happen; don't care which direction, since one article title will be a redir to the other anyway). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I don't proposed any sort of merge. The article was created too early, after the 2009 event and serves no encyclopaedic purpose. If shouldn't created after only one event at all and now just stands in the way of a page move, so it should go. There's nothing which should be merged at all. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 15:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most importantly, we absolutely do not delete articles just because they stand in the way of a page move. There was nothing preventing you from moving this article to an alternative title to make way for the other article (or asking someone to do it for you). Also, to repeat myself again, a merge would be needed since both articles contain content that is not in the other. For both tasks, AfD is absolutely the wrong venue. wjematherbigissue 15:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. 01:03, 12 March 2011 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Pot of Gold Theory" ‎ (G3: Blatant hoax (TW)) (view/restore) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pot of Gold Theory

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

Speedy delete via AfD — Not quite clearly enough a hoax to justify WP:G3, but even if genuine, new, novel, ideosyncratic, and non-notable. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out here in case there is any misunderstanding, that having no linked sources is just an additional comment - it is not a reason for deletion; unlinked sources are permissible of course so long as they comply with RS and V.--Kudpung (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An interesting concept, and I found the numbering of the three items unusual. However, no actual references, and definitely made up if not one day but two (possibly plus recovery time...). I'm not sure about the spam links - as I look at it there's one to a film mentioned in the article, and the other goes to ESPN (despite appearing to be to Facebook). Hardly subjects to be advertising themselves in this sort of way. Peridon (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the numbering and sources clearly need to be revised. However, I find the concept to be interesting and do not think it is fair to label it "non-notable". Before anything was notable, it was non-notable. Smith4747 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nomination sums it up well. The references given can't be serious. Is it original research? Even if it's noteworthy, I don't see where notice has been taken, so it seems not 'notable' at this point. Tkotc (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would argue that the author is not offering up a novel concept, but rather is quantifying a chain of events and providing reason for such occurance. Furthermore, it is obvious that the name of the theory is a bit over the top, but the underlying mechanics are fairly tangible.Johnbonfreedman1010 (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was this theory invented by a leprechaun?--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antwerpen Synagoge is a sock of User:אֶפְרָתָה. See SPI investiagtion for details. DQ.alt (t) (e) 18:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Only because there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamlinux

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

Delete, Notability not established, no third-party refs, reviews, etc. Yworo (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a link to DistroWatch on the article, but if you want something more it didn't take me too long to find this review on ZDNet: [15] or this one at Linux Magazine: [16]. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Link to" in external links is not a citation. Distowatch lists all Linux distros and doesn't in itself establish notability. Feel free to integrate the sources you found as references. Yworo (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that "All Linux distros" is a bit strong: anyone can create a Linux distribution ([17]); DistroWatch appears to be selective in what it includes. Whilst it is true this may not have been enough in itself to show evidence of notability, and it was the article creator who was responsible for providing such evidence, I have now highlighted at least two reviews which you said were missing. WP:AFD states: Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist and it didn't seem to difficult for me to find them. I believe they are enough to justify withdrawing the nomination but if you still think not then it's statistically likely there will be more in the 600,000 hits google gives. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing reliable showed up on the first page of Google results. I won't withdraw the nomination until the article has been edited such that it is supported by refs. The article has been tagged for needing references since 2007 and for notability for almost a year. Clearly the creators of the article and other Wikipedia users of the OS simply didn't care to do the work. It's not my job either. Yworo (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Wikipedia policy is that you need to make a a good faith effort to find sources WP:Before, and specifically states that "An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date" WP:NOEFFORT. So, if you want to nominate something for deletion, you are taking on the job of first checking for sources. If you don't want to spend your time doing so, that is fine, but then you should refrain from nominating it. Francis Bond (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the links given above, I have seen several reviews of this online, which is where I expect to find Linux reviews. Francis Bond (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous reviews, the Distrowatch citation is not meaningless, there are a few other references. Why the rush to delete it from an encyclopedia? It's still an active distribution, and lots of mentions although many are not within that narrowly constrained arena of "reliable sources". Tkotc (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only is there thorough discussion online, this is especially noteworthy in being targeted specifically for people who are comfortable with Macs. While that, in itself, doesn't make it notable, when combined with its existence over several years and versions (moving it ahead of several distros out there) and its reasonable popularity, it is notable. Eauhomme (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems to favor the position that the few sources that meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source have not covered this subject in depth. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tasteless

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

Not notable gamer. Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPS. Teamliquid is a fansite and a wiki. I have a wiki about my cat, but that doesn't make it a reliable source for Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up a question about the TeamLiquid player database. It's cited in WCG information, in almost all StarCraft related news, etc. And per WP:USEBYOTHERS I'm tempted to say the teamliquid player database is a reliable source, if used to verify information or statistics. (It's not wiki format) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liquidpedia does not technically fall within WP:SPS as it is a wiki that is well policed and subject to greater monitoring and review than wikipedia therefore one could see the case for using sources from liquidpedia on a page by page basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words it is no way near "significant coverage". Neither are any of the sources which have been added to the article. Quantpole (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you advise why you consider that the sources in the article constitute significant coverage, 'cos I aint seeing it. Quantpole (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, somebody removed two of the sources I added >.>. Just readded them. Two sources provide context for him as a caster, one is an interview, featuring him, one is a secondary source talking about how he will be the first english language caster in Korea: all fairly convincing evidence of notability. One talks about how he is the official caster for a blizzard sanctioned event. Citing WP:N "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does being a caster (even an english language in Korea) mean someone is notable? The sources only say that he is doing it, but don't shed any further light on why it is important or notable. And yes, while he doesn't have to be the main topic of the source, I believe a little more information than for example "...featuring commentary from Nick "Tasteless" Plott." is required to be termed significant coverage. All it looks like to me is that he has a job doing commentary on some games competition. I cannot see how that is prima facie notable, and the coverage is not there to meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The overall consensus is for Keep, and in addition there is a large amount of secondary source scholarly material in reliable sources pondering and analyzing this subject matter, from multiple varied viewpoints, such that a full encyclopedic and someday perhaps WP:FA article can continue to be developed and fleshed out over time. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White American

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

Okay, so strangely enough this article was already deleted/merged in 2005 here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White American. I'm not sure why it was allowed to be recreated. Nonetheless, this is one giant, crufty, WP:SYNTH-laden WP:OR disaster. All of its salvageable content comes from blurbs copied straight out of better written main articles (such as Definitions of whiteness in the United States or Critical Race Theory). The only remaining content is a thoroughly synthesized "culture" section which actually says nothing about "White American culture" because there is no such thing. Today, the only subject anyone ever talks about regarding this article is who should be selected as a representative of White people for the userbox montage. There's nothing encyclopedic here. Please note that we already have an article for Non-Hispanic Whites. Bulldog123 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning in those two documents is applicable here. If an intersection wouldn't survive as a category or a list, we won't save it by couching it as an article. In other words, if "List of White Americans" is not notable, neither is "White Americans" the article. The intersection is the same. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first book talks about living in a multiracial society... it's not an exploration of the culture of the ethnic group "White American." Your second book doesn't seem relevant at all. Bulldog123 02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapter 6 of the first source is explicitly Looking at White American Culture. Chapter 3 of the second source is Situated Meanings of "White" as a Cultural identity. Both sources are therefore very relevant to the topic. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that these separate "mentions" of it qualify the subject as anything more than FRINGE-ish. If "White American" was an well-established ethnicity and "White American culture" actually existed... why is there almost nothing written on it? Why do we have to dig deep inside off-topic books to find even a brief scan of it? More importantly, is there even any content in those chapters that could really fill up an article? Bulldog123 09:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead of the article does not use the phrase "ethnic group" and so you seem to be attacking a straw man. The topic is defined as a "racial category" or "classification". What this means in terms of shared culture is certainly discussed in that source which has section headings such as "White American culture", "The birth of the white American character" and "Characteristics of contemporary white American culture". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is in the template for American ethnic groups and in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States. It uses the infobox standard for ethnic groups. It also has montage images which are exclusively used in ethnic group articles. The culture section treats it like an ethnic group. Must I go on? How is this a straw man argument? Regarding the book, I haven't read it and neither have you. We can't know for sure exactly what it talks about, we can only speculate. But even if it did talk about a uniform "white American culture." How would using this singular, seemingly unknown source not be a case undue weight? Bulldog123 11:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first book mentioned by Colonel Warden uses White American Culture as a synonym for European American, and doesn't apply here (hell, the organization that the author runs seems to also have a location at http://euroamerican.org/ [19]. The second book, from what I've read in its intro, says that it's about European Americans. I'd advise anyone trying to use a book as proof of anything to actually read through the book before trying to use its name or the name of its chapter to try to prove something. --Yaksar (let's chat) 22:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you serious? European American is absolutely not a euphemism, it is a phrase used to refer to European Americans. White American is not a more common name; referring to European Americans as the same as white Americans is downright offensive and excludes a vast amount of people who are technically "white" but not of European descent.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Bull -- I have the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions on my watchlist. Many of your efforts to delete material from the Project, for some reason, appear on that list (as well as other lists I have, such as the one that alerts us to efforts by you to delete Jewish cats, lists, articles, etc.). Your statement is, quite, frankly -- untrue. As well as being a personal attack. Please retract your mis-statement as to what I do. This is not the first time you have stated an untruth in making a personal attack. Please don't just redact it -- stop this uncivil misbehavior completely, both with me and with others at the Project. Kindly take this as a final warning. (I might point out that your false accusation is especially absurd coming from you, given that of late you have appeared at dozens of articles I have edited -- where you had never, ever edited before, and reverted my edits). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One other note to Bull. If a prior editor has said something as well as I could, there is no need for me to recast the same statement in different words. It strikes me as suggestive of bad faith that you had not a word to say about the !vote immediately above mine by our SPA IP friend, which was even terser than mine. Instead, you were quite comfortable not commenting on the terseness of that entry (could it be because you liked the direction it went?), and attacked the terseness of mine. Your behavior is not only astoundingly transparent, it is not appropriate. At the project, people can have differences of view, and present them, but this "gaming" is certainly not appropriate. Kindly desist.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor above you is an anonymous SPA and will be dismissed as such. However, you are a long-standing editor who always puts per [enter opposing user opinion here]s in nearly every AfD/CfD you join, even when those "pers" make no sense whatsoever. It's unclear to me (or any other editor) if you actually bother to read what these XfDs are about. Also, the latest categories you've hounded me on are not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Ethnic_groups, so although that's a good excuse to explain your wikistalking, it's not the whole truth. Bulldog123 11:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop with the evasions. 1) Admit you were wrong. 2) Redact it. 3) Agree to stop it. 4) You raised my comment here -- not elsewhere; stop changing the subject ... that's evasive. 5) At another recent deletion discussion you saw fit to discuss an IP -- you didn't take the tack of "oh, it's just an IP -- no need to discuss it." Why? Well, common sense does make me reflect on the fact that that IP had a view contrary to yours. 6) If my comments "make no sense whatsover", then there is no need for you to state untruths and make personal attacks to address them.
Bull, you can make your points without these uncivil, evasive, and untruthful tactics. You are violating core wiki principles here, and the community has brought it to your attention in the recent past. I'm reiterating -- please limit your discussion to civil, truthful statements, devoid of personal attacks. And stop hounding me to dozens of articles that you've never edited before, to revert me time and again. I'm asking you civilly but directly, as you seem to have ignored all comments to this effect from me and others, as reflected in your above untrue posting and personal attack.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow you around and revert your edits on topics I don't edit. I only reverted your inappropriate spamming of "See Also" links and your questionable sourcing on List of Jews in sports. That's it. Furthermore, you seem to comment on me at every XfD we cross paths, but the second I point out your obvious stalking, you blow up with indignation and deliver "final warnings." No, I'm not redacting it because from my perspective, this is obvious wikihounding. Bulldog123 12:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bull -- stop with the bull. Stop following me around. Stop calling proper edits "spam", and think that by your Bull characterization you are doing the Project a favor. Stop following other editors around. Note the warning you just received for incivility. Note the number of editors that have said they can no longer afford you the presumption of good faith because of your continued editing and comments that reflect that you are not entitled to the presumption, having rebutted it. Stop at showing up at articles that you have never edited before, just to revert me. Your refusal is noted. Let me say it as clearly as I can -- you personal accusation of what I am doing is an out-and-out lie, and given your history it is astoundingly bad faith on your part. Lies are not acceptable here, and bad faith is not acceptable. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, I'm sure I'll be attacked for this, but I collapsed your conversation above. The two of you are more than welcome to have this argument, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being debated, and does nothing but distract from the actual substantial arguments. Both of you should know better.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a totally a more related note though, I hope that before considering basing a decision of the book sources mentioned above everyone will look at the small investigation I put into them and will more importantly try to do their own research.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Robofish. Redirect to Definitions of whiteness in the US and European American. This is not an encyclopedic topic, since it cannot be given a definition other than as part of the general concept of Race in the US. "White American" is a category in that system, it is by no means a separate ethnic group. There is no "White american ethnic group" that has any kind of cohesion that is different from the general group of "Americans". Such an article attracts OR and SYNTH issues like a magnet.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should be careful here, because the theme of this article is politically relevant, so most comments (from either side) are likely to be biased in one way or another. In articles like this, I believe we should rely strictly on the rules, which is why I agree with nom that this article shows a number of issues in WP:OR and with Jonathan's comment about WP:OVERCAT. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

edit
  • Keep. When users AndyTheGrump, GiovBag, and other accomplices succeded in the deletion of the White Argentine article, they argued that "White Argentines" did not exist as a legally recognized category -I can assure they exist, even their existance is denied by the aforementioned intelectualoids- because Argentina's Census Bureau did not conduct racial/ethnic censuses. BUT NOW, ARE THEY GOING TO DENY THE EXISTANCE OF WHITE AMERICANS TOO, WHEN IT IS A SO LONG ESTABLISHED CATEGORY IN US CENSUSES? This is outrageous.--Pablozeta (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a compelling reason to delete here. The nominator called it "one giant, crufty, WP:SYNTH-laden WP:OR disaster." Perhaps the article was in a completely different state at the time the nomination was made, because I don't see any of that at all; I see good sources from the US census and sociologists. I do see a couple of statements with the dreaded "citation needed" tag, but that in itself is not a general reflection of the state of the article. I would think that, by now, the nominator would know that "it's cruft" is one of the arguments that we are explicitly to avoid in deletion nominations. That's simply a pejorative term that means "of little general interest", but I hardly find that relevant here, as ethnicity is certainly of general interest. Kansan (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked above but didn't get an answer about the official use of the term "White American". From what I can tell, the census uses the term "White", not "White American". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still leaning toward "keep", as the citation given to back up the "or simply white" claim for the census, [20], does not explicitly use the term "White American", that is true. In my opinion, calling an interpolation between that and "White American", a term whose existence is well documented elsewhere, SYNTH seems to be a bit of a stretch given that the purpose of a census is to classify Americans. I certainly remain open minded here and will continue to follow this debate. Kansan (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I think it's a marginal case. I do worry that the article tries to imply from a census category the existence of a self-identifying ethnic group though. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Personally, I don't believe it's a marginal case at all. Whether or not "White American" is used in the census really doesn't matter as we already have Non-Hispanic whites and that seems to cover any meaningful information regarding the census's use of the term "White." As Kansan writes above - "ethnicity is certainly of general interest" - and he's right. However "White American" is not an ethnic group in the United States, and I haven't seen anyone even attempt to prove this otherwise. Bulldog123 02:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kansan. The article appears well sourced and NPOV about a concept that most certainly exists and is notable. The nom's agenda-driven deletion rationale lacks any substance beyond WP:VAGUEWAVES, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain at all why you think that? The nominator has (a bit too enthusiastically in my opinion) tried to address every single argument brought up in this discussion, and there's certainly been no implication of "I don't like this so it should go."--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll explain. Postdlf "doesn't like my approach" to nominating numerous articles for deletion in such a "trigger happy" way, as he's stated before, so he comments on the editor instead of the content. I think this is one of those occasions where Postdlf just !voted the opposite of what he should have to drive the AfD into "no consensus." Take it as a lesson for me to stop nominating articles so brazenly. Sorry for the over-enthusiasm, but I'll happily point out when users try to "game the system" with inconsequential drive-by !keeps. The article most certainly is not WP:NPOV and being "well sourced" is immaterial to the discussion. And postdlf has made no effort to prove that the concept of a "White American" ethnic group exists other than to say it does. Bulldog123 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I !voted keep" because I think this should be kept. At most, I see complaints about possible overlap with other topics which is first and foremost a talk page discussion to resolve, not an AFD one; I'm not at all convinced that European American is a synonym, for example (see, e.g., RAN's comments on this below), and I think many of the criticisms could possibly be mooted by a rename. In any event, I do not see deletion as the best option here, nor AFD the best venue to decide what to do about it. Even if we give the !deletion commenters the benefit of all assumptions, what we would then have is a confusing plurality of articles on the same topic, and AFD is typically a poor venue for sorting such a thing out. Beyond that, I don't have anything else to add to what other !keepers have already said here.

    Given that nominating ethnicity related content for deletion is the bulk of what you do on Wikipedia, and given that I have supported your deletion noms on occasion and commented without !voting in other instances, I'll trust the kids at home to determine if anyone's operating from a bias. If it makes you feel any better, I agree with you that the article's infobox grid is stupid and arbitrary. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • But non-Hispanic Whites actually is the proper census definition and it's not narrower than this article. This article is actually narrower because it doesn't consider Arabs, North Africans, Persians, etc... to be "White people" while non-Hispanic Whites does. The last AfD recognized this as an unnecessary fork and I still don't see what vital information there is in this article that can't be merged into non-Hispanic Whites. More importantly though, if you think this article should be kept then you must admit it's not an ethnic group, so all such mentions and implications need to be removed. (i.e., the categories, the infobox montage, the culture section, etc...) If it is kept, then I expect that some sort of discussion will be opened on the talk page to have that be done. Bulldog123 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too concerned about semantics. I'd say "racial classification"; "ethnic group" sounds wrong, but hey, that's what reliable sources are for. So no opinion right now on what category is appropriate. But believe it or not, I agree with you that the infobox montage should be removed, and the culture section as it stands should also be blanked. I think it's possible to have a "white culture" section, provided the scare quotes are left intact, because over U.S. history there certainly have been perceptions as to what constituted "white culture," and those perceptions should be discussed. But the current section does not do that and is pretty much unsourced and lacking clear relevance. You can quote me on that if you like. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The US during the era of eugenics from 1920 to 1930 had rules for White American that at various times included or excluded Hispanics and distinguished Mexicans of Indian descent and Mexicans of Spanish descent. There were also eugenics rules for what percentage of non-white heritage constituted being white. The US census listed "white" as a term to choose. For instance in Australia Black Australians means two distinct populations, African Australians and Native Australians. In South Africa "Black" means Native Africans and people from India. In the US Black American and African American are rough synonyms but sometimes distinguish people born in Africa from one or the other. European American is regional. Caucasian is another term that is sometimes used as a synonym but again sometimes includes or excludes Hispanics. Complex terms need to be distinguished. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a term used in official US government documents and law, as evidenced by the multiple reliable sources. It's a notable topic which satsfies WP:N. This is a re-hash of two older AFDs and is a waist of everyone's time because no new points are being raised.4meter4 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians make stylistic decisions all the time about what articles will be called. The most edited and most read article for the last month is 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, and I can't see a single reference in the article using this exact term. We don't spend hours debating what is a "protest" and what is a "demonstration" or exclude events because they are only taking place in 2011 or only in 2010. You are just playing a game with semantics when you demand the magic word to appear in the reference. Dictionaries are about words, encyclopedias about broader concepts that include synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between an event (and even more so in the example you mention, an encompassing group of events) which often have ample description but no one name, and a term like this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see so articles that based on verbs can have descriptive titles, but we must not allow descriptive title for articles based on nouns, yes, I understand now. Thank you. Now it is clear ... except maybe you can show me something in the MoS that talks about this, because it seems like you make up the rules as you go along to back up your personal preferences. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that neither this article nor the one you brought up have verbs in their names, I feel comfortable saying that I have no idea what you're talking about.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, scholarly works using such term are in the tens of thousands, and I would have imagined that they would be easily discovered by a simple google search. They include works such as "Career Development Attributes and Occupational Values of Asian American and White American College Students", "Mexican American and white American school dropouts' drug use, health status, and involvement in violence", "Eating Disorders of White American, Racial and Ethnic Minority American, and International Women", "Pattern of breast cancer among white-American, African-American, and nonimmigrant west-African women", "Comparison of attitudes and behaviors related to nutrition, body size, dieting, and hunger in Russian, black-American, and white-American adolescents". The notability of the subject of the article appears to me to be beyond cavil.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm not disputing the fact that the term has been used by scholars - my point is that the census category is "White" rather than "White American". My sense is that many of the uses of "white American" are merely describing a population under study rather than seeing them as a group who identify as such. Anyway, I'm not arguing for deletion but rather for the article to be clarified and for people to stop using bad rationales for keeping the article, such as "it is a term used by the government", when it clearly isn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Just because an academic article such as this, which you point to, is catalogued on the US government library website, doesn't mean that it's a government publication. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The census is a census of Americans. "Americans" is the parent cat. Which is broken down by sub-cats of different types of American. This is reflected in the above, including many of the tens of thousands of .gov uses of the precise phrase "White American", discoverable in the above. There are many government publication uses of the term -- if you like, just let me know if you have trouble seeing them, and how many you would like to see, and I will seek to cull that number out for you if it is reasonable. I'm not sure where your sense that the use of the term "white american" by scholars means something other than "white american" stems from. I applaud your not arguing for deletion here (a view I agree with). And I'm not commenting on your suggestions for clean-up, because while there may be validity to them AfD is not the right forum for clean-up; that conversation is best had on the article talk page. But, again to the question as to whether the government uses the term -- it clearly does, as reflected in many of the 190,000 .gov urls above (though many of them are irrelevant, many are indubitably uses by various state and government offices and bureaus of that phrase). In any event, as to the bottom line, this without question IMHO is a subject that meets GNG, per the ample refs above. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the mentions on .gov websites are medical studies that happen to be stored or catalogued on government websites. That doesn't make it an official term. Perhaps I'm not being clear about what I mean by "official". I mean a classification used in surveys such as the census and in statistics based on that data. My problem with the article as it currently stands is that it suggests that this is an official classification, and that there is a direct link between that classification and the use of the term by scholars. Anyway, as you say, the best place for this discussion is on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see here for that discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...are verifiable ethnic groups. White American isn't." That is patently false. White people are a race and white Americans are Americans that are members of that race. It has nothing to do with the color of a person's skin, but if they are a member of that race. President Obama, for example, is as much a white American as he is an African American. The term white is often interchanged with the term Caucasian. The word caucasian was invented in 1795 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and has been used as the blunt instrument of "scientific racism" off and on since then. Unfortunately it has not died out along with the other pseudoscience classificaitons Blumenbach invented. For the record, most if not all EEOC questionnaires and census materials use the term white not caucasian. Erikeltic (Talk) 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Racial group and ethnic group is not the same thing. The problem with "White American" is that it is neither a racial group or an ethnic group but rather a racial subdivision of a ethno-national group. Also your idea about President Obama is not quite correct as in the United States assignation race has traditionally been by the one-drop rule so that Black means anyone who has any African ancestry, although in practice usually it has also been assigned by phenotype - under both criteria President Obama would be black (unless of course he goes to Brazil where he quite likely would be considered white because he has too much money and status to be considered black). But in any case the deletion rationale here is that there is no "white american" ethnic group. There is a racial category of White people that is employed in America - I think that for that reason the best outcome here would be a redirect to Race in America.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone explain for me why this was tagged for rescue? None of the objections in the AfD regard issues of fixing up the actual article (which is well written and everything) but are about the concept of the article itself. I worry that the rescue tag really only serves to bring in keep !votes.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that generally the main function of those tags? Maybe deletionists should get a tag-for-annihilation flag to balance the odds.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I don't know how well that would go over. But no, the rescue tag is meant to bring editors to a nominated article in order to improve, clean, and source it in order to help prove it should stay. A tag meant to just bring people over who would vote keep would be considered canvassing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the first part of this article ('Historical and present definitions') to Definitions of whiteness in the United States, and the rest (Demographic information and Culture) to European American. Having thought this over, I think this is the best solution. Much of this article crosses over with European American, as they cover substantially the same topic: I note, for example, that that article uses the 'White' census numbers as a proxy for the numbers of European Americans. In modern-day common use, it is clear that 'white American' generally refers to European Americans. However, strictly speaking they're not the same thing: as the 'Definitions of whiteness...' article makes clear, at various times, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and African Americans have to some extent been considered 'white'. Hence, I think the best solution is to have one article about the ethnic group European Americans, which is where most of the content in this article belongs; and one article at Definitions of whiteness in the United States on the concept of 'white American', what it meant historically and what it means today. Robofish (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree very much with that rationale.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, the census uses "white", and the article isn't about the demographic segment identified in censuses in any case.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The census measures white Americans. We know this the old-fashioned way -- because the RSs tell us so.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion here. The census records "white" people, which is sometimes reported elsewhere as "white Americans" but which actually includes all people, American or not, who are white. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We rely on RSs. The New York Times is an RS. To prevent us from misinterpreting primary sources, our guidelines instruct us to look to the RSs' interpretation. The New York Times confirms what I thought self-evident--what is being referred to by the census is the category "White American". If we stick to the guidelines (and avoid forays into OR efforts around what the RS tells us), the conclusion is ineluctable.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but plenty of other reliable sources use "white people". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And many articles use both terms, using them interchangeably. Bottom line, as the sources suggest, the phrase "White" in the census is shorthand. And as the RSs suggest, it doesn't appear to be short-hand for "white rabbits" or "white toyotas" or "white things". And as even government sources commenting on the census indicate (which I've reflected on the talk page), what one might have thought was self-evident was the case -- it is White Americans. I don't see anything in the RSs that conflicts with that. And I see much to support it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dodging my question. Yes, there are some who say European American instead of White American, just as some say African American instead of Black American. Now then, why are the other articles I mentioned not "legitimately considered equivalent" in your opinion? Dream Focus 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamfocus - "Black American" redirects to "African American" just like "White American" needs to redirect to "European American". What is politically correct about that? ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the opening of the article, it clearly explains that not all White Americans are European Americans. The two articles are different and clearly notable on their own. Dream Focus 05:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're intentionally arguing against yourself or what, but at this point I'm just gonna let it be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, "White people" are not an ethnic group. Our White people article doesn't refer to "White" as an ethnicity, but says that "the term white denotes a specific set of ethnic groups and functions as a color metaphor for race". I believe that there is adequate sourcing to justify an article on the topic of Americans who have been denoted in such a way. The current article fails in a lot of ways, but I think that its problems are surmountable, albeit not easily. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, shouldn't you be asking for a merge or at the very least a "Keep with reservations?" This article does it's very best to create a completely synthesized view of "White Americans" - treating them as being exclusively of European descent (while the census does not do that), manufacturing a "White American culture," and acting like they're a uniform ethnic group. Why wouldn't a slightly more fleshed-out version of Non-Hispanic Whites be enough to cover this term? Bulldog123 13:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have some sympathy for the that point you're making here. We have White American, White people#United States, European American, Whiteness studies, Definitions of whiteness in the United States, Non-Hispanic Whites, and Cracker. There are some pretty fine distinctions that need to be made to justify 6 articles on such similar topics, and some of them are running together a bit. A merge may not be the worst idea, but I would think another article or two should be merged into White American than the other way around. In case I'm not being clear, I think Postdlf's comments at 18:51 came pretty close to expressing the way I think about this. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article, or just decide it should be deleted based on its name? Dream Focus 05:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure he decided because White American is a SYNTH term not an ethnic group, and we have articles for all the individual groups who encompass it. That the article makes it seem like White American is exclusively European American is irrelevant. That's not the right use of the word "White" per our census. Bulldog123 11:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. This is just an unacceptable content fork that at best duplicates information at other articles such as European American. Honestly, "White American" might be a better title for the article currently called "European American", but there is no need for two separate articles.--Cúchullain t/c 17:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except they are not synonyms. European American is based on geography and "white" is a 1920's to 1930's time frame eugenics concept used by, among others, the US census. It doesn't match up with European American, think of a Venn diagram where circles partly overlap. People from the middle east were "white" but not European American according to the census rules. People from Mexico and South America were not European American and were "white" or non-white depending on arcane rules. Yupik and Inuit and Aleu are not European American. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same group of Wiki-sociologists are also enforcing similar semantic-based narrow-definitions at Norwegian diaspora and Swedish diaspora and have nominated them for deletion. The same arguments are being made that "Norwegian" "diaspora" = neologism just as "White" in the 1920 US census or 1930 US census or in American medical journals is not a synonym for "White American". If anyone has an opinion, the are welcome to join the discussion there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What group might that be? As far as I can see you and I and dreamfocus are the only editors who have voted in both topics. Also your comment about your opponents trying to "enforce" something is offensive, the only thing that is being enforced is policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were these comments intended to respond to mine? I don't know about those other articles, but this one definitely just reduplicates information found elsewhere, and ought to be merged.--Cúchullain t/c 13:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Never really thought about this as a distinct term, but now that I see it, I think this is an encyclopedic topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep dismissing the views of others. This person has explained why they said keep, it a distinct term and clearly an encyclopedic topic. What do you not understand? Dream Focus 10:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Saying Now I see its an encyclopedic topic" is not an argument, yaksar is giving him a chance to explain his reasoning so that his vote may be counted as based on reason and policy instead of just opinion.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that an article is on an encyclopedic topic is an argument. Just as saying that one is not is an argument. Personally, they are not my favorite arguments. But I disagree with friend Maunus that it "is not an argument".--Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you who are not familiar with Glenn Beck or American politics: [21] Qrsdogg (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should be careful here, because the theme of this article is politically relevant, so most comments (from either side) are likely to be biased in one way or another. In articles like this, I believe we should rely strictly on the rules, which is why I agree with nom that this article shows a number of issues in WP:OR and with Jonathan's comment about WP:OVERCAT. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hispanic and Latino Americans - Native American – Puerto Rican American - Black American - Asian American – Mexican American, all having articles here on Wikipedia, as shown by the blue links. It should also be noted, that all the articles referenced above borrow heavily and with large sections copied straight out of better written main articles. In that numerous other articles, for similar context, are currently posted here on Wikipedia, the question becomes does the term “White American” generated enough coverage in secondary – verifiable – creditable and independent sources to be considered notable under are current notability guidelines? In my reading the article, which seems to be well referenced and Google searches in Books – Scholar – and News, I believe the term meets our requirements for inclusion. ShoesssS Talk 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, however, that Black American redirects to African-American. We've also got articles on Arab American, Pacific Islander American, and probably oodles more. This article, however, is about a group that is a combination of a bunch of those articles listed above (and many sources about "White Americans" seem to be incorrectly using the term to refer to European Americans).--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – You are absolutely right. However, you should also note that a user has the ability to type in Black American into our search function and is than automatically redirected to African American. Likewise, it is noted at the top of the page that this is a redirect from Black American to African American. Are you a purposing a redirect for White American? That could be a great compromise, but what term would you use? The way I read the articles are they are a generalization of a cultural group, the same way Irish American or German American are generalizations of those particular groups. I read the article as strictly an overview of that particular population and not as specific criteria to be placed on individuals within that population. ShoesssS Talk 21:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely fair points. I'd actually guess that most delete !votes in this conversation would also be in favor of a redirect (yes I know, technically they're two very different things, but very often a redirect vote is often made with the same logic as a delete one). In terms of where it should be redirected to, I'd think that Race and ethnicity in the United States would probably be best, although White people could make sense. A redirect to European American, while very likely logical based on what many people coming to this article are probably searching for, is probably a bit too controversial and potentially offensive. But I'm certainly open to the opinions of others, and depending on how this discussion ends I'll be happy to continue the conversation on the talk page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autoclave (band)

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

Does not meet any criterion on WP:NM and has no verifiable reliable sources. Wikipedia's musician notability standards have changed since this article was created in 2005 by Badagnani (talk · contribs) (who has been indefinitely blocked for over a year, since 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)). Contested A7.   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Salcedo

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

Unverified BLP. I cannot find any reliable sources at all for this subject. The movies he may have been in don't seem to be notable either. The IMDB lists him, but that's all I can find: existence does not equal notability. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Miller

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

I cannot find any sources that back up the info in the article. The article sounds like it was written by the subject of the article (and probably was based on the edit history). Even so, the claims in the article are that Miller is semi-pro wrestler, and has never reached the highest ranks in the wrestling world. Angryapathy (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Came to this by way of copy-edit backlog drive. But this autobiographical, unsourced, POV article about a non-notable professional wrestler is nearly a perfect example of the side benefits of a copy editing backlog drive.
    Note to Joe: I feel your pain. David in DC (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. BigDom 10:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Showcase Showdown (band)

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

Prod declined just because the band has multiple albums. All of the releases were on non-notable labels; the band never charted a single or album; and sources are nonexistant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Boing! said Zebedee did not say he thinks anything of the sort, so please do not misrepresent me. What Boing! said Zebedee said was "Declined PROD - given the claimed discography, I think this needs a proper AfD discussion" (and the PROD reason was nothing more than "A7 removed for the sake of removing an A7") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With your extensive experience here, I'd have thought you'd be aware of WP:AGF by now. There is a very good reason for having these proper deletion discussions - it is to alert the wider community of your concerns, and give people an opportunity to research the subject further and see if sufficient notability and reliable sources can be found. There is no need whatsoever to rush to delete an article like this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, TPH has now rewritten his nomination reason - I was replying to his original statement that "Boing! Said Zebedee thinks they assert notability" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. This was an active band from the 1990s "Second Wave" of American punk rock. Although an "underground band," I don't doubt that there is third party coverage of them out there in the long grass in such publications as MRR, Jersey Beat, Flipside, Razorcake, Punk Planet, and so forth. Good discographic information would be lost without a corresponding benefit to the project. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per below. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Dinosaurs

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

Contested Prod. Article Subject claims notability whilst having no sources to back up the author's claims. Phearson (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I speedy-deleted the article under WP:CSD#A7. In addition to the self-admission that the group has not to date achieved any commercial success, there were also a number of WP:BLP issues with the article. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsive mechanical stimulation of nociceptor

edit
Compulsive mechanical stimulation of nociceptor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be an attempt to describe a single, extraordinary case of dermatillomania as a new disorder—it is thus pure original research. There is nothing in the medical literature to suggest it is a real entity (fails WP:V), and the terms used throughout the article to explain it (such as "nociceptor ambivalence") are completely at odds with current knowledge.

My first impulse was to propose a merge with dermatillomania, but after a more thorough reading, I don't think there is anything in this article worth integrating into the other. Delete. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otter line

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

Contested Prod [24]. Unreferenced article about some sort of line used in geometry/art. I can find no sources to support the existence of this term. At best a non-notable mathematical term, at worst a possible hoax. ascidian | talk-to-me 15:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR-E

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

Appears to be a neologism. Can't find any sources outside Wikipedia. Psychonaut (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doby Daenger

edit
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Republican

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

No reliable sources; original research; recentism KeptSouth (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. CIreland (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of chancellors of the Ming Dynasty

edit
List of chancellors of the Ming Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a sockpuppet of banned User:Yongle the Great Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 14:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xie Jin (Ming Dynasty)

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

Created by a sockpuppet of banned User:Yongle the Great Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Zaode

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

Created by a sockpuppet of banned User:Yongle the Great Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 14:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to 2011 Tucson shooting. There is clear consensus that this article should not be left as a standalone article. However, consensus is also that some of the content should be added to the article about the shooting. From here, it's an editorial decision on what to keep and what not to, but the end result should be "redirect" unless there is some later consensus to split the article out again. NW (Talk) 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hernandez Jr.

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

Time has passed. Days have gone on. Coverage of the Tucson shooting is over (until the trial, or the congresswoman recovers). This individual has faded not quite into obscurity necessarily, but into a territory where I believe there should be consensus that he indeed fails WP:BLP1E (or doesn't meet WP:GNG because of BLP1E, however you prefer to phrase it). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the automated process didn't find the first AfD because of the name change, but for easy reference, it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez (intern). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sullenberger's book was about his one event, and we all know why his article was created and that he never would have had one without the event, despite his distinguished record prior to it. Sipple's notability obviously was Ford-related - and also after and as a result of the one event. I'm arguing for a reasonable amount of time to pass before considering this - rather than the whiff of "I didn't like the original outcome" that I'm getting. I'm not directing this comment to any one individual here in particular, just the sense of it. What's the rush if not to undo the previous action, which is really not appropriate. Tvoz/talk 19:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sipple's fame was Ford-related, but he is not remembered for fame, he is remembered for infamy, for the inappropriate treatment he received despite his heroics. That notoriety is why Sipple is notable outside of the assassination attempt. Sullenberger is probably a better comparison, but honestly that's probably not going to change the outcome as far as this specific discussion is concerned. I'd probably spit up Nadya Suleman as another reasonable comparison of a "one event" individual who also has an article. As for "appropriate" this article is not consistent with WP:BLP1E, and while that's not ironclad by any means many editors are trying to reconcile the discrepancy between established thinking and this article. SDY (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, BLP1E states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." He's a teenage gay Mexican-American who saved the life of a US politician in a very high-profile event. He is also an activist. He is already being honored as a teen, as a gay American, as a Mexican-American and as an American hero. His case story has already been contrasted with that of Oliver Sipple. Here are some great sourcing that can help;
The comparisons to Sipple is that of a gay American hero. Sipple was not an activist where Hernandez is and he is certain to get even more attention. Also this case brings up many interesting contrasts; the gay angle when marriage is such a hotbutton issue, being Mexican-American in a state known for anti-immigration laws and that he's so young and yet openly gay. BLP1E warns to not focus bringing embarrassment to someone known for only one event, not for being a national hero. This is a human interest story that has already become front page news in the Spanish-language media as well as the Gay media and the above links talk about the person beyond the event. "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." (see Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual#Media_attention) Human interest stories are what attract a readership to a media outlet. I wouldn't even have heard about this guy if the angles on him were presented as dry facts. They weren't, the LGBT press talks about his activism and speculates about his political career. The Spanish-language media takes a different spin about the Mexican-American hero. Etc. It is the job of the media workers to take a story and highlight the human interest aspects to attract humans to their brand. Possibly Hernandez is only mentioned in a fraction of the coverage about the entire event but that's because he was not the focus of the entire event. A lot of mainstream Time, CNN, PBS, NPR, Fox, LA Times, etc. Here's a few more; "ARIZONA SHOOTING: Daniel Hernandez goes from Giffords' intern to world hero"[34], "Giffords intern handling sudden fame after speech", By TERRY TANG,Associated Press,[35], here's a passage,
"Since Wednesday night, Hernandez has given more than 200 interviews. Trying to walk into the medical center where Giffords is hospitalized or anywhere else, he is surrounded by throngs of well-wishers. Before the memorial, the biggest group Hernandez had ever addressed was about 30 people. "And even that I think is a bit of a stretch," Hernandez told The Associated Press. Hernandez said the whole event still seems unreal. He can't even remember exactly what he said Wedneday night. "I ended up throwing away the speech I was going to be giving moments before I went up on stage. I think it's really disingenuous to be doing anything other than speaking from the heart." Hernandez had been an intern with Giffords' office for all of five days when the shooting happened at a district meet-and-greet outside a supermarket. He also volunteered as a teenager for her 2008 congressional campaign.
Born in Tucson to parents of Mexican heritage, Hernandez grew up the oldest of three children. His parents taught him and his two sisters from a young age to give back. "My mom is like that. She has a big heart," younger sister Alma Hernandez said. "My dad always thinks about the community. He always wants to do better. He always told us we have to always go back to our community where we came from to help out." Their father is retired and their mother has a side business baking cakes. Hernandez's talent for public speaking was developed in high school, where he participated in academic decathlons, Junior Honor Society and student council. Besides interning for Giffords, Hernandez was appointed as a commissioner at large to the City of Tucson Commission on Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Issues. He plans to help the organization with education outreach on issues such as bullying.
C. Michael Woodward, co-chair of the commission, said Hernandez had a resume bigger than some candidates twice his age. "It was pretty clear he was a mover and a shaker long before any of this happened," Woodward said. "The real heroes are the ones who dedicate themselves to public service but that's what he's planning to do anyway. He just got his hero badge early.""
Here's a whole column noting his being Mexican-American, "What If Daniel Hernandez Was Undocumented?"[36]
And a couple talking about the gay aspects, "Grace Under Fire"[37] notes the comparison to Mark Bingham, "Does Sen. John McCain Owe Gay Servicemen an Apology?"[38] delves into the loaded language and differing standards the US has for those who are openly gay. So there are plenty of sources that talk about Hernandez in depth and as a unique aspect to a huge tragic event where this material would likely not be as useful. And after 200 interviews BLP1E cannot apply, after dozens and dozens of media interviews, many covering background information on him having nothing to do with the event itself it would seem he has surpassed any concerns of notability and verifiability.
Hernandez is an activist already active in politics, 1 event is about keeping embarrassing/humiliating events in check, this is an American hero with many interesting twists. Additionally he is continuing to be very public and sources are noting this;
Daniel Hernandez, Jr.—the openly gay intern who is credited with helping to save the life of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in a January mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz.—will speak at a Feb. 19 luncheon at the 29th Annual National Conference of the United States Hispanic Leadership Institute (USHLI). - FEB 16[39][40] and [41] (covers the honor award).
Hernandez running for UA student post - MARCH 8; [42]
Sunnyside schools honors Giffords intern Daniel Hernandez - FEB 26 / MARCH 1[43]
AU students hone leadership skills at national conference - MARCH 3[44]
Ticket sales brisk for benefit concert (Hernandez is one of the speakers) - MARCH 8 - [45]

I copied the top part from the other deletion discussion in January because it says everything I wanted to, and then I did a quick search to see what is being said recently and found two high profile public speaches as well as TV news coverage. I also agree with the idea above that there is likely a lot of Spanish-language material, although someone who can interpret these to see which are the best is needed.[46]

I hope this may help those suggesting that 1 Event applies here, or that there aren't enough sources about him, can reevaluate. The sources above talk about Hernandez himself, in school, his potential political career and aspirations. There is plenty of material here even if it hasn't been meshed into the article yet. Two months from the date and he is still getting awards and high profile public notice. I certainly hope an article on him wouldn't be deleted, if it is I wonder who else gets this much public recognition for heroism on every level of the political spectrum, gives hundreds of interviews, is an activist giving speeches and getting awards, etc. yet somehow is deemed irrelevant or simply a footnote.Wookiebookie (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of words there. None it really addresses the fact that he has only done one thing to be notable, though. Everyone does the lecture circuit after their 15 minutes of fame comes in, that's nothing special. Tarc (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might not have expressed it well (sorry), however I was refuting the same point as was discussed two months ago. BLP1E states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This is not a low-profile individual and it seems quite likely that he is not interested in shooing away the media at all. 1 event also states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I believe, as apparently many others do, that his role in avery high profile event was significant and as the Representative gets better, Hernandez will be brought up again and again as a hero. So we have tons of sources and the 1 event rule doesn't seem to hold water here.Wookiebookie (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)``[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. Strangely enough, I agree with the above argument that he doesn't fall under WP:BLP1E, since he couldn't really be regarded as low-profile. However, he does come under the loosely related guideline WP:ONEVENT. Every piece of coverage found so far is explicitly about his role in that event, rather than really being about Hernandez himself, despite the inclusion of some biographical information. Maybe he'll become more notable in the future, but not right now. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:ONEVENT - If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Hernandez is only two months into this and the hero worship does not seem to be ebbing.
I dispute that this event is "highly significant." It didn't even succeed in killing the primary target (who is in the grand scheme of the hierarchy of the government of the United States not that important, there are hundreds of people in Congress), there was no sinister motivation, just a crazy guy, and it's not like it started World War I. SDY (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I dispute that his "hero worship does not seem to be ebbing." A Google News search doesn't indicate ongoing "hero worship", even though he is running for student body president at UA. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this attempted assassination is a significant event, assassinations in the US historically always are - especially for a US Representative. This was the major news story for weeks and her recovery is given new life to the story. And the ongoing hero accolades have continued along with being a featured speaker at major events. As he continues to be a public figure and honored. And as he is running for a student office his role as a hero in the face of gun violence has made that a notable issue in that campaign. How many hundreds of interviews does the guy need to do? How many stories about him have to be written?Wookiebookie (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the era of 24 hour news desperate for anything to talk about, persistent news coverage isn't really much of an indicator of anything. See Missing White Woman Syndrome. The Tucson event was major news for what it might have been (i.e. political dissent causing actual violence, or an echo of the still very fresh Salman Taseer assassination) rather than what it ended up being (a failure of BATFE to keep guns out of the hands of a man who was not supposed to have them). Hernandez is fun to write about because he might have a brilliant future ahead, especially for people who want to promote him since he simultaneously represents several groups that just don't get treated that well in American life and it'd be great if he got into politics, but in the end it's just a human interest story (or news agencies attempting to create a story instead of just reporting it, which is a bit sinister in my book), but Wikipedia is clearly not chasing an audience and is not a tool for social change. Hernandez was not the only hero that day, and singling him out as super-important, even if it is popular to do so, is problematic. SDY (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree with you (sorry). The media singled him out as the emerging hero of the story so to not follow what reliable sources state would be the wrong thing to do. An why would anyone write, ;et alone read anything? Because they are human beings and their stories interest us. And no activism is going on at all, his article barely mentions his activism or views, but probably should note his opinions. And the point about him being active politically is that the 1 event peanut gallery keeps bringing that up despite evidence it doesn't hold. There is plenty of sources and having an article on Hernandez is not singling him out as much as covering a notable person who rose to fame as the emerging hero in a national tragedy. Devoting exactly one sentence to him in the main article is what violates any balance.Wookiebookie (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C. Michael Woodward, co-chair of the commission, said Hernandez had a resume bigger than some candidates twice his age. "It was pretty clear he was a mover and a shaker long before any of this happened," Woodward said. "The real heroes are the ones who dedicate themselves to public service but that's what he's planning to do anyway. He just got his hero badge early.""
Tarc, you are quite humoristic actually you are invalidating your own invalidation by WP:NOTAGAIN per your many many many attempts to discredit other users opinions. cheers--BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Tarc's argument is perfectly valid. WP:TOOSOON basically says that saying a renomination is inappropriate because of past outcomes is not, in and of itself, a helpful addition to the discussion. This is especially true when the previous outcome was "no consensus." SDY (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second that as the nominator; I would have been less likely, perhaps unlikely, to have renominated this page if it had been a 'keep'. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse you do Muboshgu, ofcouse you do .. as the nominator...hmmm.. go figures...*laugh*
Consensus can change. In this case, a lack of consensus can change to a consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NOTAGAIN - in this case 6/7 weeks after the last deletion discussion - states This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change. If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article. So NOTAGAIN would support BabbaQ's position. There are plenty of news articles about him, not all focus just on the event. And his role in the event was considered significant enough by the US President, The Governor and numerous news writers. If the national news singled you out as a hero in addition the President singled you out, when those don't happen very often, I would expect to see a decent article on the hero and not just a fastforward to the event article which probably should not carry all the notable information about Hernandez.Wookiebookie (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect. A very clear case of BLP1E. It's true that an aspiring civil rights activist who suddenly finds himself called a "hero" by the President may be a reasonable bet for independent notability in the future. But, per WP:BALL, that is not a valid basis for a "keep" vote. --FormerIP (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Hope (actor)

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

Article has no references and the fact that he doesn;t see too notable CMOTalk, you must 13:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WithdrawI see that is a favorable keep votes. Let's withdraw this case please CMOTalk, you must 02:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. All due respect to Mr. Wales, but an article having problems is generally not considered a valid rationale to delete it. I will take the additional step of perusing the history and using revision deletion to remove any serious BLP problems from the history, and the article now has pending changes protection on it which should slow down any further attempts to damage or distort the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Chamish

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

Article was a BLP disaster - claiming the man is a holocaust denier even though the only thing approaching a reliable source on that point, which was a blog, plainly said that he is not. That stayed in the article for a month.

I stubbed it due to many inflammatory assertions, and after some time, no one has bothered to add anything back. At BLPN editors noted that this article has long been a target of BLP vandalism. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – When one of the first references I find states; “Israel's best known [Yitzhak Rabin] assassination "conspiracist" is the burly and bearded Barry Chamish - Jerusalem Post - ProQuest Archiver - Apr 7, 1997 [47], I’m a little reluctant to !vote for delete. With regards that the item is a BLP disaster, that may be true, but isn’t that a reason to clean-up the piece rather than delete or is the concern that misinformation was present for a month? Sorry to say, any and all articles on Wikipedia are subject to misinformation which we do recognize when we state “…Older articles tend to grow more comprehensive and balanced; newer articles may contain misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Awareness of this aids obtaining valid information and avoiding recently added misinformation (see Researching with Wikipedia)”. In other words we have to be more diligent. This however is not valid reason to delete the piece. Finally with regards to stubbing the piece and the persistent vandalism. You are absolutely right in stubbing the article until the information added back follows our current policies that all information be verifiable – reliable – creditable from secondary sources. What I didn’t realize that there were now timeframes on adding back information. Which leaves us with vandalism. I noticed the piece is semi-protected now which should eliminate that problem. All in all I couldn’t figure out if this was a valid AFD nomination or an exercise, either way, clearly a keep for Mr. Chamish ShoesssS Talk 16:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete marginal notability, and long-term severe BLP disaster shows we haven't maintained this and are unlikely to going forward. Had someone written a half-decent article I might have opined differently.--Scott Mac 17:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has twice been a national Scrabble champion and is notable for this alone, never mind the other stuff. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need a source for this claim (it is not mentioned in the source cited). In any case, this is probably the least notable thing in this bio; if Chamish is notable, it is for his Rabin conspiracy theories and other right-wing journalism, and not as a Scrabble player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 March 2011
Being such a devotee of championship Scrabble, the Colonel will be delighted to learn that Mr. Chamish says he is now a 4-time champion of Israel. The only print verification is of the first championship, but I'll see if I can find a source documenting the other three. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I add that this is the count of English-language hits; the number of Hebrew language hits would increase the count considerably. I'm going to do a little bit of work on this page, this seems like an interesting person. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've fully revised the article. Admittedly a good deal of this information is from the subject's own website — but the big criticism has been that erroneous or distorted material has dominated and that's no longer a valid concern. One of Chamish's books was reviewed by Daniel Pipes in Middle East Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal, indicating that this is not a person of "local infamy." There is now a framework up for some proper additional biographical writing. This is clearly improvable further by normal editing procedures. Carrite (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to the Colonel, I accidentally mutilated his added source. Will get that back into play momentarily. Carrite (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very concerned at statements such as "the Jews hate him". What -- all of us? I have no opinion either way; but it is clear that Chamish does have enemies (notably Steven Plaut) and supporters. Any collective statement such as the one above is likely to be untrue, if not actually offensive, and should be avoided. RolandR (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All criticism of Chamish has been completely sanitized from the revised article, which is thereby rendered unbalanced... Wiping out all criticism only opens the door for another over-the-top rewrite. The above comment "The Jews hate him" ENTIRELY misses the point that this is a dedicated supporter of Israel who believes he has been maligned as a "holocaust denier" by sloppy editorial work on Wikipedia and a systemic prevention of his correcting of this distortion. That charge comes from the Daniel Pipes criticism (published in a peer-reviewed journal), which has been stricken this afternoon. This seems to have happened before in 2007, see the Talk page... There needs to be a neutral description of that criticism with an article link, which was previously up. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Edited Carrite (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm more or less okay with the heavily trimmed Pipes criticism as long as the footnote is there. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this person who claims the Jews hate Chamish? This is ridiculous and completely OR from riorob. So what does he suggest? Not to support the article because it will get attacked? Good indecisiveness. --Zangvill (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Zangvill. Peace, friend, I think he mistook where the heat was coming from about this article. I have been in touch with Mr. Chamish in an effort to get this thing factually tight, hoping also to help calm troubled waters. Earlier versions of this article were gravely erroneous about him, based on lazy misinterpretations of polemics. I have no views whatsoever of Mr. Chamish's specific opinions. I just want to get this bio RIGHT. And yes, he is notable in Wikipedia terms. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question. I'm highly sympathetic to concerns about BLP disasters. But might there not be other tools to protect against that? Page protection comes to mind, in one of its various forms. I had thought that we shied away from deletion as a response to BLP vandalism, as that could naturally be extended to a call for all manner of controversial articles to be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - I have altered the comment about who hates him - to sections of the jewish community, all the infighting in this region go over my head but basically its the Zionists and supporters of Zionism as he doesn't like Zionists and so they attack him and attempt to say that he is a holocaust denier. I have seen it before at wikipedia. As for the comments that keep he is notable and we will protect the article now - this is becoming increasingly a false claim - either start protecting articles about living people or the subjects desires to opt out are going to end up increasingly approved without any discussion at all - You will just find the articles gone and when you look for it or attempt to recreate it you will get the message - After being repeatedly attacked through content published via wikipedia this living person has asked to be removed from the project - please do not allow recreation.Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for amending that, Rob. But I think you are still mistaken. As far as I understand, Chamish is a Zionist himself, though of a fringe ultra-right kind. He is so fringe that other right-wing Zionists such as Plaut and Daniel Pipes attack him; but his books are published by a set-up called the Zionist Book Club[48], and he seems to consider himself a "true Zionist" in opposition to the hijacking of the name and movement. It would certainly be misleading to consider him an anti-Zionist, and to place him alongside Uri Davis and Israel Shahak. RolandR (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for your informed description of the finer details, which as I said do go over my head, extreme right wing fringe Zionists, so its more like zionist infighting, wow, anyway I accept your comment and stand corrected. My main issue is that this person should not be attacked via this project. Whoever they are they should get themselves blogs if they want to attack people and not use and demean this project to assert and propagate their POV. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct that this hubub is at root a factional issue between conservative Zionists. The issue is not that he "wants to be removed from the project" (although that may be true — or may not), the issue is that for an extended period of time this Wikipedia biography stated that this BLP subject is a holocaust denier. This is absolutely, positively false. Looking back at the tortured edit history here, this should have been taken to ArbCom a long, long time ago and there should have been a whole host of outright bannings and topic bannings delivered as a result, in my opinion. Now the subject is angry and has indicated a desire to sue Wikipedia — news of which which broke on the web on February 24, the same day this article was stubbed out by the deletion nominator. My take is that this individual SHOULD have a biography in Wikipedia, that he is a public figure with sufficient career achievement and independent media coverage to merit inclusion and that our job is to deliver a fair and accurate biography. The man holds controversial views and all criticism of these views should not be swept under the rug. There is a little snip remaining, but there should be a section stating contrarian views directly, even-handedly, and without malice. This article will need to be policed carefully against a repetition of the previous transgressions forever — and if anyone uses libelous words about the subject such as, for example, "nazi sympathizer" or "holocaust denier," that editor should be banned from Wikipedia immediately, without warning or pussyfooting around. That crap must be stopped AT ONCE. I would also favor a retroactive review of the edit history of this article and discipline meted out to those who deserve it. Ultimately, however, as a matter of Wikipedia principle, we should not bend WHO is covered in Wikipedia based on threats of legal action. Content is another matter altogether — that must be carefully monitored. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this. Despite Chamish's claims, it does not appear that this article has persistently described him as a holocaust denier. The claim has indeed been frequently inserted; and just as frequently deleted within minutes. In every instance that I can find, the insertion has been made by a sockpuppet of the Runtshit vandal, who apparently has a grudge against Chamish in addition to his animus against me and other anti-Zionists. These editors have been immediately blocked. I can see no evidence that such defamatory claims have been allowed to remain in the article, or that editors have been prevented from removing this.
I agree that such false claims should not not be allowed to be inserted. But, since they all appear to have been reverted swiftly, and the perpetrators banned as socks of an exceptionally persistent vandal, I cannot see any way in which Wikipedia could be held liable. RolandR (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The key thing is that this biography be protected against potentially-libelous vandalism from now on. Carrite (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I gave it a quick tidy-up edit and the article is fact-based (and neutral) in it's current state. Perhaps Mr Chamish might even approve it? If the article attracts vandalism and edits that introduce opinion (undesirable in a BLP), could it stay in its current protected state in perpetuity? I've dealt with a lot of biography articles, and this one is far more "notable" than many others (he is a published author who has won prizes for his work). (Declaration: I'm an Inclusionist; however I understand that WP has to be very careful with BLPs).  GFHandel.   20:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good job on Jim to get the community aware of this article and thus fix it up :-) ...not the best but will do for a keep for notability.Moxy (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've got two questions. (1) I seem to recall some mechanism for hiding the edit history of potentially libelous material from general public view. I would strongly recommend that such an action be taken for this article for all edits which preceded the article's re-stubbing on Feb. 24. (2) Is there a precedent for taking an article like this to ArbCom for review of its edit history and disciplinary action against abusive editors? Carrite (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I note above, it appears that all of the abusive editors have already been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of Runtshit. RolandR (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to hear, I'll take your word for that. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"NN"? I have to ask: are you really saying that WP should return nothing if a reader wishes to learn more about an award-winning author? An author published in multiple languages? An author whose name returns over 100,000 Google matches? If you really believe that, could you please direct us to the parts of Wikipedia:Notability that caused you to comment "NN"? (Please note that the article was not originally challenged on grounds of "notability").  GFHandel.   18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant talk 17:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paternity (House)

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

I started a discussion for these episodes now a week ago at the seasonal talk page, not unusual for these type of redirect discussions. It went unanswered, so I executed the redirects three days ago, which just today were met with opposition. So I reverted my redirects and came here. I was also informed about a previous AfD for articles of season 2. I'm taking the first season first, taking the outcome of it to proceed the AfD for the rest of the shows' articles.

The episode contains only plot, no real world information and therefor fails WP:PLOT, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:EPISODE. The same information, the plot, is already present on the seasonal article although in a shortened version. A popular reason for opposition is that these types of articles can be expanded, sure they can, but no-one has even attempted in the five years this article has existed. Additionally, any potential info could just as easily be added to the season article first, which could use it just as much as this article and later forked of into a separate article.

For the record, I prefer a redirect to be left in place after the deletion, to preserve possible redirects and keep search access.

I'm also nominating the rest of the episodes of season one, the same arguments apply:

The newest of these has existed since December 2006, and has since then contained nothing more than plot, some a bit trivia, an infobox and external links. The one piece of interesting information has already been placed on the season page. From all 20 articles, only two have a references, three sources in total. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to Extend Scope

edit

Please state your opinion on this motion.

Support. Makes sense. Eusebeus (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Long list
  1. Paternity (House)
  2. Occam's Razor (House)
  3. Maternity (House)
  4. Damned If You Do
  5. The Socratic Method (House)
  6. Fidelity (House)
  7. Poison (House)
  8. DNR (House)
  9. Histories (House)
  10. Detox (House)
  11. Sports Medicine (House)
  12. Cursed (House)
  13. Control (House)
  14. Mob Rules (House)
  15. Heavy (House)
  16. Role Model (House)
  17. Babies & Bathwater
  18. Kids (House)
  19. Love Hurts (House)
  20. Honeymoon (House)
  1. Acceptance (House)
  2. Autopsy (House)
  3. Humpty Dumpty (House)
  4. TB or Not TB
  5. Daddy's Boy
  6. Spin (House)
  7. Hunting (House)
  8. The Mistake (House)
  9. Deception (House)
  10. Failure to Communicate
  11. Need to Know (House)
  12. Distractions (House)
  13. Skin Deep (House)
  14. Sex Kills
  15. Clueless (House)
  16. Safe (House)
  17. All In (House)
  18. Sleeping Dogs Lie (House)
  19. House vs. God
  20. Euphoria, Part 1
  21. Euphoria, Part 2
  22. Forever (House)
  23. Who's Your Daddy? (House)
  24. No Reason (House)
  1. Meaning (House)
  2. Cane and Able
  3. Informed Consent (House)
  4. Lines in the Sand (House)
  5. Fools for Love
  6. Que Sera Sera (House)
  7. Son of Coma Guy
  8. Whac-A-Mole (House)
  9. Finding Judas
  10. Merry Little Christmas
  11. Words and Deeds
  12. One Day, One Room
  13. Needle in a Haystack (House)
  14. Insensitive (House)
  15. Half-Wit
  16. Top Secret (House)
  17. Fetal Position (House)
  18. Airborne (House)
  19. Act Your Age (House)
  20. House Training
  21. Family (House)
  22. Resignation (House)
  23. The Jerk (House)
  24. Human Error (House)
  1. Alone (House)
  2. The Right Stuff (House)
  3. 97 Seconds
  4. Guardian Angels (House)
  5. Mirror Mirror (House)
  6. Whatever It Takes (House)
  7. You Don't Want to Know
  8. Games (House)
  9. It's a Wonderful Lie (House)
  10. Frozen (House)
  11. Don't Ever Change (House)
  12. Wilson's Heart
  1. Dying Changes Everything
  2. Not Cancer
  3. Adverse Events
  4. Birthmarks
  5. Lucky Thirteen (House)
  6. Joy (House)
  7. The Itch
  8. Emancipation (House)
  9. Last Resort (House)
  10. Let Them Eat Cake (House)
  11. Joy to the World (House)
  12. Painless (House)
  13. Big Baby (House)
  14. The Greater Good (House)
  15. Unfaithful (House)
  16. The Softer Side
  17. The Social Contract (House)
  18. Locked In (House)
  19. Saviors (House)
  20. House Divided
  21. Under My Skin (House)
  22. Both Sides Now (House)
  1. Epic Fail (House)
  2. The Tyrant (House)
  3. Instant Karma (House)
  4. Brave Heart
  5. Known Unknowns
  6. Teamwork (House)
  7. Ignorance Is Bliss (House)
  8. Wilson (House episode)
  9. The Down Low
  10. Remorse (House)
  11. Moving the Chains
  12. Private Lives (House)
  13. Black Hole (House)
  14. Lockdown (House)
  15. Knight Fall
  16. Open and Shut (House)
  1. Now What?
  2. Selfish (House)
  3. Unwritten (House)
  4. Massage Therapy (House)
  5. Unplanned Parenthood (House)
  6. Office Politics (House)
  7. A Pox on Our House
  8. Small Sacrifices (House)
  9. Larger Than Life (House)
  10. Carrot or Stick (House)
  11. Family Practice (House)
  12. You Must Remember This (House)
  13. Two Stories (House)
  14. Recession Proof (House)

Actual Discussion

edit
  • Keep All: The arguments for retention made in the previous AfD (that took place less than 5 months ago, and of which I wasn't previously aware) are still valid. I also can't see how deleting these articles would do anything to improve Wikipedia. When I asked Xeworlebi, he simply pointed me to various policies, but that doesn't answer the question. I agree that the articles are not great at the moment, but believe that even in their present condition, they're better than the proposed redirects. Instead of the deletionist method of pointing to WP:EPISODE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PLOT as if that provides some kind of inescapable logical conclusion, I'd point to WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. It doesn't make sense to claim that some episodes of a series are notable and others aren't based solely on what's been added to an article so far. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, these articles don't warrant there own article not because of the content but because of the articles. They are essentially bloated forks from the season article, and contain nothing more than just the plot again, but longer. And that is in clear violation with WP:PLOT. Xeworlebi (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you've ignored everything I said. WP:GETOVERIT. --rpeh •T•C•E• 17:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the shoe's on the other foot. A rationale was given based on policy, and the last sentence of your first comment shows that you didn't really get the rationale. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for the reasons mentioned in the past AFD back in October. Suggest nominator read the overwhelming keep consensus there, and withdraw the nomination, so we don't have to go through this again. Dream Focus 15:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The initial AfD was 9/7 for delete, and a re-listing got a majority of keep support, all of which ignored WP:PLOT, and base there reasoning on "it can be expanded" half a year later, and 5 years in the article's existence, that still hasn't happened. The ability to expand an article is not reason to create a premature fork. So no, I will not withdraw this nomination. And I hope people consider the actual policies. Xeworlebi (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not premature forks - they were created years before the season article existed. It is the latter which needs to justify its existence as it is redundant to the main House article and these detailed episode articles. Most of its content is synopses of the episode plots — the exact same content that you are complaining about here — and there is very little coverage of the season qua season - as a distinct work of art rather than an artifact of the broadcasting timetable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The season articles were created because of WP:SIZE concerns of List of House episodes, which existed before the articles. The main article does not contain that info. The episode list did contain summaries then. The episode articles contain nothing that the episode list does not, but trivia, which shouldn't even be in the articles. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you're just talking nonsense, WP:SIZE is a valid reason for splitting articles, doing the exact opposite of WP:PLOT obviously isn't. There is a huge difference between a subject that only has a plot and creating one for every part of it. It's like creating an article for every chapter of a book. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each House episode is a complete story because the primary plot element - the medical mystery - is resolved. The show is explicitly based upon Sherlock Holmes which also appeared mainly in short story format. A short story such as The Adventure of the Speckled Band appeared originally in The Strand Magazine. Organising such material by season is like organising our coverage of Sherlock Holmes by volume of the magazine. It is seasonal coverage which is nonsensical because the season is an artifact of the first broadcasts which is irrelevant to the lasting significance of the works which is their fictional content, not their publishing schedule. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion — perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging..". Also, the nomination tells us that there has been some merger of content and so these articles should be retained for their edit history as attribution. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Not even worth a redirect. what is being passed for "notable second party sources" are external links to imdb, House wikis, "official guide to house" on google ebooks, and so on. The keepers need to give a reason as to why WP:EPISODES "occasional exception" clause is merited here. I will also note that Warden's speedy keep is now specifically invalidated by the ...and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted part of SK #1, as I have now weighed in with a delete. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:EPISODES is a style guideline not a content guideline and so irrelevant to the question of deletion. The sourcing is easily improved by reference to sources such as this. As the nomination was improper and your objections are not based upon policy, we might expect a speedy close per WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference you placed on the article is entirely unnecessary per primary source, and does not improve the article in any way. The fact that an article can be improved is not a reason to keep it. These articles are not stubs they are unwarranted forks from the season page. WP:EPISODE has a guideline on how to deal with this types of articles. On the other hand WP:PLOT is a policy and clearly states that Wikipedia is not a collection of plot-only description of fictional works, which these articles are. Also WP:SNOW is not a policy nor even a guideline, it's an essay, it even says "But, if in doubt, then allow discussions to take place." closing a discussion per WP:SNOW is an oxymoron. that is just a book with the episode plot and a bunch of in-universe trivia. It would add nothing to the article. What should be added for these articles to be kept is real world information such as production info. Take a look at the two good articles in the season for comparison: Pilot (House) and Three Stories. Xeworlebi (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference added is a secondary source not a primary one and it demonstrates the notability of the topic. Your opinion on what should go into the article is irrelevant to consideration of deletion. That we have good articles about other episodes demonstrates that these topics are basically sound - all that is needed is more editing work per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is quite valid, Warden. if you need to to repeat it and elaborate on just what WP:EPISODE says, I will. Basically, if all you can write into an episode article is a basic plot and cast, then it shouldn't be an article. Episode guides, even in book form, are not reliable sources in terms of helping to establish notability. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colonel Warden's point also is valid: WP:EPISODES is a style guideline and does not require removal of episode articles. Your opinion that "it shouldn't be an article" is fine, but let's remember that it is your opinion and not a Wikipedia policy. Cresix (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's hair-splitting and wikilawyering. Let's try this again. We have a guideline in place to, y'know, guide editors through the process of determining if a separate article is necessary for an episode. This process has been effectively ignored in this case. I'd like to hear a valid reason as to why. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last-resort argument when consensus doesn't go the way someone wants it: accuse everyone of wikilawyering. Here's the bottom line, Tarc: it's a style guideline. It's not a policy. Style is subject to change depending on consensus. Style can be "effectively ignored" if that is the consensus. Consensus is a policy; style and guidelines are not policies. If the consensus is to keep the articles, the articles will be kept. People have expressed their opinions here, and that's all that's required for consensus. We don't have to jump to your demands to repeatedly respond to you here. Let me suggest that you take a couple of deep breaths, calm down, and wait for the consensus process to take place. Cresix (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point we're not even speaking on/at the same level. Yes, style can be set aside; it says as much at the top, and for fuck's sake, I have even noted as much here. What I have been saying is that no valid reason has really been given for doing so in this case. We have people waving at secondary sources that are rather inferior, others that scream "OMG PAST CONSENSUS!" (i.e. you), and so on. Give us a valid reason why the episode guideline should be set aside for these episodes. Not a herd mentality of "we say so". Not a finger-point to a past AfD. Tarc (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, please calm down and stop personalizing this. And please stop making demands. Cresix (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PLOT indicates that we should aim to provide other material besides plot synopses. This in no way justifies deletion of incomplete articles which have yet to be fully expanded and completed. All these articles already contain non-plot content such as the cast, writer, broadcast date and it is quite feasible to add more as it is found. It is our editing policy to leave incomplete articles in mainspace so that they be expanded and improved. The idea that we will get more non-plot content by deleting what we have already is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody apart from you has said, "Keep, it's notable," — please do not use invented quotations. As for the notability issue, this is evident from the reliable and independent sources such as this and that which contain detailed coverage of each episode. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or Redirect all. I would suggest a speedy keep as the nominator did not want actual deletion (only redirection), but Tarc made an argument for deletion without redirection, so the debate cannot be closed in this way. I don't think the articles should be deleted outright; as the nominator suggests, the titles would be good redirects. Therefore, I would say not to delete. Whether the articles should be merged, redirected, or kept is for a different discussion. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that book contains other material such as "discussions of the show's medical science and controversial ethical issues". Each episode typically features a medical mystery and so it is good to have sources which go into this aspect and explains the details. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles definitely all require a major improvement to add more than just plot, but this certainly can and should be done. If, for whatever reason, they remain as simple plot summaries, than a merge may be in order, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be improved.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect...if - if with sufficient time these articles are not cleaned up to at least meet the GNG. Having a book that could satisfy the GNG is not the same as actually using that book. If a book was mentioned in the last AfD, and nothing has happened since that point then either the book was not as useful as people thought or people don't care enough about the pages to clean them up. I do not agree with deleting them because there is still a history of work for each of those pages and at this time all of their titles would still be useable as redirects to the season page. So, I say if you cannot at least start showing that 2 pages can be brought up to the GNG within say 5 days (which is nothing, you can order that book from Amazon and get it overnight) then redirect all until they can be. In addition, you don't even need that book to at least meet the GNG, you just need "significant coverage" - which would be probably 3 professional reviews. You do that and, even though the page would have basically no real substance, you'll have the GNG met. So, the editors of these pages need to step up to the plate and put some work in and not live by the "the info is out there, but we're too lazy to use it" motto that is apparently flooding the House pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: I'm an inclusionist, and think every episode of every show ever should have it's own article--but only if it's more than a plot description. However, almost all of these articles are basically plot descriptions, which can be found anywhere else. If the quality of most or all of the articles changes, then I'll change my vote. Until then, redirect. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've notified Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not of this discussion and asked for info on the application of WP:PLOT. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per reliable sources, add more commentary, we do not delete an article for not having any yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all; apart from being in furtherance of Wikipedia's coverage of a notable dramatic TV series, every episode is the subject of critical review, by for example, the A.V. Club here. TV criticism of has really boomed in the past few years; even ten years ago I was regularly reading the Entertainment Weekly online reviews of individual Buffy episodes, for example. Re: WP:PLOT complaints, I have a feeling that those few who don't like individual episode articles are judging the length of plot summary from the view of the series as a whole, rather than treating each episode as an individual work of fiction as is appropriate with this kind of dramatic series. For the record, I don't even like House, but the subject merits this kind of treatment. postdlf (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that House is one of the few shows that multiple sources regularly review, ensuring secondary coverage. Again, I pose what I said above if some feel this isn't sufficient, that 4 random episodes be shown to be notable ensuring the rest are too. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original mass nomination of 20 articles would have make improvement of those 20 a bit problematic, but finding it now includes an aditional 112 articles does not allow any reasonable or common sense expectation that all 132 could or would be improved in a 7 day period. As noted by other editors, the series' various episodes have received individual recognition and commentary. As each has sources available, we have an individual notability apart from the notability of the series. Wikipedia itself recognizes that it is not perfect and that there is always work that can be done. But it does not also demand that 132 improvable articles must be fixed in seven days. Immediatism is not policy, unreferenced does not automatically equate to unreferencable, and patience can improve the project. The nominator left a neutral notice on my talk page about an AFD to delete 20 season one articles.[49] It was only after arriving that I learned the number of articles being considered for deletion had grown nearly 700% from 20 articles to 132. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that is just a proposal and hasn't happened yet. Whether it is 20 or 132 articles the issue remains the same. Lets start with 4 articles like Masem proposed. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the most part the articles are in pretty bad shape. I'd be in favour of keeping them all if there was a solid plan in place for their improvement, but no one is coming along saying they are prepared to do the necessary work to get these articles up to scratch. If we keep them and wait for someone to come along, who knows how long it will be? Months? Years? I say delete. Articles can always be re-created later when sufficient information can be lined up. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a policy-based argument. The actual editing policy of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". Being welcome, these imperfect drafts should therefore be retained for further work. If you can see that particular improvements are needed, then please oblige us by making them. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Plot descriptions with trivially light dressing violate WP:NOT#PLOT. Articles can be created after there's a reason to do so, not in anticipation that there may be something to write someday. Additionally, WP:EPISODE indicates that separate articles are reserved for outstanding episodes. There is no demonstration that any of these episodes stands out from a run-of-the-mill episode of House.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that WP:EPISODE is a style guideline, not a notability guideline. We don't delete things for not meeting style guidelines. Or for not meeting SNGs when the GNG is met, for that matter. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We frequently delete articles for not meeting SNG when the GNG is met. Should happen far more often that it does, but we have an unfortunately large group of editors that believe the GNG overrides all editorial judgment. Useless articles should be deleted, and these articles are useless. There is sufficient plot description in the "List of" article, our style guideline indicates the articles should not exist, and WP:NOT indicates the articles shouldn't exist. There isn't a reasonable argument for keeping them.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP's goal is to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of works. The GNG sets a good line that if the topic is covered in depth in reliable sources, we are reasonably assured that it has a potentially wide interest and will mee WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. When an SNG (which EPISODE is not, btw) steps in to limit the GNG, this is because usually that while there may be reliable sources, the interest in the topic is not high - eg, ATH limits coverage of local athletes sourced only to local papers.
          This obviously is not true of a television series watched by millions of people, which is why there's no stricter SNG for television shows. They still have to meet the GNG, and the working presumption that is being properly argued is that each episode of a modern primetime drama is going to have reviews and secondary coverage that exists, simply that interested editors have not included these in the articles, but we know they exist. To call for deletion of those based on the fact that sources are known to exist but no one has included them is a terrible approach to wiki-building. Now, yes, you can probably argue that no one proven the sources exists, which is why I brought up the 4 episode test above - show a random selection can be improved, and pretty sure the rest can be too. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to season articles. Per WP:PLOT "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works" (emphasis mine). There is nothing to suggest any of these individual episodes are especially notable on their own. Since it is likely that people would search for these episodes, it makes more sense to have redirects rather than nothing. Icalanise (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. That the articles do not currently meet the standards of WP:PLOT is irrelevant; the question of whether they should be deleted should be based on whether reliable, third-party sources exist to a sufficient degree that an encyclopedic treatment beyond a cursory plot description would be possible. Other editors have shown that books discussing the show's production and medical/ethical commentary on each episode exist; these could and should be used to beef up the articles. The source material is there; all that's needed is for an editor to do the work of putting it into the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think of the readers! While I'm sure this is somewhere at WP:ATA, it shouldn't be. At Grok.se, we can see that the title article of this AfD is getting 100 hits per day as of last December. That's an awful lot of hits for an article of poor quality, for a single episode that's over six years old. Fact is, our readers continue to view these articles and not complain about them. Why? Because they don't care about some Mandarinesque WP:EPISODE guideline--they expect Wikipedia to deliver this info, as we have over the years, and they will be disappointed if we do not. Of course, they don't show up at AfD discussions--that's primarily of the domain of people who are more concerned about what Wikipedia "should" be than developing it into what it CAN be. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly it can be a television guide, but it most certainly shouldn't it. I'd be more than happy to install soft redirects to IMDB for these titles.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with soft redirects to IMDb is that the Wikipedia articles are immensely superior to IMDb. And readers here don't have to wade through glaring ads. Funny, IMDb is considered anathema for adding something to Wikipedia, but now it seems to serve the purpose of removing something when it suits our purposes. Cresix (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is what it is. Not an anathema, it's basically a user-contributed index of per-episode plots, casts, and production details. Not reliable enough to use as a source, but it certainly is where a raft of per-episode plots, cast lists, and production details belong.—Kww(talk) 02:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic keep all per Rpeh|T, Cresix, Dream Focus and others (and hat tip to Milowent for mentioning Croatian reality shows) - this has been amply debated recently, and bringing this here again now is disruptive and unproductive. How about using this energy to improve the articles rather than going for slash-and-burn? Tvoz/talk 06:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all As someone who has contributed to a few of those articles, I am strongly against deleting any of them. Most of them went through multiple AfDs. We really should direct our energy into something a little more constructive, not go after everything that doesn't fit neatly into a box. The show is still ongoing, most of those articles have at least some or the other reference included. I suggest the people who nominated the article and are currently supporting its deletion to look at List of Heroes episodes or List of 30 Rock episodes and the individual episode pages, if the criticism is against the nature of episode articles and a plot-driven narrative, then consider those that reached GA and even FA status. I don't understand why this series is singled out, I'm sure you can find similar episode articles at the same level in any of those series. At the end of the day, people are still viewing and reading these articles, that has to count for something. Theo10011 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This show is not being singled out, it's one in many where this has happened. This one is just meeting with some baffling opposition, which led to this AfD. I'll take for example Supernatural (TV series), all the episodes where redirected to the episode list some years ago, the ones that do have an article are FA's/GA's and one has production/reception info. The articles offer nothing more than already in the episode list, which is the plot. You might be interested in Category:Episode redirects to lists, most (not all) are redirected episode articles (some where created redirects for ease of linking and search etc.). This happened to The Unit (TV series), Friends, The X-Files, Charmed etc. many shows, and more episodes. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What I believe this is coming down to is less an issue of notability and more getting these articles up to snuff expected of other articles - eg the balance of having WP:DEADLINE extend indefinitely. I can say with 99% assuredness that every House episode meets the GNG in that each episode is reviewed by reliable sources. (If there is doubt to this, that 4-episode test I mention above is a way to show this). The problem is that, even though these have been up for deletion before, no one has bothered to improve them beyond plot elements. So we have topics that are known to be notable and meet the GNG, but no one improving them. This is where there's a conflict in policies as while we have no deadlines, we also don't want to let poor quality articles (particularly when it comes to sourcing) as these are often used as templates by newer editors unaware of the details of notability and sourcing. And since this is not the first time this has happened for these articles, there is question if anyone has enough interest at the present to do this.
That said, this never should have been taken to AFD. The original nominator said they tried to redirect the episode articles, and met with resistance. But even the nominator says that a redirection is preferred over deletion, and this makes sense - episode names are likely search terms and redirects are cheap. Thus, thinking this through more, this really should have been an RFC at the TV project or some centralized discussion page. AFD, being specifically about "deletion", is not an action being sought, and implicitly asks for these articles to all be fixed in 7 days, which is impractical and unfair.
I think the best solution right now is to end this discussion and create a new RFC to try to work out the balance between all these episodes being notable but not presently showing it, and the lack of a deadline. This is going to be something that likely applies to many TV episode articles most likely created before the GNG was about (eg pre 2006 shows). I know I've suggested drives to do basic cleanup in this area before, but they don't really catch on. -MASEM (t) 13:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all episode articles that are pure plot dumps in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. There are widely accepted season articles around that serve the purpose of summarising the plot considely, and also don't have the problem of Wikipedia:Content forking. WP:NOTABILITY hasn't been established for years, and it's fair to assume that it can't be. Redirects can easily be restored if the opposite is shown to be true. Alternatively, I support Masem's proposal to first see if a randomly selected batch of ep articles can be shown to be notable, and only redirect if nothing comes of it. But the cleanup process has to start some time, and today is as good as tomorrow.– sgeureka t•c 13:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point--though I applaud nominator for trying. Despite the chatter at the last AfD about how many sources there were and how important all these individual episodes are, I see no evidence of any of it--not the sources, not the improved articles, not the anything-more-than-plot-and-a-couple-of-directorylinks. Well, in case the next AfD wants to count votes again, here's a delete for the same reasons as last time, reasons that in my opinion are still valid. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Icanalise. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all. As a d&r veteran of the episode wars, I have nonetheless warmed to the idea of episode-specific content based on the work that many have done (including many !voting keep here) in improving overall content. I support the idea that articles which consist of a plot summary be redirected, but with no prejudice (indeed, warm encouragement), that they be recast as stand-alone articles when real-world content and context can be provided. Eusebeus (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. They can be improved, we can't just delete an article because it isn't finished, by that logic, no Wikipedia article deserves to be there. References can be found, added and the articles can be improved. Let us stop this, it has already been done a few months ago and it was heavily argued against. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 13:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Redirect all to season articles, per User:Gene93k. I've never really been such a huge fan of the elimination or the removal of episode articles, and frequently suspect that the motives for many redirections and deletions may actually be cases of WP:JDLI. However, while the issue of notablility is valid, the information is still useful, and would be available in the histories. ----DanTD (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RedirectAll house episode articles that fail notabilty and plot, but have some useful infomration that can be useful in history for potential future bring back of the episode, DeleteAll episode that do not have anything special in them and jsut bare pages as all these pages have no use or sub stance ot wikipeida these all should be fan wiki as wikipedia is not fansite. majority of peopel want them kept becaus ehter fans but there plenty of show that are bigger than house having the epsidoe aritlce deleted for the same reason, and for all the peopel who say they can vbe improved yes but whena article has hardly any deiting in logn time either no care or nothing exists so they have to go--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep All: The actual problem is not that references do not exist, but that it is almost impossible to find a RS about what you're looking for with all the fan sites, mirrors, and unrelated material; you're almost forced to work it backwards - read through a RS in its entirety, determine where that information might go, and then make sure you're not duplicating something already in place. The last of the season 1 episode articles wasn't even created until 2 years after it aired. Online sources may have appeared quickly, but it's now difficult to sort to them. The current season episodes are created quickly. If the episodes are re-directed into the seasons, the information will have nowhere else to go and the season articles will get problematically long. I have 235 yeears of U.S. history and 15K politician articles I haven't finished my own index for to prioritize, but I still expect them to be there. Lately I've just been hitting random, and looking for things that interest me, redlinks to solve, and obvious errors. That these still existed in Hunchback of Notre Dame and Little Rock Nine telks me this project has no end in sight, but when I look for information on an episode, finding it in a season article is a lot more difficult. Please don't take leaps backward. Sorry for rambling. Dru of Id (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all because this would set a very bad precedent. There were a few seasons of the show when it was in the top-3 most watched show in the US. That makes it notable. Plenty reviews are available around the net since the show has been running since internet reviews have been common. There is production data available for the episodes on the DVD. Nergaal (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We're discussing the articles proposed for deletion, not other articles. Also, if you want to see precedent I'll point to thousands of articles already redirected for the same reasons, they're located in Category:Episode redirects to lists. Xeworlebi (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve: If the nominating editor and anyone else thinks that the individual episode articles fail WP:NOTABILITY, then – pardon my French – get off your asses and do some actual work because I'm positive many of those articles can have at least a "review" section added to them, with at least a couple of WP:RS. "Scrubbing" is always the easy way out. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Yes, the plot summaries need pruning. But there's no reason why TV episodes which "chart" high in the Neilsen ratings with audiences in the millions should be found insufficiently notable for articles while music singles, especially those in limited genres, which "chart" with sales only in the thousands are treated as notable. Less plot summary, more information on ratings and reviews/commentary needed; that's a formula for improvement, not a basis for deletion. And at least two of the laundry-list nominated first season episodes have Emmy nominations (and there may by other nominations for significant awards), which none of the delete !votes have taken into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most American shows chart in millions. I did find one show that actually never came at all close to one million. The starz show [grav•i•ty] bottomed out at 29500 viewers and topped out at 146000 viewers. I wouldn't make individual articles on its episodes but at the same time having millions of viewers for an episode is common to even shows like the recently quickly cancelled Lone Star, Outlaw, and The Whole Truth. I could maybe name a Canadian show you might not know of which has had at least 1 million viewers in Canada for an episode :) delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 00:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep them all - find someone interested in expanding them   I view deletion as 'hide from public consumption' and there is nothing so demanding of such action here. The nominator began 8 discussions and they went mostly unnoticed and so began using the lack of opposition to a proposal to void the last AfD as support for his edits. I noticed the one discussion that had been responded to. The nominator described the articles as worthy of being deleted on sight - not even CSD or Proposed Deletion tagging the ones not explicitly covered by the previous AfDs. I had objection to that course of action and perspective. And here we are again re House episodes. jclemens made a very good point to think of the readers. I stumbled into the early stages of this round of discussion on House episodes because i was doing some reading. jclemens also makes a very good point that such an argument is probably in the 'arguments not to make' and that it shouldn't be. The rules that exist these days are some of the most pretentious i have ever found. I realise they exist because of mostly good intentions from people who may still be involved but the application of most of the guidelines, rules, and policies has become hostile, contradictory, out-ranking, detrimental, and generally dismissing the interests of the audience for the sake of what the author is interested in. Killing articles for being plot summaries of culturally significant tv shows that are popular in most countries which predominantly speak the language of the show is akin to killing off the articles on anything like Alfred Peachous. Honestly, i would love to nominate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for deletion because it has become one of the most divisive pages ever found on the site. "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community..." and later on the same page is found, "Wikipedia is not a social network like Twitter or Facebook." Fighting over the difference between an online community and a social network would be something i would love to read for the entertainment value. As such i summarily dismiss that entire page of what Wikipedia is not, including the prohibition on plot-stubs. If you can't not rely on a huge pile of rules to ensure you write something appropriate then maybe.... As for redirecting, i personally wouldn't mind since i personally have read the House articles i am interested in. When looking at the policies, rules, and guidelines they could stay because they don't qualify for CSD and have potential for great improvement and getting rid of them just because they have not been made GA is not a valid reason, however they (mostly) could be redirected for not having asserted anything more than inherited notability. What really is of concern here is that there appears to be not a single person who is interested in expanding these articles beyond plot-stubs. My personal interest in the show has greatly diminished in the last couple of years and i usually watch anything but FOX on Mondays at 8pmET these days. As such i had to be reminded that i kinda prompted this AfD in the first place and maybe i should comment. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 00:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the episode articles that fail to meet the notability standard, consist principally of plot, and are unverified by reliable sources. — Fourthords | =/\= | 20:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has a bee in their bonnet about this.Most TV programmes will have synopsis for each episode,this is no different,how you can propose getting rid of nearly 150 episodes and summing them all up in sufficient detail on one page is absolutely ridiculous. The extra plot pages do contain information eg about the medical procedures involved, guest stars etc. Getting rid of all the pages is a pointless and futile activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.251.208 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Clearly the consensus here is actually for transwiki. The problem with that is that Wiktionary already has an article on this. Transwiki is for moving new content from one wiki to another, Wiktionary has their own standards for what they want on a page and there is basically no way (or reason) to force them to accept this as a substitute for the page they already have. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huá

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

Long dictionary definition of one Chinese character, though that's not clear from the title as there are many characters with the same pinyin/Romanisation – see wikt:huá. In fact as we've no standard for which Romanisation is used in headings it's could be something entirely different. Encyclopaedic content was moved to Uar years ago. As the bot added header says, WP:WINAD. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Viola

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

Autobiographical article written by the subject to promote his upcoming album release. No secondary sources are asserted in the article or found in my search. nominated for deletion as failing notability requirements. Warfieldian (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep with leave to renominate depending on the outcome of this discussion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JoMoX

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

No evidence of notability, mainly a list of products, hardly more than a free ad. Deleted on dewiki, deleted four times on nlwiki. ErikvanB (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Camacho

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

Article was prodded by Lincolnite (talk · contribs) with the following rationale: "Fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN."

A little history here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Camacho was created on 16 December 2010 but the nomination was not completed properly and the discussion went stale. I NAC'd that a few minutes ago and thought the best course of action would be to open a new AfD, so here we are. For my part, I am neutral for now. —KuyaBriBriTalk 06:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable election candidate. Fails notability guidelines in WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per guidelines referenced above —Eustress talk 01:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per WP:G12 as a copyright violation. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handball (New Zealand)

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

Written strangely, and not really notable Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. After filtering out all the off-topic comments it seems fairly clear that consensus favors the view that the sourcing provided does not adequately demonstrate notability for this individual. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Sotelo

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

Working on notable works does not confer notability. Gigs (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: I apologize - one of those blog reviews does actually mention her name. The sum total of the section is "Stiegerwald and Sotelo round out the visuals with solid coloring. I realize forty-eight pages is a lot to color -- and the duo delivered consistency in this book -- but some of their color choices seemed murky and undefined, such as Firestorm's skin tone." That is not what anyone would describe as "significant detail," and truth be told, that's faint enough "praise." In neither of the other two blog reviews is she mentioned at all.  Ravenswing  22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is obviously in need of improvement, but deletion isn't the answer in my opinion. I would like to point out that the article has been improved upon drastically after this discussion was opened. Friginator (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Additional sources seem to make the subject notable enough to keep and expand the article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Nightscream. Dave (talk)
  • Multiple issues...
    1. Relying on a self published source for personal information is not a good idea.
    2. "Current work" may be OK, but underlining it dates the content.
    3. Reviews that, at best, mention her in passing aren't helpful either to the article or supporting notability. They are little better than using the in comic credits to build her list of published work.
    4. Notability of a comic does not automatically confer notability to all those who worked on it.
    5. At this point, aside from solicitations and the reviews, nothing seems available to support/expand the article.
    6. I've got real problems with Nightscream's postings regarding this AfD from 1:45 through 2:10 (UTC). Frankly the post to the Comics Project talk page is fine. But to 17 discreet editors most of whom are participants of the Comics Project smacks of beating the bushes.
- J Greb (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the article requires improvement. The current sources are pretty scant to contribute much to the article at present. I searched a bit for stuff on her and didn't turn up much more than what was already mentioned in the current article (brief praise for her coloring work). However, I also found that she was interviewed for the documentary Countdown to Wednesday (a doc about breaking into the comic industry), apparently as their colorist expert. If the article can be fleshed out with more comprehensive mentions/reviews of her work, or her, or anything else, with more attention on her, I would feel more confident voting to keep. I don't think a delete is necessary, but I admit that I would need to see more to vote keep.Luminum (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Using primary sources for basic descriptive (non-interpretive) information, like where someone was born or where they went to school is fine, so long as the material is not unduly self-aggrandizing or self-promotional. "I majored in journalism at NYU" is fine. "I graduated magna cum laude with a 4.0 GPA" would be better supported by a secondary source. Nothing at WP:CANVAS indicates that contacting individual editors is disruptive, nor a form of canvasing. Since posting solely on project pages often does not result in participation, contacting individuals, so long as it is done in a manner that is neutral and transparent, is perfectly valid. Nightscream (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primary sources, and one word offhand mentions do not establish notability. Contacting [a biased sample of] 17 biased editors about this AfD is indeed canvassing. Gigs (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 19:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And referring to other editors as "biased" without proof is a bit insulting. I was contacted by Nightscream and informed of this AfD. I'll confess, I don't know why. I don't recall having a history with NS, nor do I edit a lot of comic-related articles. I was asked to offer an opinion, which I did. Please show how my honest opinion is biased. Dayewalker (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is insulting, not to mention inaccurate. I don't see how the editors contacted (including myself) are "biased" in any way, especially when it comes to this particular article. What is biased is acting hostile towards editors that disagree with your proposal. Nightscream never suggested any particular opinion on any talk page, or, to my knowledge, the talk page of anyone involved. He simply pointed out the discussion. Canvassing is something entirely different. Per WP:CANVAS, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Nightscream's edits clearly fall under that description. Nothing has been done that could be considered disruptive or slanted in any direction, but instead has simply furthered the debate. Friginator (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Biased" is a bad place for Gigs to go Friginator. But Nightscream to go directly 17 editors to get input on this AfD. 16 of who had not edited the article in question and 1 - me - whose contributions were cosmetic rather than content driven. The post to the Comics project talk page should have been enough. Going beyond that and the editors to have put content into the article is canvasing. - J Greb (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I really don't think there is a canvassing issue here. I don't know why Nightscream contacted me in particular, but he definitely did not do so to influence the outcome of the AFD. That would be cause for concern. I recommend just focusing on the content here. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reviews are not primary sources, they're secondary. As for the editors, how do you figure they're biased? They're editors on comics-related articles, which is precisely the editors who'd have a connection to or interest in such a discussion. If they're biased, then why has one of them voted to keep, and another has opined that there are multiple problems with the article? Sounds to me like they're the exact sort of editors needed. As aforementioned, merely leaving a note on a project page, and in this case, listing the article for deletion, did not attract participants to this discussion. Nightscream (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm hard-pressed to find a reason to keep the article. Since this is a biographical figure, we should refer to WP:CREATIVE #3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." My perception is that "a significant or well-known work" has to be more than just being notable enough for Wikipedia's standards. I'm not sure of any of the items in her bibliography qualify as such. If there are no such works, then we fall back on WP:BASIC, where I do not see any coverage of which she has been the subject. I see side mentions, which is not enough. I usually try to find an interview since she would be the subject of that kind of coverage, but a search engine test does not turn up anything. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per my argument above, but I would be happy to revise my !vote if coverage can be provided. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources (which are routine product reviews, not mainstream journalistic publications) barely mention her. That does not establish notability. If there were articles about her and her impact on her profession, that would make her notable. It would appear that there aren't, and she isn't. Perchloric (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I relisted this page because opinions are still being added but let's keep the discussion focussed on the article and relevant guidelines and stop the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. J04n(talk page) 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can understand "deleting" if entries are suspected of being erroneous, non-factual, misleading, or outright false. But "deleting" something because it is "trivial", is a form of censorship based mainly on subjective taste. What is trivial to some, may not be trivial to others. Just because no mainstream information has sourced it yet, doesn't mean the entry is not important, especially if it was lifted from a source like a film where it can be verified easily. Deletion is a form of censorship, especially if it was UNILATERALLY done and not by consensus. You should have kept the information first, and use consensus to vote that it be removed on issues related to accused "trivial" entries. Unilateral deletion of another person's entry based merely on being "trivial", is bad faith. It is like supression of another person's offer to contribute information that others might not have known yet. There is no threat of spreading false information especially if the entry can be easily verified, so atleast a majority consensus should have been sought first before the entry is deleted. --Pekpeklover (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — Pekpeklover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Reply: There is, in fact, a deletion process governing how and whether articles get deleted; you're seeing it in action right now. As far as your general point, Wikipedia policy and guideline call for the removal of articles which fail to satisfy criteria of verifiability and notability; in particular, it is an ironclad rule that biographical articles of living persons that lack proper sourcing be aggressively deleted. I recommend that you review WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:BLP to gain a better understanding of the pertinent policies.  Ravenswing  11:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I was asked to comment on this discussion on deletion by Nightscream coming from a case of "speedy deletion" forcibly done on a non-biographical entry I made on another non-bio topic. I have read the links you mentioned, and it was clearly stated on those guidelines that: "Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion". It was also clearly mentioned in the rules that speedy deletion should be made as a "last resort". Seems like some people are "trigger-happy" in deleting contributions made by others by reverting them back. As recommended by the guidelines, people who believe that an entry is "trivial", should have brought the issue first to the author via the "talk" page, then do a consensus from others to judge whether the entry is really trivial that needs to be deleted; I think such orderly procedure is more sensible and worthy, rather than resorting to speedy deletion that only attracts disdain and conflict among good faith authors. --Pekpeklover (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just as well, then, that this doesn't happen to be a "speedy deletion" case. Also, as it happens, the author of the article was contacted a month and a half ago to discuss the lack of references, and failed to respond ... any more than the author has responded to over two dozen notifications about the pending deletion of images and articles he created, since he hasn't been active on Wikipedia in over three years. Once again, I encourage you to read over the relevant policies - at this point, most particularly, WP:Deletion policy, to gain a better understanding what's going on here.  Ravenswing  13:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the sources currently in the article represent significant coverage about Beth Sotelo. At best, they are a passing mention. Her work has not attracted significant critical attention aside from these one line mentions of particular issues being pretty good on the the colors. That is not significant critical reviews of her work. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course, there is no presumption of notability. WP:GNG clearly states that a source must discuss a subject in "significant detail" to qualify. Further, the criterion of WP:ARTIST misinterpreted above is "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Even were one to assume on the basis of a couple of blog reviews that these represented "significant or well-known work," Sotelo was the assistant colorist in the cited reviews; the lead citations go to Peter Stiegerwald. No doubt a case could be made that the lead colorist on a comic book plays a "major role in co-creating" it. One can't be made for his assistant.  Ravenswing  12:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

$100 Solution

edit
$100 Solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While certainly admirable, this entity does not appear to be notable.

$100 Solution is a sub-entity of the Prospect/Goshen Rotary chapter. But the Prospect/Goshen Rotary chapter is itself not notable (we don't have articles for individual Rotary chapters), so why would one of its programs rate an article? What they have done is good, but no different from thousands of other charitable activities.

It says "The $100 Solution is used in the International Service Learning Program at the University of Louisville and Semester at Sea." This would be the only possible marker of notability, I think. But the Semester at Sea article doesn't mention $100 Solution so I wonder how central this entity is to that program. Perhaps a merge of one or two sentences about the program in the Semester at Sea article would be in order.

Tagged for notability last summer, and no improvement since then. No articles about the program in any newspapers or like that, the only refs are to press releases and the like from Semester at Sea. Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 02:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Well we see where being bland gets you, so gloves off: this entity is not notable, period, and is not even close to being notable. I mean, look at the article. There is an entire section ""Textbooks for the Elderly in Hong Kong". What is it about? Some students donated $100 to buy some textbooks. That is what the entire section is about. The other sections are all like that. "Hot Water for a Viet Nam Orphanage" - some students donated $100. And they are all like this. No wait, some of them are worse. Here is the entire text of the section "Hong Kong's Neighborhood Elderly Center":
In Fall 2009, Semester at Sea revisited the center that hosts the Adult English class from their $100 Solution in 2007. Another class was taught by the Semester at Sea students to the new group of elderly students. They also played an English language bingo with the elderly students. The elderly students really liked being able to have discussions with the students who speak fluent English. Among the expressed needs were English music and English/Cantonese dictionaries. The dictionaries were chosen as the solution. On top of the $100 Solution, a Students of Service group on Semester at Sea was able to ship back English CDs to the Elderly Center.
I'm very, very happy that the students had a nice game of bingo. I really am. But do I have to read about it Wikipedia? (And the article doesn't even specify what the winning board was - I thought we were supposed to be WP:COMPREHENSIVE!) If I invite the neighbors over tomorrow to play Pictionary, can I have an article about that? How about if I donate a thousand dollars? I would get a whole series of articles for that, right? Category:Articles about this one time when a person donated $1,000 to a charity. I think I've made my point? Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Pins

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

No assertion of or evidence of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete without prejudice. However, as an unsourced BLP I won't restore this to mainspace. However, if someone wants to recreate this article with sources then they are welcome to do so. I'm also willing to userfy or incubate this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Gato

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

Autobiography by Mercideltoro (talk · contribs) (see File:Pablogato.jpg, uploaded by Mercideltoro, authored by Pablo Gato [own work]). No notability per WP:ANYBIO. bender235 (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mesa Public Schools and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrix Junior High School

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

Ignoring the vandalism, we have notability issues to grapple with. This school was closed and turned into an even less notable "charter"-style school, Summit Academy (look here and see the note), and there's probably no reason to keep an article on a closed junior high school. Raymie (t • c) 01:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OurWorld!

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

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines. (IP contested prod) OSborn arfcontribs. 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Karaoke Hits, Vol. I

edit
Beyoncé Karaoke Hits, Vol. I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. After an internet search all I could find was digital retailers selling it. No reviews, charts or sales. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not notable at all! Beyonce has loads of albums. If each album has a page of this kind of quality on wikipedia, it is a waste of space. Should at least contain some review or comment about this album, record sales information to indicate how significant it is so that it should be given a place on wikipedia. Andrew Powner (talk 17:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Apart from the lack of secondary source coverage, calling this a Beyonce album seems a bit of a stretch; it's certainly not part of her discography. I see no reason to document such karaoke releases unless notability can be specifically shown. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She technically is credited as the artist, so it is her album, but I agree with you about the lack of coverage. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me Jivesh, I have tried without any success. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right Adabow. But instead of deleting it, can't it be merged somewhere? Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I searched everywhere. Absolutely nothing apart from the fact that it has been made available in practically in all iTunes Stores. I think the best is to delete it though it somehow pains me to say so. As i am a huge Beyonce fan. Lol. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McFearless (single)

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

This is an album track and never received an official release as a single. The article creator also claimed on the Because of the Times article that McFearless was released on the 10th of December 2007, and (on the single article) that it reached number 1 on the RIANZ charts. Looking through the RIANZ singles chart archives around that date, there doesn't seem to be any mention of it. Indeed, a site specific Google search suggests that it is not anywhere on that site (compare with the results for the single "Sex on Fire"). Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. If someone from the DOOL wikia site wants this stuff userfied so they can copy it over all they need do is ask. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Days of our Lives storylines (2010s)

edit
Days of our Lives storylines (2010s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, no references to reliable sources. Violates WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTBLOG RadioFan (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Days of our Lives storylines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Days of our Lives storylines (1960s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Days of our Lives storylines (1970s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Days of our Lives storylines (1980s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Days of our Lives storylines (1990s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Days of our Lives storylines (2000s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete Agreed, unsourced fan site-ish material that violates the point of what this encyclopedia should be about. Rm994 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep our guidelines generally discourage excessive plot detail, but in this case wrapping up entire decades and thousands of episodes into a few paragraphs is hardly excessive. While I don't envy whoever has to source this stuff, it CAN be sourced: there's a number of magazines devoted to soap operas, and Days of Out Lives has a number of books about it, such as this one, probably as good a place as any to start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to understand how you can describe these six lengthy articles as "a few paragraphs". —SW— converse 20:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are a few paragraphs when one considers they represent more than 11,000 episodes and thousands of hours of story. Maybe they should be a little more or a little less concise, but that's not what's up for debate. This is a case where our usual lists of episodes by season would be impractical, not to mention individual episode articles! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the scale of what you're saying, but given that this is 100K for all the storylines together, this needs to have some sources to be verifiable. The book you found is a good start, but someone needs to state an intent to source the material and follow through. Otherwise the amount of uncited stuff, due to its volume, can't simply be referred back to the primary source of the TV show itself. TransUtopian (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If every individual episode was discussed significantly in reliable sources, then I would say let's create 11,000 new articles for each individual episode. The reality is that very few (if any) of the episodes or even the story lines are discussed significantly in independent, third-party, reliable sources. —SW— gossip 22:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought a 45 year continuous series might have some reliable sources on its plots. There's a memoir from executives producer Ken Corday, "The Days of Our Lives: The True Story of One Family's Dream and the Untold History of Days of Our Lives" [51], released for the 45th anniversary, which has some information on the plotlines he oversaw/wrote. There's also "The Days of Our Lives: Complete Family Album" by Lorraine Zenka, released in 1996 for its 30th anniversary, containing "a year-by-year history of the storylines" and "goes into quite a bit of detail on the story lines" according to Library Journal and Booklist's reviews [52]. The former is used as a reference alongside NBC and TVGuide Online in several of the major characters' WP articles. And while WP is not Soap Opera Digest, that magazine would summarize plots and be a reliable source. Given this, I'm !voting keep or a protected redirect with history to Days of our Lives. The latter is so the history's readily available if someone demonstrates strong interest in sourcing the articles, which is likely possible. TransUtopian (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sourcing for soap opera episodes isn't impossible. In addition to the guidebooks and retrospective books there are several weekly and monthly magazines whose entire function is to summarise soap opera episodes. Granted, 11,000 individual episode articles for something like this would probably be out of scope for a general-interest encyclopedia, but speaking from a pure verifiability standpoint there's no reason it couldn't be done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and transwiki to a wiki which does not have standards that bar original research from its content. These articles represent a huge pile of unwikified, vapid plot summaries, which show strong signs of being copyvios. There are no reliable sources to verify that this content is notable or accurate. —SW— speak 20:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere's a small Days of our Lives wiki at http://daysofourlives.wikia.com/wiki/Days_of_our_Lives - can someone please transwiki these articles if the decision is delete? Two of the delete !votes have suggested it. However, I don't see evidence of a copyvio. I plugged in a phrase from the 2000s article and found only mirrors and quotes of WP's article. While the book Starblind found can be used to source the material, that would be a large task. I'm notifying WP Soap Operas of this AFD which WP:CANVAS says is okay. TransUtopian (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how is this not canvasing? That wikiproject does not seem non-partisan.--RadioFan (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion" is okay. If people at the wikiproject can demonstrate willingness to fix it up and/or more reliable sources, the result is an improved article. Blind "keep"s will not figure into a closer's decision. TransUtopian (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiya Sircar

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

There are no sources leading anywhere else but IMDB, which is unreliable. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:25 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only on her article, but none of the movie articles does as much as speak her name (exception for Just Peck, but it's useless since it doesn't have any sources either). Google searches also brought up no reliable sources, the best results being other wikis and an amateur youtube interview. We've got a lot of articles on actors who didn't quite revolutionize Hollywood, but if no sources come around, there's no reason to keep it. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rallye rim

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

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concerns: WP:V, WP:PRODUCT WP:NOTDIC, WP:V, WP:PRODUCT Wcheck (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TMF/MATCH

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

no assertion of notability, only reference simply proves existence WuhWuzDat 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article to address Wuhwasdat's concerns. It's extremely difficult to find online citations that are unbiased for this topic because most web pages discussing TMF/MATCH are trying to sell merchant processing. I've tried to avoid citing those sites as I'd like the article (if it survives the deletion process) to be as factually accurate and unbiased as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indymike (talk • contribs) — Indymike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Schools of Atlanta

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

No evidence or assertion of notability, no meaningful content; seems to have been written to advertise their drama club, the Thespian's Guild. Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 Surround

edit
MP3 Surround (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only reference is related to PS3 TML (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep and strong keep. AfD is not a cleanup task. Shame for the nominator, MP3 Surround is widely known if you care a bit about lossy audio compression, and its notability so easily verifiable that I don't know whether this nomination is due to ignorance or bad faith or what else. Nageh (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One may think about merging the current content into a section of the MP3 article. Nageh (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - referenced and notable. Needs expansion, could possibly be merged into MP3, but absolutely not a candidate for deletion. Bienfuxia (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Garnish

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

Totally unsupported self-advertisment Orange Mike | Talk 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Bedwell

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

Don't think this qualifies for any sports category, but don't want to be stepping out of line. Orange Mike | Talk 00:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry 90.198.200.109 but the consensus is clear on this one. The subject does not meet our inclusion criteria. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mubashar Khurshid

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

This talented English poet and philosopher is probably not famous enough at this stage to be the main topic of an encyclopedia article Teofilo talk 00:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Protest - Please read my above statement as I am extremely determined to keep this article on Wikipedia. Like I have mentioned before, this is a complete insult. I would like a response as I am adamant on keeping this page. 90.198.200.109 —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to clarify something to the author: Wikipedia has rules. Nobody here is trying to delete your article on ignorance or pride. First, Wikipedia does not accept Original Research. The goal of this project is to build a database which is based on reliable facts from verifiable sources, which your article clearly lacks. Second, Wikipedia is not a means of self-promotion or advertising in any forms, which may be the case here. Third, Wikipedia can't contain everything. For the inclusion of an article in Wikipedia, it must meet some criteria of notability that just doesn't apply to your article right now.

    I suggest you try reading these three topics ( WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:BIO ) and then maybe this great one before continuing the discussion. If there is anything you still don't understand, feel free to ask us.

    ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to be a dick, but 90.198.200.109 has not been here for 4 years. Your contribs show a minimal amount of editing experience, and a few sporadic months of work at most. Also, keep in mind that while you may have put some effort into this article, it in no way implies page ownership and certainly does not require us to keep the article alive if its notability is in question. Always remember that writing on WP means putting your work into the hands of merciless editors. --Ashershow1talk•contribs 00:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No reliable sources. Though this fellow may achieve notability in the future, he's not ripe for inclusion in an encyclopedia just yet. Article fails to assert any importance other than "he's a neat guy." I'm sure he is a neat guy, but that's not what we need here. Could be deleted under WP:SPEEDY-A3. OfficeGirl (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- @Ashershow How do you know I haven't been here for four years? So you can delete the article and then feel the right you have to question how long I've been here? Don't tell me what I've done or haven't done. Just because you're deleting my article doesn't give you control over what my contributions and accomplishments. So before things come out of of your mouth, think of something constructive to say rather than a load of crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.200.109 (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify. You haven't been editing WP for four years, and I can tell by checking your contributions list. In addition, your amateurish way of handling a community discussion about your work tells me definitively that you have not been here for 4 years. And I'm not taking "control" over your accomplishments, everyone here is simply trying to create a better encyclopedia and we can't do that without some reasonable guidelines for article notability. You've taken this whole thing way too personally. --Ashershow1talk•contribs 17:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- @Ashershow I've been using my other Wikipedia account for my old contributions. Anyway, if my way of handling a community discussion is so amateurish, why are you sitting here disputing what I've done when you're meant to be commenting on whether this article should be deleted or not? Going back to the subject, I am willing to make a few tweaks and edits to the page to make it stay on. This has been worked hard on and I can change some text or content for the sake of the relevant article to remain on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.189.245 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if you've felt personally victimized by this discussion as I don't mean to be a dick. However, I believe your feelings of page ownership are inhibiting you from making a rational decision about this article. The problem is not with changing some text or adding some content-- it is with the fundamental notability of Mubashar Khurshid. There are no reliable third-party sources to merit his inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. I encourage you to read WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability in order to better understand this position. While it may seem cold, the amount of effort you put into the article does not weigh into its notability. Since Wikipedia is the largest group project in human history, it is important not to take anything too personally. Your adamant reaction to this AFD discussion has led me to believe that your ego is getting involved; at the very least you are not a four-year veteran editor. As this discussion is clearly heading towards deletion, if you have any more questions or concerns about Wikipedia or its standards for notability, please leave them at my talk page. --Ashershow1talk•contribs 05:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think we've taken a wrong turn somewhere here, especially in judging people. I'd like to point that the author's previous contributions to WP do not matter for this in any way. This discussion is becoming really violent (from both sides), so I ask you all to calm down. (Edit: And yeah, I notice I've been pretty cold here as well - sorry, not intended).

    Author, like I said before, we're not trying to delete your article based on ignorance, pride or anything. We're trying to delete it because Wikipedia has rules, and your article does not seem to meet them. These rules are clearly stated here and here. If you can prove to us that your article meets those rules, it can continue to exist. Simple as that.

    ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ [talk] 05:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death planes (common game)

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

Totally made up, unsourced, speculative or hoax (who can tell?) Orange Mike | Talk 00:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. Arguably it might be under G3 for hoaxing, but I certainly don't see a credible assertion that he's a notable sportsman. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Evans

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

I'm not much on footy, but this looks like it doesn't qualify under any possible standard I can imagine, shamelessly low though the barrier is for athletes. Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A clue that we may be taking this too seriously. I might also have pointed out, for the benefit of those who are not British, that his second activity, darts, is a game played mainly on premises licensed for the consumption of alcohol and is not normally associated with an athletic physique. The second sentence of the introduction may possibly be an oblique way of saying that he spends much of his time in the pub. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. AJHingston (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_March_4&oldid=1142637424"