Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 November 28 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing problems raised in the nomination. The only source cited is what seems to be a self-published website.  Sandstein  09:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tase Matsunaga

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Oldest person in Japan and among the top-100 oldest persons of all time.Ryoung122 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "External links" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, this GRG web page cannot be the sole source for an article on Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually a ton of sources are available, in that her death was widely and internationally reported [1]. But that seems to me like an instance of WP:ONEEVENT. At any given time there is an oldest person in every country in the world, and as soon as they die they are replaced by another oldest person; does that really make every single one of them notable? I'm dubious. (Besides, as recent news events demonstrated [2] [3] [4], Japan has no idea who its oldest citizens are, or whether they are still alive.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing problems raised in the nomination.  Sandstein  09:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadayoshi Tanabe

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Oldest man in Japan, second-oldest in the world.Ryoung122 20:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "References" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, they cannot be the sole source for an article. David in DC (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified and non-notable. I could find no sources in a Google or Google News search to verify this person's existence or age. And to repeat my argument from the Tase Matsunaga nomination above, at any given time there is an oldest person in every country in the world, and as soon as they die they are replaced by another oldest person; does that really make every single one of them notable? I'm dubious. Besides, as recent news events demonstrated [5] [6] [7], Japan has no idea who its oldest citizens are, or whether they are still alive. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lempi Rothovius

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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 List of British supercentenarians. Spartaz Humbug! 03:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janetta Thomas

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided record as oldest living person in the UK is verified. WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes is still a discussion rather than policy or even an essay, so in the meantime we have to make a decision based on our own opinions. My view is passing a set number of years' age doesn't confer notability, but holding a national record as oldest person does. The other option might be to put all the verifiable information about all the record holders in an article such as Oldest person in the United Kingdom, but someone will have to create that article first. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of British supercentenarians is what you are looking for. It's linked-to at the bottom of this article, in fact. Twice. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you notice that the two other "oldest in UK" folks in the succession box didn't have articles? Did you notice there was only one reliable source (GRG webpages have been ruled at WP:RSN as data-dump primary sources)? If you really want to merge that one source into the British list article, I wouldn't argue, but these are not keep arguments. JJB 03:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Did you notice she was the oldest person ever born in Wales? Longevitydude (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And how would I know that, since it's unsourced in article, the unreliable source does not say it, and the reliable source is not linked? JJB 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, "verified" has two meanings here, first WP:V, then three-document GWR-style verification. But this article appears to have neither, because (thanks to MelanieN's legwork below) we are talking about a one-story one-event bio, and the story only says "believed to be Britain's oldest". (I would also like to take the opportunity to be snarky about such naked WP:SYN as "Had Thomas lived another six days ....") JJB 00:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to the list of British supercentenarians, or Keep and give the other titleholders their own articles. Longevitydude (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge is plausible, although I do not favor it as a result. "Keep' and give the other titleholders their own articles..." is further than an AfD closure can go. Considerably futher. Mind-bogglingly further. David in DC (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with List of British supercentenarians is that it's not the obvious place to look for the oldest living person in the UK. A redirect from, say, Oldest living person in the UK (to the section on oldest living person) would help, but if we go back far enough we'll eventually reach a time when the oldest living person was less than 110. I think I'd prefer this as a stand-alone article rather than as a section of another article. As for whether individual oldest people should have individual articles, I can see arguments either way, but I think it would make sense in this case to be consistent. Those that do have articles don't seem to be any more notable than those who don't - the only real difference seems to be whether someone in a national newspaper happened to get round to writing an obituary. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chris, these are good issues, but do not relate to deletion of this article. Creating new redirects for the British list, including making Janetta a redirect, may help with finding the oldest living person in the UK among the topic morass, but this article doesn't. I don't have a problem with old-age succession lists also including centenarians, and the title "supercentenarians" may be changed in general if we can reliably source such succession lists, but those and other observations are more appropriate for the link appearing in the nom. This nom is in fact an attempt at consistency in the sprawling bio mass, by starting with deleting the most-unsourced articles and stopping all remaining bios meet a notability bar as consensus develops at that "common outcomes" link. In short, none of these issues overcome the basic WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:V failure already referred to. JJB 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete There are, sort of, three "sources" here. One is from Gerontology Research Group web pages. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, they cannot be the sole source for an article. The second is a footnote referencing the Guardian, a reliable source. But it sources practically no facts and cannot be verified because no link is provided. The final "source" is described in the text as a photo that ran in the Times on the subject's birthday. The Times is a fine newspaper and a reliable source. But there's no link here either. Information might be from an accompanying article, but it could also be from a cut line or extended caption. Such captioning is much less reliable than an article. Without more, this slender reed is not enough to serve as foundation for an article on Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment Since the GRG is an internationally reknowned source that is accepted by Guinness World Records, and the fact that their information is published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Rejuvenation Research, any controversy surrounding the GRG's reliability as a source is completely non-founded. Secondly, it does not matter whether a source is available to view on the internet or not. If it did then all Wikipedia's articles would be subject to recentist bias. Since this lady died in the early 1980s, it stands to reason that few/any articles about her will be available online, but since notability is not temporary, it is an irrelevance. Wikipedia relies on a variety of sources, including books, journal articles and newspaper articles. The nominator postulates that there are no reliable sources, yet this article has multiple. SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since she was reported in the press as "Jeanetta Thomas", you won't. In addition, as the internet wasn't available in the 1980s, articles available online will be sparse. However there are sources from some digitised national newspapers. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multple? I suppose 2 is multiple, but it's kinda slick phrasing. One of the two is used only as a source for the subject's name and birth/death dates. It may not even be a legitimate reliable source, as that term is defined on en.wikipedia. But for the moment, let's treat it as wholy permissable. The second is the Guardian article. It's used to source two facts:
"At the age of around 40, she returned to Wales to open a drapery shop, which she ran until the age of 98.", and
"From the age of 107, Thomas resided at a nursing home at Cowbridge, Wales."
The article also tells us that the subject's picture appeared in the Times on the day before her 112th birthday.
Let's see:
J(e)anetta Jane Thomas (2 December 1869 – 5 January 1982)
From age 40 to age 98, she ran a drapery shop,
From age 107 to age 112, she lived in a Welsh nursing home.
Her picture was in the Times just before her 112th birthday.
Call me crazy, but I don't see sourced facts that even pretend to assert notablity. David in DC (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Guzmán-García

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berta Rosenberg

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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 am discounting the opinion that accuses others of lying and cabalism, as it constitutes inappropriate conduct.  Sandstein  09:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Takii

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Oldest A-Bomb Victim? Ms. Asa Takii, who resides at the Tachibana-En in Kurahashi-cho, recently became the oldest person in Japan. Now she is making preparations to apply for certification as an atomic bomb victim. Ms. Takii, who is 114, was 61 years old at the time of the atomic bombing. She said that on August 6, 1945, she was going about her household chores. As she was hanging some washing out, there was a big flash and the house collapsed on top of her. She was trapped for three or four days before being rescued. Her husband and family all perished in the bombing.

In principle, anyone who applies for certification as an atomic bomb victim must have at least two people to testify as witnesses, but this might be difficult in the case of Ms. Takii. However, a statement by the applicant can be accepted if witnesses cannot be found. An official of the relevant section in the Prefectural office said he hoped to visit the Tachibana-En in the near future and hold a hearing. The case worker at the old people's home said that she hoped that Takii San's status as an atomic bomb victim would be clarified. It was very rare for atomic bomb victims to live to such an advanced age and extremely rare for persons over 100 to apply to be certified as A-bomb victims."

Zero sources. Non-notable, hobbyist trivia/stubcruft. If there were reliable sources reporting the verbiage on the article page as fact, maybe I'd say it should be merged onto some list. But there's not. Survey says: Delete David in DC (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from the fact that the "zero sources" assertion is a lie, both JJBulten and DavidinDC have previously collaborated in an anti-supercentenarian cabal. Further, much of this is already being discussed (including standards for article existence regarding longevity). I find it unconscionable that one of the top-100 oldest persons of all time is even in this discussion, unless that person chose to remain anonymous. That is not the case here. This woman was Japan's oldest person, and was considered notable by the Japanese press, and even reported outside Japan.Ryoung122 19:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She received more than the usual amount of news coverage about her death [12]. However, to me this is still an example of WP:ONEEVENT and does not amount to notability, unless you consider a widely-reported death notice to meet the Wikipedia requirement of significant coverage by independent sources. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Kelly

[edit]
Jesse Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: unclear if notable or not as unsuccessful political candidate. Business career does not appear particularly notable nor does his war record alone, however gallant. [email protected] (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my updated comments below the comment of MelanieN. Thanks. [email protected] (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As a 'finalist' candidate for a national seat he should be notable,..." -- NO. This is untrue and little more than a facile unfounded assertion. [email protected] (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but that "entirely possible" comment kind of falls under WP:NOT A CRYSTAL BALL....Turqoise127 05:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. But WP:CRYSTAL also says we can't assume he won't... - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 07:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bushranger -- one cannot keep an unqualified article on Wikipedia because the subject of that article may or may not do something two or more years later. You should know that. [email protected] (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how would information be lost? If the page is deleted and later one wishes to recreate it with the same spelling the previously deleted message appears and any admin can restore the article and it can be updated later as far as I know. [email protected] (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brava, Melanie, very well said and well done. Change mine to Delete or redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010#District 8. Wikipedia is not a fansite. [email protected] (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you could explain the relevance of fansite? DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI've read the articles. the coverage is substantial. Of course the coverage is about the election and his candidacy, what else would the coverage on any politician be primarily about? On the contrary, if the coverage was mainly about his personal life, he would not be notable. We have indeed redirected many such people in the past--I think that a drastic error, and fortunately we are not bound by it. (I tend not to go strictly by the GNG, but for those who do, and I think that's still a majority of people here, he meets it & there should be no need to say further. The assumption that most unelected politicians would not meet it was in error, and based only on the limited online sources available at the time. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, let's look at those articles. The articles you cited from U.S. News, MSNBC, UPI printed in the Washington Times, and the first NYTimes article each devote one sentence or less to Kelly. I couldn't find anything about him at all in the second NYT article or the link to CQ. Only the column in the Washington Post gives more than a sentence to Kelly; in that column, which is specifically about the Arizona-8 race, 2 paragraphs out of 24 are about Kelly. In all cases the coverage is about the "horse race", that is, who is running or who is likely to win; it does not come close to "significant coverage" about Kelly. You are certainly free to assert that "horse race" coverage about an election (rather than about the person) makes the person notable, but that has not been the usual consensus here per WP:Common outcomes. It's not a matter of assumptions; there is no consensus that unelected candidates are automatically notable, and no consensus that they are not. The consensus is to treat them on a case-by-case basis, whereby they are notable or not, depending on whether or not they have received significant coverage. IMO Kelly has not. --MelanieN (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yui Ibuki

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

Not very notable in today's standards. She does have a blog (http://ameblo.jp/ibukiyui/), but her releases has never reached the top ten. (WP:MUSIC) みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Money as Debt

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

Does not meet WP:WEB. (Edit: WP:NF even less.) No reliable sources proving notability were added since previous deletion discussion. Chrisahn (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The film is not widely distributed
  2. The film is not historically notable
  3. The film has not received a major award
  4. The film was not selected for preservation in an archive
  5. The film is not "taught" as a subject
It also doesn't meet WP:GNG: The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. As stated above, there are two alleged 'sources'. One consists of two (very critical) paragraphs in a high-quality source (Anthropology Today). The other is a blog post by a writer of very low reliability which was later published by a Website with similarly low reliability.
10 months ago you said No need to worry about removable bad cites if good ones are at hand... even if many are in French. Now you again talk about available sources. I checked that list and didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources, not even in French. Chrisahn (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you seem to be getting a little overinvolved in this. Removing material from the article, arguing against everybody's opinion that differs from yours. Isn't it sufficient to state your arguments once? I believe that nominating the article, leaving it alone for others to improve during the AfD, and not arguing against every opponent is considered to be good form for an AfD. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right and I'll try to cool down, but MichaelQSchmidt's claims about WP:GNG and available sources are still wrong. Looking forward to his reply. Chrisahn (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is about the film, not Grignon's website itself. It may need improvement (article will benefit from expansion and full treatment of the issues), but it should not be deleted, per former consensus and arguments above. We can improve reliability of the article's content. Saebvn (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can improve reliability of the article's content - how? Chrisahn (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is User:Saebvn not allowed the guideline-supported opinion that the article might be improved over time and through regular editing? You continue to misunderstand that we are not debating the truth of the film's topic, but are instead discussing an article about a film. We do not have to address the "reliability" of this film's topic... no more than we have to address the "reliablity" of the science in Star Wars or the magic in Harry Potter. That the film has reliable sources in English and French (like them or not) and is repeatedly cited in Google Scholar (like it or not), allows it to meet WP:NF. As explained above, notability is not dependent on a film's topic, but is dependent rather on the film itself having coverage that allows it to meet the applicable notability guideline... and enough reliable sources do speak toward the film, both negatively and positively to meet notability caveats. And toward your mis-application of the "attributes that generally indicate" from WP:NF#General principles, I wish to clarify that these attributes are NOT criteria that must be met... they are simply listed as possible atributes that could encourage a diligent search for sources. No more, no less. It is in the sources that notability is found. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasons for nomination seem rather weak if not misguided. There appear good faith attempts to improve the article further, but lack of quality of content are not reasons to delete. Baseline notability appears evident. Kbrose (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is referenced by reliable sources, and the nominator's rationale for deletion appears to be based on disagreement with the content rather than on Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does seems like it.--Namaste@? 13:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The depiction of Richard III of England by Shakespeare and other authors is erroneous and false. I have hitherto seen no reason whatsoever to delete articles concerning their portrayals.----Sintermerte----
  • Strong Keep' -I do not understand why this article is being nominated for the third time no. Is this information troubling some power at be / people who refuse to do the research? sure seems like it.
On a more pertinent note- The article is of good quality, referenced and notable.(I would even add, important for anyone using "money"). Also, notability exists not just in content (which is prolific all around the net and academia) but it's affiliation with a popular film (at least half a million views), and it's sequel. true, it is a critical view point. you got a positive view point film you wish to put in the "see-also" section? go ahead, let's promote a discussion.
I mean, We have a wiki article on every epsiode of the Simpsons, in this mass entertainment culture, I'm almost ashamed any non-trivial information sometimes encounters such wiki-violence.--Namaste@? 13:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Schmidt.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be notable, and Namaste makes good point about the importance of WP coverage of non-fiction media. PamD (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Anthropology Today described it, "an underground hit in activist circles". It's not a widely distributed film and most media have ignored it, very often as it's not seen as toeing their political line. Yet it has been well received amongst the faithful and even where it has been critiqued by "outside" journals (such as AT) they've still taken heed of it. Our notability guideline isn't based on it being praised, it's based on it being discussed, either positively or negatively. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
great quote, suitable for the article. At 10 For and 1 (?) against vote, what are the guidelines regarding this AfD ?--Namaste@? 14:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still got another day to run. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no delete votes other than the nominator, I doubt if anyone would question a speedy closure, but I don't have any problem with this simply running its course. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with speedy closes is that if the subject is at all controversial, someone almost always objects after the fact, which just makes things messy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let it run. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After reading through the entire discussion and the nominator's rather vehement arguments and responses, and reading the article and its references, this seems notable enough. Yes, some of the references are not reliable (that Atlantic Free Press article, for instance--that's someone gushing over something they barely understand, and Cdurable is hardly acceptable as a reliable source: it's a blog/portal, and it has very, very little to say on our subject) and the reliable ones are (highly) critical. But that the film was "rapidly becoming a big underground success," to quote Sheriff Bart slightly out of context, seems clear enough. And even if the content of the film is wrong in so many ways, as is argued here and elsewhere, well, Blazing Saddles also didn't really portray the West accurately. Being wrong, even being fringe, does not make something not notable. Nominator would be well advised to leave it be, to restrain the urge to respond to every single editor, and to find other important articles to work on.

    Edit conflict with MQS and BMK: I agree, BMK, that this should simply run. Before you know it we're rehashing all of this at deletion review, and no one wants that. I think. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup... no problem in simply letting it run its course. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Thanks everyone for are pretty reasonable discussion. The article got a lot better during this AfD. To anyone who still thinks the film is 'valuable' or 'important' - please read at least the salient parts of Money creation and Fractional-reserve banking. It's good for you. :-) It just makes me so angry and sad to see intelligent people believe such nonsense. Chrisahn (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one certainly never said I believed the film as truth. And a film's content being absolute nonsense is not a criteria that we use... no more pertinant to a film article being kept or deleted than is the make-believe science of Star Wars or the magic of Harry Potter. Thanks for acknowledging the improvements, and I am sorry you are angry that some folks believe it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

figure-ground diagram (neé Urban Figure Ground Debate)

[edit]
Advanced search for: 
"figure-ground diagram"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
Figure-ground diagram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

Essay, well referenced, but still an Essay...see WP:NOT WuhWuzDat 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's at an unencyclopaedic title, and it doesn't have an encyclopaedic introduction, but there is a concept in urban design called a figure-ground diagram, that this, and the sources that it cites, is in fact discussing. It's related to the Nolli map (credited to Giambattista Nolli) but not quite the same thing. If you want to write an encyclopaedic introduction to refactor this into an encyclopaedia article without deletion, Carmona & Tiesdell 2007, pp. 61 and American Planning Association 2006, pp. 464 are not bad places to start. Uncle G (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • American Planning Association (2006). "Urban Analysis". Planning and urban design standards. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 9780471475811.
    • Carmona, Matthew; Tiesdell, Steven (2007). Urban design reader. Architectural Press. ISBN 9780750665315.
  • Keep/merge Uncle G has pointed the way forward. Another article which covers these matters is urban morphology. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as pervasive and tenuous WP:Synthesis. Whilst the search-box above demonstrates that "figure-ground diagrams" exist, and the article demonstrates that debates exist in urban planning -- nothing suggests that there is a debate specifically on the use of figure-ground diagrams (in fact the article makes no mention at all of "figure-ground" after the lead). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It in fact mentions figure grounds no fewer than 16 times. You are not reading properly, and your notion of synthesis is thus ill-founded. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies, although my claim that it did not mention "figure-ground" was, technically, correct, I failed to search for "figure ground". Speaking of such searches, I would note that Curtis(2006), one of the more heavily-cited works in the article appears to mention the two-word combination only once (as "figure/ground"). Also, other than the sentence "By the late 1960s and 1970s, architects began to criticize the void condition of the figure ground created by urban renewal for 'disregarding human needs, for not blending in, for lacking signs of identity and association, and for being an instrument of class oppression'", the article does little to place the "figure ground" concept at the heart of debates over urban planning. HrafnTalkStalk(P)
        • Why should it? You're being mis-led by the bad title, I suspect. Think of this article as figure-ground diagram (a.k.a., if I can find a decent source to support it, figure-field diagram), a tool used in the figure-field theory of urban design. Then go and read the whole of Trancik 1986, pp. 98–106. This article's basic problems were that it didn't have an introduction (explaining jargon such as poché that it later used) and was at an unencyclopaedic title. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As you yourself admit, it's also a badly jargon-riddled article, as well as a bad title. Somebody already immersed in urban planning might be able to work out what it's talking about, but the average reader probably wouldn't -- and I don't think simply a better introduction will fix this. So lacking good title, a good lead or good content, what is there to this article that's worth saving? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't admit either of those. Read what I wrote closely, paying particular attention to the tenses of the verbs. And witness that even though I possess it, no deletion tool needed to be used in the fixing of this article. No-one said that there wasn't good content in the early revisions, by the way. You're basing an argument upon facts not in evidence, as it were, there. Uncle G (talk)
  • Keep This seems to be a real and notable topic. The article suffers from coat-rackism since it takes us through 500 years of the history of urban planning when just an explanation of the topic would do. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article had a bad start (and title) and still needs cleanup and improvement but the term is important in urban design and is used in architecture as well. Given that the information in the article is referenced I think is easier to improve it from what we have now than delete and re-write. Btw, there is a German wiki article as well. --Elekhh (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreak song

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

Appears to be completely original research with zero sources to back anything up. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Haché

[edit]
Alain Haché (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Neutral. Notability guidelines not met. I am with ¢Spender1983 on this one: I think I just had a more conservative view of what the notability guidelines represented. With loose interpretation, notability might be satisfied. ¶ However, I think if we agree that a national chair suffices for inclusion, we might as well make an article for each of the 1 852 current Canada Research Chairs [13]: that's 10MB worth of this article in text, assuming similar article size for each of them. And again, that's just for Canada. ¶ For the papers he co-authored, let's put that into perspective: in the last few years, over a million scholarly papers are estimated to have been published annually [14]. To me, that means that the number of articles (<100) co-authored hardly justify notability. If such a number is proof of anything, it is that the authors exist; to me, it doesn't imply that notability is satisfied. Every author and co-author that is published in Nature (Highest impact factor? Highly prestigious.), for example, doesn't need an article for himself. ¶ I personally think it's folly to justify notability so easily: I think issues like this are important to address, because in my opinion they compromise the integrity of the notability guidelines. But you're free to think otherwise. I see everyone else is pretty much on the same page, so I apologize if I have wasted someone's time. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 05:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep, obviously notable, holds the Canadian Research Chair in Photonics for 7-8 years now, well-published, well-cited, wrote Physics of Hockey a well-received and notable popular science books on hockey, plenty of coverage in third party sources, routinely holds interviews on the physics of hockey (such as here for The Washington Post), etc, etc, etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article, he is the author of only one paper. As for being well cited, I'm not aware of those references you hint at. "Routinely" is quite a rhetoric term, and it is uncertain what you mean by et cetera. Look, I appreciate that we disagree on the subject, but if you think you can provide with good counter arguments, please try and take the matter seriously... — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. He holds a "Tier 2" national chair, which is defined here as being for "exceptional emerging researchers, acknowledged by their peers as having the potential to lead in their field." To me that says, "you have the potential to be notable, so we'll invest in you." This makes meeting WP:PROF#C5 questionable and not definitive. Also, I don't read WP:PROF#C1 to mean that if your research is cited enough times, you are determined to have made "significant impact in your scholarly discipline." So it is not definitive that Hache meets that criteria either. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - David Eppstein is completely correct. He passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5, as such is worthy of inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - According to WP:PROF if an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, then the professor is notable. Alain Haché arguably meets WP:PROF#C1 (publications cited by others, see Google search above), WP:PROF#C5 (national chair), and WP:PROF#C7 (physics of hockey). As others have noted above, one or more of these achievements may be borderline, but collectively they establish beyond any doubt that Alain Haché is notable. Boghog (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re:"However, I think if we agree that a national chair suffices for inclusion, we might as well make an article for each of the 1 852 current Canada Research Chairs [15]: that's 10MB worth of this article in text, assuming similar article size for each of them."
Yes we might as well do it (see both WP:NOTFINISHED and WP:NOTPAPER). Also, as a general remark for chairs, or equivalent positions, these are not given to simple Simons fresh out of grad school. They are given to researchers with well-established research histories, who made significant impacts in their fields. You'll have to look pretty hard to find a chair who doesn't have a decent list of high-impact papers, and who doesn't do a few interviews per year about their field. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the list of Canada Research Chairs would be a very good starting point for finding Canadian academics that aren't already included that we should add. As a fraction of all academics, 1852 is actually not a large number. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Nour

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

An attempt at A7 was declined because of the article's fanciful claims regarding its subject. A quick peek into Google does not confirm notability, as per WP:BIO. The fact it is also a vanity article doesn't help. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chunni Lal Vishen

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Dario Julio

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksander Dermanskyj

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep To what extent is this discussion driven by ignorance and laziness? The guy is Ukrainian, he writes in Ukrainian, but did anyone search for the Ukrainian term Дерманський Олександр Степанович. Did anyone check the Ukrainian page, three sources are listed and the claims of awards won would indicate pass per WP:GNG? The article is not fantastic and I'm also too lazy to attempt to penetrate the sources in that language, but that's a bad deletion rationale. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Seems that doesn't have any coverage in reliable sources, thus cannot be considered very notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly encourage people to look at these [16][17] before pushing more for deletion of this article. --Slon02 (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read Cyrillic languages very well (although I'm attempting to learn Russian), but at least one of them appears to be an unreliable source. Do we have any way of judging the reliability of that information? The mere presence of an article on another Wiki is not, in itself, conclusive or supportive proof of the subject's notability (although it may indicate their relative importance. Ironholds (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanda Daminato

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ ALX

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, can't find any reliable secondary sources. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Lhasa

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, can't find any reliable secondary sources on him. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My BFF, Sex

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

Not notable and fails Wikipedia:Notability. The only notability it has is that it was written by a famous author which we don't even have an article for. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. with the discussion tending towards keep. There are concerns about recentism acknowledged by both sides, but the delete !voters were unable to rebut the presumption of notability that accompanied the coverage in the various sources. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farooque Ahmed

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

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS wjematherbigissue 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • All we know is that they are the US State Department's figures. I think many of these incidents just do not stand up on their own – as you say coverage is usually "in the context of international terrorism today" – and are best discussed in the context of this hightened sensitivity to potential terrorist threat. A brief summary in a general article is more appropriate, which we already have. wjematherbigissue 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not really. I am just pointing to the most appropriate guideline that applies here. clearly a criminal conspiracy existed here and a person has been arrested. This is exactly the sort of High profile crime that WP:N/CA was written for. the notability is established the diversity of RS covering this and the depth of coverage. May I ask why you feel that 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt and Faisal Shahzad satisfy the guidelines and this one does not ?? and if you believe that they do not why aren't you nominating them for AfD also now that I have pointed out their existence ??? --Wikireader41 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what established precedent are you talking about?? we have always had articles on similar high profile criminal plots. see one example above in my comment above about times square bombing attempt and faisal shahzad. it might also help you to follow the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Osman Mohamud which is a very similar plot to get a sense of what the community standard is on such plots.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent I am speaking of is the fact that most minor terrorist events and/or their perpetrators have not been considered worthy of anything more than brief mention such as the List of terrorist incidents, 2010, including events in which dozens have been killed and injured, also including events like the May 10 pipe bomb detonation in Jacksonville, Florida. I am already active in the Mohamed Osman Mohamud discussion, and have argued exactly the same point. I also feel Hosam Maher Husein Smadi is a prime candidate for a merge for exactly the same reasons (I think it would be nice if all 3 could be discussed at once in one place since they are very very similar). As far as I can tell of community standards on this issue, it is that acts committed by Muslims inside the US are very important- even if they fail and the attackers had little chance of success to begin with - while any terrorist act committed by a non-Muslim or outside the US is trivial and not worth a separate article, even if large numbers of people died. Apparently the community (judging by these 2 AfD discussions) is comfortable with this standard and believes it does not represent a US-centric, Muslim-fearing POV that is incompatible with WP. I do. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The religion of the terrorist or where it occurs doesn't matter. The potential scale of the event, had it been successful, does. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comment 1000%, if "potential" and "had it been successful" are removed. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well the notability and intense media coverage is due to the "potential" damage this plot could have caused. IMO a smaller plot where only a few people are actually killed is less notable than a plot where 100s could have been. religion has nothing to do with it. yes there is undercoverage in WP of non anglophone countries but that does not mean that we stop covering notable incidents in US.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Valid argument. I still disagree, but it is a point worth considering. Mostly I'm just getting tired of the issue, and I'm pretty sure neither article is going to end up deleted anyway. Nevertheless, I still find it very curious that a non-incident where nothing happened - and nothing was likely to happen based on the fact that the alleged perpetrator had demonstrated zero ability to fulfill his dreams on his own - should receive so much attention or warrant an encyclopedia entry. 67.252.54.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a greater article of terrorist plots. Agree with IP 67.252.54.152. Cannot possibly meet WP:EVENT in any form since no event occurred. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY , again, since nothing happened. There are people everyday who are plotting to destroy something, or kill someone, and they arent in here as they are not notable. If something had occurred or materials seized or anything to prove that there were indeed people who on XXXX date were gonna blow up the Red Line at the Pentagon or something and they were captured with a briefcase of C-4, then it would be a different story. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That justs shows that he thought he was doing something, not that he actually did. No event, nothing else notable about him, what else is there really? As I said in the Portland case, we need some sort of standard for this type of story. When nothing really happens, why is it encyclopedic? Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it was a "bomb" given to him by us to see if he was stupid enough to try it. No one was ever in danger, he would not have been allowed to put anyone in danger and nothing happened but he got himself arrested. This incident and the others like it could be covered just as well in an article like the terrorist attacks of 2010. All you are doing, IMO, is trying to justify giving idiots like these more than their 15 mins of fame. If he had independently put this plot and actually gotten the materials together and failed in the attempt then that would be notable. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure) dmz 03:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of management consulting firms

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

Spam magnet. Alleged "list" contains full stub articles for each and every entry. If kept, this list needs SERIOUS pruning of each and every description to a single brief sentence describing specific area(s) of practice and geographic area served. Alternatively, a wikitable would allow for this information to be displayed in a non-prose ( and non-spam!) fashion. WuhWuzDat 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Previous AfD nomination rationale was that the article was duplicative with its associated category, and didn't contain any additional information. Now that additional information is added, it is being nominated again for having too much information. The article is undoubtedly very ugly and requires major cleanup, however the concept of the list is legitimate and therefore deletion is not the answer in this case. SnottyWong speak 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I agree that the data could be more concise and better organized, deletion is not the best route to achieve that result. Cleanup tags would be sufficient; or, better yet, cleaning up the content or converting it into a wiki-table (as the nom also suggested) would be more productive routes. The existing basic structure appears to meet WP:LIST. Additionally, the argument of the list being a spam magnet seems to be mitigated by the list having clear inclusion criteria that all of the firms listed at this time are meeting WP:CORP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom has made a very WP:Pointy nomination after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. The 1st AfD was a Keep (withdrawn nomination) once the article was improved and original concerns about spam addressed. The article in its present form has been maintained (notable entries added and non-notable entries removed) by several editors since the first AfD. The argument that the list entries are WP:SPAM is not valid as 1) all non-notable entries are routinely removed by editors and according to WP:SPAM, …However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities. And 2) since all the list entries are notable entities and the expanded information is merely an extrapolation of content in the main articles, how can they be considered Spam? As for the existence of expanded data associated with each entry, this is perfectly allowable and encouraged by WP:AOAL. This article complies fully with WP:List and WP:CLN and has a track record of being maintained in compliance with WP guidelines and policies. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It list all the management consulting firms notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and link to those articles, while also giving a brief mention of what they are. And this information all has references to back it up. Its far more useful to list some information about them, instead of just listing their name since it'd be meaningless without a summary. Dream Focus 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only value I can see for this article is a promotional one. Unless we want to make a big step toward "WP yellow pages"... having a cat for those firms serves the purpose of information well enough. TMCk (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone wants this list, please reformat it as a table with an objective set of criteria for what information is of encyclopedic value (location, number of offices, number of staff, year established, ...). Stuff like this is rubbish: "focusing on strategic and operational CEO-agenda concerns", "stated mission ...", "said to be the largest consulting firm". Deletion is the only way to clean this up because there has already been an edit war resulting in the current promotional and unmaintainable fluff. Johnuniq (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vetting your statement and link the article in question here seems to be nothing more than a coat rack.TMCk (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How? Could you clarify a bit?TMCk (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was perhaps a bit brief. The list needs editing and formatting, but I don't think there's any underlying problem that warrant deletion. The list itself is reasonable and can aid in navigation. The main reason for delete seems to be spam problems, but they can be dealt with as needs be, either by removing spam items, or AfDing actual spam pages, etc. There also seems to be some sort of content dispute over how much/what information should be associated with each item, but I don't believe that warrants deletion here. The only way I see that being a deletion reason is if no one comes forward after some time to fix the article, and I don't believe we've reached that point. Most of the content problems could probably be fixed by ripping out much of the text and reformatting everything as a table with name, countries, awards(?), target clientele, etc. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 05:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for extending your rational.TMCk (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nominator's objection seems to be the amount of detail provided for each entry. This is not a reason to delete as the entries can obviously be edited by ordinary means to make them briefer. The discussion of this matter on the article's talk page seems inadequate. Bringing an editing dispute of this kind to AFD is improper per WP:SK #2.4, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course.". See also the deletion process which emphatically states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". And note that there are numerous featured lists with details and text provided for each entry such as List of castles in Cheshire. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "the amount of detail provided for each entry" is or should be in any way related to either keep or delete the list and neither should be an edit dispute determine the course of this AFD.TMCk (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all objections noted by the nominator are content related, which should be dealt with via normal editing and negotiation and dispute resolution as needed. I have never seen an AFD which amounts to "I don't like how this list is formatted". This is in now way the domain of AFD. Be bold, fix it. If someone objects, work it out on the talk page. --Jayron32 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination has no validity at all. Management consulting firms are obviously notable, listing them is sensible. Issues with spam can be dealt with by normal editing. WuhWuzDat seems to be unaware of WP:BEFORE and needs a good trouting for making this kind of nomination. Fences&Windows 12:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, but if no one cleans up that mess within the seven days of this AFD it's a "no go" as the article stands now and after no "keepers" are working on it, this is definitely a delete candidate which can be reinstated when ready. I took OSborn's comment above as a serious reconsideration when writing this; So yes, keeping it as a plain list would be acceptable but since it isn't that it has no merit to stay alive for now. There is no edit/improvement to the article as of now. Should that change I might change my mind and "vote". If not there is no wp-reason to keep it after the seven days have passed.TMCk (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree; this process is not about how shite an article may be, (and this is not the most woeful of articles by a long way) but about whether it should exist at all. pablo 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pablo ... this AfD is a question on if the article should exist. Once that's established (or even concurrently, actually) a discussion can take place on the article talk page on the best format for improving the article (if trimmed text, or if a wiki-table - and if a table, what elements/columns should be part of the inclusion criteria for list entries). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --  pablo 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. It is altogether appropriate to list the notable firms that have WP articles, as for any other line of business. I think the problem is including the description of the firms. That's not our style--our thoroughly established way of doing these is to list the articles, and then there's a link to the articles for further information. The only need to say anything more is when it is a question of identification nor clarity, or the exceptional case that a firm that is clearly notable doesn't have an article yet, and there's a need to add a few words and a reference to show why it is worthy of having the article written. We could have decided to write our list article like this, but we have not done so. If necessary, this will have to go to dispute resolution, but I think that anyone insisting on the content as it is should think again, because I think there would be essentially unanimous opinion to the contrary. Removal of articles that are written improperly is not the appropriate response, but it seems that as the system actually works here we have no really adequate way for calling attention to this except AfD. RfC isn a case like this is a little excessive, and nothing else seems to get enough attention. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the firms listed probably are not really notable, or rather, not really significant; "notability" tends to break down in the face of publicity departments. Where PR is a problem, notability needs to be read very narrowly. These businesses are the sort of thing that should never have individual articles to begin with.

    I agree that the text describing most of these firms is floridly non-neutral, and that almost all of the text should go. Almost every single one of these entries is making unreferenced claims to being "global" or "international", and more than one are "most prestigious" or a "leader". In short, almost every entry is full of bullshit. Like the nominator, I suspect that it may take more time or energy to police this from spam than it may be worth.

    But when you're dealing with an overcrowded field of publicity hungry businesses like this, an overview article is a better way to handle this than a series of individual stubs or spam articles about each one. I think we should strip this down like the nominator had tried, agree on the sorts of things that can be added (location, date of foundation) while insisting on genuinely neutral third party sources for any claims of global leadership and similar twaddle. And we should look very carefully at each of the linked articles, and delete and salt any that contain spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that spam is a serious problem, & I feel towards it just as you do (in fact, there's currently a post on my talk page saying I've been too hasty to speedy a spammy article--and they're probably right). Obviously, articles about firms whose very purpose is public relations need to be watched carefully. I fully support the standard that the criterion for inclusion is a list like this is having a Wikipedia article or being obvious qualified for one, & I watch a few similar lists for the purpose of removing listings for those that do not. But if there is an article, the only way to judge their suitability for Wikipedia is one at a time, at AfD for each underlying article. Since the criterion of having a Wikipedia article is so easy to watch for, such a list is not very difficult to patrol. In fact, a list like this it provides a rather easy way of spotting the introduction of unjustifiable articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if category is justified for firms in a type of business, then a list is also justified. One is not better than the other--they have complementary advantages--the category is populated automatically from the articles, but the list can give context. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per spam magnet as well as WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Also, a term like "management consulting firm" is so vague that every new startup will try to get on this page. I tag these types of articles (about "management consulting firm" companies, not this list) all the time; probably 20% of my speedy tags. While there are some cases for categories as well as lists to exist and overlap, I do not feel this is one of them. — Timneu22 · talk 16:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those "some case" are the standard way for almost everything, & we have this for every sort of business. I find it much easier to watch for the insertion of red links in lists, than check new articles in a category. It;s only a spam magnet the sense that it serves to pull out the spam where we can see it and get rid of it. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and rename to 2010 Portland car bomb plot. I'm not wed to the name, so the article can be renamed further if consensus develops on the article talk page as long as the new name concerns the incident and not the individual. T. Canens (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Osman Mohamud

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

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. wjematherbigissue 16:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is an entry of interest to many people, and relevant to the public, just like entries covering similar subjects of the government stopping terrorist attacks, e.g. by Faisal Shahzad, Farooque Ahmed, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi.
    • I agree - Keep (as is, not Rename) - All of the persons mentioned above (along with Najibullah Zazi and his father, Mohammed Wali Zazi) are notable only for significant non-events, such as failed bombings or simply plotting to commit a terrorist act, and none of the corresponding articles are targeted for deletion. All are residents (legal or illegal) of the US and not foreign nationals attacking from the outside (like Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab). Many have not even come to trial yet. In fact, the case of Hosam Maher Husein Smadi is virtually identical to this one! Why is this particular article targeted for deletion when there are so many others that fit the same criteria? Eegorr (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS is often abused, as it is in this case. Just because a subject receives news coverage, doesn't mean it is notable. But if it there's news coverage and the subject meets WP:GNG, it is notable. If we take a look at a similar attempt, like the Time Square attempted bombing, then we can determine that this will be a matter of discussion for some time to come. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I'm sure you have that wrong. If a subject passes GNG it is presumed to be notable provided that it does not fall foul of certain policies, of which WP:NOT is one. As for your assumptions regarding future discussion, as I said previously, there is no bar to recreation should that ever happen, but what matters is the current situation where there is no evidence of long term significance. wjematherbigissue 20:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that's assuming it fails WP:NOTNEWS, which it doesn't. It states, "...routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia..." This case is not any of those examples outlined in WP:NOTNEWS. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, pick out the bit that obviously doesn't apply here – I do get tired of having to rebutt straw man arguments. So we're clear, of course the policy does apply: "...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This section is then covered in more depth by WP:EVENT, which states "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, ...) ...are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." wjematherbigissue 21:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please keep it civil and assume good faith? You should really calm down, this isn't the first time, nor the last time you'll meet someone with a differing opinion. And your cited quote from WP:EVENT only backs up my support. This is not "most crimes". Most crimes include armed robbery and attempted murder, not potential terrorist attacks in the U.S. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, potential terrorist attacks are a dime a dozen. They are not automatically or inherently notable and nor does the fact it happened in the US make it any closer to being notable. The issue is quite simple really. Where is the lasting or enduring significance? wjematherbigissue 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are obviously not a "dime a dozen". And I only cited the fact that it was in the U.S. because it does make it more significant. The threat, in the words of the FBI agent in charge, "was very real". This is not a dime a dozen case. It is being covered extensively, which is "enduring significance". I don't wish to continue discussing this. From previous comments, you are obviously trying to bully and argue, not come to a clear consensus and/or compromise (which I proposed). Thank you. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree w/Brian. WJE--if memory serves, this is not the first time that you have militated strongly for deletion of an article with overtones of possible terrorism. Using the same arguments. And, as here, learning that the consensus view differs from yours. Perhaps that is where the issue lies, and we would all benefit (and have fewer AfDs that fail to gain consensus support) if you would take to heart the consensus view of your fellow editors in this regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am holding off on my vote until I can read more on the subject and determine whether it is most appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about the man, the incident, or both. However, I did want to voice that I agree with Brian Halvorsen's assessment about WP:NOTNEWS, both in that it is often misinterpreted, and that it is being done so in this case. It seems that whenever any indecent is remotely new or recent, there will always be a handful of users (no offense to anyone specific in this discussion) who cite this policy as a reason for deletion. It happened with Nidal Malik Hasan, it happened with Seung-Hui Cho, and it's happening now. Brian was criticized for emphasizing the sentence, "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." But I think this makes it very clear that this policy is meant to discourage every single minor item that appears in a newspaper from warranting a Wikipedia article, not something of this scale which, in my view, clearly passes WP:N. — Hunter Kahn 06:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he's been in the news, if his name can be mentioned in discussing the history of a notable phenomenon (in this case, terrorist attack on US soil), then people want to know who he is and what becomes of him; and they should find such information in Wikipedia. He had the potential to be the first person to successfully carry out such an attack since 9/11; he matters. I disagree with calls to make it part of an article titled say, Portland Car Bomb Plot (since it's that event that makes him notable). Doing that would amount to double standard; across Wikipedia, countless personalities who gained popularity as a result of event(s)are profiled. For instance, Linda Tripp has an article in her name; why is she not merely mentioned in the article Lewinsky scandal? I propose that this discussion be closed and the article retained.--Dele1234 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)--Dele1234 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But I think the article should stay under its current name.,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the burden of proof should be on those who want to keep it, and from what I see presented above, it hasn't been met yet. It's only vaguely terrorist related at best, in the sense that he wanted to be one but very clearly wasn't. In essence the story is really nothing more than a stupid 19 year old kid who tried to implement an idiotic idea, got caught, and will likely spend the next 20 years in federal prison because of it. No connection to established terrorist groups, no deaths, no property damage, just garden variety stupidity. Not worthy of inclusion. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 67.252.54.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
Because I don't edit frequently enough to bother creating an account, and my IP address changes every couple of months, but thanks for the ad hominem, Epeefleche. Nice to see it being spread so liberally against the minority viewpoint. Apparently we are all terror lovin' agenda pushers because we dare suggest that this story - like many many others in which the media sells fear - might be over-hyped and not very notable in the grand scheme of things. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah. You appear to not gather what makes notablity, for purposes of the Project. What "the media sells", what you consider to be "over-hyped" by it, is what determines notability for the Project. Your personal POV that the media should not be reporting it, and is over-hyping it, is under the wp construct not determinative of whether an issue is notable. We rely on what the RSs report. Not on individual editors' personal views as to whether the RSs are making more of the issue than we feel they should.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. I believe a large part of the reason for WP:BLP1E, WP:NTEMP, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:N/CA, and WP:BREAKING is to counter-act instances where initial media coverage is grossly out of proportion with a person's or event's real long-term notability and relevance to an encyclopedia. In my opinion, this story is just that. I am aware that my viewpoint is in the minority right now. That does not mean I am pushing an agenda or misunderstand this process. It also does not mean I am wrong. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree that it's nothing more than a stupid 19 year old kid getting caught. The FBI says that there was a real threat. The FBI knows of many hopeful's, but they singled this one out for stinging till the end because he was capable of executing his agenda. Also, the President had been briefed about the whole operation - yes, the President gets briefed about tonnes of stuff but certainly not about everyone known to want to carry out a terrorist attack (except of course the threat is real).--Dele1234 (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At this time this person's guilt has not yet been determined. Simply being charged for your first offense does not make someone notable. The event itself is barely notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A person can still be notable if he is not guilty of a crime. Look at the Wikipedia entries for OJ Simpson and Donald Marshall, for instance. If the guy is found not guilty, then this article will still be notable, only it will require updating. Please keep in mind that "notability" is actually the name of an official policy at Wikipedia, with actual rules. It's not a matter of just saying "I don't think it's interesting, so it's not notable." When you nominate an article for deletion, you have to show that it demonstrably does not comply with the notability guidelines. In the case of this article, it has. — A lizard (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with A lizard. Whether he is guilty or not bears little (if at all) on whether he is notable; it is the nature of the coverage that is the key.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY applies to vandalism on Wikipedia, not terrorists. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wholly aware. But it's exactly the same principle I'm applying here. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me. Why are you admittedly mis-using Wikipedia policies? Do you honestly believe that mis-using a policy enhances your point of view? Victor Victoria (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are too many similar articles on Wikipedia for this one to be inappropriate. There are too many legitimate sources for this not to be notable. The nominator has done nothing to demonstrate this article's lack of notability as a matter of fact. Please noite that "notability" is not a matter of opinion. Wikipedia actually has rules for this sort of thing. Please read them before writing "delete" on this page. — A lizard (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS are regularly abused by users such as bigissue who have a problematic editing record of enforcing a POV that any coverage of suspected terrorists is "slanted" or "disturbing" , especially Islamic terrorists caught in the act of trying to blow things up. He also called for deletion of the very similar case of Lloyd R. Woodson which received international coverage of being caught with a large amount of arms, maps of army bases, and PLO-fashion headgear. These two rules need to be modified to discourage their use to predictably erase every likely terrorism incident which hits international headlines/ Agree with first entry that this is an entry of interest to many people, and relevant to the public, just like entries covering similar subjects of the government stopping terrorist attacks, e.g. by Faisal Shahzad, Farooque Ahmed, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi. AFD's like this are only part of a general environment bullying and intimidating editors who illuminate cases of alleged terrorism. Wjemather evidently agrees with this position on "POV terrorism edits" which explains what I suspect is his real motive, to undermine NPOV by surpressing that people like the portland bombing suspect are terrorists, rather that adding notable, reliable sources that state the "other points of view" that this fellow might not be a terrorist. [18] "I think it's time we take the POV terrorism edits to the next level. At least dispute resolution since it clear they will just continue to edit against consensus and have made some very disturbing and telling statements [1] he pretty much states his agenda and POV right there for all to see. Ridernyc (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC) My attention has only recently been drawn to articles in this area but it would appear that there is an ongoing problem with a handful of editors disregarding core policies in order to slant articles to their personal way of thinking." wjematherbigissue 00:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)" It's pretty clear which "handful of editors" is slanting articles to a distinctly minority and politically motivated view of "what terrorism?" when his idea of an "unacceptable" and "slanted personally" POV or a "very disturbing and telling statements" is simply that this Portland person has been caught, in the words of reliable sources, red handed by the FBI in an act of jihadist terrorism. This is hardly a baseless accusation, it is clear to see who is trying to hide obvious terrorists from view. How many more example does it take before the pattern is clear? Can an editor continually abuse afd like this without censure? Bachcell (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep personal attacks to a minimum. The editor who proposed deletion claimed wiki policies for support, thus please keep the discussion about wiki policies, and not ideology/religion.VR talk 17:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see less name calling than questioning of motive here. It is interpretation of wiki policies that is in play, and motive is an important consideration to the extent that it colors such interpretation - especially when it runs so far against consensus. Eegorr (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - BLP1E is so overly cited it is no longer even funny. BLP1E only determines if we need a separate article for the individual players. So, that issue is easily resolved by renaming this as the bomb plot. NOTNEWS is also overly cited, as that really is just your everyday ordinary crap. Put it this way: if it makes the local paper once, that is NOTNEWS. If it makes say CNN (which the bomb plot has not only made their website but done so in what amounts to their mainpage) or other national media outlets in addition to your local news source, then we are removed from the ordinary, and thus removed from NOTNEWS (note I am not saying making it on CNN equals notability, as some things on national media outlets still qualifies as ordinary or would fail GNG as not everything there is really news). Here, I think the bomb plot has enough sources to pass GNG, and nothing but IAR is left to justify deletion. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The incident itself was notable. The belligerents however are not. Cocoaguy ここがいいcontribstalk 17:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep/Snow Keep. The number one front page article in today's New York Times? Seems notable to me. Not even a close call. Agree with the vast majority of the above (out of 22!voters, only 3 !deletes, and one of those an IP who somehow found his way here for his second entry ever!) that do not see this as a !delete. Has all the earmarks of an article of lasting notability of recent events that are appropriate for wikipedia under blp1E and wp:notnews. Noms should read past the titles of those guidelines -- if the top stories in the Sunday NYT are not notable under those guidelines, then no events of recent vintage would be notable, which is clearly not the case. Whether it is renamed, or not (and we have two articles, one on the event and one on the incident, as w/the Christmas Day Bomber and Times Square Bomber, etc., can be thrashed out on the talk page and is not material to whether the article is kept IMHO -- and I don't care at the moment either way; certainly a good argument can be made that it is similar to the others, which have article for the people. Waste of time nomination. IMHO, of course. Difficult to understand nom's rationale for it, if one reads the guidelines and looks at the front-page coverage in major RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (largely off-topic response) Like your good friend Bachcell before you, your ad hominem remarks, both towards myself and the IP contributor (who may well be a regular contributor from a dynamic adress for all you know), are unwarranted. Your continuing failure to assume good faith of anyone you disagree with is disappointing to say the least. I think it would be best for all if you stuck solely to discussing the merits of the article instead of concerning yourself with attacking other contributors, and interjecting IMHO does not make it any more acceptable. You will just have to accept that my interpretation of the guidelines and policies remains as I have elucidated above, and of course it is patently obvious to anyone that I have "read past the titles". wjematherbigissue 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, you are the one making the ad hominem remark here. Asserting who is my "good friend". Second, I've commented only on your editing/noming. Third, what do you think the SPA template is for, if not for an editor making its second edit ever at an AfD? All it does is flag a possible issue for a closer -- why would you want to deny the closer that flag? Fourth, I've not failed to assume good faith. If you read my comment again, you will find no assertion of a failure of good faith on your part here -- rather, a failure to respect consensus on this issue, which if I recall correctly reflects a position you have taken in more than one AfD. I've not said here that your failure was one of good faith. Fifth, I am discussing the merits of your arguments, and not discussing you as a person--I'm sure that you are fine fellow or gal, who tips well, helps the elderly and blind across busy streets, and have never, ever stuck your chewed gum under the bottom of a middle school table.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (still off-topic) Your previous close interactions would make that self-evident and your comments speak for themselves, seeking to belittle the opinions of an anon who "somehow found his way here" and insinuating that I have not read the policies and guidelines. wjematherbigissue 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Still an ad hominem (and curious synth) comment by you (as I've made none). 2) That's what the template is for--it's not an ad hominem comment. 3) If you have not read policies or guidelines, or read them and failed to understand them, or are not taking the consensus of your fellow editors to heart by repeatedly making the same non-consensus assertions as you seek to delete terrorism-related articles, that is not necessarily a reflection of your bad faith, but rather could be attributed to any number of other reasons. At the end of the day, though, when it just leads to waste-of-time landslide AfDs like this one, it is perhaps not the best use of the time of the editors of the Project, whatever the reason.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (very much still off-topic) Templating, while unnecessary in this case (have you read the associated essay?), is not the main issue. It's obvious this is going nowhere while you continue to play dumb. Oh, well. wjematherbigissue 23:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've already commented a bit above, but as I had said, I waited to vote until I could give some thought to whether Mohamed Osman Mohamud himself warranted an article, or whether an article focused specifically on the plot was more appropriate, or both. I've decided that I feel an article on the individual is the best course of action. If there were multiple arrests or suspects, or if it had been a successful bombing with victims, I would feel that a separate plot article would be appropriate. But since this was basically a one-man show, I feel that the entirety of the plot can be conveyed through the article on the individual, which would also allow for more of his background to be highlighted. And, for the reasons I cited above, I don't think this article at all violates WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E. — Hunter Kahn 22:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would just like to clarify my point from above, I am for the article being kept or renamed. I just proposed the rename as a possible compromise. I feel that the failed plot should be covered somewhere. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’ve long said that there ought to be a rule that articles like this shouldn’t be started until one month after the news hits. That would be a check against knee-jerk biographies about articles of local interest—like a school board that allowed some sexual-abusing creep to keep his job (or whatever). But the deed is done in this case and—clearly—this act of attempted terrorism is of widespread interest in the English-speaking world and would have been created even if a one-month grace period were in place. Besides, I got a laugh out of the story when they were taking this guy down and he was kicking at the cops’ shins yelling “Allahu Akbar!” Greg L (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite. Our guidelines do suggest incubation for news related articles but there is really no way that is ever going to happen since they mostly get created by inexperienced contributors who are largely unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. Clearly this article will kept, at least in part because it is a prominent new story right now, but that is the way these discussions (especially in this subject area) seem to go at the moment. wjematherbigissue 23:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a flip side to this coin too, though. In the future, I'd suggest giving it a couple of days before you nominate it for AFD. That way you can determine whether the article is strong enough, and whether the news articles do die down after a short period of time. If so, and if you nominate it for AFD then, then your argument for deletion would probably be stronger. — Hunter Kahn 02:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I half-agree with this, in the sense that less than 48 hours after the first reports this story is already well below the fold on almost all of the major news sites. Monday's op-eds will point to the coming week's trend, one way or the other, and that will be a pretty good indicator of whether or not the story has legs. I suspect not, but consensus seems to be heading towards 'keep' anyway. I'd like to think that a few months from now people will look back and realize that this person/event isn't very notable after all, but in reality it will be so forgettable that nobody is even going to bother looking back. And so another 50kb of storage is wasted on irrelevant trivia. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with User:Hunter Kahn. If anything was a knee-jerk reaction it was this AfD. This news story got world-wide attention. It wasn’t even close. Moreover, it is time consuming for the community to address AfDs because arguments have to be quite keen on both sides (see the above hat statement). I recently saw an admin who took it upon himself to reverse a majority decision by citing how the minority’s logic was so very superior to the majority’s and then deleted the article. Then he went back and actually *read* the citations and familiarized himself with the facts after being assailed for his actions. The majority view here is overwhelming and based on a consistent, valid basis. I move to SNOWBALL. Greg L (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not kid ourselves. That kind of close in favour of an overwhelming minority regardless of the strength of argument is so infrequent it isn't worth mentioning. And it is far from a knee-jerk reaction to list a news story at AfD, it is very common procedure. The fact that this AfD is littered with "it's in the news" arguments just illustrates the problem. wjematherbigissue 08:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with the points made above by other users. He is a major figure in a major news story. -- Evans1982 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I highly doubt that the press will cease interest in Mohamud's story, as there will continue to be prosecution in the future. I mean, the Wikipedia article of other foiled terrorists (such as Shahzad etc.) all were kept after AFDs set up within a day of article creation. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename per previous comments. Klopek007 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This story on Wikipedia is already ready for significant updates as of a few hours ago, that's how rapidly evolving it is. It's a watershed in Somali-US relations, a low mark. We all know what Kristallnacht was, but do we remember the instigation, an assassination by Herschel Greenszpan, which I only know because of a very complete separate article that was a link in the Wiki article on the event Kristallnacht? Keep this name as a separate entry and link it to an article on the event. Kristallnacht can't make any sense whatsoever unless you view the rage at the time against what were felt to be foreign agents provacateurs operating in Germany. The truth was a sad and hopeless case of a stateless immigrant trapped by closing borders, and the suggestion that a gay relationship with a German diplomat that did not result in a visa may have triggered Greenszpan to kill the German diplomat, thus triggering Kristallnacht. In this case of a failed assassin, who triggers world events he had no intention of causing such as diplomatic crisis, hostile backlash, and retrenchment of US Security policy, Mohamud is already clearly part of the cascade of the US into deepening suspicion of radical Islam and war. I think this is the true fear of many of the calls to delete, however we delete history at our peril. 67.100.132.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Very, very interesting. I had to read this twice to understand where you were going with Kristallnacht. Your message point is powerful. You should register as a wikipedian. Greg L (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed- congratulations on the early invocation of Godwin's Law! tedder (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article on Goodwin’s Law states: “Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis.” The phenomenon occurs on Wikipedia, for example, when editors label those who would promote the International System of Units to absurd lengths (beyond how the real world works in astronomy for instance) as “SI-Nazis.” The I.P. editor is making a non-humorous and—I think—valid commentary on a potential hazard here and a parallel in history: that of a majority that seizes upon a reckless and despicable act by a single member of a minority and uses that act as a pretense for sweeping actions against the minority. Your comment, Tedder, seemed intended to be humorous but could be interpreted by some as both glib and deprecating to a thoughtful and serious observation by the I.P. Greg L (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was glib and deprecating, as Wikipedia is not a forum, and sweeping generalizations about history and Wikipedia's role on it would be better suited on a personal blog. tedder (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; that’s what I suspected. That’s your opinion as to what Wikipedia is and is not so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. In your post, you have a link in one of those I made it Blue so it must be True®™© stunts. Try reading and understanding what you link to next time. WP:NOTFORUM could not be clearer that it speaks to the issue of keeping our articles free of advocacy and opinion pieces, nor can our articles be used to self-promotion or advertising of commercial ventures. And commercial advertising has no place on individuals’ user pages, IMO. But this venue is not in articlespace. Nor is this a userpage. This is a venue where the sharing of thought and vigorous debate occurs. Moreover, the subject of the article in question pertains to terrorism. The I.P. editor was reminding others here about the value of looking at this subject in a big-picture, historical context while deciding whether it is sufficiently encyclopedic. Moreover, the I.P. editor didn’t once mention “Nazis”, s/he mentioned only about “Kristallnacht” so your invoking “Goodwin’s Law” and its reference to Nazism was unseemly and—as you say—glib and deprecating. In a discussion venue on this subject matter, the observations of the I.P. are perfectly appropriate. Since we are now quoting Wikipedia policies and linking to them, you might read up on Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. And you might keep your “glib and deprecating” (by your own admission) to yourself next time; it was unbecoming of a registered wikipedian. Greg L (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note The creator of this article has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of banned user Grundle2600 (talk · contribs), though it looks clear, at least to me, that we're way past WP:CSD#G5 right now. Also, folks, please stop trying to evoke emotion by mentioning Nazism here and try to score brownie points; those who are are not contributing anything additional to the discussion and is disruptive. –MuZemike 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: At this point, given the overwhelming community reaction to nom's AfD, it appears that this would be an opportune time to invoke SNOW, and close this early. I doubt nom will learn anything from a continued pile-on reflecting how non-consensus his views are. If he hasn't learned anything from the above input, which appears by his comments to be the case. And for the rest of the community, it is a classic waste of time to satisfy the desire of one non-consensus editor for further feedback on an issue where the conclusion is clear. Someone please close this merit-less AfD, and let the good editors return to useful and productive work building the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet - The point of this discussion is not to teach the "nom" anything. While if one does nothing but read the bold text, one might come to the conclusion that the discussion is long over. However, I'm hoping that the closing admin will be able to take the time to take all relevant (to the suitability of the article) comments at face value and be able to come to a clear decision, whatever that final decision may be. There is no need to rush this, and the outcome is not yet obvious. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the outcome is obvious. It’s a landslide and the community consensus is sufficiently thoughtful that it doesn’t need second guessing from an admin. An admin is just another volunteer editor who the community granted access to extra tools. Nothing in that understanding says that admins are understood to be wise judges who sit in judgement as to whether a landslide consensus like this had reasoning he or she finds *suitable*. Dragging this out any further is just WP:BUREAU and needless wikidrama because of a knee-jerk reaction from a single editor who was sufficiently experienced that he should have known better as this attempted act of terrorism drew world-wide attention. Greg L (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take the senseless "Fear of Terrorism" out of the equation, and there is nothing notable about the event (nothing happened) or the suspect (who has not been found guilty.) There is no evidence of the event having an effect on future law enforcement tactics or methods that would possibly make it notable. Right now fear-mongers are doing their best to keep the story alive in the media, and from what I can see (based on various site's "most viewed stories") no one seems to care. A new article is not needed for every single successful law-enforcement sting, and this one's effect on the general public is similar to the local alcohol commission catching store clerks selling to minors. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With 33 editors having !voted, the landslide outcome is indeed obvious IMHO. Unless one is looking at the issue with Nelson's eye. Agree that the discussion should not be used to teach nom anything -- that would have been the only other reason one could posit to keep it open. We don't rely on individual editors' personal views as to whether what the RSs focus on is "senseless" or not. If the RSs cover a subject extensively, it is notable for our purposes. Period. To do otherwise crosses the line into applying our personal POVs to the issue of notability. We don't censor articles and delete them because we think the RSs' extensive coverage is senseless. The coverage of this matter has been extensive and international in scope. I find it difficult to imagine one saying that the result is not a landslide without hearing them giggle as they say it. Contrary to Uncle's "nobody seems to care" comment, 5K people viewed this article in the past two days. Not quite what one would expect from his selling to minors example. WP:SNOW is intended for circumstances such as this ("If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.").--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I agree. Uncle Milty: It’s “notable” (and encyclopedic) any time there is an attempted act of terrorism where the hoped-for result would be thousands of casualties amongst Christmas revelers and their children, and where news organizations from al Jazeera to the BBC and everyone between pick up the story. It’s certainly at least as notable and encyclopedic as the ninth episode of the second season of The Simpsons (“Itchy & Scratchy & Marge”). I must say that if admins really do step in and were tempted to second-guess an overwhelming community consensus and parse the *logic and merit* of the arguments used here, your opining that this incident is similar to the local alcohol commission catching store clerks selling to minors seriously undermined one of the few “delete” votes on this page. Greg L (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AFDEQ: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the justification for your !vote was a comparison between this and a local alcohol commission catching store clerks selling to minors and a misrepresentation that "nobody seems to care"--when in fact the article has had 5K hits in the last two days--I would say that on that basis the SNOW nature of this discussion is even more one-sided than the overwhelming !vote of nearly three dozen editors to this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, many keep !voters have provided little or no rationale at all for their position, so they should really be discounted. It will be for a neutral judge to determine the merits of the arguments, not GregL or Epeefleche. Although anything other than a keep close does seem unlikely, it is unnecessary to attempt to steer the discussion to an early conclusion. wjematherbigissue 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure… why not just count only the five “Delete” votes because only their arguments are sound and sane. Is that it? This AfD wastes the time of contributors from the community who could have been doing something better than to (*sigh*) and deal with what you’ve done. You should have full well known from ample prior experience what this outcome was going to be. Why not think a bit more before acting next time? Greg L (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"in fact"?? I was not aware that articles here had publicly-visible hit counters. What percentage of those exactly 5000 hits were from unique IPs? What percentage trace back to a small cave in Afghanistan? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- in fact. 3,900 just yesterday -- the first full (non-stub) day. I believe that when balancing the objective hit counter vs. your well-intentioned but unsubstantiated assumption (which you submitted as fact), it might be seen as somewhat more objective to give greater weight to the hit counter. That, coupled with the number of articles, the global scope of the articles, and the placement by such newspapers as the New York Times on their front page may serve to suggest a degree of interest in the matter somewhat more than your "nobody seems to care" assertion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that link. I should have known that there would be a bot doing that. Just for a sense of scale, however, WikiLeaks had approximately 294,800 hits yesterday alone. Ronald Reagan had over 10,000. Not bad for a historical figure, I suppose. I stand by my assertion that this article is a story-of-the-week that will soon be eclipsed by the next missing blonde girl story. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just now noticed that you wrote this, Uncle: Take the senseless "Fear of Terrorism" out of the equation… Just pardon me all over the place for saying what precisely is on my mind, but “fear of terrorism” is not senseless. What you wrote is the perhaps the biggest absurdity I have ever seen written on Wikipedia. And frankly, it looks like the product of someone who is *working it hard* to be seen as a wise, unflappable Leader Of Men©™® who broods quietly off in the corner worrying about more important things as the little people run around like chickens with their heads cut off. Terrorism captures people’s interest because it evokes powerful emotions; that’s why the root of the word “terrorism” is “terror”. That much is just too obvious. Of course, maybe you weren’t trying to posture as Moses leading a frightened wikipedian community across turbulent waters in frightening times; maybe you wrote a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium purely because you really feel that way (it is senseless for people to fear terrorism). AGF would grant you that. Please advise: were you Special Forces in the military or something? Greg L (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW is premature I admit this article has slim chance of being deleted anytime in the next 30 days, but there are very valid issues being brought up and I dislike the attempts by you and a couple other people to drown out the dissent by repeatedly attacking dissenters' motivation without addressing their arguments. Yes, it has been well established that this story has a gazillion reliable sources, and yes, that is the primary criteria for inclusion. It is not, however, the only one. Nobody has suggested how this event is substantially different than the 11,000 reported terrorist incidents in 2009, other than the coverage. Opinions on how this event may be relevant in the future have tended towards the realm of Alien space bats. There have been a few thoughtful opinions from those who voted 'keep', but the only reason most have given is that "everybody is talking about it". That's not always enough, as shown by policies like WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:BREAKING, and that's why these sorts of things frequently end up in contentious AfD debates. There is room for improving the project here. It probably won't be solved in this discussion, but this may be a start. This process should be seen through, and dissenting opinion should be addressed, not shouted down by repeatedly pointing out the obvious extent of media coverage or number of votes. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly getting a little perturbed by the "11,000 terrorist attacks in 2009" argument. It honestly strikes me as being something of a strawman. as I mentioned elsewhere where it was brought up, how many of those 11,000 are "lone nut with an AK" type incidents, vs. somebody trying to blow up an entire town centre involved in a religious celebration? - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good question for which I do not have an answer. Let me rephrase my question, then. Why is this incident in Portland notable enough to have its own article while most of the ones on the List of terrorist incidents, 2010 don't? In fact, I'm now changing my vote. I no longer support full delete, as I believe the incident does warrant brief mention in the pre-established list of terrorist activities. And that list is pretty damning evidence that neither this event nor this person deserves their own entry. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree w/Bush. As to IP -- the above discussion is all about Uncle's rationale; his assertion without basis that "nobody cares", countervailing info, the guidelines and how they apply here, his views that this has as much coverage and interest as meaningless events (despite the fact that it is a front page of the NY Times story), etc. The proper approach has been followed, and application of the guidelines is the key -- nothing in the guidelines suggests your preferred digression away from "is this notable, with notability being measured by widespread coverage in RSs". Your preferred approach -- discussing and distinguishing this event from others -- is not the guideline. If you like, you can seek to change the guideline, but I don't see it as even requiring a response (though others have tendered one, or two). Let's stick with application of the guidelines, and we will get to a 90% agreement on the issue. If we're not there already.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI, Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque which documents a terrorist incident against a mosque in which a man has been sentenced for a hate crime has been recommended for deletion. It's been covered in a number of newspapers and in muslim blogs and media, as well as by Pam Geller, though that hasn't been added to the article. 17:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That article doesn't appear to be nominated for AFD at this time (although, now, I imagine it's inevitable that it will be). However, I personally don't think the two are comparable. At a glance, that appears to be more of a local news matter better in line with what WP:NOTNEWS seeks to prevent, not an incident like this Mohamud case that is of a much larger scale and affects many more people. — Hunter Kahn 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Being *sentenced* for threatening a mosque ranks along the same lines as phone threats to colleges to shut down classes before a test is given in Common sense 101 class. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and would be filled to the gills if we had an article for every dude sentenced for making threats. The rules don’t change just because it was a threat against mosque used by Muslims who are feeling beleaguered due to a perceived backlash over terrorism in the news. This is true, just as rules don’t change for extraterrestrials circling Vega who feel under appreciated for their blueprints to the space-portal transportation device used in the movie Contact. Wikipedia is not to become a battleground for those with a strong sense of religious indignation and who want to make a point. The litmus test for articles is whether the item is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. I note one citation in “Man Sentenced for Threatening Illinois Mosque”. There also is no evidence currently in the article that this news bit was widely picked up by news organizations across the English-speaking world. If such evidence exists, it needs to be put into the article. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Barely worth the effort to type "Keep," it's so obvious. IronDuke 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment I would say delete, obviously I would be a minority here, but hear me out. This case is one of hundreds in the FBIs files where information was traced to a person and acted on. This person is a 19 year old moron who thought it was cool to kill a bunch of people. He makes plans to connect himself with a terrorist cell, instead ties himself to an FBI agent. They toy with him a little, try to judge what he wants to do, they figure out said moron wants to blow things up, and they let him run himself right into a good old fashioned trap. The only reason this person is notable is that he is a moron, an apparently religious moron judging by the "God is great" shouting incident, and that all he actually ended up doing? NOT DOING A DAMN THING BUT MAKING HIMSELF LOOK LIKE A MORON TO THE WORLD. Intent does not make a person notable, otherwise every person who in the world who wanted to do something would be notable. If anything at all is shown by this case, is that the FBI is making inroads into POTENTIAL terrorists and that real ones still exist somewhere else, but not in this case. He wasnt anything, didnt actually do anything therefore no WP:EVENT unless you want to add it to the FBIs page as a job well done. In the end he couldnt even screw up something well, since he actually believed the agent when they told him that the cars windows were blocking the cell phone signal. For whats its worth, that is my opinion. I believe we as a community need to sit down and figure out the standards for cases like this because we seriously need a way to guard against sensationalism in the WIki and IMO this article is sensationalism. We will probably see more and more incidents for things like this and we need a standard to go by. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your vote, but it is not his intent that made him notable, that role belongs to the media who covered the story. No coverage, no notability. And thus to answer your final call, we do have a standard to go by for your "morons", and that is our notability guideline for people, which is basically if the media wants to cover it, well, then the person is notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That cannot be the case, since then every person who has ever been written in a newspaper would be notable enough for a Wiki article. I myself have been written up several times over the years for different things I have done, both good and bad, and I really dont believe I would qualify. If the media coverage alone makes it notable, then we would not have policies like WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E but we do. "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." He and others that are listed for very similar events are noted for only one thing, they were caught in FBI sting operations. The plots they were involved in were generated to catch them doing something, not ones they thought up on their own. Like I said, a "well done" to the FBI and put these people away, and when their in jail, no one will write about them anymore since they actually did nothing. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You quote BIO, but from your opening comments, I'm not sure you get it. It is not that every person covered in a newspaper is notable, hence NOTNEWS. But when you have repeated, in-depth coverage by say the national media, then bingo, you pass BIO (I would have explained this, BIO, in more detail originally, but honestly it gets tiring when there is a link that can explain it in all its glory and minutia). As to BLP1E, you may want to read how I !voted above. Though, one could argue that he is not a "low-profile individual" going by the coverage in the national media. As to you as a subject: did your deeds make the local paper or the national news?; was there in-depth coverage of your childhood?; was there in-depth coverage period about you, versus the event? If your deeds were covered in-depth, repeatedly, and by more than your small circulation local newspaper, then you too might pass BIO/NOTE. But if its like me where my name was regularly in the local paper during high school due to my participation in athletics and listings for honor roll, then that is what NOTNEWS is all about (same if your mentions were listings for say arrests). Aboutmovies (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Student_protests_in_London_2010#Occupations. (Non-admin closure) dmz 03:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCL occupation

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

fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was wrong forum. AfD is not for proposing mergers, see H:M#Proposing a merger. This discussion does not result in consensus for a merger.  Sandstein  08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean maritime border incidents

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

This article gives a list of the incidents along the Northern Limit Line, with a little background on each incident and a link to the incidents. Such a list already exists at the Northern Limit Line article, hence I am nominating this article to redirect to Northern Limit Line. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Details of the major incidents are given in their own articles. This is essentially a list article which duplicates the list at the Northern Limit Line article. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It only duplicates the list of NLL incidents because you expanded them. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what a merge means. Victor Victoria (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The merge wasn't agreed before you went and did it unilaterally, then when it was reversed you tagged the page for deletion.Mztourist (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One option would be to not list or summarize the incidents at NLL, but make a brief statement and link to KMBI. I think bloating the NLL article is a real possibility otherwise. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2010

Endorse Xyl 54's crisp analysis above

Xyl 54 that was what I had done before Victor Victoria merged it with the NLL page. regards Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The chronology of serial events is more than a list of discrete incidents. It is a cumulative narrative. Each event in the unfolding story is re-told and re-visited during the course of subsequent DPKR-ROK naval clashes. This is verified by the several images which are now uploaded. These digitized photos show passers-by watching a large television screen with live broadcast and archived footage from the disputed area south of the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea. --Tenmei 07:06, 28 November 2010 and 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:This article is already the subject of a merge discussion which currently shows no consensus for the merger, (3 in favour, 4 against); The page has already been unilaterally blanked and redirected by the nominator, with the edit history "This article completely duplicates the other article", while at the same time the information it duplicated was deleted from the NLL article. Also, the nominator has yet to voice an opinion in the merge discussion, so I would regard the current nomination at best as making some kind of point, and at worst tendentious.
If a justification for the KMBI article is needed, it provides a framework, background and overview for a series of related disputes between the two Koreas which has been going on since the 90’s, and provides a summary of the various incidents.
If a vote is required, I vote to Keep. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this cogent phrase "framework, background and overview for a series of related disputes" in Xyl 54's diff here. Presented in list format and in other words, this scheme encompasses
  • Weak delete and merge to NLL We seem to have too many mini descriptions of NLL history all over the place. I just noticed this one had a major error, claiming the NLL was created in 1964. Reducing the number of similar articles will minimise work in keeping them all accurate and up to date, and this article does not seem essential. Rwendland (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It provides a page for the "Crab Wars" themselves, rather than redirecting to the cause of the Crab Wars. For example, you wouldn't go to "1970 FIFA World Cup qualification" for information about the "Football War", and if "Football War" directed there, it would be confusing and hard to find the relevant information. Additionally, if this current situation does break out into war moving forward, this page will be a good base to describe the minor skirmishes between the end of the Korean War and the potential future conflict. Zorgon (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mztourist and Zorgon. --nsaum75!Dígame¡‎ 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Northern Limit Line, per normi. ༆ (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xyl54; this article has the potential to be more comprehensive that the NLL article. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is no obvious merge target. Anyone who wishes to work on an article on the report may contact me to get the content userfied or incubated. T. Canens (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy

[edit]
EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Early Day Motions are of absolutely no importance whatsoever. Seriously. None. Check the Parliament website: "there is very little prospect of EDMs being debated". This might just warrant a footnote in an article on the Science & Technology Committee report on Homeopathy... if we had one. As far as I can see we don't. As far as I can see, this is the only EDM for which we have an article. The article itself is arguing the primary case for and against the committee's findings, under a title which is in any case wrong as the report is the more significant of the two topics. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prof babu joseph( retd./libertarian/Kerala)

[edit]
Prof babu joseph( retd./libertarian/Kerala) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is in question. I didn't want to speedy delete without consensus. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources for this to pass the general notability guideline. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Killian

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

I came across this new article as the author started adding random links to it from other articles. Every attempt has been made to make this person look notable. I've removed some of the obvious attempts to imply notability by association (such as link to an comment he made on an NY Times article or him getting an honourable mention in an NY Times competition). The remaining content looks solid enough at first glance, but if you read it carefully and consider the sources, it simply does not add up to notability. Most of the sources are the subjects own website. Other sources are papers he has written, or brief acknowledgments in projects he has worked on, or mentions in lists of alumni and project workers.

There is not one independent source providing significant coverage about him as required by WP:Notability.

Ultimately, this guy is clearly an active political writer and computer scientist whose name crops up all over the place. But has failed to achieve notability in and of himself. GDallimore (Talk) 14:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. An inventor who has 26 patents. Twenty-six. This, in itself, is HIGHLY NOTABLE. A patent is the best secondary resource possible since it's validation by the US government that a software method or process is a new and worthy addition to human progress, worthy of legal protection. In addition, Killian was the chief of software architecture at several prominent software firms, particularly MIPS. He's one of America's top computer scientists. He's mentioned in the second line of Wikipedia's article on Quantum Effect Devices as a co-founder. My bet is he doesn't like talking to reporters so maybe he's not quoted much in ComputerWorld, but that shouldn't be construed to mean he's not notable. Further reason: the firm of which he was a co-founder, Quantum Effect Devices, went public after only a few years, and was valued at over $2 billion according to the New York Times -- this is further evidence that Mr. Killian is not just some programmer, but a major force in the computer industry; few people can have such a powerful effect. Further evidence: Mr. Killian was one of a handful of computer scientists asked to participate in a roundtable discussion about industry trends in 1998 -- the discussion was covered in the journal Computer with an inline citation reference -- Mr. Killian's views were published in two pages; this is a prominent and respected journal within the computer industry.----Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems a notable enough person for wikipedia to me. Who is to say some random sports figure "deserves" a page, and this person doesn't, because he is in a field which contributions are less well known, (and published about) for the average public. Mahjongg (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because he has no significant coverage in reliable sources? I thought that was a requirement of WP:Notability. GDallimore (Talk) 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. GDallimore (Talk) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that certain types of fields such as entertainment get excessive coverage while other worthy fields such as computer science get minimal coverage. This is a fair argument. It is fair to apply common sense and judgment and to be tolerant of fields where there typically is not much public interest, but which are important, such as computer science, in contrast to baseball.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Guidelines and policy dictate multiple, reliable, third-party sources as the baseline for notability. None of the sources provided show this. Ironholds (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. One reason I hate wikipedia is that there're people who come to a page, look into WP guidelines and say "hey it's not notable, can I delete it?". People come to wikipedia searching for information. It's extremely frustrating to find information deleted, especially when someone has put work into it previously. And this page is not about average Joe who only himself is interested in.1exec1 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind providing some kind of policy support for your position? Ironholds (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's Wikipedia's description of secondary sources: Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. In the Earl Killian article, the primary source is the inventor and the invention; but the patent office is one step removed -- it's like a judge, like a newspaper editor, it has to determine whether a given invention is new, worthy. The patent office has to make analytic and evaluative claims about the inventions to rule whether they are worthy of protection. So I think patents are clearly ideal examples of the best secondary sources that Wikipedia requires.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's seriously mixed up thinking. Patents are sources about an invention. They are not sources about an inventor. They do not provide significant coverage about an inventor. They do not support notability of a person on there own and cannot be the basis for an article about that person. As you say yourself, the role of the Patent Office is to assess a patent application as to whether the invention is new and iventive, not to say anything about the inventor. GDallimore (Talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil; comments such as "mixed up thinking" don't help this discussion. Please assume good faith. We are disagreeing about whether patents are acceptable secondary sources. You are saying patents are primary sources; I am saying that the patent (since it is done by an independent agency -- the USPTO -- which must make a ruling on whether a given application is worthy of a patent) is an acceptable secondary source since it's one step removed -- requiring an independent authority to render a decision. We have a matter of disagreement about this, essentially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it's mixed up thinking is not being uncivil. It's a statement of fact that you have made a serious error. I did not say patents were primary sources. What I said is that patents say nothing at all about an inventor so cannot support notability of an inventor. They are documents about an invention. This is nothing to do with primary or secondary sources. GDallimore (Talk) 09:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there any significant coverage about Killian? There isn't any, so it still fails notability.
(1) only mentions his name, definitely not significant coverage.
(2) is a list of blog articles he has written, so self-published, not reliable and not providing significant coverage.
(3) only mentions his name, definitely not significant coverage.
(4) Your suggestion that he "originated the concept" of an activist wiki is laughable and not supported by the source. The source provides no significant coverage about Killian just name-dropping him and referring to a conversation the writer had with him. GDallimore (Talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; Tednace appears to be a single purpose account with few or no edits outside of this AfD. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In assessing noteworthiness, key questions include: 1) What constitutes a reliable source? The Rock of Gibraltar among "reliable sources" (the New York Times), has been notoriously unreliable in recent memory, as it was when breathlessly publishing "W" & Co's fairy tales about WMDs in Iraq. 2) To whom is it notable? Just because an article about a person does not appear in a mainstream publication like People magazine does not imply that he or she lacks distinction. There are many people who are celebrities in their own fields but are unknown to the general public. This should not disqualify them from being considered notable; au contraire. Earning 26 patents is no small feat. I would like to have just one! Having submitted a patent application for review in 2006 -- only to learn that if I'm lucky it will come up for review in 2013, I think this achievement is spectacularly notable. saraw1 03:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroraz7 (talk • contribs)
The issue is not one of reliable sources, but that there are no secondary sources at all which give any significant coverage about him as a person. 26 patents is not a great achievement worthy of note, as I have already discussed and shown above. If it is worthy of note, where is the source noting it? GDallimore (Talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How do you explain your article on Arthur Paul Pedrick? A British inventor with over 150 patents. Why is Pedrick notable? According to your Wikipeidia article, second line, his patents were for useless insignificant inventions. That's why he's notable. So he's a curiosity, an eccentric. Well, I agree Mr. Pedrick belongs in Wikipedia, a creator of useless inventions, clearly you'd agree that Mr. Killian belongs too -- for creating 26 useful software inventions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OtherStuffExists is still not an argument. But in the case of Pedrick, the article is based on sources including a Reader's Digest book, a CIPA Journal article, and some BBC News articles. That's why he's notable enough for an article because seconary sources have noted him. GDallimore (Talk) 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal. I disagree there are no secondary sources at all. I continue to believe 26 patents is an impressive accomplishment which suggests strong notability and that patents are, in and of themselves, secondary sources. In addition, here are other prominent sources conferring notability:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at those sources. I've numbered them for ease of reference if you don't mind.
  1. So he has been involved in a project. Mentioning his name is not a prominent mention adn certainly isn't significant coverage. There is no mention of what he actually contributed to the project, for one thing.
  2. This one wasn't in the article originally. This one actually helps support notablity, I think. So we have one source so far.
  3. So, he's written an article. So what? That's not a secondary source about him. I've published articles, too, as have many non-notable journalists.
  4. No, he is not mentioned prominently. His name is mentioned (and nothing more) on a list of hundreds of other names.
  5. There is no mention of Killian at all in this article. So it doesn't support notablity of him. There is nothing to suggest that Killian had anything to do with the success of the company. I find it interesting that the article dates from 2000, the height of the dot.com bubble when everyone was paying crazy prices for high-tech firms.
  6. This is not a significant mention and gives nothing about what he actually contributed to the project. I'll quote the relevant bit: "One and a half years into the project Earl Killian joined in the midst of the switch to Pastel as the implementation language". It's also clearly not a reliable source as the author is looking for people to make corrections and one of the people who has apparently made corrections is Killian himself, so it's a partly self-published source as well.
  7. Again, publishing papers does not make someone notable. That they are cited shows that they are interesting papers, but says absolutely nothing about Killian.
So, in total, we now have one (semi-)reliable secondary source. Can you find one more? That might establish notability. GDallimore (Talk) 10:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 28 citations to a paper is rather trivial. Patents can be hugely important, but many are for small, incremental discoveries. If they're important, the inventor is bound to have coverage beyond the patent applications. Despite the passionate defense, I don't see enough here to satisfy WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The more we go into the available sources, the more obvious it becomes that none of them provide significant coverage of Mr Killian, with only passing mentions of his name at best. The only exception is the MIT source, but we need multiple such sources for an article, not just one. Patents are irrelevant in this context as they also provide no coverage at all of the inventor. Miremare 12:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patents are not secondary sources as required by both WP:N and WP:BIO - they are effectively self-published material regardless of the patent office's approval. Ergo, having a lot of patents is not anything related with notability unless secondary sources have commented on that. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with this remark: patents are in this respect very much like journal articles. They are primary sources, even though reviewers and editors have vetted the manuscript before it got accepted for publication. In these AfD discussions, we never establish notability based on number of publications or some such thing, but on the impact that those publications have had. (Such as by generating a couple of hundred citations). --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Slight correction. Patents are almost NEVER written by the inventor but are essentially ghost-written by an agent or attorney based on information provided by the inventor. I'm not sure where that leaves them when it comes to primary or secondary sources and don't think it really matters since the only thing they provide reliable information about is that particular invention and shouldn't be used as sources for anything else. GDallimore (Talk) 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. I've two patents to my name; language in both is 90% the original text me and colleagues wrote with some discretion of company IP oversight. The other 10% is lawyers fine tuning the claims section. My understanding and reading other patents is that most of these are primarily written by the inventors with a bit of finalization by legal. But even if the lawyer is drafting all the text with information provided by the researcher, there is no transformative quality to this, and the patent text still remains a primary source to the inventors' names on it. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it possible that a patent application could be rejected? If this is the case, which I believe it is, then the patent office when it approves a patent acts like a judge (a second source) verifying that a given invention is new, worthy, different, a creation adding to human capability, and therefore notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wtmitchell, Boracay Bill, wow, you are amazing. How did you find those? Each reference above is an academic, researcher, or computer scientist who is acknowledging, citing, thanking or in some other way paying mindful respect to Mr. Killian's contributions. Each mention is a secondary source. These secondary sources have been added to the article. Thank you, Wtmitchell.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I already stated above, such citations only show notability if you have hundreds of them, at the very least. A couple of dozen? Every postdoc 3 years after the PhD has that. --Crusio (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal Where does it say that hundreds of citations are needed before they're considered notable? Each citation is a secondary source. It's not Mr. Killian. It's a second authority acknowledging Mr. Killian's work, and it meets the test of secondary source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the General Notability Guidelines, I cannot see any way that publishing papers and having them cited by others can establish notability. A citation simply does not give "significant coverage" of the author as I have repeatedly said in this discussion - this is not about primary and secondary sources, despite your insistence that having multiple secondary sources which simply mention his name is enough. Read the GNG and you'll see it really isn't. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) extends the notability guidelines for academics to give an opportunity for "highly cited" academics to achieve notability under very special circumstances. I'm new to that particular guideline myself but "highly cited" certainly appears to require a lot more than 20 or 30 citations. You need to start reading and understanding the guidelines in full (and not just cherry-picking words like "secondary sources" that you think support your arguments) or you're going to get nowhere with this discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal. Killian is not an academic; he's a computer scientist, a software architect. Even though he's not an academic, the fact that he's published countless papers in academic and scientific journals speaks to his notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←)


  • Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Comment Here's a detailed account by a published author describing a significant moment in the development of computer software. -- test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Comment. Keutzer is a reliable source; he wrote a textbook on ASIC design. The source is a textbook, not just a newspaper article or web cite. --> Closing the Gap Between ASIC & Custom, by David Chinnery and Kurt Keutzer -- test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Comment there are 80 references to Killian's work in the article so far; we disagree about whether many of these qualify as sources, primary or secondary, or whether patents qualify as sources -- still, 80. Patents. Acknowledgements. Papers cited. The pattern suggests a significant and respected player in the computer industry. -- test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Comment. Keutzer is independent of Killian. -- test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. Comment I'm not sure what this guideline means exactly, but the fact that Killian's papers are routinely cited in numerous publications, that at IEEE conferences he's usually a featured speaker, that he's prominently featured in this textbook head-to-head with the founder of Sun Microsystems and being given credit for spurring a development of significant improvements in computer processing regarding ASICS -- this works for me. -- test satisfied.Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly significant. The author of the book is thanking Killian for giving him some ideas for places to start a research project. There's no significant coverage and no sign that Killian had any input into the project at all. To the contrary, the next paragraph of the book talks about how the author signed on graduate students to actually work on the project. GDallimore (Talk) 14:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article suffers from a very high degree of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery; that's not a reason for deletion, but it does make it harder to find reasons to keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF: the only possible case is for criterion C1, but he has only one paper with a significant number of citations ("Hardware/software instruction set configurability for system-on-chip processors" with 73 in GS; patents aren't papers), and he does not appear from author ordering to be its primary author, so I don't see the substantial impact that criterion C1 describes. There's a better case for notability through his inventions, patents, and corporate activity, but that would be via WP:GNG, and the only reliable coverage I can find of this in Google news archive is a single story that mentions him only trivially. As for the references actually cited in the current version of our article: [1,9] are fine for verifiability but not useful for showing notability, [2-8] are not secondary sources, [10] appears to be a direct copy of a source equivalent to [1,9], [11-13] are not about Kilian, [14,21] is a vanity press, [15-20,22,23,55-80] are not secondary sources, [24-35,37-54] are not about Killian and mention him only trivially. [36] is actually nontrivial, and about Kilian, but lightweight; it's the only source that actually hints at notability, and if it weren't there, my delete opinion would be stronger. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 1999, the EE Times reported that Mr. Killian was hired by Tensilica and was described as a "notable" and "MIPS and SGI veteran and multiple patent holder Earl Killian as chief architect."[2]
  • Delete - There is not enough secondary reference material to maintain a stand-alone Wikipedia biography article on the topic. Earl Killian paid a lawyer to write the text of the patents and publication of that text is guarenteed if the lawyer gets the patent office to allow the invention and Earl Killian pays the government fee that gets the material published. Citations to a patent would go towards making the patent Wikipedia notable, not Earl Killian. Even if Earl Killian is notable, the topic Earl Killian is not Wikipedia notable. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crusio, David Eppstein. RayTalk 14:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR Keep I work in this field. Looking at his work, jobs and the company he co-founded he's darn notable. There are clearly enough sources to write a reasonable article about him (there is one, but it has way too many cites). Does he meet WP:N? That's not clear. But if we were to create a WP:COMPUTER_ARCHITECT he'd meet any guidelines we'd set up for that. It's clear he's had a major impact on the field, biographical information is readily available and he's published a bit (some important works) and patented a lot (at least one of his patents appears to invent an idea I teach in class). I'm good. Hobit (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Founded a company that was sold for dot-com-boom Monopoly money that never shipped any product (and to a company that later dropped out of business). Worked on some really obscure famous computers. Has an armload of patents on things you've never heard of,and that you won't be able to explain even after reading the patent disclosures. Worked for a lot of famous obscure companies you've never heard of. "Thanked for explaining how his program worked" is weak -it's called documentation, programmers do that all the time. The guy who shaved 2 1/2 pounds off the 2010 Ford Focus is a hero of automotive engineering and probably has many papers published and cited too, but he didn't put a flivver in every garage and isn't generally notable outside his own industry. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Additional vote for Keep is located on the talk page of the Killian article at Talk:Earl Killian.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Hobit.JHatts (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The patents themselves do absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability, per Wikipedia's guidelines. At most, they indicate that an invention is probably something that has probably not been patented before. They do not judge the inventor, filer, and they certainly don't indicate notability--actually, they don't even verify that the person had anything directly to do with the invention, merely that they are the one to have filed the patent. Many of the other sources don't meet our standards for significant coverage. And, of course, the bios on him in various companies/advisory boards not only don't establish notability, they shouldn't even be in the article because they don't meet WP:RS as self-published sources. The mentions of "thanks" in a number of articles definitely mean nothing in terms of notability. A few of the sources seem to be what we usually look for (Closing the gap between ASIC & custom (currently #37) and Understanding RISC microprocessors (currently #39) seem to be the best on a quick read through), but it seems to be not quite enough to establish notability. To be honest, it would be much easier to evaluate if all of the chaff was removed, then we could see more clearly exactly how much "significant" coverage (per Wikipedia's standards) there really is. If the article is not deleted, all of the patent links should be removed, all of the "Thanks to ..." should be removed, and all of the non-RS should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TAJJ Championship Wrestling

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 06:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates in Literature by age

[edit]
List of Nobel laureates in Literature by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of the most bizarre things I've come across on Wikipedia. The entire list is canonical WP:OR, but more to the point what on earth is encyclopaedic about counting down the days to the death of living Nobel laureates, or counting the days between award and decease? This really is an indiscriminate collection of information. Maybe it's part of the agecruft walled garden, I don't know. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Delete. I agree that the list, in its entirety, is unnecessary information. However, I don't think that- assuming they could be verified- there would be anything wrong with listing how old each recipient was when they won in the main article- I think there's a wholly encyclopedic use to knowing how old the winners were upon receiving the prize. With that said, it would create a rather large change to the main List of Nobel laureates in Literature article, so I wouldn't necessarily oppose outright deletion. -- Mike (Kicking222) 16:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to United_Campaign_Against_Plastic_Bullets. Consensus was reached in this discussion that while sourcing exists, it does not deal with the subject in biographic fashion, but instead focused on the manner of her death. Accordingly, consensus supported a redirect to another article, United_Campaign_Against_Plastic_Bullets being most commonly given. I have redirected to that article, but note that I find consensus exists only to redirect somewhere, not necessarily to that article. Editors should feel free to discuss and retarget the redirect if they obtain consensus to do so. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Ann Kelly

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

This article fails a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Firstly sourcing. The main source used is the Relatives for justice website. As the name suggests, this is a campaigning website and almost certainly fails WP:RS. Other “references” like indymedia can similarly be discounted as failing that policy.

Secondly, the main problem with the article is that the subject fails the general notability guideline as she hasn’t been covered in depth in reliable sources and what coverage there is appears to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. It reports that she was killed and goes no further than that. When all the padding is stripped away (she liked Abba, she had brothers and sisters, there was violence in NI) we’re left with the simple fact that she was one of over 3,000 people who died in the Northern Ireland troubles. Tragic as her death was, the sad fact is that every year, there are probably hundreds of people killed by state forces around the world. In most cases unless there is some overriding claim, the individuals themselves are not notable else we’d have hundreds of thousands of such articles. Put bluntly, a civilian being killed by state forces is not in itself notable.

Judging by the redlinks in the article, there may be an intent to create similar articles so it would be best to clear this up now as other articles, like this one, would also appear to be against WP:NOTMEMORIAL.

The creator of the article has argued that there are lots of sources and that there was a Congressional hearing. To answer the first point, there seem to be 26 sources, some of them very questionable ones like the World Marxist Review, but what they all have in common is that they appear to go no further than trivial mentions. To deal with the second point, there are 100 Congressional hearings in any one calendar year and the one in question wasn’t even about the subject, it was about the violence in NI in general, so this doesn’t establish notability.

In equivalent cases, such as Keith Bennett, the page is a redirect to a larger article. In this case the appropriate article would be United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets so I’m requesting a redirect there. The controversy surrounding the issue of plastic bullets is notable, the individuals aren’t. Valenciano (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which assumptions of bad faith? That you believe that the others are worthy of articles is clear from the fact that you've chosen to redlink them! Please read that policy again! Valenciano (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? If something is disputed, you discuss. The article's creator has a user talk page, the article itself has a talk page, even the relevant WikiProjects have talk pages. Come here to Articles for Deletion only when you want something deleted. Otherwise you are just wasting the time of the closing administrator. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly unsure if the article should be deleted or simply redirected. I'd lean towards redirect but there's a good case for simply deleting it hence this discussion. Valenciano (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Domer48, I'm happy to discuss how much weight these sources carry, but I'm not going to be swayed by 1) an unsupported claims that the subject is "clearly notable, as per our policies"; 2) a Google search (which in this case is open to reasonable dispute as to proof of notability); 3) a blanket dismissal of the deletion reasons as "unsupportable suggestions"; or 4) an obvious insinuation of bad faith editing. For what it's worth, yes, this was a tragic death, but we don't document every tragic death on wikipedia, or even every tragic death due to a conflict involving paramilitaries - that is down to WP:NOTNEWS. It is one of many unfortunate chapters in the wider history of The Troubles, and if this belongs anywhere, it is in the history of the troubles. The coverage I saw was incidental to wider subjects. I can't see sufficient justification for a stand-alone article about this individual victim, and certainly not an article which - if the emotive language is anything to go by - seems to be taking sides. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, "the main source used is the Relatives for justice website" is not true. If the site is not as is claimed a WP:RS bring it to the appropriate notice board like wise indymedia. It was not true when I first created the article and is defiantly not true now.
Second, "the subject fails the general notability guideline as she hasn’t been covered in depth in reliable sources" again, completely untrue. The subject of the Article has be covered in over forty books and journals and I have not even included newspapers yet.
"what coverage there is appears to fall under WP:NOTNEWS" again, untrue! Describing the substance of the article as an indiscriminate collection of information is unsupportable.
"When all the padding is stripped away...we’re left with the simple fact that she was one of over 3,000 people who died in the Northern Ireland troubles" again untrue! What padding? Detailing the incident, covering the comments of notable individuals, information on the inquest, the subject being raised in a Congressional Hearing? How many of those killed were children, how many of those children were killed with a plastic bullet to the head, how many children shot in the head with a plastic bullet appeared on the cover of a book, in her coffin? That cuts the figure of 3,000 down quite a bit.
The assumption of bad faith is quite obvious, commenting on my intentions has no bearing on this request.
On sources, it is claimed that some of them are "very questionable" and only cites one. They go on to claim that what the remaining sources all have in common is that "they appear to go no further than trivial mentions." Well appearances can be deceiving, and as I asked the question here and got no response, why did they ask again here.
I agree with Uncle G with regard to this request, there are plenty of forums. Lets hope the points I have addressed will not require me having to go through them again. --Domer48'fenian' 19:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will address these points one at a time. Concerning the use of the website "relatives for justice", it's quite normal for AfDs to decide whether or not sources are reliable sources if that decides whether the article stays or goes. The noticeboards generally only come into play when the article isn't a candidate for deletion. Anyway, reliable or not, Relatives for Justice still isn't a good candidate for proof of notability because it's not really an independent source.
The problem with the coverage in the books and journals is that none of the coverage seems to amount to anything more than a mention in a list of victims. The coverage needs to be significant and this looks incidental to a wider subject. Now, if any of these books dedicates pages or chapters to the same victim, that might be a different matter, but you'll need to show where this is rather than expect people to find it for you.
One of the key factors here is whether this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Precedent is that if an incident, even murder or manslaughter, is reported in the papers immediately after it happens (and again at any inquest, trial etc.) and is never covered again, it is probably not suitable for stand-alone article on Wikipedia, unless it was a massive front-page-grabbing event. There are a lot of different opinions as to what does and doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS, but simply calling is "unsupportable" isn't an argument.
Regarding how notable this death is compared to the other deaths in the troubles, my personal opinions on what makes it more notable: child, yes; shot in the head with a plastic bullet, no, don't see why being shot dead in a different body part and/or with a different material bullet makes it any better; information on the inquest, no, loads of cases have that outcome; subject of congressional hearing, barely if it's a passing mention covering lots of cases; front cover of a book, depends how notable the book was and how blatantly that was used to stoke up further resentment. But what you or I think is not important - it is whether other people consider these factors important to make them write about it after the event. And that boils down, once more, to whether there is sufficient third-party coverage.
And as for your insinuations of bad faith, repeating the allegation again isn't going to win you any good will, especially if your argument is "it's obvious". I'm prepared to wait and see what the newspaper coverage is, but you seem to be basing your arguments on what you think should be notable, and not what independent reliable third-party sources consider notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of "relatives for justice" has been addressed, or hadn't you noticed!
On the "the coverage in the books" you make an assumption when you say "that none of the coverage seems to amount to anything more than a mention" and I have addressed the issue already when is was suggested "they appear to go no further than trivial mentions" have you even checked the sources? Have you even checked the page numbers?
You claim that "One of the key factors here is whether this falls under WP:NOTNEWS" well I disagree, and I'm not the only one. As to talk of "Precedent" I'd ask what precedent, were is this precedent? Is there a policy on this? This discussion is based on Notability.
Why not base this discussion on our General notability guideline rather than just personal opinions.
Casting aspersions about the motives of a respected Author and suggesting that they wished to "stoke up further resentment" i.e. incitement, is in my opinion a big no no on the project and suggest you strike that accusation.
It has already been established that there is "sufficient third-party coverage" so I'll leave it at that.
I agree with Uncle G this is just just wasting the time of the closing administrator. The editor who proposed deletion says they are requesting a redirect. Take Uncle G's advice and close this discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 09:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the burden falls on those that add material to check that it's backed by reliable sources I'm afraid I won't be going over old ground checking that websites previously judged not to be reliable sources are as that's for the article's creator to do. For what it's worth, websites such as Relatives for Justice and indymedia have already been discussed on reliable sources noticeboards. A selection of comments: "Relatives for Justice and An Phoblacht/Republican News. While these can be used to source a Republican point of view, several articles use them to source facts. And some articles are sourced solely from these type of websites."
On Indymedia: here "I'm not sure where they'd fall between a "citizen journalism" site and a highly political newspaper or maybe here: "Open publishing sites, such as OhMyNews, Indymedia, and Slashdot are not reliable sources." Take your pick really. Valenciano (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must I really have to point out that the issue of RfJ and indymedia have been addressed in the post you were responding to above? The information is backed by reliable sources, or are you disputing the sources that are now being used? --Domer48'fenian' 09:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointed out that an issue that has been addressed without saying where isn't good enough. The onus is on you to state what the argument was. It may be that other people read that and didn't agree. Some goes for all the books you unilaterally state are impartial reliable sources by respected authors showing significant coverage - this onus is one you to show they are, not for other people to show they're not (and yes, putting a photo of a dead girl on the front of a book makes me suspicious about reliability, same way that a book showing a dead protestant girl killed by the IRA on the front cover would make me supicious).
Finally, this link which you used as a counter-argument to WP:NOTNEWS: skipping over the fact that this is an argument of precedent after you claimed we don't use precedent, we use policy; and overlooking WP:OTHERSTUFF (I'm happy to treat the other article as an example of a notable event, but others may disagree); all that proves is that an incident such as this was proven notable because there was media coverage over a number of years from a variety of high-profile source (e.g. New York Times, TV stations). Find something similar and this case and I'm happy for this article to stay. So I suggest you take your own advice and find these newspaper reports like you said you would. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely the subject must be covered in detail in at least a couple of national-level newspaper articles from 1981? If so, keep, otherwise delete... the Relatives for Justice website cannot seriously be regarded as a reliable source as per WP guidelines. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your right Jim, it was covered in all the National Papers which is only obvious considering the circumstances. I will be adding newspaper reports. --Domer48'fenian' 21:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before you do that, please consider WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."
Please also consider the relevant section of WP:N, namely WP:ONEEVENT: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. Valenciano (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of WP:NOTNEWS as criteria for a discussion on notability has already been discussed above and here. The issue of websites has been discussed and addressed already. You don't know whether you want to merge of delete, and Uncle G says this is just just wasting the time of the closing administrator. Take Uncle G's advice and close this discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 09:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem appropriate to quote the whole of WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." (Emphasis mine)
We're getting dangerously close to WP:Gaming the system here. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Key words there being "for example" i.e. those are not the only things that NOTNEWS covers and "routine news reporting." All deaths in the Northern Ireland Troubles got a mention in newspapers at the time, there were over 3,000 of them, are you saying that all victims deserve an article as a result? Doesn't Wikipedia consider the enduring significance of an event? Trival mentions, such as a mention in a list of victims generally aren't considered notable. Valenciano (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Jim. --Domer48'fenian' 12:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all victims of the troubles will have been treated to routine reportage. I would be astonished if the shooting of a 12 year old girl received only trivial mention in newspapers. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Particularly considering the period. A very heightened state of affairs. --Domer48'fenian' 15:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is precisely the reason why Carol Ann Kelly may have not got much coverage. If the sources Wikipedia is using are correct, she was one of 17 civilians killed by plastics bullets in that period, or one of nine children. The sad fact is that society puts humans faces to a few individual deaths, whilst when many people die of the same things, the individuals are treated as statistics. There's plenty of debate to be had over who should be receiving media coverage, but Wikipedia is not here to compensate for lack of coverage for things that people think should be notable but aren't.
However, speculating over media coverage isn't useful. Either this death was significantly covered by the newspapers beyond routine reports of deaths or it wasn't. That is why we need to see these newspaper reports. In the meantime, for what it's worth, it seems to me this death received little more attention from third-party sources than the other eight children who died this way. However, there is definitely scope to make a full article out of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland, and not just the sub-section that currently exists in Plastic Bullet. That looks like the sensible home for the encyclopaedic information about this death and the other 16. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is some evidence that this particular death received extraordinary media attention. A photo of Carol Ann Kelly in her coffin was used as the front cover of the book, They Shoot Children: The use of rubber and plastic bullets in the North of Ireland. It's a disturbing image and I wouldn't recommend those of a sensitive disposition search for it. It looks like it was originally from a newspaper piece. I guess we won't know until someone does some microfiche work. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of media attention, yes, evidence of extraordinary media attention, no. Any book called "They Shoot Children" has an obvious incentive to use the most graphic image they can get their hands on, and that wasn't necessarily anything more than routine coverage of the funeral in a local paper (and, unfortunately for early 1980s Belfast, this sort of thing was routine). But yes, we'll know when someone does the research. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting this is "pretty standard procedure" ignores the example cited above by Jim. That the subject was still being discussed after her death, is the issue being addressed and the request for additional sources. --Domer48'fenian' 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would contend that this is not simply a biographical article and should possibly be refocused and retitled to reflect the event. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her death may still be discussed by reliable sources, but her life is not. I'm saying, irrespective of any continuing newsworthiness pointed out by Jim, she does not merit a biography on the basis of WP:ONEEVENT. To quote: "The general rule ... is to cover the event, not the person." The notable event here appears to be that is that her death was one of a number around the same time that collectively focused attention on the use of plastic bullets in NI. Hence my suggestion to merge the content on all of these deaths to the article on that campaign and redirect the individuals' biographies to that article. Rockpocket 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Catfish Jim, broadly that is exactly what can be done. There were approximately 400 children killed during the 25 year period of the Northern Ireland Troubles and regrettably it was a routine event, with the death reported in the news but thereafter overtaken by some other shooting or bombing and largely forgotten by all except the family. This especially applies to May 1981 when there was a heavy death toll. Energies can and should be focused on improving the existing plastic bullet articles. The issue of plastic bullets, including those killed by them, is very notable, the individuals themselves aren't. Valenciano (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a pressing need to take action now, a merge would seem most appropriate, given the current state of the references. the article can alwaysbe unmerged later if the sources warrant it.Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll go with a merge, although I'm not sure United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets is the best destination. I personally would prefer creating an article called Plastics bullet use in Northern Ireland or something similar and compile the information there. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with that... the new article name sounds a better option. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a POV fork of plastic bullet, waiting to happen. You do realize a balanced article entitled Plastic bullet use in Northern Ireland would be required to discuss all aspects of their use, not just become - as it inevitably would - a list of all the kids who were killed? Merge to that article and we will end up with all sorts of WP:UNDUE issues. UCAPB would suit the purposes of an encyclopedia better, IMHO, because its formation was inherently linked with the preceding deaths. Rockpocket 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually more worried the other way round. In my experience, it is usually the articles about campaigning organisations that turn into soapboxes for their POV on the issue. However, if that merge option would be a quicker solution, I'd rather to that and discuss rearrangement of the wiki articles later. (The other option would be to put the whole lot into the Northern Ireland section of the Plastic Bullet article, which would probably mean it gets policed better.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Black (musician)

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

No references to support alleged notability. No cross reference at Joe Cocker. Pol430 (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asshole

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

Despite several calls to "keep and improve" in the previous AfD, very little improvement, if any, is noticeable over the last two years. That leaves the article in an abysmal state. All but the first two references are nothing more than usage examples; they are not sources that discuss the word qua word. The first two references are indeed about the word, but they are dictionaries -- which, while perfectly permissible, certainly illustrates the type of reference document that this sort of topic is better suited for! The mere presence of a word in a dictionary is not enough to establish notability, nor are the simple examples of usage that the other references represent. I'm certainly not claiming it's not a notable word, but I think the dearth of quality references is proof that there is nothing encyclopedic to say about the word. Powers T 13:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There is insufficient support for merging. The argument that WP:NPOV prohibits an article at this title is well-taken. T. Canens (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Praise of Talmud

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

Non-neutral fork of Talmud. In responding to the proposed deletion of this article, the author hinted that this article was written in reaction against the Criticism of the Talmud article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merging's good, but we can't redirect as a non-neutral title like "In Praise of Talmud" violates wikipedia naming conventions. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article, as it stood at the time of this nomination, was not an article about ethics in the Talmud, but about all the reasons the Talmud is a good book. Its morality section was but one section of many. A standalone article about the ethical teachings of the Talmud might be useful, but it would end up being an entirely different article than the one that existed at the time of this nomination. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Keep Long overdue for this material, of this ancient notorious book of wisdom and guidance., citing notable personalities are certainly not POV.

Comment 1) No tangible reason was provided for deletion. 2) The Non-neutral rather is by one pushing to delete it. 3) This material was compiled long before I even noticed oabout "criticism" of Talmud, my only point to Dan was why he isn't pushing to delete Criticsiom of the Talmud which is 100% Non-neutral fork but he only does so for this page, if neutrality is his reason.Supperteecee (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm not sure what a "tangible" reason would be -- tangible objects are objects that can be physically touched and no "reason" will ever be tangible. A valid reason was supplied -- the article violates the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. Other editors have already agreed with this assessment (see their comments above). The article Criticism of Talmud presents a fair and balanced presentation of the various criticisms that have been written by established and notable sources about the Talmud whereas the article In Praise of Talmud relied on strictly partisan sources or on passing comments by some notable people. I don't believe an impartial observer would find the two articles comparable. Further, I would like to inform Supperteecee (talk · contribs) that modifying other users' comments in an AFD discussion, as he did with this edit, is strongly discouraged. You may have your own say, but do not change what others have said. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WikiDan: Just for your information, the highly POV Criticism of the Talmud article relies on even worse classical canards, specious and tendentious pseudo-scholarship, and even antisemitic sources, yet it floats on, while an article offering a straightforward juxtaposition to that POV is nominated for deletion, why so? Many articles need help with NPOV, that is what writing articles on WP is all about and it gets solved thousands of times every day by helpful editors. If there are problems with getting an article to adhere to NPOV then the first and correct road to take is to (a) try to make the article itself into a NPOV one, (b) start a discussion on the article's talk page about reaching NPOV, (c) contacting the main creators of the article and searching for common ground to attain NPOV, or (d) going to WP:JUDAISM and starting a discussion and asking for input from veteran Judaic editors who know something about this topic, and the (e) the best approach, is to do all of the above, (a) to (d) to help the article by means of WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS and not falling victim to WP:BITE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. And NOT by jumping to an unfounded AfD that will create animosity and friction. IZAK (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the Criticism of the Talmud article is problematic, that is a matter for a different discussion. This discussion is about In Praise of Talmud. (See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Many articles on "Criticism of..." exist on Wikipedia. Such articles can be written in a neutral tone as just about any philosophy has been subjected to criticism, and a neutral assessment of those criticisms is possible. However, an article titled "In praise of..." is, by its very nature, biased in favor of the philosophy under discussion. I think the Reasonability Rule comes into effect here: If an average uninvolved observer would find a particular article biased, then that article should be fixed. In this case, we can't fix the neutrality problem if the very title of the article calls for it to be a praise of a particular philosophy. One editor has chosen to rewrite the article as Ethics in the Talmud. That would be fine except that there is already an article on Jewish ethics. I don't believe it is wrong to have a section in the Talmud article that lists the positive responses people have had to Talmudic teachings over the ages; I just feel it gives undue weight to the topic to split this article from the main article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WikiDan: If the main problem are the words "In Praise of" then it's not enough of a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and lose the valid information in this article. Therefore, as has been said a number of times above, either: (a) a more suitable NPOV article name can and should be chosen, such as Defense of the Talmud to match/counterpoise Criticism of the Talmud, or (b) merge the content and redirect the article to the main Talmud article because it would be a big shame to lose the valuable information contained in this article. IZAK (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A 100% illogical suggestion to delete a good page, the material is sourceful and cites notable personalities. As chesdovi says the pov page is the Criticism of the Talmud a clearly attack page!!! and as far it can be from balanced as WikiDan61 attempts to suggest.Xcff ggre233 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although looking quite ghastly at present, there is enough material out there to turn this page into a comprhensive article documenting the ethics contained in the Talmud. This would be a good balance providing documentation about what is "good" in the Talmud, as opposed to what is contained at the criticsm article. Chesdovi (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I have stated earlier: one could easily write an article on Ethics in the Talmud, although such an article would likely duplicate much of the material at Jewish ethics. But when an article titled "In Praise of Talmud" is written, and is full of laudatory comments about the Talmud from various sources, that article does not meet Wikipedia standards and should be deleted. Suggesting that the article should be rewritten as "Ethics in the Talmud" is somewhat ridiculous. That was never the topic of the article in the first place. I might just as well write an aritcle on "Early Hebrew writings". Surely I could find source material for that too, but it would have nothing to do with this original article. Delete this one and move on to create whatever other content you feel is appropriate. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes given (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ackerville Baptist Church of Christ

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

Is a 'Historic Place' under US law automatically notable? I'm not sure this passes our inclusion policy at WP:GNG. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my nomination based on the excellent explanation given by Ntsimp. Thanks, Ntsimp! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future malls in cebu and bohol

[edit]
Future malls in cebu and bohol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't satisfy WP:NOTCRYSTAL because it is the unsourced expectation of non-notable events. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Smith (Councillor)

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

Falls well short of the requirements set out at WP:POLITICIAN Nuttah (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. While there were sources that mentioned the subject, the delete camp argued, and developed consensus for, the position that the sources' failure to mention anything reflecting his individual notability was fatal to having a stand-alone article on him. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Gary Powers Jr.

[edit]
Francis Gary Powers Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this biography is mainly known as the son of the legendary pilot Francis Gary Powers. The only achievements I can see for Francis Gary Powers Jr. are: (1) he founded the Cold War Museum, and (2) he received an award from the Junior Chamber of Commerce. I hereby submit that his founding of the museum can be adequately covered in the article on the museum, and his award from the Junior Chamber of Commerce can be listed at List of Ten Outstanding Young Americans and therefore there is no need to have an article for him. Victor Victoria (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep His personal notability has been established in the article, and there is not undue weight given to his father.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I expected there would be little or no reliably sourced material on Powers, but there is quite a bit of coverage. Apparently he lectures on how close the US came to nuclear war, but avoided it through negotiation and treaties. In view of the recent controversy over US nuclear arms treaty with Russia, and the fact this controversy is likely to continue for several months, there might be additional news coverage of Powers. Therefore, I vote keep and I have added RS articles to the External links section that seem to have material that can be included in Powers' bio. -KeptSouth (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good research, however Wikipedia is not a link farm. I won't withdraw my nomination until somebody takes the material out there and adds it to his article to show that he has made contributions to the field. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you are mis-applying the term "link farm" in this instance. Finding and adding reliable sources is a step toward improving an article. Per WP:EL "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". KeptSouth (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying those references are not legitimate. I'm just saying that adding those references is not enough to sustain the article's viability. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you were saying link farm. Because Link farms are "mere collections of external links...[that] dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia", I said you were misapplying the term.KeptSouth (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add that if he was an author, and wrote a book about the topic, then I would withdraw my nomination. But just being a speaker, in my opinion, is not enough to make him notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add to my earlier Keep comment because it seems the nominator has moved the goalposts with additional comments of his own. According to WP:NN, notability for a stand alone article means "worthy of notice" and requires reliable third party "significant coverage". These features are already present. Notability does not require a "significant contribution" in a field or the authorship of a book as Victor is now claiming. I believe Powers is notable due to his founding of the museum, his lecturing and the third party RS coverage he has already received. His father is a factor, though a minor one. It is very possible that in the near future, Powers will get a bit more coverage, and we will thus know more about him and his views on cold war history or nuclear treaties. One reason is that the topic of arms treaties with Russia promises to be hot one in the U.S. Congress within the next few months. Also, it seems the museum has found a permanent location, which will generate more coverage and RS information on Powers. In other words, my view is that the subject is now notable, but if one thinks it is in a gray area, then one should to look to the future -- and, this article has definite potential for expansion due to events that are presently being stirred. An AfD can always be proposed in the future; this can be revisited, but in the meantime, I believe the article currently meets notability requirements and information should not be lost thru article deletion. KeptSouth (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be notable means having done something notable, (or in a very few special cases being born in a notable position) and the GNG is only a guide to that. As the keep comments themselves indicate that his lectures are so nonnotable that his actual views are undocumented, he can hardly be notable for giving them. "It is very possible that in the near future, Powers will get a bit more coverage," and "there might be additional news coverage" is pure CRYSTAL, and can equally be said of any garage band. The topics he lectures on are notable is given as another keep reason--that makes him no more notable than any random high school teacher. The Jaycee's gave him an award for "Social Awareness & History " -- apparently meaning, in this case, that he didn't do anything, but had an historic name they wished people to be aware of. That's their business,--as far as we are concerned, it can only serve to lower the significance of the award. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. Most coverage seems to be about his museum, which already has an article, not himself. Mention of him and his museum may also be made in his father's article, but there's not enough encyclopedic content for an article about the son beyond what properly belongs in the museum's or the father's article.  Sandstein  08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty much what DGG and Sandstein said. Further, any article which DGG thinks should be deleted, um, well, in all likelihood should be deleted. T. Canens (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per DGG. What's worth keeping can be merged to the museum article, he does not appear to be notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TAJJ Championship Wrestling

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 06:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 08:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Murphy (ice hockey)

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

Junior hockey player has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:HOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Dolovis (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: The reason I'd be against any IAR invocation is that there's been at least one Can't Miss Sure To Be Top Five junior player who (as I recall) was in a career-ending accident halfway through the season. Knock on wood, of course, but it ain't done until it's done.  Ravenswing  06:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given the way he's performing I wouldn't be surprised if he's playing in the World Junior Championships come Christmastime... which would definitely qualify him for an article. Tabercil (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to NHOCKEY it wouldn't.  Ravenswing  07:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clause 6: "Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship)." That's how Ryan's teammate Gabriel Landeskog has one. Tabercil (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The junior team is not the senior team. Landeskog has an article because he has played for a top-level professional league (Elitserien). RG - I'm not arguing IAR, but rather pointing out that if he remains a top prospect as the draft approaches, he will generate the coverage to meet WP:GNG, and at that point it would be appropriate to recreate an article on him. But, that coverage will have to happen first. Resolute 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Resolute said; the wording of NHOCKEY was chosen very particularly, and "senior"-level hockey is a very particular term.  Ravenswing  16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 08:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker (band)

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

Wow. I am not sure how this slipped by for so long. Appears to be a DIY band out of New Jersey with myspace as the official website and primary source. Is was created in 2006 (see how it looked December 17, 2006) and stayed untouched for 4 years when the creator came back and worked on it for a few days in September 2010. Lots of unsourced comments about "almost" making it and lots of, for lack of a better term, trivia such as the band was also offered a record deal from John Elefante from Kansas (band) and brother Dino Elefante who wanted to sign the band and eventually turn them into a Christian rock band. Ahhh, the sweet smell of success! I stumbled on this because of an image that was tagged for deletion for no source but not deleted. (Uploader removed the tag and didn't add any source. See dif) I clicked on the user and found myself on the Stalker (band) article page. Deeper looking shows their userpace redirecting to it - User:Tooryeay2005. They also created Peyote Picnic (album) which also redirects to the main article. (I see that it was tagged for speedy via Wikipedia:CSD#A9 and the tag was declined/removed by the creator, not an admin. Also see Vol.1(album) which redirects to Stalker (band)#Vol. 1 (first EP). User is clearly an SPA as they have contributed nothing outside of this band. Just a guess but they have a COI problem as well - more so when you look at the first version and everything is worded as "we". All the images should be deleted as orphans if this goes as well, and I am not so sure all the licensing in correct on them anyway. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Hampton Roads

[edit]
List of tallest buildings in Hampton Roads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an appropriate topic for a list. "Hampton Roads," which is not a municipality, Metropolitan Statistical Area, or a Census Designated Place, is too vague of a region for a limiter in this list. It would be like having a List of tallest buildings in Upstate New York. List of poorly constructed and bereft of sources. Not worth saving. GrapedApe (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Briban

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

I don't think this opera singer was notable enough outside Romania to be worth having an article outside Romanian wikipedia. Nergaal (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg Premium Outlets

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

Non-notable shopping center. No third party sources to establish notability. The only claim of notability ("one of the top 10 rated outlet centers in the shopping industry") is unsourced and too vague to be verified. GrapedApe (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Hills

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

Delete. Non-notable location used by a non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a tent camp for a non-notable company is notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patriot Hills is a combination of tents and permanent structures, as are all seasonally occupied bases in Antarctica.--Icetent (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see from the sources, Patriot Hills is now nothing more than a backup runway. Are backup runways and former camps notable? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found coverage in the Journal of Glaciology and a NASA science website, plus an article in the LA Times. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It says in its opening sentence that Patriot Hills is the only private seasonally occupied camp in Antarctica. Sounds notable to me. You can also search Google news for the name plus "Antarctica" and find ample results. [42] But being the only private camp in Antarctica is notable enough to convince me the article should be kept. Dream Focus 05:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Union Glacier Camp, the "only private seasonally occupied camp in Antarctica" which replaced this camp. Hopefully, between the two of them, they'll combine to be (barely) notable. Otherwise delete (the former "only private seasonally occupied camp in Antarctica", that presumably no longer exists, not being particularly notable). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It was used by many polar adventurers and expeditions on their way from South America to the pole. Google Books shows quite a few books that mention the camp, including books by Reinhold Messner, Norman D. Vaughan and Jennifer Murray. Seems notable enough for me. If the camp were on any other continent, it probably wouldn't be all that special. But Antarctica is a really big, cold land devoid of life, with only a few dozen stations and outposts. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Laurie

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

Delete. Nothing to indicate notability beyond being a businessman/surveyor and supporter of the arts through board/trustee membership. Refs include unreliable sources (Wikipedia and Who's Who), as well as a link to the corporate website of an organization that simply has his name listed as a trustee. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't yet looked into any other reasons for notability, but would point out that an OBE is a pretty minor honour, held by tens of thousands of people, so is not sufficient in itself to grant notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That is the point of these gongs, is to make people notable. I suspect their would be less than 10k of them in the UK as a whole, and that is fairly rare. scope_creep (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2010 (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) 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shinobu Sugawara

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

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources of the subject of this long-time unreferenced WP:BLP. The article was prodded and contested two years ago and remains unverified. Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. —J04n(talk page) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett King (author)

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

Recreation of deleted material; fails WP:N, clear Self-promotion. The article on this person was first deleted through this AfD, in a discussion resplendent with sockpuppetry and SPA accounts. It was recreated and deleted again through this AfD. Now Brett King has been recreated yet again and directed here. Because of this ongoing pattern, the pattern of behavior by these editors, their sockpuppets, and their business rivals and their sockpuppets, I recommend that this article (with various capitalization) be salted. See, for example, previous AfDs listed above and the history and talk page of American Academy of Financial Management. RJC TalkContribs 22:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • STRONG KEEP I think this article deserves a stay of execution. I think past behavior is implied in the AAFM dispute, but the end result is that it appears the accusations made by King in the history of the AAFM article dispute have now become public knowledge in the nominated Wall Street Journal article, so his assertions, although controversial are now established fact.
    Despite the apparent history in the dispute of the AAFM issue, I think the following independent references and reviews show strong WP:NPOV support through neutral third-party sources and independent reviews (generally extremely positive) as follows:
As a fan/reader of the book, maybe I am considered biased in this, but I guess that adds to my support for the keep recommendation as this author has a credible story and the independent resources support this article regardless of User:RJC feelings in this matter after his involvement in the dispute over the AAFM article Richard Snoots (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These links show that Mr. King is just as notable as he was the last time he was deleted, viz. that he is quoted in the press but does not have significant coverage. The fact that a book was reviewed online by minor sources (or even major sources) does not suffice for WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. The only prominent news organization listed above (the Boston Globe) does not have an article on King or his book; instead, he is quoted.
    The article itself does no better in establishing notability, and has the hallmarks of puffery. For example, the citation to support the book's being a bestseller is a camera-phone photo of a bookshelf at Singapore bookstore, taken by none other than Mr. King himself. A Google Scholar search reveals no reviews of the book (which calls into question the quality of venues containing the reviews above), a WorldCat search shows it held by only 15 libraries, while Google News returns only five links, and three of those are errors (e.g., "the Bank's 2.0% target"). The book was not "featured" in the ABA journal, as the article suggests; rather, King was interviewed alongside another author, and his book was mentioned in that context. As with the last AfD, verifying that he exists is different from establishing notability. RJC TalkContribs 02:20, 16 November 2010 (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) 00:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D7 Church

[edit]
D7 Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, my prod rationale having been "Article about a recently formed congregation that seems to fail to satisfy the WP:GNG, as I can find no substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources." None of the sources cited in the article appear to be independent, and all the nontrivial edits to it have seemingly been from involved single-purpose accounts. Deor (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2010 (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, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Lewis

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

Nominating on behalf of unregistered editor (see diff). Reason given for nomination was "Would appreciate it if someone could complete this nomination for me, he seems non-notable, tagged for a while and no evidence of notability has been demonstrated. Thanks! 84.13.94.61 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)". I have no opinion at this time. KFP (contact | edits) 19:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not able to "vote" because I have no way of judging the reliability of the online sources cited. However he does seem to be fairly important in his field. Jaque Hammer (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2010 (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) 01:07, 20 November 2010 (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, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ontario private bus operators. T. Canens (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trott Transit

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

Apparently non-notable bus company. It has references, but none of them rise above the level of triviality. Jayron32 02:34, 20 November 2010 (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, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Michael Watson

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

This article was wrongly tagged with the frequently abused A7 speedy delete tag. While not certain, I think this might stay thru an AfD D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:15, 20 November 2010 (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, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Materials

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

Despite an alleged "Occupational safety and health" breach matter, I see no notability for this LL Private Company. Shirt58 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. Even if its notability was contingent on its poor safety record, it would seem to be rather clumsy to rename the article "Poor OH&S record of Thames Materials" or similar. I've seen the article in its current form, and withdraw nomination seems to be on the cards. If you have no objections, I would prefer to wait until the consensus isn't simply your !vote, plus me commenting on your !vote.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no objection from me. Outback the koala (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2010 (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) 01:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Douglas Duran

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

Probable autobiography about a non-notable filmmaker. Claims of notability surround Duran's involvement with the Mubi website, but there is no evidence that his involvement in this site is significant. Other claims to notability involve the Subvex film project, but there is not sufficient indication that that project is notable in itself. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, WikiDan61- Sorry if I'm not answering this in the right place. I'm still a bit confused about how to reply to these messages... That being said: This is not an autobiographical article, I am actually part of an independent film commission based out of Kansas City, mo. Called "Cinema KC", our plan is to submit articles on all local, Kansas City based filmmakers of note. We were under the impression that Jonathan was of note due to his work on a national level with famous avant-garde filmmakers (the exquisite corpse film) and his work with creating The Auteurs (Mubi) Garage site, which is one of the premiere locations online for independent filmmakers to gain exposure for their work. Please advise what we need to do in order to make this fit online with Wikipedias polocies if we are still missing something. Hopefully we will have a chance to finish this article later today. We've added many outside reference points to the article since our first draft, including IMDB info and national news stories both online and in print. Thank you. Sinemasound (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete more or less per nom. Comments: He'll probably be a cult figure in ten years time, but doesn't look to be yet. IMDb isn't regarded as a reliable source here, as the info there is often subject supplied. Have a look at WP:RS to see what is considered reliable - avoid blogs and sites related to the subject. Working with notable people doesn't necessarily make one notable. By the way, thirty is a bit young to be a 'life-long' anything. That term is normally applied to people of fifty and above who have had more time to have a life without changing. (A lifelong teetotaller might be only three years old...) Peridon (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2010 (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) 01:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smugglers Records

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

Some of the acts may be notable, but the label has no coverage and notability is not inherited. The coverage falls well short of meeting WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2010 (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) 00:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wouldn't rule out notability just because of lack of hits on Ghits/Gnews if there's association with a decent number of notable acts, but that doesn't look like the case here. At the most, there are two groups here with evidence of notability (one with some reviews in the national press, and another with a Wiki article that hasn't been deleted yet), but that's not enough - especially as we don't know whether their notable works were produced by Smugglers Records, only that they've "worked with" the acts. Will reconsider if more specific evidence is given. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stanley (lighting designer)

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

Declined speedy, unreferenced BLP, no assertion of notability, and in an admittedly quick search I found no significant coverage. Do we keep or toss? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2010 (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, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed Alzarian16's comment that this article was never tagged itself for this AfD, and have now added the AfD to the article. Would it be appropriate to relist as the article hasn't been marked for either of the last two passes? --j⚛e deckertalk 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so, it's a BLP, and we're not in a rush. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've pressed the button. I realize that in doing this myself I've been a little WP:IARish, if there's an objection feel free to let fly with the trout.  :-) --j⚛e deckertalk 18:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached (previously this AfD hadn't been marked on the article in question).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 18:41, 20 November 2010 (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) 00:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because he's an associate professor at BU, I think. --Crusio (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  09:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Berger

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

Fails WP:N in general and WP:ACADEMIC in particular. Sulmuesi (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

: I had 462 results here, but I probably did something wrong. Will you please provide link for cites you mentioned?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realised what that mean, sorry. In my search it is 45,27,8,3,24,3,2,14,5,19,1,2,2.... I dont know how to interprete this search results (there would be much more results if you type Stephen (German pronountion?) instead of Stefan, but there would also be some results connected with other people), but I am not sure if this search results can provide better insight than such impressive list of works properly published by third party independent publishers. Please take in consideration that his field of interest is not very popular topic (kind of new rational approach to the influence of nationalism on historical works) and that he can not expect too much support of nation-state institutions for his projects, only international institutions like, obviously, European. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2010 (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) 00:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I am not convinced that the F.R.Hist.S. is selective enough to pass WP:PROF#C3. And he has attracted some media attention for his claims that the East Germans interfered in UK union politics [55] but unless there's something else it seems a bit of a case of WP:BIO1E to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on his relatively large scholarly output and being in the news more than once. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep on the basis of the publications: Editor of one of the Blackwell Companions series A companion to nineteenth-century Europe, 1789-1914, which indicates by itself status as an authority in the subject. Additionally, a major scholarly book on German nationalism. published by Arnold/OUP & in hundreds of WorldCat libraries, [56], t at least 5 other major scholarly books in English by some of the most important publishers, and a similar number published only in German [57]. Multiple reviews of at least some of the books. This is fully enough for notability as an academic or as an author. In fact, almost all senior academics in the humanities at major universities will meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, full professor at Manchester, one of the greatest university history departments in the world. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of above findings. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FishTanked

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

Non-notable web comic, which I can't find mention of in any reliable sources Sadads (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, the unavailability of sources which support such an assertion makes it questionable.Sadads (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until then. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found examples of what "featured in several major publications" means, and it means trivial coverage, like at most two sentences. This "brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses" is explicitly described as trivial coverage not meeting notability by WP:WEB. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2010 (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) 00:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Charlotte Motor Speedway. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Shootout

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

No indication this meets WP:GNG. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2010 (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) 00:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keir Brooks Sterling

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this long-time unreferenced WP:BLP. Can find that he has written several books but nothing about those books or the subject himself. Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. —J04n(talk page) 00:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 4 Effort

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

Seems to be a non-notable student improv troupe. E. Fokker (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The group has been invited to open for numerous professional comics and other student organizations. Calling this group non-notable would be very similar to calling other student performance groups the same thing, even though such groups with similar pages already exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homsar727 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added to the page highlighting the group's legitimacy as well as some record of its notable performances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homsar727 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The first ref on this article shows nothing of notability. Second is a Passing ref to this group in an article that primarily covers another act. Being featured in a YouTube video does not signify notability. Does not meet WP:N. Pol430 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, the first reference is to highlight our legitimacy as a Rutgers organization and although the second reference mostly revolves around another group, the inclusion of the article highlights that we have made at least one major documented contribution to the university community. Admittedly, it is very hard to find proper references because of how little documentation is available for such things. This is prevalent in numerous other Rutgers University organizations that have their own pages. (Homsar727 (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Monk Gets Hypnotized

[edit]
Mr. Monk Gets Hypnotized (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This episode of Monk (TV series) fails to meet the GNG or the interpretation of it given in FICTION. TV plot articles without any clear rationale for significance fail the definition of WP:IINFO#1. This article may be suitable for creation at http://monk.wikia.org but Wikipedia is not for episode guides or a fansite. PROD removed, so raising for wider discussion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ David Chinnery and Kurt Keutzer (2003). "Closing the Gap Between ASIC & Custom: Tools and Techniques for High-Performance ASIC Design". Kluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved 2010-11-26. Earl Killian and other veterans of microprocessor design were helpful with clues as to the sources of the performance discrepancy: layout, circuit design, clocking methodology, and dynamic logic. -- Kurt Keutzer
  2. ^ brian fuller (1999-02-17). "Update: Startup to bring configurability to processor cores". EE Times. Retrieved 2010-11-26. The company has lured several notables from the semiconductor and EDA worlds, including former Synopsys chairman Harvey Jones as Tensilica's chairman, Intel veteran Beatrice Fu as vice president of engineering and MIPS and SGI veteran and multiple patent holder Earl Killian as chief architect.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_November_27&oldid=1142640122"