The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was PRODded as redundant to Indore and contested. Sourced content exists in Indore, the topic covered under this title isn't notable; article includes some claims and POV that are unsourced, so nothing to merge. Delete -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer in the nom statement, that was the PROD rationale (not by me). The reason I brought this up here is it's not a notable topic, and includes unsourced and unverifiable claims, is a personal opinion addressing the questions of people going to Indore to study. The page was G11ed twice before, but I didn't think it was an advert, just a point of view on why Indore has good hostels - without naming any. The topic isn't covered in Indore (just the opening statement of the article is), so a redirect doesn't make sense IMO, and given that nothing is sourced, a merge isn't necessary and since the topic doesn't pass WP:GNG, an article isn't necessary. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete the only useful content was in Indore, the rest is not worth preserving, so not worth merging, a redirect will not be useful as the target term is already included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NOT. The article appears to be a "how to" for students looking for accommodation in Indore and no source is available that suggests that the topic is notable. Abecedare (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a well-intentioned article, but the notability seems to derive from founding a small non-profit (which many, many others have done) and honors received. I wasn't able to to find any verification of the honors on Google.
Perhaps someone more familiar with Sri Lanka could find better references, but I came up empty-handed. One would think that someone who is "one of the most socially committed philantrophists to his country" (sic) would be easy to find.
If this man is truly notable in Sri Lanka, my apologies; but if so, surely some 3rd-party references can be provided ? Outside the PINA website ? Plvekamp (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any coverage about this subject in reliable sources. All I could find were directory entries. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete. A7, the original speedy was declined because the article was going to be expanded and the article updated to assert notability but that hasn't happened SpartazHumbug!22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Also nominated is a very similar and tangentially related article by the same author at Lana Edwards, another disputed prod without apparent improvement.
A disputed prod about a novice dog groomer who won an event. There is an assertion of notability here but it seems very slight to me, essentially someone notable for one event. The event seems to have a single reliable source. Relationships with famous people, of course, do not accrue notability. I suggest if anything there should be an entry in an article about the event in question where the event was won, but I can't find anything to indicate that there's enough notability to make this article worth retention. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
No evidence of independent notability for either biography. Barely meets the threshold for inclusion elsewhere under WP:BLP1E. Vicenarian(Said · Done)21:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't DeleteIt's true i'm am the owner of the dog Jaclyn groomed his name was Ollie and she was in the Potpourri division and she won all of those,she has the awards to prove it and also the ribbon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.179.143 (talk) — 67.36.179.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete as per WP:ONEVENT but not even worth redirecting to Dog grooming. And with posts such as this from the article creator I don't think this user is serious about helping to build an encyclopedia, but rather to promote these two people, which are also most likely closely related to the article creator. -- Ϫ04:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dont your probably right its a sibling but he/she is probably just trying to help,you guys are just jealous that all you do is spend time on wikipedia and that these people are successful at something other than wikipedia
Yes. It's hurting those who come to Wikipedia expecting to read useful content on notable people, not people they've never heard of or care about. It hurts those editors who work hard to give this site a professional appearance, for people to use as a serious tool for research, not a playground for kiddies to put up articles on their siblings just because they can. -- Ϫ03:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i did that* I did the new article thats hows it really spelled because it's me haha but can you just leave it all the facts are true you just haven't looked around,you just automatically think rcjumpman45 is lying but he isn't he is Lana's son and he was at the dog grooing show that i won those events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groomer2 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC) — Groomer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete both, because they don't meet the criteria for notability. Truth doesn't matter; if I wrote a completely truthful article about myself, it would be deleted. Bart133tc@22:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unnotable website that fails WP:WEB and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, only one or two minor hits in Google News[1] in general lists of anime sites. CSD removed by non-admin with note of "removed speedy, notability asserted, a Google News Archive search also returns a number of results - some may be substantial > take to WP:AFD if you wish to pursue deletion" however only 6 results actually returned. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would have said that the Anime Web Turnpike was the most prominent English language anime website about 10 years ago. There is significant coverage of it at Anime News Network, including an interview [2], various new stories or press releases about it (some admittedly very brief) [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], a statement that suggests Anime Fringe named it the top anime related web site in 2002 [8], a statement that Anime News Network was happy to win an award from them back in 1999 [9], a statement that at one point it was the only serious anime web site besides Anime News Network [10], etc. I know that some of those are just one line news articles or brief mentions in larger articles, but I think they make it clear that it was considered an important anime website back then. I haven't looked much for sources other than at ANN, but I would bet there is coverage in other reliable sources. Calathan (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases do not establish notability. Anyone can published a press release and generally find at least one reliable source to reprint it. There are very few actual news coverage about the site beyond its own promotional notes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the rest are significant coverage - many are just quick bits that seem like repeats of news posts from the site itself. While ANN is a reliable source, if it is the only one to actually cover the site, that really doesn't make Anime Web Turnpike anymore notable per WP:WEB. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider that interview long enough to count as "non-trivial" in the meaning of WP:N and WP:WEB. I'm not sure why you say it isn't. Here is another site with signficant coverage [11], though I don't know if that is a reliable source. Those are what I got from just the first page of Google, so again, I think there would be more sources. If you haven't tried looking for sources yourself, I would ask that you please do so. Also, I notice that the links at the top of the AfD give some hits from Google books and Google scholar (though I haven't looked at them in detail). Calathan (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interview is certainly non-trivial according to WP:WEB, though most, if not all, of the other links are trivial. The Backstage link [12] certainly establishes notability and seems like a reliable resource. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR certainly has its functions but I don't think it's supposed to be used as a carte blanche for bailing out non-notable websites and the like. The WP:IKNOWIT argument is not particularly persuasive as well. — Rankiri (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IKNOWIT is granted, but it's not something I can really avoid here given the circumstances. Mind you, if it really doesn't hold at the end of the discussion, I'm not gonna cry crocodile tears - especially because Anipike's function is more spread out in this day and age. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anipike was the major web portal for American anime fandom in the 90's. It ran into problems around 2000 or so, another company acquired and revamped it, and then it slowly faded into obscurity. (It's certainly not notable in its present form.) As with much early web history it's hard to find sources. A number of publications mention it (Google Books, Google Scholar), but most of these just cite Anipike as a source of information rather than discussing the site itself at length. It was featured in a third party documentary (which I thought I had but apparently don't); if anyone's got a bunch of old copies of Animerica, it might be worth combing through those for articles about Anipike. Sadly, this may be one of those things that's notable in the real world but not Wikipedia-notable; I hope I'm wrong.--Chris Johnson (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From a quick Google search there seems to be enough good information out there to satisfy WP:WEB if someone took the time to comb through the information available. In general it seems unusually difficult to find sources that satisfy Wikipedia's reliability criteria for websites that were popular in the late 1990's, even the most popular. I don't feel comfortable saying "Keep the article" since it hasn't been developed very much at all. I think the notability is there but I'm not sure what the correct thing to do is. Delete the article and then, later on, someone could develop a more mature article and put it back up? Would it be better, instead, to keep the article even though it doesn't currently cite reliable sources? Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep The listing as a "must visit" site by both MacUser and Animefringe is enough to establish some basic notability. I view these as the equivalent of an award for websites. Unfortunately, do to circumstances, the article may never be what it should be. In part because the website has passed into obscurity. --Farix (Talk) 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - passes WP:WEB. In addition to the ones called out above, there are several other substantive G-news hits from equally mainstream media (and they don't get more mainstream than Der Spiegel -- that's like a profile in Time). The machine translations described above are substantially correct, by my reading with admittedly rusty German. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The evidences of notability are strong enough to warrant an article in wikipedia. Back in the context to get mentioned on an article on animanga from publication like the Der Spiegel is not small feat as such article were and still be few and far between in those medium. --KrebMarkt06:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable methodology. This methodology has been discussed by Fritz Solms in a paper published in "New trends in software methodologies, tools and techniques" but no other sources can be found in Google Scholar that mention this methodology. The article has been created by FritzSolms (talk·contribs) who claims to be the same person. The ACM paper referenced (ACM 2007) assesses 3 methods of which URDAD is described as a "novel" methodology but does not establish the notability of the method and the paper is actually about assessing methodologies but does refer to Solms Training Consulting and Development who created the methodology. No other papers are available that are independent of Solms. Ash (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious advertising for a product that makes no claim of minimal importance. And oh look! it's another article about a method for supervising computer programmers: analysis and design methodology for generating a technology neutral design in the context of model driven development. It is used by business analysts to perform technology neutral business process design and by software system designers for technology neutral software design. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unnotable website that fails WP:WEB and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, its content has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and it has not won any major awards. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 20:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has anyone even heard of this website? I am having trouble finding what words to put down here so I agree with collectonian's points on the matter. -Knowledgekid8716:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. If their were notable for their controversy as stated in the first AFD, I would expect to see this documented via reliables sources. I've found no such sourcing in my searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All I'm finding are repeated forum messages pointing to their website from a small number of the same posters, in response to the question "how do I become a voice actor"? News coverage in the anime field is non-existent that I can see. There may be some coverage in Hollywood news sources and I just don't happen to be looking in the right places, but it's looking pretty dubious. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability is unclear and not stated by author. Elvis played there: that may be noteworthy, but I'm not in a position to judge. To salvage this article, please cite references. Chutznik (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –If you notice, when tanswiking, the AFD now has a “Find Sources” area where all one has to do is click on news sources and it will bring you right to Google News with a listing of all news articles on that subject. Likewise, there is Google Scholar and Google Books also listed. By taking a second and clicking on these easily accessible areas, I was able to find sources and references in all three areas to satisify our current criteria for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssSTalk20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep Bad nom in my book. As Shoessss said, loads of third party notable and reliable sources are only a click away. Rafablu8821:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I, the creator of this article, think it should stay because if this was included in the original, the original article , America's Got Talent (Season 4), would be crowded with too much information and make it much harder to navigate around the page, and even to edit the page. This is why i organized the audition info into a separate article, making it easier for others to edit and navigate around the page. I have also included the references on this page for all the audition info, so there is no need to delete this article for those reasons. This is my argument against the deletion of this article.
Cpudude91 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the page is deleted, then this information IMHO should be returned to the full AGT S4 page from which it was split. Including of the failed acts in the AGT season articles has been done each season since season 2 to show, in part, the sheer diversity of acts that compete. I did not particularly object to the split-out, but I would object to the loss of the information overall. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly not seen that. There's an inclusion of failed acts accepted into the show yes, but this is a list of those who failed to even pass the auditions. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the seasons 2 & 3 page. This style was developed during season 2, discussed quite a bit on that season's talk page, and has been kept in the two seasons since. If the style needs to change, that's an issue for the talk page of the current season, not an AFD, IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Season 3 includes "auditions were held at X, Y, Z, here's some notable schmucks who failed to get through" - not a list of everyone who auditioned ever in every location who was featured in any episode of the TV show for more than 0.5 of a second. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Season 3 also includes a full list of the acts who were eliminated, not just a paragraph.
Season 2 & 3's pages are just as comprehensive as season 4. I should know, as I typed in most of that data back then, working through the RNO summaries as reference, and listing each act that failed or succeeded. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It actually summarizes only the rejected acts side of those episodes. It would not be too hard to collect the accepted acts info from the history of the main AGT article, but then you would have the issue of duplication of information between this and the main AGT S4 page, where the accepted act information has already migrated down the page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- If the article is merged, it will be hard to navigate around the AGT Season 4 page, which makes editing and navigating the webpage very difficult, which is why it was created.Cpudude91 (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't think that individual episodes of a TV series are inherently notable, the summary of a season generally is. In this case, the audition phase of AGT has had episodes that get the highest Nielsen ratings, and even the reruns do well. As such, I think it's a legitimate spinout of the Season 4 article. Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I split the page because it is hard to navigate the AGT S4 page when the audition info is there. When it is split, it is much more organized and easier to edit and browse. Cpudude91 (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to let people know, relisting does not mean that you need to, or get to, !vote a second time. The idea of a relist is that a consensus cannot be discerned from the existing debate, so more time is give, in the hopes that additional people will express opinions, or that the existing debators can move towards a useful consensus. While there's nothing wrong with restating opinions after a relist, it's not really necessary, and people should definitely not "revote". - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an honest mistake that most of us, including I, have made once, and it's one of the few instances where it's okay to strike through someone else's edit as part of the correction, which I've done a few times. Although the debate isn't a vote, the closing administrator does look at the heading of each argument to get an idea of how many people are weighing in on the subject. Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Although true that there are no obvious awards claimed, she very specifically satisfies WP:PROF #1 – her research record is quite notable. WoS shows 42 hits with citations of 168, 62, 56, etc., indicating her work has had a clear and appreciable impact on a mainstream academic field. Agree with above – unclear as to why this appeared here in AfD. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
DeleteKeep I don't believe simply authoring a lot of papers is sufficient to meet WP:PROF #1; the criteria states that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Are there any such reliable sources that demonstrate not simply that she wrote a lot, but that her writings have "made significant impact in her scholarly discipline?" I saw a user above mention something to this effect regarding WoS; I don't recognize that term offhand. Could you expound please?
Regarding her presidency of the ISJR, as per criteria #6: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." What I've found so far on the ISJI has failed to show that they qualify as a "major academic society." Their website counter shows just over 13,000 hits, and the sole reference on the Wiki page for the organization is to it's own website. I also have some question if a self-authored resume really qualifies as fulfilling WP:BLP, but I suppose it's not a major point. Can someone show either a source demonstrating the "major academic society" status of the ISJR, or else the "significant impact" her research has had? - Qinaelλαλεω01:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Explanation of WP:Prof #1 follows: Publishing papers is not sufficient to achieve notability for academics and scientists. What counts is the impact they make on the scholarly community. In the area of academic and scientific research impact can be measured objectively by counting the citations to papers made by other independent sources. These citations are available from several places for example Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus and others List of academic databases and search engines. Statistical measures, such as the h index are applied to these findings. All these matters have been discussed extensively in the past and present academic AfD pages and User:Qinael should read these as well as the subjects cited. Standards for notability are higher for scholars than in many other areas of Wikipedia. Hundreds of sources are needed for an academic or scientist whereas some articles in WP have less than half a dozen. As a rule of thumb an h index of between 10 and 15 is often considered borderline; outside those limits no contest. An h index of 21 is pretty good by the standards applied in these AfD pages. For this subject it means that at least h squared (= 441) other authors have cited the subject's work. The Presidency of ISJR may not by itself be sufficient in itself to achieve notability but adds to it. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment i dont understand. if the article is inaccurate, based on the subjects own knowledge of himself, cant he remove the inaccuracies? surely thats not COI, as long as what is taken away isnt refed, and anything added is. i would think that anyone who easily passes notability, by having a book published, is a figure in the public eye, and thus cant have an entire article deleted. wouldnt that cause problems if say, henry kissinger asked for his article to be removed due to information in the article he disagreed with or found embarrassing? I do know that people can request removal of libelous or personal material, though. <s--can we leave a stub?--/> Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thanks for the clarification below. i checked the books authored, and i agree that Mr. Bateman's notability for the purposes of this encyclopedia justifies his request to delete the article. And I hope, sir, that you didnt take offense at my comparison example. Your friends (and yourself) might find it amusing that there is a "peace grove" in a park next to berkeley, ca, which has a tree for each Nobel Peace Prize winner, including Mr. Kissinger. Of course, if you choose to (or are chosen) to play a more prominent role in public life, an article may reappear. And, last but not least, thank you for your service.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some issues come up again and again and again. (To my knowledge) there is no requirement in WP policy that a topic that passes WP notability criteria MUST have an article on it. If editors on an AfD page decide that it is appropriate to concur with a subject's wish to not have an article, then those views can form a legitimate consensus. Of course, there are plenty of rogues in the world who would prefer that their activities were not scrutinised by Wikipedia, but the present case does not appear to be one of these. As well, there are plenty of cases that are so notable that the lack of an article would be detrimental to Wikipedia, despite the wishes of the subject. Again this is not one of them, the article appears to be short on notability anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I'm no Henry Kissinger, either as a writer/historian or (as some of my friends would have it) a war criminal. And the fact that I've done a couple of books is really small beans. Most hometown newspapers print more copies daily than the publishers of the books I wrote printed my books. And while I could edit the page, and fix some/all the inaccuracies, there's just something creepy about that. I'd just prefer that the whole thing be deleted. RobertBateman (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notability is well established. I don't think this content should be lost. Perhaps article can be broken up into articles about the individual books and other issues? I suggest Bateman points out the innaccuracies (along with any sources that are reliable) on the talk page so the article can be fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteA journalist, not an historian. I am not influenced by what he says about his own notability, nor do I agree in the least that a person who is notable has a right to ask for his article to be removed. it's typically difficult to judge notability by searching when looking at columnists and similar writers, because of the articles by the person. But I really don't see any notability here. Notability may be asserted, which prevented the speedy deletion, but it isn't present. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article is entirely based on Bateman's own writings and various blog posts about them; there seems to be very little in it sourced to reliable third-party publications about Bateman. The Skeptical Inquirer piece may be an exception (I can't tell because the link is broken), but we need more than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an author is notable for their work, I don't see how this one isn't notable. From the Washington Post "Army records discovered last month by Maj. Robert Bateman, a West Point historian, strongly suggest that Daily was not a member of the famed 7th Cavalry--Gen. George Custer's old regiment--in July 1950. According to these records, at that time Daily was serving with the 27th Ordnance Maintenance Group, which was in Korea but nowhere near No Gun Ri; Daily did not join the 7th Cav until March 1951 and served for less than two months." From the San Francisco Chronicle "Now, one of the three AP writers, Charles Hanley, is apparently trying to suppress publication of a new book -- "No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident" -- that takes another view of what happened at No Gun Ri. The book, written by U.S. Army Maj. Robert Bateman, is highly critical of the AP story, calling into question the reporters' sources and research. But Bateman's book isn't the first time the AP story has been criticized.
"By May 2000, barely a month after the three AP writers were awarded their Pulitzer, journalism's highest award, challenges to the AP investigation had begun to appear, most notably in U.S. News & World Report and on the now- defunct Web site stripes.com. It was the start of a skirmish between the AP and critics of the No Gun Ri story that's still going on. ...For his part, Hanley said in an e-mail message to The Chronicle, "It is more than appropriate for me to defend my professional reputation and the reputations of my colleagues against a man who . . . has attacked our integrity based on nothing more than his own wild imaginings and ignorance."
"Hanley learned of Bateman's work on No Gun Ri after Bateman circulated early drafts of his material to historians, journalists and veterans of the 7th Cavalry. Hanley says the veterans "called my attention to" Bateman's book. "
"Hanley says Bateman's version of what happened at No Gun Ri is "simply a vicious attack on us (the AP writers) personally, with fantasies about our psyches and motivations, about our mysterious evil journalistic methodologies, and about the dark secrets he imagines we're keeping.
""It belongs on the science fiction shelf," Hanley wrote in the e-mail. "
"He said Bateman's publisher is "free to publish whatever it wants." But he decided to write the publisher anyway because "obviously, if you care about your own good reputation and the truth, you would lay out the facts so that anyone considering perpetuating this stuff would know he's handling material rife with falsehoods."
"Publishers say pre-emptive strikes against forthcoming controversial books happen more often than one might think. "It is not unusual when somebody discovers they're the subject of a book, and they don't like it, to attempt to influence what will be published," said Peter Osnos, a longtime reporter for the Washington Post who now runs PublicAffairs, a New York publishing house." [13].
If this author isn't notable, what does it take? Is there something going on behind the scenes that I don't know about? And that's just from two major sources. There's lots more. Another book. He's written lots of articles. Etc. etc.
Comment Speaking for (and I guess 'of') myself, I just don't think that a couple of newspaper articles, and the fact that I did some books and have written a few hundred articles/reviews makes me notable. Not in this day and age. If that were so, then every academic historian out there, for the past 100 years, not to mention every single journalist of the past 200 years, would be considered notable. Yes, I've been in some academic/journalistic foodfights. But aside from people who personally know/follow the antagonists, it's about as notable as a brawl outside of Gilly's Bar and Grill on your average Texas Saturday night. RobertBateman (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keeps failed to explain why this user is notable. Nearly all the sources and arguments were rebutted by those wishing to delete, and there was not nearly enough material to sway consensus towards keeping an already deleted article. \Backslash Forwardslash/ (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination only. This was deleted as a recreation of deleted material, but I restored because I did not think it was substantially identical to the originally deleted article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this should be speedied for obvious reasons to anyone involved in the first AFD i.e. notability has not been established and it's been recreated without notability still. Also, SarekOfVulcan has wikistalked my edits to show up here to punish me for opposing him on Dreamhost. Nice, Sarek. Very nice. I nominate this for deletion, and it's deleted. and then today I opposed SarekOfVulcan's stance on another article, and he comes and overturns the delete on this article totally unrelated to him. Awesome. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theserialcomma, you are confusing me. And I mean, in a big way. When my original article that was written for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie was deleted, you were the one who encouraged me to write a new, more improved second article with significantly more citations, references, etc.; Then, you contradict this encouragement and advice by nominating my second article for deletion. I don't get this series of actions at all. Chicago Smooth (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
don't be confused. i told you not to recreate the article until notability had been established. i said that approximately 14 times to you and tried to help you when it was userfied. then you recreated it within 24 hours without addressing the notability issue. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:BIO. Person has not "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." And by "reliable", I mean those sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and that provide a greater "degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence." — Satori Son19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Satori Son, I've browsed through literally dozens, if not hundreds of articles on here of men and women in different fields, and very few of the subjects I browsed were featured prominently as a subject in a major newspaper article or magazine article. The subject of my article is about to be quoted in Black Enterprise magazine, and I think that accounts for his credibility as a dating and relationship author and expert. Chicago Smooth (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an unfortunate reality that there are other articles on Wikipedia that also do not meet our standards for inclusion. — Satori Son18:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepweak keep The previous AfD provided more than enough sources. Also, I'd strongly suggest that Chicago Smooth put a sock in it if he/she actually wants this article kept. Hobit (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, updated !vote based on Marc Kupper's review of sources. Still think this passes the bar, but I'll admit it's close per WP:N. Nice job Marc. Hobit (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Person has "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject".
Thanks to Ttonyb1's work, the Ian Coburn pieces likely aren't from the San Francisco Examiner. We do have an article on Ian Coburn, but he's not a newspaper. However, that still leaves two indepth newspaper articles, years apart, from different authors, and three less indepth pieces, so the cumulative does, I believe, still make him pass Wikipedia:Notability. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence the article appeared in either the web or print versions of the San Francisco Examiner. A Google search of individual and San Francisco Examiner gives no hits.
The Examiner.com website is, per Wikipedia, is a news site that "...allows local citizen journalists to share their city-based knowledge on a blog-like platform..."
Keep - My final say so. Primary argument in favor of maintaining article: The original article for Book Author and Talk Radio Personality Alan Roger Currie was not nearly as thorough as the one now, and it was active for a year, if not longer, without any challenges for deletion. And this is when the subject of the article had far less credentials and accomplishments. So I can't identify any valid reasons for deletion, when the new article is significantly better than an article that lasted for 12-15 months without one challenge for deletion Chicago Smooth (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to closing admin: it would appear that there are more votes to keep than delete. but let's look at the content of what the keeps are saying: it should be kept because there are passing, trivial mentions, which are not widespread or substantial. this is a reason to delete, not keep. i think the lack of real notability overrules any votes. Theserialcomma (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added Comment - I don't know much significance is placed on "electronic media" or "audio media," but I have to add that Mr. Currie was featured in Fall 2006 on the Walt "Baby" Love show (who is considered the African-American equivalent to Casey Kasem); Anyone in the African-American community knows: Walt "Baby" Love does not interview "non-notable" types. Love either interviews those who are established stars, or those who he genuinely feels are "rising stars"; This is a Host who has interviewed the likes of John Legend, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin and Justin Timberlake, among others. Love rarely even interviews people who aren't in the music industry. And he requested an interview with Mr. Currie to discuss his book. I think that is worth noting. Chicago Smooth (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. I went through the existing references and evaluated each for WP:N. The yes/no is if I saw that reference as qualifying under WP:GNG.
No - Self - Alan Roger Currie. "Biography for Alan Roger Currie". The Mode One Approach website. http://modeone.net/AlanRogerCurrie.html. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
Yes - 452 words independent coverage (A copy of this article is available on line at http://alumni.indiana.edu/nealmar/docs/fall06.pdf on page 9.) - Moore, Janis (2006-09-06). "Honesty Policy: Gary native publishes book on his dating philosophy". Post-Tribune.
No - Database - Adrienne Yates. "Biography for Alan Roger Currie". Internet Movie Database Biographies. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3113515/bio. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
No - Was in audience and on air for 15 seconds to ask a question - "Alan Roger Currie appears on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno". YouTube.com. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUAMlRaUZ-k. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
MaybeNo as it looks like there are no barriers/requirements to being a host on www.blogtalkradio.com[16]. Thus appearing is not an indicator of notability. However, while hosting he did have some callers meaning there is coverage though it's not known if the callers were independent of the subject. - "SoundBits: Alan Roger Currie Does His Thing for the Singles Scene". http://blog.blogtalkradio.com/celebrities/soundbits-alan-roger-currie-singles-scene/. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
I switched this one from Maybe to No as I took another look and see that it's not going to pass a hard WP:RS. There's no evidence that these are independent callers. Also, even if they were independent the callers do not seem to be researching and covering the subject (Alan Roger Currie) in significant detail but rather they are asking softball questions. Thus this is more of WP:SELFPUB that can be used as a source about the subject but is not good evidence of notability. --Marc Kupper|talk18:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No as the wiki article says "Currie was quoted" which does not pass WP:N but also, there is no evidence of a quote in the on-line copy of this article[17] meaning it's a failed-verification. - Bridgette Bartlett and Demetria L. Lucas (July 2008). "They Thought I'd Never Get Married". Essence magazine.
Maybe as Currie is a co-guest on a TV show for a little under six minutes. There appears to be coverage of Currie but as I don't have sound on the computer I can't put this down as a yes/no but I'm leaning towards yes - "Relationship 101: Is it Normal When Your Significant Other does...". The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hama3AAbbxM. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
No as Currie is never the subject of the article which is about a class he taught - Earnshaw, Rob (2009-05-09). "Times Correspondent puts himself on the line for IU class". Northwest Indiana TIMES.
I would probably lump blogradio in the same category as blogs. Although there were some callers, almost every blog has some readers.
Are one small article about a e-book > pamphlet > self-published book; and a short appearance on morning "talk" show are significant. Not sure these are enough to support the contention that there is significant/adequate coverage of the individual. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about source #2 - the one "yes" - this is just a tiny article that reads more like an advertisement than anything else. i don't doubt he's had weak mentions like this in other places, but this isn't significant. #9 and #7 = no because there is no verifiability through third party, reliable sources Theserialcomma (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding item #2
The Gary Post-Tribune has roughly 50 references for articles[18]. It looks like they had a significant article about trains that many articles are using. FWIW - it does seem to be a newspaper that follows normal RS standards.
Janis Moore appears to be one of their reporters[19] and can be presumed to be independent of Alan Roger Currie.
While the article was likely written as a Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) item this does not preclude it from being used as evidence of notability.
Unfortunately WP:N does not give good guidance on trivial vs. significant/detailed. The article is over 1 sentence and under 360 pages...
I need to run on an errand but when I get back will take another look at the article. What I'm thinking about is if the author, Janis Moore, is covering the subject or she allowed Alan Roger Currie to essentially self-promote.
I'm ambivalent about the TV show appearance (#9 in the list) and will rig up the sound. I wished WP:N or WP:PEOPLE discussed the subject of interviews. Typically the interviewer asks questions and the subject replies an length. Thus while we may learn much about the subject, and they are great sources of information, is this "significant coverage" that "address the subject directly in detail." It's obviously passing "address the subject..." but where's the line on "significant?" Gotta run. --Marc Kupper|talk19:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the snippet that's available on highbeam.com. 20% of the article is visible and while it looks interesting I don't feel like giving hibeam.com my credit card # to look at the remaining 431 words. It likely does cover Currie rather than the book.
I ran out of time this weekend but someone interested in keeping the article on WP should go ahead, use something from the publicly visible part of the article, and include the article as a reference. From the way it's worded it appears to be 2nd person coverage. Even if the article is to be deleted you'll have a pretty good idea of the sort of thing WP is looking for. The author is active in promoting meaning within a few years there'll be enough coverage and Alan Roger Currie will be "notable" per the WP rules.
My local public library gives me access to four periodical databases but not hibeam.com. FWIW, none of those databases had anything on Alan Roger Currie other than finding the Essence magazine mention, a Letter to the Editor in Time 155.15 (April 17, 2000) written by Alan Roger Currie, and one of his books. --Marc Kupper|talk08:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Beyond the brief local newspaper coverage and the appearance as co-guest on that morning show, this is just a hodgepodge of trivial or passing citations, and I can't shake the sense that they reflect more of a talent for self-promotion and "getting noticed" than actual notability. That said, I appreciate that reasonable people can differ on the bottom line, hence the "weak". JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - searches certainly don't seem to find anything. Probable hoax; even if not, not notable as notability is not inherited - or passed from a sibling. JohnCD (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. I could find no info about a sibling by this name, nor could I find info about any of the other supposed siblings mentioned in the article -- or anything close to the quote given. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL20:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability not established via reliable sources. Article has been unsourced for almost two years and is little more than a plot summary. Doniago (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be quite a pile of articles like this in Category:Characters in The Vampire Chronicles, I suggest they be merged and listified. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into a "charcters of" type article is usually the best way to handle these, and I see no immediate reason why that wouldn't work for this article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as usual. The argument for this has been given many times, and is usually accepted, sI don't need to spell it out. Accepted compromise, and practical policy, even if it has to be made here because of stalemate elsewhere. . At worst there always will be reason for a redirect, so the delete nomination isn't appropriate in the first place. WP:Proposed mergers is elsewhere/ DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seven arguments against deletion:
+There is 180 Kilobytes amongst the Category:Characters in The Vampire Chronicles articles alone. That is 1.8 articles, at maximum capacity per WP:SPLIT, and three articles at the recommended splitting size of 60 Kb. It is unfortunate that they have to be 28 small articles, but at least that way they load quickly on slow computers. If concerns are about storage space, they do not take up more by being separate, and this AfD alone has taken up 140Kb just in the edit history for the seven edits to this page. Neither are the number of edits made more numerous because they are separate articles. Media are erroneously believed to be the primary contributor to storage space on WP, but as shown on my user page, it is actually edit histories. There is another alternative, but I find it so gawky and awkward that I do not recommend it: splitting the article into Characters A-I, J-Q, and R-Z. Yuck. We have a perfectly good category and some good articles.
+As can be seen from Anne Rice Vampires: Characters, the total list of Characters in the Vampire Chronicles is 52, not 28. Even splitting into A-D, E-H, I-M, N-Q, R-V, and W-Z articles would not be sufficient, assuming there weren't 15 names in one of the four-letter categories, again becoming too large. Small articles are preferable, as they are considerably easier to load on slow computers. Merging should be much more carefully considered than it is currently.
+The books are a blindingly obvious source of citations. I find such arguments incredibly annoying, as they bring up the issue of 'is it bad faith or is it ineptitude'; impossible to prove, censored by AGF, and in my opinion real problems WP-wide. Citation sourcing is a problem for the talk page in any case.
+Beeblebrox's suggestion is also an unpleasant alternative considering that it would merge main characters like Lestat with minor ones. Merging Lestat de Lioncourt with the other articles? Please. Keeping the major characters in their own articles and merging the minors still ends up with well over 100KB for the minors, and what is the distinction for characters other than Lestat?
+As can be seen from searches for Benji (Vampire) and Sybelle (Vampire), AfDs and inappropriate redirects by URLs chip away at modern fiction subjects without any regard to notability].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
speedy delete - article fails to show notability. request speedy deletion because this user created this article tendentiously after another Alan Roger Currie was deleted twice, and he recreated it, ignoring about 15 separate attempts to explain notability. I also suggest a block for disruptive behavior. The article creator insists on recreating/sneaking this unnotable author into wikipedia however he can, even after it's been explained countless times why this is not acceptable. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neither source is reflected in the article, and it's not clear how much they would help in any case. The Prensa Libre article appears to have been an overview of the "seduction community" (at least per the brief discussion found here) rather than coverage of the book itself; the Mike & Juliet coverage appears to have been along the same lines (YouTube here, for those wishing to form their own judgment) and the book itself is mentioned only in passing. JohnInDC (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:BK. This book has clearly not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." — Satori Son19:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are significant published reviews of the book itself to be found, which does not seem to be the case. There may or may not be material to support an article on the author, but, as he has done other work, an article there is more likely than here. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Call it a procedural AFD, as I don't think a prod would stick. No sourcing, no references, simply an exhaustive plot summary and list of trivia. No awards to support notability. Yngvarr(t)(c)14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and delete it hard! I can't find any non-trivial coverage of this episode or any evidence it has won awards or any evidence it had a significant real-world impact on anything. PanydThe muffin is not subtle17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep and expand per meeting WP:ENT: "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." AND "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. As long as she meets WP:ENT, it does not matter that she fails others (WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF, WP:ATH, WP:CREATIVE, WP:DIPLOMAT, WP:PORNBIO, etc.) WP:BIO is not meant to be exclusionary... it's just another way someone might meet notability if failing other criteria. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Notable enough. Just the amount of incoming links from other articles should be enough to keep. And WP:PORNBIO really should include Penthouse Pets along with Playboy Playmates. Why not have an article for every pet listed in the list? And the template. We should be making all those red links blue instead of deleting because of some disputed guideline, emphasis on the guideline. I've seen so many notable porn actresses deleted already mostly due to ignorance of the industry, and from what I perceive suspiciously as an effort by some editors to 'clean' Wikipedia of the 'smut'. -- Ϫ02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per guideline, sources are to be considered in context to what is being sourced. Washington Post does not report on adult industry stars. Hustler does not report on international politics. WP:RS specifically states "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." If the context is an adult star, then such a publication may be considered acceptable "as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that no-one here has access to what these magazines have actually written about her (probably insignificant trivia, if anything), she isn't independent of the magazines as she models for them. Also, I suspect few others would agree with your view that porn magazines are trustworthy or authoritative. Epbr123 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you assert as "fact" that no one reading Wikipedia has access to the magazines in question does not make them non-existant, nor make your assertion true. Your then supposition as to their content is pure speculation. Please do not twist my words. My statement is that an adult magazine might be considered as trustworthy and authoritative in relationship to the subject at hand. I am not declaring adult magazines as authoritative on world politics. I am not declaring Washington Post as authoritative on adult entertainers. Again, guideline instructs sources be considered in context to what is being asserted. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their reliability is besides the point anyways, his keep rationale was that she made appearances in Penthouse, Hustler, Barely Legal, and Club (magazine)s, which are all highly notable magazines in the adult industry context. Modeling for the magazine has no bearing on the reliability of the magazine. Reliable by whose terms? Yours? are you in the adult industry? How would you know what's considered trustworthy or authoritative in the adult industry? -- Ϫ00:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources noticeboard grants that Penthouse, Playboy, and Hustler[27] are reliable sources for adult entertainmant and may be used to meet WP:GNG, as guidelines other than WP:PORNBIO are allowed to be considered. WP:PORNBIO is not a limitation toward notability, only an additional tool for determination of such. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
unremarkable person. His father is notable, certainly, but notability is not inherited, and the single act of publishing his journal entries in a magazine is not enough to pass WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interestingly, the diary may be a forgery. See [28] and p266 snippet by Raymond Walters, biographer of Albert Gallatin. Seems that this is largely or mostly, but not 100% accepted, as citations of it as factual still occur.John Z (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: It's obvious that its scope is both national and international, with teams in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Ontario and Alberta. There are 51 Google News hits [29], including articles of significant length about the league in the Toronto Star, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Calgary Herald and the Buffalo News. That meets both the criteria in WP:CLUB as well as the GNG; upon what basis does the nom believe this to be non-notable? RGTraynor 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It may be prudent to revisit this issue in a few months, and move discussion to the article's talk page for the time being. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not and cannot be a neutral encyclopedia article; it's a polemical attempt to claim that any access to healthcare is equivalent to explicit rationing of healthcare. In response to my earlier concerns, the page creator has made the page more polemical, not less. Note that there are two separate concerns here: the page contents cannot be a neutral article, and the page title cannot be that of a neutral article, unless healthcare rationing were in fact instituted in the United States. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC) — Gavia immer (talk)17:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources indicate that healthcare rationing is a reality today in the United States, with 46 million people excluded from insurance coverage based on income, nature of employment, or pre-existing conditions. David Axelrod, David Leonhardt of the New York Times, and several others have indicated that healthcare is rationed in the United States using those words; President Obama has used other words. To deny the existence of rationing is refuted by the facts. Saying our private system does not ration healthcare is a political tool used by conservatives to forward their own arguments regarding healthcare rationing as being the exclusive providence of a government entity, when in fact rationing is enforced by private enterprise. The article includes a variety of quotes from experts in major media indicating this fact. I would be happy to discuss a change of title or further clarify the distinction between end of life decisions and economic healthcare rationing.Farcaster (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- violates WP:NPOV, and probably WP:SOAPBOX as well, and I agree with nominator, that a neutral article is unlikely to ever be based on the current title. Umbralcorax (talk)
Bear in mind, NPOV is not a reason to delete an article. That can be improved with editing. What suggestions do others have for a title, as this is a contentious issue? Perhaps "Healthcare rationing debate in the United States"?Farcaster (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A summary appears in Health care reform debate in the United States and I've added a few wikilinks and "see also" pointers to this article. Several of us have been working on subarticles by major healthcare reform topic area to keep the main article from getting any larger. My thought was once this article is developed further we could add to the health care reform template as a specific article, as this topic will become increasingly critical with time.Farcaster (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article just needs some historical perspective. There are already rations in existing schemes such as the Oregon Health Plan and entire books have been written on the subject, one of which I have cited. A good treatment of the subject will address these, not just the current proposals. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Gavia that this subject is in and of itself polemic, not encyclopedic. Also agree with Plvekamp that there are enough Wiki articles on this subject already. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Your point is unclear. Are you suggesting that all those other articles are fundamentally polemic too? If the topic is controversial, as it seems to be considered, then WP:NPOV requires that we present all points of view. If we delete coverage of some polemical positions but not others then this would be bias. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
This article has been recreated (albeit substantially expanded, I'm informed) after a deletion discussion resulted in its deletion. Notwithstanding any expansion, the current version does nothing to demonstrate that there is any significant coverage of the product in reliable sources that are independent of it. Bongomatic17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Symphony is a widely used platform with an active community. There are a number of sources cited in the entry which serve to back this up. The site is used on heineken.com, westminster.gov.uk, BBC News, various sites for Virgin Media, forward.com and many others. It is in active development. I can see no reason for the deletion of this article. Joseph Denne 21:52, 17 August 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.64.179 (talk) — 87.194.64.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Being used on notable websites is not the same as being notable. There are lots of non-notable products used in the creation of lots of notable things. You have never heard of the brand of Ethernet terminators used in the server room of Amazon.com, a notable web site, yet the Ethernet connector company (and its line of excellent connectors) is non-notable.
Define significant. There isalotofwhatIwouldconsidersignificant, coverage. I would also argue that coverage itself is not the sole requirement for an item in wikipedia to be considered significant. The technical advances that this system makes for example should be enough to warrant the entry. Then there's the community, whose membership numbers in the thousands... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.64.179 (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm not convinced there's a one-to-one relationship between coverage and notability. As the current and past deletion records for this entry have argued, the fact that there is plenty of coverage of Symphony of various kinds around the web does not necessarily mean that the system is notable. Conversely, however, the fact that you don't deem any of the coverage significant, or that you question whether it demonstrates Symphony's notability, does not necessarily mean that the system itself is not notable. Symphony is notable in the landscape of Content Management Systems for many reasons, perhaps the most important being that it is the most widely used—and maybe the first—open source CMS implementing the W3C's XSL Transformations as a templating layer. And I'm not convinced your argument about ethernet connectors is wholly applicable. What makes Mediawiki notable? Its role in defining and popularizing the wiki format? The fact that it powers Wikipedia? I'd say both. And if you apply the same standards to systems like Symphony, Wordpress, or Drupal, I think the conclusion is that they are notable enough to be kept. Craigzheng (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaking wikt:notability for WP:Notability. Wikipedia has WP:GUIDELINES on inclusion that (contrary to your opinion) directly reference "coverage"—indeed "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent" of the subject. Please review these guidelines.
The Mediawiki article is poorly sourced—especially when given the wealth of coverage it has received. But even were it not, everyone here is a WP:COI editor with respect to it—it would survive even a valid AfD nomination. Wordpress has received extensive third party coverage in reliable news sources (not that they are cited in the article). I don't automatically consider (and I don't know that my view represents WP:Consensus on this) manuals / how-to books about a technology to qualify as "independent" coverage of that technology. Drupal is also atrociously sourced (there may be better sourcing out there, and the sheer number of full-length books on the topic is somewhat suggestive).
But beyond the comparison to Mediawiki, Wordpress, or Drupal, the consensus is that the existence of similar articles is not a reason to keep an inadequately sourced article. See WP:Other stuff exists and the links to be found there. Bongomatic00:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fair. But note, from the article on WP:Notability: "... it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft" and "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Clearly, there's been a significant effort made to improve the references for this article in the last six months, and I believe that, given more time, notability can be satisfactorily established for this article. Craigzheng (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but despite the effort, no significant coverage has been identified. Moreover, I have done a search for such, and been unsuccessful.
Generally, you are cherrypicking the provisions of the guideline without reference to it as a whole. The previous AfD included other attempts to find sources (see comments from me, Chaoticpattern—who despite vested interest, failed to find anything— and MuZemike) regardless of the state of the article. The criteria are clearly not met (something you implicitly acknowledge).
It is customary, during an AfD discussion, to provide specific references that bolster claims of notability rather than say that it can be established in the future. See WP:CRYSTAL. Bongomatic01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the "criteria are clearly not met," nor is it something I've acknowledged. I think these notions of significant coverage and of notability are to some extent subjective (which is fine... all things are), and what I'm acknowledging above is that you don't believe the criteria have been met. The intent of my comment was to raise the possibility that the article could be developed such that it could pass your notability threshold. As for providing specific references that bolster claims of notability, I believe the article provides many of those. The issue is that notability in this case is implied and is contextual. There may not be an article out there in a prominent publication that says "Symphony is notable because of X and Y," but in the context of web software, content management systems, web technologies, and the like, it is possible to glean from the sources provided that Symphony is a significant platform that has made some substantial technological innovations. Craigzheng (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Google shows 540 links to symphony-cms.com. How do you define significant coverage? And why does a something need to have gained an arbitrary amount of "coverage" to be classed as significant? Doesn't this stance undermine the point of an encyclopedia? You know... education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.36.114 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC) — 80.169.36.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Disclosure. I have noted the existence of this AfD and solicited input from every editor (other than those who have already opined here) who opined at the previous AfD or contributed to this article. If I have missed out anyone, please let me know—the intention was to be comprehensive and unbiased. Bongomatic03:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that DGG, an administrator whose opinions I trust, said (referencing the deleted article) that the new article is significantly different, and removed my speedy nomination. So his view is that speedy closing is not applicable in this case. Nonetheless, the votestacking reeks and the non-valid arguments are annoying. If you have a direct rationale for either deletion or keeping, can you please offer it? Bongomatic03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, perhaps this needed more discussion at AFD. However, I think we're just playing the same game we did last time. It's like tyring to fix a bad door when you find that the beams supporting the door is the problem. MuZemike03:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've reviewed the collapsed references and generally concur with the assesments. Where I have a slight difference of opinion, it is on items such as [30] which is noted as a blog and thus not reliable, and I would have said it is additionally not independent as the blog is written by the lead developer of the software. So none of these slight differences in opinion materially affect the conclusion that all of the referencing provided do not amount to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod. Nothing here but a picture gallery. The creator's rationale for the existence of this as a separate article is not all that convincing. Delete or at least merge with parent article. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the page Arthur Koestler book covers and other images is to demonstrate (a) the variations in book covers from edition to edition, (b) variations between US and UK editions, and (c) to illustrate relevant personalities and events. The inclusion of all of these within the main article Arthur Koestler would make it too large and cluttered. By having added a link in the page of the main article of the subject, readers are now able to find further information on book cover variations etc. 3ig-350125 (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the exact rationale I found unconvincing. The above suggestion to transfer to Commons is the best alternative. By the way, the parent article is not yet large enough for this to be a major obstacle. See WP:SIZE. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an image version of listcruft. Possible A3 Speedy delete, only one sentence keeps this from being an empty image gallery. The rationale given might be a good rationale for an article about Koestler book covers, but this isn't an article, it's a gallery, which isn't considered a proper encylopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - There are over 50 titles by or about Koestler. Some have multiple editions. Even though the main article about Koestler is not oversize at present, it will grow and it would be too tedious for the reader if the main article was cluttered with so many book covers. As long as the new article makes it clear, in a brief introduction, that it is about Koestler-related book covers and other related images it is, imho, a legit encyclopedic article on its own. In fact, the very inclusion of so many images in the main Koestler article would run the risk of making it unencyclopedic. 3ig-350125 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the risk of making the article unencyclopedic, please take a look at Highway 25 Bridge, Quebec, which I am slowly building as the construction progresses. But there is a difference: in the bridge article, all pictures were taken by myself and qualify as free content. Here, you are using "fair use" images in a way Wikipedia is legally not allowed to let you. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And shouldn't this be G12? Per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images, we can use book covers for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary), in this particular article, books aren't being discussed, it's a random collection of book covers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. book images in articles on individal books only, with non free use rationale. other images, if free, post to commons, then link to article on him if it helps the article. this is not an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Delete - Agree with Lara 100%. Any useful information with the sources could go in Sex offender or Sex offender registration, but there is simply no reason to have an article on Janet Allison when "reliable sources cover [her] only in the context of [one] particular event". NW(Talk)15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- BLP1E is certainly applicable here, can't argue with the nominator on that. Could even be considered WP:G10 eligible, but i'm not sure, since the material is "sourced", and the criteria for that specifies that it be unsourced. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. also, i dont think that details of stay away orders, even permanent ones should be in WP, esp. if they are not given in precise detail, including the exact date of it ending, and how do we know someone will watch this like a hawk, per BLP. after all, the law may change, her case may get altered, and then were in violation. overall, it seems like an unfair use of WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As article creator, my keep comes at no surprise. First, let's recap the facts. Janet Allison, a mother of five, allows that her 15-year old daughter is sexually active - not an uncommon occurrence in many countries. In Georgia, USA, she is convicted as a sex-offender which brings her swift social deroute: her children is put in foster care, she is forced to move into a mobile home, she is not allowed to see her daughter and grandson, and she stays in public register branded as a sex-offender for life. Second, what happens? The Economist has incredible international penetration, a very high reputation for facts checking - in short an extremely reliable source. Every week they publish 5 or 6 leaders. As their second leader they discuss USA sex-offender laws and they chose to present Janet Allison's case as a horror example - an example for other countries not to commit the same mistake as USA. I emphasize, this is not mention of the person Janet Allison, but the legal case Janet Allison. The article follows this line. It is not about her early childhood, education, employment, achievements, etc - but the unintended consequences of well-meant legislation to protect the innocent. The Wikipedia article is about the event, not the person. BLP1E does simply not apply. The case Janet Allison is also mentioned extensively in a USA Today article. The case Janet Allison is mentioned in Human Rights Organizations. We know little about her, it's the case that is interesting. This mention in highly reputable RS makes the article a clear pass for WP:GNG. Should it be merged into sex offender registration? No, for two reasons. First, many more RS can be found for this case, the legal reasoning and steps and the social deroute could be detailed, there could be links to the legal acts, and what other op-eds in RS say about the story, pro and con. There is context for an article. Second, because this is only one example of unintended consequences of that law. Teenagers that text half-naked photos of themselves to friends risk being prosecuted for "distributing child pornography", (Economist), teens that have consensual sex also risk being prosecuted as "sex-offenders" (ibid). Those cases could also warrant articles in themselves, of course depending on the sheer amount of RS. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I reversed my closure out of respect for the above comment, which arrived in the same moment as the deletion. I would like to reiterate, however, that this article is a biography of a living person, and thus BLP1E is a totally valid argument. PeterSymonds (talk)22:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments Part of the problem is of course that BIO1E is exceptionally vague. If you kill Barrack Obama and in the same go manage to start a Third World War - then ok, you can have your own article. If you are a random bystander, that happens to film an event that turns out to be notable, then no. Quoting Wikidemon: BLP1E is one of the more frequently misunderstood policies. People are often made famous - and notable, meaning of lasting interest to informed readers - for a single thing. Events are often notable, and by definition an event happens only once. BLP1E reflects the truism that a person's connection to a notable event does not always make the person themselves notable. That is clearly not the case here. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The keep rationale cites no policy, or guide for that matter. An assassination carries historical significance. The story of this article being interesting does not negate the glaring BLP1E problem. This is exactly what that part of the policy was written for. If you want to add to the list of horrible things that have happened to this woman, include a sentence about a biography on one of the world's top five websites. Lara04:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I cleaned the article up, as it wasn't even accurate, but it needs to be deleted ASAP. The keep argument carries no weight and this article is wholly in violation of our BLP policy. Lara04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod. Element in a fictional universe. No assertion of notability for the fictional universe it exists in, nor for the author. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. So tagged. Google maps pulls up neither Caldwell nor Eastchester islands in Maine, a search for Eastchester Island lands me on an island off of the NY coast, and "Eastchester, ME" pulls up results near the NY/CT border. This is complete WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
City of Gaithersburg may be close to Washington, DC, and is covered in the Washington Post as part of the region, that doesn't change the fact that coverage of the subject is significant. Requirement is not 'coverage in multiple papers that are covering the subject frequently and thoroughly, but not from papers that are covering the subject due to his city's geographic proximity to the major paper.' Standard is simply "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." This is absolutely the case. Subject meets necessary criteria for notability, by virtue of receiving significant press coverage during past two years on the Council. The fact alone that subject is often covered in The Washington Post (with millions of readers), The Gazette, and The Washington Examiner (regardless of the fact that the newspapers may be located in a city that is close to the subject's city) means he meets the primary standard for significant coverage.
Benmoskowitz (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Benmoskowitz[reply]
I don't think you're understanding the meaning of "significant coverage". Merely quoting a public official in the course of a completely unrelated story does not lend that official "significance". Significant coverage amounts to more than just passing mention, and none of these articles reaches that criterion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe city council members have automatic notability. What this would need is significant discussion of the subject in reliable sources; I have not seen such discussion. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That hardly seems fair. State Legislators are given automatic passes. In New Hampshire, there are about 1.3 million people and roughly 400 state representatives. That's one representative for every 3300 people. Why would a state legislator who represents 3300 people be given automatic notability, whereas a prominent City Councilman that was elected by a district (city) of 58,000+ people, not qualify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.44.169 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that is the correct reading of the WP:BIO#Politicians section. The criteria are "holders of international, national, or first level sub-national office, including members of a legislature and judges". For the US, that would be state governors, and Members of Congress. I don't believe it means to imply that members of state legislatures are inherently notable (although they would probably meet the "significant coverage" criteria). Remember also that the guidelines of WP:BIO are just that, guidelines, not poicies. The real issue is that of significant coverage, and the coverage Mr. Spiegel has received has not been significant. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying about guidelines, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement about the meaning of significant. Your claim seems to be that there must be multiple articles written entirely about the subject to merit the label of significant coverage. This seems bizarre to me. Most definitions of the word specify 'importance' and 'the extent to which something matters' as the main aspects of significance, as in important or noteworthy coverage. I think we just come down on different sides as to what meets that qualification; you may disagree, and that's fine, but my position is that dozens of articles in multiple major newspapers with combined millions in readership written with references to and quotations from Mr. Spiegel, as a direct result of his service on the Gaithersburg City Council, qualify as significant.
Benmoskowitz (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Benmoskowitz[reply]
Delete. The sources given don't establish notability for a city council member. Although he has been mentioned in the Washington Post, the reference given is not one of broad significance. — Gavia immer (talk)16:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep and move to Murder of Benjamin Hermansen. The murder sparked a massive reaction in Norway, and there are lots of sources that could be used to write a longer article. For instance there is this article from Dagbladet five years after the murder, and the murder is mentioned in Store norske leksikons article about Norway after 1980. However the focus of the article should be shifted to the reactions, the first sentence of its kind in Norway, the Benjaminprize, and maybe the recent controversy about the testament that gave one of the murderers large gift for his fight against immigration in Norway, and not about the specific person. Rettetast (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The racial motivation behind the murder caused a great deal of consternation in Norway, sparking debate over neo-Nazi groups, and major demonstrations with tens of thousands of people. At least one general purpose paper encyclopedia (Store norske leksikon, old version, before it became an open encyclopedia, so it's reliable) covers the murder in a separate article [31] (not merely the "Norway after 1980" article), so this event is "encyclopedic" in the most literal sense possible. The article should also mention that about a year ago, the event caused a second wave of controversy when a commitee was set down to divide an inheritance to people "working against foreign immigration to Norway", which at one point proposed giving a large sum of this money to Ole Nicolai Kvisler, one of the people convicted of murdering Benjamin. In complying with the BLP1E policy of "cover the event, not the person", renaming to Murder of Benjamin Hermansen as Rettetast suggested, or Holmlia murder which is the title SNL use, is a valid option, but deletion is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Sjakkalle(Check!)10:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note to Admins - These two editors and Sophian, and what appears to be a new entry Victorius_III, a possible sock-puppet of Small Victory have been engaged in a disruptive edit war on the Genetic History of Europe. It is roughly impossible now to make constructive edits on the pages because of all the reverts that are going on. Another editor and I were trying to make changes to the references on the page but those changes were repeated reverted. Muntawandis claim of go it alone editing by Small Victory is roughly true now for the Subsaharan Admixture section in Genetic History of Europe. I would not normally support a fork such as this, unless something is done the reign in the behaviors of Small Victory on the Genetic History of Europe page, a page such as this is the only way to balance the points of view. Small Victory, where are the references (precisely) for the data you keep reverting back to?PB666yap14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me PB666, but I've fought against both Muntuwandi's and SOPHIAN's OR/POV edits. My version of the 'SSA admixture' section is the most neutral. You yourself found virtually nothing wrong with it compared to Muntuwandi's, which you picked apart and argued against vehemently. Now all of a sudden you're taking his side and insisting that the data in my version is not properly sourced, even though I showed you that it is. Have you completely lost your mind? ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND for Small Victory fighting Sophian or Muntawandi. That is the reason he created this new page, because you and your apparent sock have blocked posting with the complete reversions. Your version was and still is the worst version, and you have material in that version that is not properly referenced and which I removed and you returned in violation of WP:VERIFY.PB666yap03:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) I've used no sock. Don't make outrageous accusations without any evidence to back them up. 2) You concluded that my version was better than Muntuwandi's. Now you're saying the opposite, but you've offered no explanation as to why. 3) All of the material in my version in properly referenced. If you believe something isn't, then cite specifics and I'll set you straight. Don't be vague. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again you have missed the point, it is not about setting me strait, it is about improving the encyclopedia, it is about correcting errors and material that is warranted and removing material that is unverified or unencyclopedia either by its nature or the way in which it is presented. You keep turning this into a battle of wills.PB666yap00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presented the sourced and unsourced information on the talk page, you failed to cite your sources and fix the mangle of references, consequently as per WP:VERIFY I retained the numbers that were clearly referenced (In a table with the references right next to the value). It is your job to cite the reference that verifies the values you present. Once again we see the arrogance come forth that plagues the pages that you edit. This is not only a problem with this section but many other sections on the page have problems. I would support a AfD for the deletion of Genetic history of Europe if it came forth, unless we can see an environment of cooperation, the alternative is to ban certain individuals (Small Victory, Muntuwandi, SOPHIAN) from editing the page.PB666yap16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it. At the far right you'll see a column called "Sub-Saharan". That's where the figures were obtained. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did you show me this table, and where in that table are the percentages you listed in the article given? Lets not confuse the facts, here, you bundled up the data derived from several references into a single reference, without, in the reference, pointing as to which data came from which paper (more or less you were trying to bluff a reference thinking no-one would check it out). To top that off, the majority of percentages that you referenced were not given as percentages, you did that little synthesis yourself.WP:SYNTHESIS To the admins, take a look at the page history for Genetic History of Europe, and take a look at the kind of POV we are dealing with here.PB666yap03:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More complex calculations (for instance, those involving statistics) should not be used to build an argument, because they require skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors. - WP:NOTOR
Population frequencies are a statistic. And some of the %s you gave were based on single occurances, which means a confidence interval is relevant (but not given) nor did you disclose that you had converted the numbers from absolute frequency in a sample to relative frequency as a percent. So now that we have seen the table where you got your percentages you now disclose this is original research. Another editor has posted and original research tag on the other section which you have edited in direct response to your edits. Are you still going to stand by the position that you referenced the material properly, because we can take this to the NOR.PB666yap03:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Soon it became evident that editors who rejected a majority view would often marshal sources to argue that a minority view was superior to a majority view—or would even add sources in order to promote the editor's own view. Therefore, the NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The original motivation for NOR was to prevent editors from introducing fringe views in science, especially physics—or from excluding verifiable views that, in the judgement of editors, were incorrect.[1] - WP:No_original_research/history
I showed you that table when you first brought up the issue on the talk page, so I wasn't trying to "bluff" anything. It's not my fault your reading comprehension is so low. Of course it's "absolute frequency in a sample". Did you think they tested every individual in each country? That's standard practice in science, testing random samples and extrapolating results to the whole. If you think it's "OR", you could just cite the numbers without calculating the frequency (e.g. 2/346), but that would be even less encyclopedic and more confusing to the average reader. Anyway, no one's ever had a problem with this, and your retarded mtDNA table includes percentages too. I guess it's only OR when other people do it. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reading comprehension is so low that I did not see a single of your proclaimed percentages on that page (because there are no percentages on the page!) and therefore discounted that you could have possibly used that source for Wikipedia. Neither did you disclose you had converted absolute frequencies in a sample to relative frequencies as a percent. Again, read the NOR guidelines. If you had disclosed the fact you had converted the data then I would have realized that this was your source. I assumed that the percentages were given in the actual source (see footnotes) as a consequence, no direct reference, original data, improper referencing on the page. I eliminated only those that had a direct references. The word absolute frequency means that they were not converted to relative frequency and from there converted to a percent. In the sample with small N (1 to 10) there should be an associated confidence interval otherwise you are forcing the reader to assume that N was large enough that relative variance was not a problem. The 95% confidence interval for 1 in X where X is a large number extends from a frequency of 1/(X*20) to 5/X or approximately a 100 fold range, there are a total of 11 "1"s; 8 "2s", found under the Subsaharan L listing.
As for the table, until you can show an original source for the percentages, everything should go. Including East-Asian contribution.PB666yap19:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a new article, but I see many of the same problems may be occurring or about to occur. Rather than judging that straight away, I'd like to raise the question of what this article needs. Effectively the previous article became a back and forth edit war, (swinging between different fork version) because the science itself was not up to what some editors wanted it to say. I notice for example the emphasis on the slave trade again which is not really justified by the cherry picked references used. I think if editors can not agree first on what the Genetic History of Europe article's content should be concerning African admixture, then making this article looks like a way of escaping the need to be able to build a neutral consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SOPHIAN, The Ogre and Victorius III all prefer my version. You did too before you inexplicably switched sides. Causteau has always supported my edits on this subject. Andrew opposes everything I do, but can never point to anything substantive being wrong with it (e.g. the reference to slavery is properly sourced). And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic. And until Andrew can produce something concrete it's like 7 against 1, which leaves Muntuwandi all alone with his OR and POV. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point SV, NPOV requires us _not to take sides_ (you still don't get it, this side taking has ruined several pages) in addition others reverted your version. I left certain materials on the page initially until I had checked the references. After I had checked the references I realized that too much material, difficult to verify, difficulty to read, and non-encyclopedic was present in your section. You have made no effort what-so-ever on your part to correct the situation. Therefore I am looking at it from the encyclopedic point of view, and that basic view is that page is an eyesore for the naive reader, and those sections with trivia thrown into the text make it more-so. You have not properly referenced the material, its not whether they could if they searched hard enough, it whether you make verifyability transparent enough that the reader would not have to take half the afternoon. As Andrew points out the contribution from Slavery cannot be verified, and the very nature of molecular genetics (which myself and Andrew both work with) makes it such that after a certain amount of time we cannot conclude where the source of genetic contribution comes from. This is the reason why I moved the SSA section to NA contributions, because in fact SSA contributions are a statistical alternative in some instances to direct N. African contribution. In most cases NA reaches maximum likelihood, in some cases West Africa reaches Maximum Likelihood. Examples of West African Preference over NA include the Cw*16 allele found in Europe. I repeat this one more time, the science weighs in the direction of N. Africa, but it does not weigh entirely in that direction, and if you are not representing that point of view, then your point of view is not neutral. In addition, if you continue to delete minutely contrasting points of view in favor of your own, then you are exercising a Non-NPOV. As long as you work toward complete obstruction of others work, I think Muntawandi is justified in creating this Fork.PB666yap19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as the article is not politicized, it is potentially a very useful and informative article on the Genetic histories of Europe and Africa. it is a problem if some users already have preset agendas, or ideas about what content should be in the article. As long as we let the scientific studies speak for themselves, rather than engaging in original research, a la Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts, then we should be fine. One possible issue though, is coming up with the most appropriate name for the article Wapondaponda (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Politicizing the article? Having preset agendas about what should be included? Engaging in original research? You're describing yourself. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator of this article Small Victory, is largely a single purpose account, whose edits has largely been restricted to the deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, its talk page and a handful of related articles. This is evident in his edit count profile. In more than three years of editing, he has only edited 23 unique articles. SV has less than 200 live edits as over 100 edits were deleted along with the SSA article. Since the deletion, Small Victory has since shifted his edits to Genetic history of Europe. As the owner of the deleted SSA article, Small Victory was unable to collaborate with other editors who had genuine concerns about the POV of the deleted article. As a result the article was deleted. It is not that an article on African admixture in Europe is not valid, rather it is concerns about POV forking, that have lead to its deletion. At some stage, whether beginning now or in the future, studies will continue to reveal more information on the extent and nature of African/Sub-Saharan genetic influences in Europe. Just because some editors find the topic unpleasant, is no reason not to address in important aspect of both European and African history. If we all agreed to address the article objectively and based on reliable sources rather than gamesmanship, we can create a comprehensive article. Small Victory et al. have pushed an extreme POV and have prevented anyone from adding any material to the articles that doesn't show negligible levels of African admixture. They have also prevented any studies that show admixture from anything other than the recent slave trade. In short Small Victory and co. have tried to show that the only African admixture in Europe is either North African or negligible and the little African admixture that is present is only due to slaves. [32][33][34]
The scope of the article African admixture in Europe, covers possible influences of African slaves, but it also objectively covers African admixture from other sources. Where African admixture is negligible, the current version states so. But it also covers sources of admixture that may be significant. The previous deleted versions tried to make a clear cut distinction between North African influences and Sub-Saharan influences. Whereas contemporary studies clearly show that such a clear cut distinction is not valid. I think this is the most objective NPOV way to cover this topic. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
You're trying to obscure the distinction between North African and Sub-Saharan African influences, which is about as POV as it gets and a classic tactic of Afrocentrism. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not POV, it is the norm in population genetics. In general, human genetic variation is distributed along Clines. Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa, being neighboring regions, are no exception to this pattern. People have been migrating back and forth between North and SSA. There isn't a clear cut distinction between the population genetics of North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa as there is significant overlap. See Race_(classification_of_human_beings)#Clines for further details. Attempts to make such clear distinction between North African and SSA population genetics, are in fact POV and this was the case in the previous article that was deleted. Tuaregs from Libya, clearly show that even today, no such clear cut distinction exists. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans are separate populations with separate genetic histories. Even your precious Y-chromosome indicates this:
Together, these genetic analyses highlighted the similarity between northeastern Africa and the Middle East and the clear genetic differentiation between northwestern Africa and both sub-Saharan Africa and Europe, including Iberia. The Sahara and Mediterranean, despite the narrow width of the Strait of Gibraltar, seem to have acted as effective long-term barriers to Y-chromosomal gene flow.
[...]
Such a finding is not surprising, in the light of the earlier genetic studies, but has an important implication: despite haplogroups shared at low frequency, suggesting limited gene flow, North African populations have a genetic history largely distinct from both Europe and sub-Saharan Africa over the timescales needed for the Y-chromosomal differentiation to develop.
Arredi et al have taken a micro-approach, ie short-term. Yes E-M81(or E3b2, E1b1b1b) is largely restricted to North Africa, with frequencies above 50% and as high as 80% in some Berber populations. M-81 has been detected in Iberia at frequencies of 5% in some regions. So there is indeed a sharp drop in frequencies from North Africa across Gibralter to Iberia. Five percent M81 admixture in Iberia is still statistically significant though. M-81 is largely absent from Sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of Mali and Niger. The distribution of M81 his is what Arredi et al describe as being distinct from the regions to the south and the North. However E-M81 is still part of the E3b family which has its origins in Sub-Saharan Africa. Even though the Berbers are generally "Caucasoid" peoples. Their ancestry is primarily of Sub-Saharan origin via the y-chromosome and not Eurasian, though at least 20% are haplogroup J which is of Eurasian origin. Their Sub-Saharan ancestry is confirmed by the presence of Sub-Saharan Autosomal markers as indicated here.
Arredi et al state
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa.
Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.
Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate either a local contribution to the North African Neolithic transition (Barker 2003) or an earlier migration into the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion back into Africa.
Those quotes all say "East Africa", not "Sub-Saharan Africa". The only mention of Sub-Saharan ancestry in that study relates to E3a and L mtDNA. Anyway, the authors' conclusion about North African Y-chromosomes doesn't involve either of those regions. That's all your own original research. Here's what they actually say:
...the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East. [...] These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans.
One can almost feel the confusion swirling in Arredi's mind as he is trying to reconcile the "Caucasoid" appareance of Berbers, with their Sub-Saharan ancestry. Keita is forthright on this and argues that Berbers are indigenous Africans, who evolved their "caucasoid" appearance in-situ in Africa[35]. East Africa is sub-saharan Africa, so what the authors have come up with is pseudo distinction between East Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. They have also proposed a migration of E3b into the levant and then a back-migration to Africa of E3b lineages. While this may have occurred to account for the small presence of E-V13 (0.9%) in Egypt, there is no phylogenetic evidence of a back-migration of E3b lineages from the Levant. See the latest study Cruciani et al 2007. The African E-M81 is predominant, 80% among berbers, and Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups predominate among Berbers approximately 60-70%. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be referenced, although many of the refs are not available free online. Why would anyone assume there was some not degree of mixture between the populations of adjacent continents? (Aryan purity fantasies aside). Edison (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. No one has ever said that this article should be deleted because there's been no admixture. Your crusade against "Aryan purity fantasies" belongs elsewhere and is not a reason to keep the article, which has already been deleted twice and should remain that way. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining the problem. I think the concern is that the animosity we see is partly driven by some issues within this subject matter. Probably the biggest source of animosity, if I understand correctly, is that there are two strong ways of feeling about the subject of whether to contrast sub Saharan Africans with Northern Africans. For example, some people prefer to write about Europeans, West Asians and North Africans as three sub-sets of a relatively unified group, which is relatively distinct from sub Saharan Africans. Others prefer to emphasize that North Africans and sub Saharan Africans are closely related to each other in many ways. Both sides are right and if this article is going to work both these ideas need some treatment. (This is why this article has more chance than the previous one, which had a title that insisted on taking a side so to speak.) Logically, there is no conflict between these two positions, because there really are these connections and differences. But the resulting debates are sometimes difficult to turn into anything neutral. By the way, I think the title needs the addition of a word like "Population" or else it is not clear what is being mixed. I googled a bit and this seemed the most common word outside of wikis (in contrast to "genetic" or "DNA").--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is even worse than the previous one because of its vagueness, and that's exactly how Muntuwandi wants it. He calls it "African admixture" but in his mind (and, he hopes, in the minds of casual readers) that equals Sub-Saharan or black African. This is evidenced by his original version, which still opened with "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture...". This article is a clone of the old one, only with a deliberately misleading title that allows Muntuwandi to insert even more OR and POV.
There's no justification whatsoever for an article that treats North, East and Sub-Saharan African ancestry from all different periods of history as if it were this monolithic entity. There exists no article called "Asian admixture in Europe" that treats Arab influences, Mongol influences, Neolithic West Asian ancestry, and the Paleolithic migration of haplogroup R from Central Asia as a single entity. So there shouldn't be this ridiculous article either. It's pure Afrocentric POV. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Small Victory's remarks demonstrate the problem. He accuses the article of vagueness, but he is vague about what is vague in the article. Reading all his remarks together seems to show that what he he wants made more definite specifically is about distinguishing sub Saharan Africans as much as possible from other people, and not just a bit. OTOH he thinks Muntuwandi wants the opposite, which may or more not be true, but which is irrelevant as long as he keeps it to himself. Because Muntuwandi is restraining himself better therefore, we see Small Victory accusing Muntuwandi about things which he has not insisted on putting in the article. A big problem happens when people start editing based on trying to compensate for what they think are biases in the community, even when these biases are not clearly being put into any articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most contemporary studies are in agreement that North African populations have a genetic profile that is intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, though closer to Eurasia than to Sub-Saharan Africa. The abstracts of these two articles will confirm this. [38], [39]. What is controversial, is the notion that prehistoric North Africa, was essentially an ecological extension of Sub-Saharan Africa during the wet phases of the Sahara. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain w/ comment. The debate here is not about whether the topic should be covered or not, but whether it should be covered in its own article or as a section of a more comprehensive article. The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. The core problem is that the editors working on these articles cannot agree on what should be said. Until that dispute is resolved, nothing else really matters, and the outcome of this AfD won't help resolve that. -- RoySmith(talk)12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE once and for all, for the love of God! Does anyone seriously believe that Wapondaponda intended this article to be different than the previous one when his initial version of it still began "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe refers to..."? And then when his goof was pointed out to him, he fixed it but didn't modify the article's content accordingly? Give me a break. It's like replacing creationism with intelligent design. Nothing has changed except the name. He's pulling a fast one, and you're all falling for it. Wake up, people! ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above "Delete" comment by Small Victory and "agreed" comment by Ogre, are somewhat redundant because Small Victory is the nominator of this AFD, and Ogre has already expressed his opinion. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you think an article needs to be improved is obviously not a reason for deletion, especially if you are saying you know how to improve it. Can you please give a valid argument and leave out all the childish stuff? The clearest thing you've said so far is that the problem is notability, but you really have not explained this any further. Why is this subject matter not notable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to follow the argument, Andrew. The previous article was deleted. This article is nothing but a poorly disguised clone of that one. Therefore, it should be deleted too. Period. I never said I thought it needed to be improved. What it needs is to be gone because it serves no purpose, and I've already explained clearly why. You just don't pay attention. Everything that could possibly be said in this article is already covered in Genetic history of Europe. There's no separate "Asian admixture in Europe" article or "African admixture in Asia" article, so there shouldn't be this one either. And in fact, that's what was decided last time, as I've demonstrated. And since this article is just a clone of the last one, the decision still stands. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made that last deletion proposal, and many people said I worded the case OK for them, and I for one do not see anything automatic about the connection. Please address the case here in hand, not other editors, and not other cases, and not hidden agendas, or possible future scenarios. Otherwise people will tend to ignore you, and that might even be a shame because for all I know you have a point. (Note that I have not voted.) Now, you said the reason was notability? Please explain. I for one will ignore anything about it being obvious and simply all to do with Afrocentrism or what happened in another article or what you think an editor will do if this article is allowed to exist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well sourced and referenced, and notable. It also incorporates a different angle from other articles, that even though some material overlaps, there is enough new info in place for this effort to stand by itself. Recommend keep. Migueljackson (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is not signed. MJ can be checked just to clear him and others. However, his edits seem to be in good faith, and so far, I have seen no reason to suggest otherwise. He could just be an anonymous reader who found the article interesting and decided to chime in while maintaining his privacy by creating an account. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a decision was made last time to delete the article and cover the topic in Genetic history of Europe because it was deemed not notable enough in its own right. Muntuwandi has defied that decision and recreated the article, so the obvious answer is that it should be speedily deleted, as per your recommendation. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the basis of the deletion. At least part of why the other article was deleted had to do with the lack of clear neutral sources concerning the distinction that article made concerning sub Saharans. In that vacuum the article had become a POV fork, full of OR. This does not automatically apply to this current article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. That was your reason. However, 2/3 of the delete votes were for the reasons I stated:
Delete Strike me as being an essay. If someone wants to include some of it in a broader topic that might be okay. But this seems to be an argument and not encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete [...] this entry serves no good function. It covers a subject matter which should be dealt with more briefly as part of the more general Genetic history of Europe entry. PelleSmith (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Merge into Genetic history of Europe. Jingby (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete or merge [...] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Merge into Genetic history of Europe. [...] PB666 yap 22:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Notability of subject not established. [...] Alun (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight comparing it to an essay means OR, and note the proposal that the article might fit in a broader one which is being proposed now by Wapondaponda.
The words you come from PelleSmith say "per nom", ie. that it is in agreement with what I wrote.
Slrubenstein was specific in raising concerns about how "it doesn't make sense to rely on this information to make grand typological claims". In other words the dogmatism of the article, given the less certain state of the sources, was considered an issue.
PB666 also raised poor sourcing "What is actually the basis of this article" and specifically about the definition of the subject matter, and anyway he has posted this time also and can speak for himself about whether his previous comments apply to this article.
You make no mention of Wikiscribe's posting which said "on the side of Andrew Lancaster's rationale"
This summary is meaningless, and filters and distorts even worse than your previous summary. Furthermore you keep loosing the point. The basic point relevant here is that the reasons for deletion discussed in detail in that case do not obviously apply here, because a very big part of all concern was about the distinction being made between sub Saharan genetic influences in Europe, and more generally African ones i.e. whether there was any neutral and properly sourced way to define and discuss them without OR - whether that OR be "Afrocentrist" or "Overcompensating against perceived Afrocentrism". (I think different versions of the article had both.) Pretty everyone expressed some level of concern about this, and it was clearly the major theme of discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just admit you were wrong, Andrew. Almost no one "expressed concern" about original research or the specifics of the subject. That's all in your head. Besides, RoySmith says this isn't about content. It's about whether the topic should have an article of its own or be part of the "Genetic history of Europe" article. The community decided on the latter. Case closed. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have tangents from tangents from tangents, and each time getting further from the point, and always headed towards being personal. The shame is that if there is anything to your opinion no one is going to notice it behind all the non sequiturs. Let me try to help. All of the above is supposedly your case arguing that this article should be deleted because the subject has already recently been agreed to be non-notable. I have pointed out that compared to the recent discussion you referred to, the subject matter appears to have changed in some potentially important ways, making it non obvious that we can simply apply previous opinions again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed except the title, which Wapondaponda has broadened so that he can include more POV. How can you be so blind to his schemes? If this is really an article about African admixture in Europe, then where's the section on Berbers and E-M81, discussing possible links with the Moors? Where's the reference to North African U6 in Europeans? Where are the facts that E-M78 and M1a originated in Northeast Africa? Nowhere. Wapondaponda's focus remains squarely on Sub-Saharan Africa, and he only mentions North Africa when he needs to within that context. But he's deceptively renamed the article to get it viewed as something new. And unfathomably, you and others are falling for his ruse.
And then we have to ask, even if the article were legitimately expanded to cover all of Africa, what's so notable about this particular subject? Africans have also influenced Asia, but there's no "African admixture in Asia" article. Europeans also have low-levels of Asian admixture, but there's no "Asian admixture in Europe" article. The only reason this article exists is for Wapondaponda to propound his Afrocentric POV. I would suggest that he get a blog instead because that's not what Wikipedia is for. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now at least you are talking about articles and not editors, to some extent. These points you see as missing though, which claim would improve the article, these are not arguments for deleting an article but rather for adding to them. Your question about notability is kind of funny given all the attention you and Muntawandi give the subject. People are interested in this subject, and there is stuff written about it. My main concern has been whether enough has been written that a neutral scientific article can be built without turning into a POV war, but many of the arguments we saw in the previous article had precisely to do with silly discussions about the definition of sub Saharan. (For example according to your personal definitions which you wanted everyone to follow on that subject a Nubian is sub Saharan and an Ethiopian is not, a difference you need to make precisely because of the way the peoples of Africa are inter-related and also inter related with peoples of the Middle East and Miedterranean, and also you pushed for an idea that a genotype which originated post LGM in sub Saharan Africa was still not sub Saharan unless scientists had defined no sub Saharan sub-clades.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to refactor some of the comments that are related to the AFD for another article. Some users may confuse these comments as relating to this AFD, when in fact they don't. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a complete disaster. A great deal of the information posted is filled with inaccuracies, distortion and outrageous lies. We have informed genetics and molecular biology departments at the following universities about this article: University of Chicago, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Brown, U. Michigan, UCal Berkeley, Yale and Washington University in Saint Louis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are references from the previously deleted article. Many of them aren't formatted, but this is roughly how they appeared in the article. Reference number 13 is a collection of 7 different publications.
Wilson et al. (2001) Population Genetic Structure of Variable Drug Response. Nat Genet; 29:265-269: "Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans."
The History and Geography of Human Genes, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza, pp. 170-171.
O'Neil, Dennis (2007-07-03). "Modern Human Variation: Glossary of Terms". Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College.
Martinez et al. (2007)
Abu-Amero et al. (2007)
Pereira et al. (2005) African female heritage in Iberia: a reassessment of mtDNA lineage distribution in present times
Gonzalez et al. (2003)
Achilli et al. 2007
Malyarchuk et al. (2008). Reconstructing the phylogeny of African mitochondrial DNA lineages in Slavs. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.70. .
Rhouda et al. 2006
Richards et al. (2003)
Gonçalves et al. (2003)
Cruciani et al. 2004,
Flores et al. 2004,
Brion et al. 2005,
Brion et al. 2004,
Rosser et al. 2000,
Semino et al. 2004,
DiGiacomo et al. 2003.
Rosenberg et al. 2002
Wilson et al. 2001
Bauchet et al. 2007
Auton et al. 2009
Ragusa et al. 1992
[1]
Pandey et al. 2007
Bolnick et al. 2007
Arnaiz-Villena et al.
Nature
MDS plot
Ayub et al. 2003
dendrogram
High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population
HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans.
Pier M. Larson, Reconsidering Trauma, Identity, and the African Diaspora: Enslavement and Historical Memory in Nineteenth-Century Highland Madagascar, William and Mary Quarterly 56, no. 2 (1999): 335-62.
Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), 804
These are references from the current version. It may be that the references are quite different from the deleted article.
Frudakis, Tony (2007). "West African ancestry in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East". Molecular photofitting: predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA. pp. page 326. ISBN0120884925.
Sanchez-Velasco P, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J, et al. (May 2003). "HLA alleles in isolated populations from North Spain: origin of the Basques and the ancient Iberians". Tissue Antigens 61 (5): 384–92. PMID12753657.
Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Raissi H, Caillat-Zucman S (June 2002). "HLA class I polymorphism in a Moroccan population from Casablanca". Eur. J. Immunogenet. 29 (3): 205–11. PMID12047355.
Gómez-Casado et al. (March 2000), "HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians", Tissue Antigens 55 (3): 239–49, PMID10777099
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per Truthkeeper88's comment below, I'm also adding the following article as the three articles above are just subpages of it, and it contains no distinct information:
Keep all - valid lists that are properly organised. All contain plenty of blue links. The way to deal with the 'link farm' concern is to replace the external links with red or blue links as appropriate; in other words edit and improve rather than give up and delete. TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete: if the listings are available elsewhere; I would not think the lack of many blue links in the lists matters very much as long as they are fairly accurate but keeping them up to date is probably not worth the effort which would be required.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Passes acceptable completeness (list contains 1494 out of c. 2000 schools, so 75% complete).
Fails direct verifiability (there are only 2 references for 1494 claims). BTW this is a criticism of many list articles—e.g. most of the ones in List of schools by country.
Fails indirect verifiability (many entries are blue-linked to articles, but none of the articles I checked has a citation that proves membership of the list).
...but maybe not yet?, because some of the linked articles need fixing. There are schools on the list whose articles don't mention IB at all, either in their article or in a category (e.g. British School of Brussels). Some other schools mention the IB in their article (without a citation) but don't have any IB category (e.g. Aga Khan School, Dhaka). Without the list it will be difficult to add the category, but checking every article will be time-consuming. - Pointillist (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete Very poorly organized. In contrast of the WP:DIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM policies since one could go to the external link if one really wanted to find such schools. But, if it is verifiable (and more than likely is) and is at near completeness like the member above myself listed, then we simply should stick the one source template and the refimprove template and then fellow wikipedians will know it simply is a work in progress. It is not nessecary to delete the page, simply place the templates at the top of the page and sooner or later, someone will begin verifying and adding new sources to the page. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pattern of unsourced lists of schools elsewhere on en.wikipedia, so it is not very likely that the list will be verified, is it? - Pointillist (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not entirely convinced that's true. This edit is from the end of 2007, and it's pretty much the same article as it is now, only now it has more schools on it. After eighteen months of basically nothing new happening, I don't think throwing a refimprove tag on the top is going to help. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)00:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the untrained Wikipedian, it may be fine with simply the external link. Unless it's made an obvious issue, (other than the tag at the top of the page which says that it is being debated for deletion) no one will really pay attention to the lack of citations even to non-members. I do realize that it has been a very long time since the last edit, but since members have enough audacity to prompt for a deletion why not spend this time adding references? It had been awhile since the Mortal Kombat (series) pages had gotten more than 5 references, I believe it was 2006 (when the last reference was added, incorrectly mind you) until I began adding more references earlier this year. 3 years is a long time, but someone took the initiative to add references, and I believe someone new will gain the initiative to do so as well. I personally did not know until someone started adding {{citation needed}} tags and refimprove tags that there were major errors in the page. Doing so here may provide the same response that it garnered from me. Just make it an obvious issue, and this article (and the related ones as well) will begin improvement. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that feedback, Subzerosmokerain. I see what you mean, but one of the special complications with the IB lists is that schools leave the programme—unlike most other lists here where membership never shrinks (e.g. once a game becomes part of Mortal Kombat it will be there for ever). Who is going to check that the IB lists are updated when a school leaves an IB programme? There's usually no announcement. Another (related) complication is that the school articles need to be IB-categorized anyway, and the missing references really belong in the school articles, where they would add value and be more likely to be watchlisted by readers with relevant knowledge. Maintaining all these references twice (once in the manually maintained list and again in each school article) wouldn't be a good use of editors' time. - Pointillist (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I also see your viewpoint also, that would be quite a hassle. I concede my keep because of the availablity of the [[40]] on every page. Looking at it now, I believe the pages that describe PYP and MYP could've easily had lists of their own of the major schools which offer the IB programme instead of separate articles. BTW, how do I do a slash through my vote and instead put a delete? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non-notable software - fails WP:N. It has some coverage here, but that's not in a particularly large amount of detail, and is only a single site - it doesn't, therefore, fulfil the WP:N requirements. Ironholds (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has one external reference, to Linux magazine. That source would appear to be a third party source; but it also contains long quotations in a programming language, and as such would appear to be something with "limited readership and circulation". This is a PHP micro framework for rapid web development and prototyping, which also suggests limited general interest, and therefore lack of real notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Limited general interest doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of real notability. My problem with that reference is that while it does spend some time on Limonade most of the space used is taken up by coding examples - there's relatively little prose on the software, and the article itself only uses it as an example; Limonade is not the main subject. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with the nominator that the one single Linux mag article isn't sufficient and I've found nothing else that can help establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This doesn't seem to be a notable club as it only plays in the Santosh Trophy. The only external link there is broken. The other teams in the competition don't have pages, Sikkim has never won or even been runner-up in the Santosh Trophy. Spiderone (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that other teams in the competition don't have pages (yet) is a poor argument. As a state football team, I think it is inherently notable — apparently there are only 31 teams playing in the Santosh trophy; surely then all of them are notable? (Yes, I know Santosh trophy doesn't include the football clubs, but still...) Shreevatsa (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep If it is true that the Santosh Trophy "was the premier football competition in the country before ... 1996" (as per its article), then all teams participating in it would be noteworthy: reaching a final or any other stage would be irrelevant. Also, if as a state representative team it selects from among players of the top echelon of the sport nationally for interstate competition, it would be noteworthy, but if, like the English county FA selections, the players are drawn from a long way down the pyramid, there would not be notability. Kevin McE (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: There does seem to be evidence that the event is of highest level within India: [42], [43], [44] (the manager of the national team would not be bothered about it if it did not use main players), [45] (clubs such as Mahindra United, Churchill Brothers and [[Chirag United}} are in the top national division). I would suggest that the reason there is an article for Sikkim but not for the other Santosh Trophy teams is because it was set up by an editor enthusiastic about articles of teams representing "nations" that are not sovereign states. Kevin McE (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep A quick google search shows coverage from reliable sources in and outside of India. Since this is not a biography you could say that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. Maybe the article should be moved into a user subpage until improved or someone can take a crack at including more information.Cptnono (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately I'm very busy at the moment so can't back this up; you'll have to take me on trust here. I nominated a number of 'national' team articles for deletion a while back and nearly nominated this one, but after some research I found it definitely merited inclusion and had simply been mislabelled as a national rather than state side. I was of a similar opinion to Kevin, that if it was similar to a county FA team it needn't be included, but found a number of articles indicating that selected players came from the highest level. If anyone has the spare time I would suggest that state-level football (either globally or specific to India) would be a good project for improving and expanding. I would start with this article and Nagaland football team. Stu.W UK (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Even if it is proved not to be a hoax, it badly fails all notability criteria. It may become notable once released (although it doesn't seem too likely). McMarcoP (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly redirect to The Thieves of Ostia. WP:NOTFILM, WP:V. The article virtually asserts that its subject is not notable or was made up by saying that the film will only be viewed in Mackay, Queensland, Australia. The listed reference doesn't seem to confirm the existence of the movie. Neither does Google. — Rankiri (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previously deleted at AFD last September, the new version does not address the notability concerns. The references are largely links to highly trivial mentions such as listings and articles merely stating that the band performed in various places. The one piece of substantial coverage is a tour diary written by one of the band members. Michig (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - after digging deeper into Google results I've found a few items of coverage that while possibly marginal, probably tip this band above the notability threshold. I'll add a pointer to these on the article's talk page later in the hope that someone will make this into a worthwhile article.--Michig (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I have now improved the article as far as I can. --Michig (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Chelsea: Hi I am from Phoenix and I saw Maybe Tomorrow twice, when they were on tour through here. Why do you want to delete them just because they were not on a 'MAJOR' label, do you not support indie labels. If your going to delete them you should also delete articles on Norma Jean, PlayRadioPlay!, Iwrestledabearonce, A Day to Remember, Converge, The color of violence, and even New Found Glory. I mean Maybe Tomorrow's cd was in best buy, that is where I bought it. They were a really good band. I don't understand. I don't think there article is hurting anything, I think it is good to have for people who liked the band and wants to read about what happened to them. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.123.30 (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that they're not signed to a major label - the main criteria for inclusion is that the band has to be notable. The guideline for notability for bands can be found here, and the general guideline for notability can be found here. They would need to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so that could be coverage in magazines or newspapers or reliable online sources. The guideline for what a reliable source is can be found here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UserX: I too have seen Maybe Tomorrow, once at the House of Blues in New Orleans, LA. I believe they were playing with Tyler Read that night. They were a good band who disappeared almost as fast as they came. I don't see any harm with their page staying up, they seemed to have pretty decent size following, also the page is not going to help them in any sort of promotional way. They are broken up and there are no copies of their album left to be found. I say let them stay, not only were they a good and popular band in their own right, but they have close ties to numerous rising bands in the national light. In addition I know they were interviewed numerous times on radio stations throughout south Louisiana and in southeast Texas, but I think it would be hard to find records of radio interviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.34.248.10 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.34.248.10 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I used to work for FYE and we carried their CD, and kept it playing in the store regularly. Very talented group, its too bad they broke up. I believe there was an article about them in either Wonka Vision or AP I can't remember which.-- Ashfromthepast
STONG KEEP UserX: The band has accomplished more than majoirty of other bands who have been together for double the time. There accomplishment are notable and are able to inspire aspiring musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.34.248.10 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with UserX and that notability has been established and that this article should stay. Everyone should take a second look at the article. The accomplishments of this band are extremely worthy of note. Ashfromthepast (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as a complete non-entity. CSD would have been declined due to the slimmest of assertions of notability so AfD is the correct place to bring it; however, the kid is just another college student, no different from a million others. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Delete. Looks like an article using a real person's name, but with a lot of Superman nonsense thrown in. db-bio, db-hoax, db-vandalism, take your pick. Hairhorn (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G12. As a copy of a Wikipedia page without attribution, it violates the copyright of the authors of that page. SoWhy13:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio of Ironbank, South Australia as it appears to be a copy and paste without proper attribution. So tagged. If name change can be confirmed page should be moved and edited. This is an editorial decision so no need for deletion processes. Dpmuk (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Pure original research. Basically, the author hypothesizes a reconfiguration of the countries of the Indian subcontinent on religious, ethnic and political lines. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning)09:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mainly an opinion post. A neutral article about separationalist struggles and border disputes in the region is cool. An opinion-based essay in violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NOR is not cool enough to prevent this snowball from melting. I'll change my mind if the article is named to better describe it's subject, and the content is found notable and rewritten with sources to a neutral, factual text about the subject, but I don't think this article has anything seriously worth salvaging. Also, I haven't checked, but there are most likely articles about all significant separationalist movements in the area, in which case this one would be redundant. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable OR synthesis soapbox etc. If there's anything worth salvaging in this article, it can be merged into the articles currently linked under See also. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note It's a soap box, but could be re-written to be less bias against Hindus and Gorkahs. Assam should get a mention to, along with Pakistan's squabble with Afghanistan over the Durand line.
“
If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a desired outcome, don't keep pushing for it anyway.
The article describes a "what if" - situation. Wikipedia doesn't do them - the article is a synthesis by someone, not a fact. Even if it was true, I'd still prefer this as separate articles about the notable separatist groups (logical, isn't it?). Kotiwalo (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its highly opinionated and is based on ifs and buts and has no place in a encyclopedia website. Its highly biased against India, Hindus in general and Tamils. If this is allowed then maybe tomorrow someone can publish an article say on Pakistan showing Baluchistan and Sindh as different country just because there has been unrest in those areas and in some one's POV its possible...This article is purely based on wishful thinking of some PakistanisParthashome (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dont bother about it. There is nothing salvagable in this article and as for Separatist movements of India, it is highly unreferenced and includes some fictional movements. Not to forget: it does not differentiate between movements for separate states and secessionist movements. --Deepak D'Souza11:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subcontinent doesnt mean India, Pakistan is also a part of that subcontinent and there are also many separatists movement going on: Baluchistan, Sindhudesh and Pashtunistan and it is based on ifs and buts, so it has to be deleted as soon as possible! --Pradeep90—Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Nobody here is concerned about this article from an ethnic rivalry perspective even if caused World War III to break out. The only concern is if it is a proper topic for Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning)19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sikkim was never part of China and is not even a disputed area. The Naxals have never demanded a separate country. The Gorkhaland issue is a internal State hood issue. Pakistan also has liberation movements like Baluchistan and Sindhi which are not mentioned...Hate filled and highly opinionated. Should be deleted immediately...Parthashome (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is more peaceful than many of the discussions I've seen, possibly because this case is relatively clearly not a good Wikipedia article. Also, do not call others dopes or even trolls, that's not civil. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article gets rewritten really frequently. Constructive editing would be okay, but there seems to be edit warring between several people who obviously hold different opinions on the subject. If we somehow decide to keep the article, measures should be taken to improve the article's neutrality and stability, so it won't stay the writhing mass of primal chaos it is. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is no demand for Dravidistan, there used to be one in 1950-60 but not anymore. The Kashmir region is also made up of Jammu and Ladakh which are Hindu and Buddhist Majority while Kashmir valley is a small area which has its border with azad kashmir(Pakistan) is a muslim majority where you usually have strikes and protests and they are the ones who are demanding for Independence and not Jammu and Ladakh and you just cant assume that Kashmir will become a aprt of Pakistan in future. Naxals are not asking for a separate country, China has accepted Sikkim as a part of India and Khalistanis want not only Indian punjab but also the Pakistani Punjab. And what makes you think that India will give Kashmir, Junagarh and Manavadar to Pakistan without a war? So first fix this and show Balochistan, Sindhudesh and Pashtunistan in your map before uploading it.
Basic Idea -- In this section it says " Dravidistan, East Bengal and Orissa (the Naxalite rebel controled 'state') which is communist in nature). It is also assumed that Kashmir joins Pakistan."
There is no demand for Dravidistan, East Bengal(Bangladesh) is already an Independent country, Naxals are not asking for a separate country and again you cant assume Kashmir will become a part of Pakistan. I can assume many things too, i think Pakistan will disintegrate in the next 10-20 years. --Pradeep90—Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. This player fails WP:ATHLETE (he has never played in a fully-pro league or competition, and youth caps at international level do not confer notability), as well as WP:GNG. Recreate if & when he becomes notable in the future GiantSnowman08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete footballer fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATH as he has not played in a fully-professional league/cup competition. No independent coverage of the subject article, failing WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online]17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural nomination on my part, in behalf of an IP who placed an AfD tag on the page ([47]) and explained their reasoning on the talk page ([48]). Speedy deletion was proposed by the IP here, but I removed the tag since the article contains a claim of importance/significance. (I'm assuming here that the IPs are the same person, please correct me if I'm wrong.) Arguments for deletion by the IP can be found on the article's talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information
While I applaud and support the principle of Jafeluv's action(s), he hasn't told the whole story. His quotes are somewhat out of context and are out of chronological order, which is perhaps a little misleading.
16: 203.129.53.87 started a conversation at Talk:Jonathan Bonnitcha#Deletion?. Subsequently contributed to the conversation as 203.129.59.239 and 124.176.115.186
1: This person is not 'notable' for sporting achievements, which tends to be the subject of this page. After researching the person, he has not even come close to qualifying for an Olympic Games.
2: There is no independant verification of this person being part of some "Shadow" Olympic Team - it does not exist.
3: The general 'notability' of this person is arguable to say the least.
On talk page, it was explained to IP [54] that that 1, 2 and 3 are false statements, "Academic" is irrelevant, and "Athlete" has been addressed previously, twice.
This matter has been dealt with, at length, and resolved, TWICE before. You are raising it a THIRD time. You are not supplying ANY new evidence, you are not making ANY new claims, and it appears that you have paid NO attention to ANYTHING that has been said, discussed OR decided in previous discussions.
Bonnitcha is a competitive windsurfer and is a blue in sailing. In 2001 and 2002 he was placed 4th and 3rd respectively at the World Sailing Championships in the 29er Class.<ref>[http://www.sailing.org/biog?memberid=32894 Jon Bonnitcha] Sailor biography, International Sailing Federation (ISAF), sailing.org</ref><ref name=medal/> In 2003 he was a member of the national Olympic squad for windsurfing,<ref name=USydNews/> and in 2004 he was named in the Shadow Olympic windsurfing team.<ref name=USydNews>[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=765 "University of Sydney student wins 2006 Rhodes scholarship"] University of Sydney News, 10 November 2005, usyd.edu.au</ref> In 2005 he came first in the Australian Sailing Championship (Mistral Class), and was ranked top in the Australian Olympic Class Windsurfing Rankings.<ref name=USydNews/><ref name=YatchingNSW>[http://www.nsw.yachting.org.au/?page=15331&MenuID=News%2F10537%2F0 "Jonathan Bonnitcha - Australia's new Mistral sailboard national champion"] Yachting New South Wales, 18 February 2005, yachting.org.au</ref>
"The subject didn't make it to the Olympics." - There are many notable sportspeople who "didn't make it to the Olympics". Why do you mention this?
"A Rhodes Scholarship isn't notable in itself." - Agreed.
"I'm wondering why the subject is on the list of notable Rhodes Scholars?" - Suggest you read talk:List of Rhodes Scholars where it is discussed at length. In very brief summary: a) He has a page on WP. Therefore, by definition, he is notable. b) He is a Rhodes Scholar. c) Therefore, he is a notable Rhodes Scholar.
Comment Thank you for your suggestion, I had already read the definition. Rather a circular arrangement. Create an article, therefore notable, therefore on list on Rhodes Scholars, therefore must be notable. I mentioned the Olympics because the article mentioned the Olympics and gives an aura of notability. Yet he didn't get there. As I said, I'm not seeing the notability. Just my opinion as I am entitled - I think, still - to give. florrie 15:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC) PS, you may like to snip out that quote above from the article, it looks rather untidy. I have to say, your "brief summary" made me giggle, considering the context and all! Cheers, florrie 16:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He has competed at the World Sailing Championships. Per WP:Athlete, that's notable as he has competed at the top level of his sport. Whether he qualified for the Olympics or not is relevant if he is demosntrated to have competed at the World Championships. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Create an article, therefore notable, therefore on list on Rhodes Scholars, therefore must be notable." - I think you are over-extrapolatinging; that's not quite either what I said nor quite what the talk page says: a) Create an article for a notable person. If not notable, article gets deleted, stop. If notable, article remains. b) If notable and has scholarship, then may appear on list. c) Hence, as only gets on list if notable, then if on list, is notable. - If not notable, then should not be on list. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Cannot identify the notability. Just because he has competed at a World Championship does not mean he is notable - the world championships are OPEN-ENTRY; meaning anybody can go. Even my 8 year old daughter can go to the World Championships, but that doesn't make her notable.. I'm sure she'd do terribly, and this person's results (well outside the top-100), means he can't possibly be notable just for going to a world championship that is open-entry. A clear deletion. Taymaishu (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have consistently held that Rhodes Scholarship winners are not by that fact alone notable--many of them naturally do become notable. The ones who do become notable are therefore included in the list here. When the article is deleted, he will be removed from the list. Had he been on the 2008 Olympics actual squad, he would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting point you raise. He certainly isn't notable for any actions of being a Rhodes Scholar - he simply is one; not a notable Rhodes scholar. Furthermore, you raised the crux-point - he hasn't been to an Olympic Games, nor come close to being selected for one. He has simply attended an open-entry World Championship (and has not had a 'notable result'). Taymaishu (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Taymaishu, I don't think it's an interesting point. To me, it's just a consequence of facts. To me it's pretty obvious: if he's NN, he doesn't have a WP page, and therefore doesn't appear on List of Rhodes Scholars. If he's notable, he can.
Furthermore, it isn't "the" crux-point, it is "the point". And still further, whether he was at the olypmics or not is NOT "the" issue. Please read what has been written above; everything you have presented as "new" and "interesting" and "crux-points" has already been mentioned and, to varying degrees, discussed. Your conclusions are reasonable (I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are reasonable), but you are not adding anything new. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DDG & Taymaishu: Can we please drop this Notability-of-Rhodes-Scholars discussion? It's just a red herring getting in the way of the real discussion. NOBODY is, or ever has, tried to claim he is notable because he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. Could you please strike through your Rhodes Scholarship related comments so we can concentrate on the actual issue of whether he is a notable sportsperson, or not? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy delete, blatant advertising: a worldwide leader in the development and marketing of industrial process simulation software and systems for variety of industries, including oil and gas exploration. The fact that this description suggests that this business is going to be quite obscure to the general public is almost beside the point, given their vanity claims of "worldwide" leadership. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We are the English Wikipedia only in the sense that that is the language we use to present knowledge - the knowledge of other languages is just as acceptable Fritzpoll (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, user talk is seems to be loving flagging Azerbaijan articles without knowing the purpose of any of this articles and arguing that is not relevant for English Wikipedia. This user also has have previously warned about flagging Azerbaijani articles. So moderators, should be check her background first before doing any action.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can only read the Russian, but it says he's famous as an Azeri television personality. They specifically use the words "Знаменитый" - famous. That meets notability. --GRuban (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is nothing in the article that suggest this individual is notable. Where are the criteria that is listed here [56]. I'm not going to waste my time searching through the citations - I suspect this is just another one of the hundreds of thousands of articles that Wikipedia would be better off without but which will probably be stuck with - but if those sources do indicate the required criteria exists, why is none of it in the article? Meowy21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a notable athlete. Didn't win any medals or championships. Lida Vorig (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. He's the president of the Pankration Federation of Azerbaijan. Lida Vorig (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspend Judgment. The article claims that he was the USSR champion. This needs to be sourced thoroughly. His other achievements are not relevant. McMarcoP (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete According to this, this and this his record is one draw and one defeat in two fights, and thats his entire record. I've seen hamsters with more notable fight records. Where the greco-roman champion wrestler thing comes from I have no idea. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anglophone-oriented data-scraper/user-generated-content websites are hardly reliable sources about a guy from the former Soviet Union. And I suspect the "greco-roman wrestling" thing is a mistranslation of "панкратион" (pankration) or something. cab (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to meet the primary notability guideline as well as WP:ATHLETE. He is president of the Azerbaijan Pankration Federation [57], and [58] confirms that he was champion of the USSR in 1987. cab (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Open.az is the copy of his own personal website and ru.apasport.az is an interview with him denying that he's someone else. So far no reliable sources are present to confirm that he was ever a champion of USSR. Although, in my opinion, being the president of the Pankration Federation of Azerbaijan meets the notability guideline. In my defense, that info was and is still missing from the article. Lida Vorig (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, user talk is seems to be loving flagging Azerbaijan articles without knowing the purpose of any of this articles and arguing that is not relevant for English Wikipedia. This user also has have previously warned about flagging Azerbaijani articles. So moderators, should be check her background first before doing any action.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Keep, user talk is seems to be loving flagging Azerbaijan articles without knowing the purpose of any of this articles and arguing that is not relevant for English Wikipedia. This user also has have previously warned about flagging Azerbaijani articles. So moderators, should be check her background first before doing any action.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Close unless someone has a more convincing argument that this guy is non-notable. Invalid nomination rationale and suspicious nomination. Per WP:NOTENGLISH, there's no such thing as "not notable for English Wikipedia" --- non-English sources are perfectly acceptable to verify the facts of an article. I see 48,000 GHits (Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL).
Of course, the Google test is not conclusive, but out of the seven other Azerbaijan-related articles which the nominator has put up for deletion today, six are easily proven to be notable, which is a pretty poor track record for an editor whose IP has previously been blocked for violations of editing restrictions on Azerbaijan related articles and who managed to get himself listed on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement within two weeks of creating an account ([66]), which increasingly makes me lean towards viewing this as a bad-faith nomination. cab (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep First of all, article is not suspicious, it is about poet. Second of all, it just needs more information, third is that I noticed this user is flagging only Azeri articles and finally, since when Wikipedia become limited? Anybody can post an article about famous people.--NovaSkola (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are millions of poets around the world, should we write articles for everyone? As a matter of fact I can create a poem right now. Would that qualify me to have my own article? Lida Vorig (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
And that AfD has a total of three participants after a week of debate, one of whom explicitly stated "Keep" and another leaning in that direction ... cab (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources is actually the cornerstone of the general notability guidelines. Trivial news coverage may not show notability, but to say that news coverage isn't a reason for inclusion is totally incorrect. Camw (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, user talk is seems to be loving flagging Azerbaijan articles without knowing the purpose of any of this articles and arguing that is not relevant for English Wikipedia. This user also has have previously warned about flagging Azerbaijani articles. So moderators, should be check her background first before doing any action.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league, and fails WP:GNG as hasn't received non-trivial media attention. See WP:NTEMP for reasons why passing, run-of-the-mill sports reports & the like isn't considered significant enough. GiantSnowman13:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak delete- if these mentions were anything more than trivial then they would have been incorporated into the article already. Spiderone (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly does the notability policy mention anything like this? Wikipedia has no deadline. The mumber of Russian speakers here on enwiki AfD is limited, our time is limited, and suddenly eight articles require immediate attention ... cab (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? That discussion has no new comments in 5 days and no consensus to delete. And again, where does any deletion policy mention anything like "if these mentions were anything more than trivial then they would have been incorporated into the article already"? cab (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are incapable of judging the depth of coverage in the sources, what grounds do you have to make any comment at all??? cab (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well unfortunately if there is no proof of notability then there is a strong chance this will get deleted. If the depth of coverage isn't made obvious then we must assume it isn't that deep. Spiderone (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
KeepLida Vorig, I think got problem with my Azeri articles and she got pretty poor record and already warned about flagging wrong articles. Also, there is not such thing as non-Azeri sources are restricted in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is free encylopedia, without any borders. --NovaSkola (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're perception of wikipedia is wrong. Just because someone is semi-famous in Azerbaijan doesn't mean he/she is notable for inclusion in English wikipedia. Lida Vorig (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors need to realise that the English Wikipedia has as its subject the entire world, not just our bit of it. If the sources exist, and it all meets WP:N or the equivalent, it is ntoable. That certainly seems to be the case here Fritzpoll (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know what you mean, maybe I phrased my comment wrong. I meant - this page is of no interest for a non-Azerbaijani. Unless I am proved wrong, of course. McMarcoP (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand humbled and will remain in the shadow waiting for a decision in order to better calibrate my interventions in the future. Good learning experience. McMarcoP (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability has already been demonstrated prior to this nomination through the citation of multiple non-trivial newspaper articles about the subject. cab (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "not notable in English speaking world". This is a ridiculous argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written in English, not an encyclopedia restricted to Anglophone topics. Read WP:NOTENGLISH as I have asked you to do multiple times already. cab (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read wp not english, but I still don't see how a heroin addict rapper from a third world country who sold 2500 cd's (WOW) somehow deserves to have an article in English Wikipedia? My argument for deletion is simple, the article doesn't meet wp notability. Lida Vorig (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, user talk is seems to be loving flagging Azerbaijan articles without knowing the purpose of any of this articles and arguing that is not relevant for English Wikipedia. This user also has have previously warned about flagging Azerbaijani articles. So moderators, should be check her background first before doing any action.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added little more information about him and put some new sources. There is good biography about him in Russian Wikipedia.--NovaSkola (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid reason for deletion given. I can decipher enough of the Russian sources to see that some seem good 3rd party news sources. Needless to say, we include articles on anything notable anywhere in the world. This is the Wikipedia version written in English, not the Wikipedia on English-language topics. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete: The USA is a country of gangsters. IN business it is the same. Gangsters steal, murder, cheat, and commit other crimes. so do business leaders in the usa. This rant strikes too close to home. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am re-closing this with my original result of no consensus. I was asked to reconsider, and I have. There are canvassed comments here, but even separating those out, the consensus is not clear. Although those favouring deletion cite notability, those favouring retention indicate a belief that the passing references are sufficient. Overall, the consensus is not clear and unambiguous - the deletion arguments have a greater overall weight, but it is impossible to discern the community consensus on this topic. I recommend that this return to AfD in due course, ideally following some talkpage discussion. Otherwise, this decision can be reviewed in the usual placeFritzpoll (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
This does not address the issue of the notability requirements of WP:BIO. That guideline does not provide that nobility are automatically notable. They need substantial coverage in reliable sources like anyone else. Besides, Germany has been a republic since circa 1918, so any titles of nobility or places in a line of succession seem to be about as relevant as my claim to the Imperial Chinese throne. Sandstein 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Notability is not inherited, even for a soi-disant scion of the aristocracy. WP:GNG specifically requires significant, substantial, multiple sources discussing the subject in detail, and a mere geneaological listing doesn't qualify. One of her sons is demonstrably notable, but that doesn't make her notable. Being a stub doesn't disqualify an article; an article that has no chance of growing beyond a stub is what doesn't qualify. There's no evidence that this can. RGTraynor 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that notability is not inherited (wrong cite by the way: it's WP:NRVE, not WP:NOT.) However royalty IS inherited, and it's inherently notable. There has been repeated consensus on that, both in Wikipedia and in real life. A better question is: as she was from the royal line of a republican state, was she therefore non-noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayBarker (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google Books search turns up plenty of interesting references and coverage [70], including a section in "Confronting the Nazi Past: New Debates on Modern German History" by Michael Burleigh, which claims that the "biggest society event during the war was the marriage of Princess Maria-Adelgunde of Hohenzollern to Prince Konstantin of Bavaria." Sounds notable to me! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there does not appear to be significant coverage of her and the article is effectively a genealogical entry. There are passing mentions in Google books to her first marriage but I just don’t see enough evidence of her being notable enough for an article. - dwc lr (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as royal genealogy cruft. In my view there is too many of these articles on obscure minor royals, as a rule of thumb I am prepared to treat the children and grandchildren of monarchs as inherently notable but not further. When I first saw the article I assumed she might be fairly close to the German Imperial family, but it seems she is not, she is only the grand-niece of a king of Romania and the great-great-granddaughter of a king of Portugal. As she was never recognised as a Princess by any sovereign state at any point during her lifetime I question whether we should keep this title even if we do keep the article. The Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens look like a fairly obscure cadet branch, not the main Hohenzollern family. As there is no longer a Bavarian throne the hypothetical line of succession is a fairly obscure matter. PatGallacher (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a sockpuppet or something? Its just that the User:Caponer account has been editing the Justin.A.Wilcox userpage, both look like they are from West Virginia, just looks a bit odd. - dwc lr (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're both contributors to West Virginia-related content as we are from the same community. For full disclosure, we are also domestic partners. --Caponer (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in concurrence with Pastor Theo that there are several interesting English and German language GoogleBook references that establish the article meets WP:N. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1. The person existed. The lack of certain categories of references does not imply that the do not exist, they exist, but have not been included (yet). 2. The mark that distinguished the person for a personal article is clear. Her wedding was not only a public occasion of great interest in Nazi-Germany (quantitatively) but also an important fact (qualitatively). There existed a complex relationship between Germany's noble classes - who had traditionally carried German civilisation, culture, politics and the military - in the past centuries and were represenatatives of the old order and the new classes of socialists and workers who propagated a radical egalitarian philosophy. This love/hate relationship is illustrated by the marriage (which should be expanded upon). Another (more famous exemple) is the attempt to murder Hitler by the nobleman von Stauffenberg. Both are result of this dialectic proces. 3. Much lesser articles have been retained, whereby this article, in comparison, is very qualitative. Conclusion. The article should be expanded, not deleted. --Stijn Calle (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I would encourage the closing admin to discount the previous comment. As one of the five "keep" comments above, I am more than capable of making up my own mind, thank you, and my advocacy for retaining this article is based solely on my determining the notability of the princess, as per WP:BIO and WP:RS standards. If I felt the subject did not meet these requirements, I would have called for its deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a "canvassed editor" different from, ahem, uncanvassed? Are we witnessing birth of a new breed, - wikishudras? wikilepers? NVO (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have innumerable members of the British peerage, beerage and baronetage, all with thousands of rules justifying their worthiness of a place on Wikipedia. If this woman existed (I assume that she did) then she has as much right to be here as any other holder of an hereditary or marital title - or do Europeans count for less than the Brits here? For the record, nobody has canvassed me to be here, I found my way all by myself. Giano (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but Sandstein, that is not the case, all holders of British titles get to have a page, you cam't have on lwaw for one race and one for another. Anyway, I think she sounds fascinating - all those husbands and a title too - she sounds very notable and not just a little familiar too. Giano (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am noticing that the members of the British Royal Family have their articles not because they are members of the Royal Family but because they receive extensive and in-depth press coverage, in the UK and abroad. I think (and hope) that each single member of the Royal Family's notability claims have been evaluated properly. The references and the sourcing about the subject of this article are in discussion, not her "birthright" to be on Wikipedia. McMarcoP (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody has found any indication that she is actually notable herself. The German Wikipedia mentions her as a daughter, in her father's article. She appears in numerous genealogies. And apparently she gave a big party once. That's it. All these things run under "trivial coverage". She died in 2006, so you would expect the German Google News archive to have at least an obituary or something. Nothing. Only a more recent article that mentions her as the mother of her son. By the way, formally she never carried a title. "Prinzessin von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen" was her name, which she inherited in exactly the same way that other people inherit the name Schmidt, Jones or Gorbachev/Gorbachyova. (She could have made money by adopting rich people who like such names. This kind of thing does happen.) HansAdler22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was canvassed by the way. Royal geneaology is notable in itself and of interest to many. Gerard von Hebel 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebel (talk • contribs)
Keep as i think she did have a public role. However, this entire group of articles is written in a manner that i can only describe as "in-universe" -- as if these people were anything more than courtesy nobility or royalty. The British peerage is not a courtesy peerage, but a legitimate one, still officially recognized. Did she at any point actually hold a legally recognized title? DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What tells you she had a public role? She is known for being her father's daughter and her son's mother and for having given a party once. She died 2006, but neither Google nor the Google News archive found an obituary. (I tried en and de.) HansAdler23:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It is not a good sign for notability when a person's Wikipedia article is their top Google hit. Searching in Google.de to find German-language sources gives the same result: her de.wiki article is the top hit for 'Maria Adelgunde Sigmaringen'. The article has almost nothing about concrete events in this woman's life; we don't know if she lived in Germany during her two marriages or somewhere else. There are no reliable sources from which the article could be expanded. Since she died only in 2006 wouldn't she have reached the archives of some newspaper in all that time? (Her wedding in 1942 is mentioned as a big social event in at least two books available at books.google.com). Her son the race-car driver is clearly notable, though keeping him in Wikipedia under the name Prince Leopold of Bavaria (b. 1943) may be a stretch, given how tenuous are the royal claims of this family, as related by DGG in his 'in-universe' remark. Per User:PatGallacher above the title 'Princess' should be reconsidered if the article is kept. (She was never recognized as a princess by any sovereign state). EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to learn more from how the German wiki handled this, as noted already they have no separate article on Maria Adelgunde, but they do mention her in the article on her father, Friedrich von Hohenzollern. If consensus decides that a separate article on Maria Adelgunde is not justified, merging anything important to her father's article might be sensible. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) What do you mean by her German Wikipedia article? She doesn't have one. de:Adelgunde von Bayern has a similar name (without "Maria", which appears in her article elsewhere), but is a different person. She is mentioned in precisely 4 articles in the German Wikipedia: her father's, her husband's, her son's, and a genealogy. (Her second and third husbands were "commoners", by the way, if that makes any difference for some people here.) HansAdler05:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We only know her year of death because thePeerage.com has it from the following source: Ruijzendaal, Patricia "re: Austrian Royalty." E-mail message from unknown author e-mail at The Netherlands. 19 November 2008. This makes the article a potential BLP article and the year and fact of her death uncertain. I will qualify the information. HansAdler 05:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC) — PS: Actually, there is another site that also gives the date and place of death, but like thepeerage.com it's self-published, it looks less reliable, and it doesn't indicate sources. HansAdler05:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some people seem not aware that since the German nobility was abolished in 1919, she was officially a commoner throughout her whole life and that the in the article prefixed title princess was merely a part of her surname. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 11:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The right to enlist people in the nobility is a personal right of the sovereign. It is called fons honorem. No other person is allowed to. By abolishing the monarchy, thus the monarch who embodied the sovereign, the sole person who was capable to disband nobility was eliminated. Thus rendering any change in the nobility impossible, untill a new sovereign sits on the throne. Republican government cannot undo monarchical privilege. --Stijn Calle (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm yes this may be the case in France or Italy ... however after the First World War the former German Empire ceased to exist as country (remember it was a fusion of several independent states) and its former citizens, nobles as well as commoners, became now citizens of the new established Weimar Republic, responsible to its constitution, which allowed and recognized no nobility. After the Second World War the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany continued this, so even if magazines and newspapers like to use the former titles, German nobles officially exist not anymore. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The German Realm (as it was still called) abolished the nobility and royalty in 1919. Remember that the Princes of HS were not nobility but royalty. Republican government can undo monarchial priviledge. There is no problem with that. I added a comment further down however stating that some European monarchies kept and keep recognizing the defunct titles in a diplomatic sense and also for the purposses of "annexing" formerly titled people into their own nobility. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the good Pastor, and my belief that this meets WP:GNG. Even as dated as this is, there still appears to be numerous sources to verify this. As an encyclopedic endeavor, historical perspective is important, and I believe this fully meets the criteria that we have established. — Ched : ? 11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
addendum regarding the WP:WAX argument, it is a well reasoned essay, but an essay nonetheless. I believe that any "Royalty" inherently meets our view of GNG, even if it is not explicitly stated in any particular policy or guideline. We're here to produce an encyclopedia, and as such, I believe that we must endeavor to include figureheads of our past, regardless of their particular function, country, or origin. Just IMHO. — Ched : ? 11:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince Konstantin of Bavaria. As Wendy Testaburger said on Paris Hilton, "Yes, but what does she do ?!". It appears that she was a mere housewife with a title. As contemporary witnesses said of her wedding (which is the most public event of her life attested in RS), "a belated vision of pre-1914 Europe" [71] "an extraordinary feudal occasion" [72]. Good riddance to ancien regime, not enough to make a bio. NVO (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. the second link is the same that Pastor Theo used in favor of keeping the article. But a fact of being mentioned, especially for a single event, indicates quite the contrary. In fact, had it not been 1942, the wedding will go unnoticed among dozens of other high-society gatherings. NVO (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Inclined to keep as I think higher nobility implies notability. On the other hand, most of the current article seems to be about her marriage to Prince Konstantin of Bavaria. The content could have stayed there until someone was ready to write more about the rest of her life. Gimmetrow14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We hardly know anything about this woman because she was simply a non-notable housewife. She was born with a funny name as the daughter of a notable man. She had a borderline noteworthy party when she married another notable man, with whom she then had two children, one of which is also notable. So far it was a good start. Looked as if she might become notable.
After 6 years the first marriage ended in a divorce. Then she was married to one Werner Hess for 12 years and had 2 more children during this time. The children's last name is Hess, so one could guess that she became Maria Adelgunde Hess. But that's far from clear and we simply don't know.
Finally she married one Hans Huber in Switzerland. Was she now Maria Adelgunde Huber? No idea. No futher children or divorces. She died 33 years later.
If you look at our sources for all this, you will see that everything from her second divorce onwards is known to us only because the guy in New Zealand who is writing thePeerage.com felt a need to fill in the details for this woman. He somehow managed to obtain an email from a woman in the Netherlands who apparently knew the article subject or some of her relatives. If this email also contained further riveting information, such as the fact that she regularly went to concerts in Baden-Baden during her second marriage, or that she temporarily became a vegetarian in the early 1990s, or that she was the president of a Bridge club in Frauenfeld during her last years (examples made up for illustration) – then unfortunately these interesting details have not been published.
No, I am lying. The guy from New Zealand is not our only source. There is also one Paul Theroff who managed to find the third husband's date of birth and therefore presumably didn't copy the other source. Both sources are self-published, of course.
Recuse as a canvassed !vote, but I want to add that I still do not think there is much point in proceeding with this canvassing-tainted discussion. I think any closure here (of any kind) would, correctly, be susceptible to relisting at DRV because there would be reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the outcome following the procedural irregularities.
At an untainted discussion, I would say that the "delete" !votes here are unconstructive and do not comply with WP:BEFORE. As a member of a European royal house, this lady's name is a plausible search term, so the closest any AfD should come to deletion is "redirect". Another possibility would be "merge" to her husband's name—but whichever way it goes, the outcome should be some variant of "keep". Nevertheless, I repeat that the closing admin should discount my remark on the basis of canvassing.—S MarshallTalk/Cont15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the father, the first husband, or the notable son? Or to a genealogy? (The German Wikipedia has one, I have no idea if we do this kind of thing here.) We don't need redirects for searching, especially for people who are clearly not notable. Searching works very well without that. As to WP:BEFORE, there is a long list there, and if you feel that any of these points was ignored you need to mention it specifically rather than point at the haystack and say: "You lost a sharp object there which in my opinion can be considered to be the equivalent of a needle." One reason for taking things to AfD is to remind article creators that we have a notability guideline and that it is supposed to be applied.
For comparison, for the German Wikipedia I recently wrote the biography of the apothecary who invented the use of pigeons in aerial photography. I know about as much about his wife as about this woman here. Did I create an article for her? No, because she was completely and utterly nonnotable, just like this one. I may be wrong about this particular case, having missed a large biographical article about her in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (I doubt it), but editors are supposed to find sources establishing notability before creating an article. Not pushing memes like "all cousins twice removed of American presidents are inherently notable". HansAdler15:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've some respect for the German Wikipedia, and I'm a fairly frequent visitor because I translate Wikipedia articles from German to English. But de.wikipedia's a different place and it has different rules and guidelines. What works for them doesn't work for us, and vice versa, and decisions on de.wiki do not have precedential force here.
WP:BEFORE concerns alternatives to deletion which should be exhausted before the AfD process is invoked. In this case the alternatives that were not exhausted were merges and redirects.
The only reason to bring anything to AfD, ever, is because the nominator thinks the article should be a redlink on Wikipedia. See WP:BEFORE and WP:SK ground 1, for example. "Reminding article creators" is certainly not a reason to bring something here.
Nobody's pushing memes about American presidents. There seems to be a split between those who have a Republican view of the nobility and those who do not, but I do not see any bad-faith arguments of the kind you mention.
My position is that notability is not relevant to this matter. Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content; it is rarely appropriate to cut content that is verifiable from the English Wikipedia. Notability just establishes whether the subject has its own article or the content is moved elsewhere. See WP:PRESERVE.
You can therefore make a case that she should not have her own article, but because her name is a plausible search term, she should have at minimum a redirect to a place where she is mentioned. And redirect is technically a "keep" outcome, so my position is that the AfD closer should close as "keep" with a recommendation that whether to redirect or merge—and if so, to what—should be discussed on the article's talk page at our leisure.—S MarshallTalk/Cont22:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the nominator, but I am convinced that this name should be a redlink, not a redirect. This woman can be mentioned somewhere in one or more articles (I believe she already is), but there is no reason for a redirect. Therefore your BEFORE argument doesn't apply, either.
"Nobody's pushing memes about American presidents." But some people here are pushing memes about remote relatives of other people who are notable but much less important than an American president. I never said anything about bad faith, and I don't believe anyone is arguing in bad faith. And you are simply wrong about notability. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That's exactly what you need to write a reasonable article; certainly not an accident, since writing reasonable articles is what we are here for. The thing that is lacking here or at least extremely dubious is "significant coverage", which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". An entry in the telephone directory doesn't count. For people with a funny name, an entry in the book of people with funny names doesn't count unless it goes into detail about the person. Here we just have lists, lists, lists. Being a relative of someone notable doesn't count, and a big wedding party is no reason for an encyclopedia article. You could argue that many people will be interested to read about her, but if we allow such arguments Wikipedia will be flooded with articles on porn stars. The one thing that has been missing in this entire AfD is a single convincing argument what could possibly make her notable. HansAdler23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to explain the reasons for a merge or redirect to you. If I told you again, I'd just be repeating myself, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.—S MarshallTalk/Cont23:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly there is only one reason for merging: That people might search for her. Now, every reasonable search term for her is going to lead to the articles mentioning her and very little else, whether you use Google or our search box. And how many people are going to enter the exact search string "Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen"? Are you going to spam Wikipeida with all variants of that name? I don't see any advantage from such a redirect. On the other hand I have experienced in the past what can happen with a "merge" vote. An admin who believes that from a technical AfD perspective merge=keep closes as keep, or as "keep, should be merged" or something like that. And then the entire AfD discussion is repeated on the article talk page, only this time it's about redirecting or not. Sometimes this risk is a necessary evil. This time it's an unnecessary evil. HansAdler23:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's one reason, and though I realise you find it unlikely, I do not. An editor would follow the established naming pattern while searching.
Comment Although the German nobility was abolished in 1919, there were some monarchies of Europe that kept recognising German (and other) titles afterwards in a diplomatic sense and for reasons of "annexing" formerly titled people into their own nobility. In the Netherlands that was last done in 1998.Gerard von Hebel 16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebel (talk • contribs)
So you mean if instead of leading what seems to have been an inconspicuous life first in south-west Germany, then in Switzerland, she had gone to the Netherlands, then she might have acquired a real title there, which would then have given her the chance to go to yet some other country where she might theoretically have performed some function that might have made her notable? I think there are easier ways to get into the newspapers if you feel you absolutely must have a Wikipedia article. HansAdler18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage for us to write a reasonable length article here fully verified and without original research which I believe is the purpose of the notability guideline. I also cannot see how it could be described as just a directory entry. There is also precedent of royal articles being kept before without having significant coverage in reliable sources such as this AFD on a 1 day old baby which was overwhelmingly endorsed at Deletion Review. I could however understand a merge to an article on this particular sub-branch of the family being reasonable, as long as the sourced information on her titles and honours is not lost as this is good encyclopedic information. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name one detail available about this woman from reliable sources that you would put into such a reasonable length article, so we all have an idea of what you are talking about? As far as the coverage of her by third parties (including self-published websites) goes, the article seems to be complete. If you have further sources that discuss her – especially sources that discuss her in a non-trivial way – then it's a bit unfair of you to keep the for yourself. HansAdler21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a reasonable length article now imo, not every article should have to be featured article length. There is no information in the article, as it is at the moment, that I think we should lose by deletion as long as it is sourced or sourceable and nowhere have I said that I have more sources about this person. Davewild (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an encyclopedia article, that's an Almanach de Gotha entry. If that's the kind of article you want to write, may I suggest that you take it to WikiGotha? This is incredibly ridiculous and pathetic. HansAdler21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the statement "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." and this information is an element of either an almanac or encyclopedia that I certainly would include here. As I said above however I am open to a merge to a relevant new article that preserves the information from the article. Davewild (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hans Adler pointed out this German Wikipedia article earlier. Is creating that type of article not the way forward for non notable individuals who belong to notable families, as all the information in the nominated article could easily be included in one on the family. - dwc lr (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WAX. If these articles are similarly unsourced, they should be deleted as well, and you are welcome to nominate them at AfD. The reason why I nominated only this article for deletion was that it appeared on a bot search results page that I watchlist. Sandstein 06:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this AfD is the first time that I agree with Sandstein about anything. Are you sure you want to give us a list of articles that have managed to stay under the radar until now? Not everybody who believes that non-notable nobility should be deleted is sufficiently obsessed with them to seek them out actively. But when you provide convenient pointers... HansAdler09:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my point, though. If we do craft an exhaustive list of these articles for AfD, editors will come out of the woodworks in droves to defend and save the articles for British peerage, other Protestant nobility, and commoner great-great-great-infinity-grandmothers of British royals when they won't come out to support the keeping of Catholic Continental royal and nobility articles. Therefore, the articles of Catholic Continentals (CCs) will disappear without being assisted to be made better whereas the articles for British nobodies will be salvaged. If Princess Maria Adelgunde had been the Queen's Protestant second cousin, the discussion on this page would have taken a completely different turn. There continues to exist an acceptable bias against articles for CCs. That is why when an article is to be deleted, I contact all editors who have previously edited related articles. Apparently that is canvassing, of which I was not aware of. I only contacted stakeholders who have edited other Hohenzollern-related content in this case. --Caponer (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t believe you are effectively accusing people of being bigots who would vote to save articles on people from the same religion, nationally or whatever as themselves. I gladly have an article on this woman if she was notable but I cannot for the life of me see how this article will be expanded what is there to say about her where are the mentions of her in the press or books, other than brief mentions of her wedding. - dwc lr (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I can't believe is that we have to put up with all this crap about religion. This tends to be a complete non-issue where this non-notable woman lived (I come from the same region), with traditionally Protestants and Catholics being about equal parts of the population and more recently most people not being religious at all anyway. It took me several a long time to understand that people apparently get their certainty that she was Catholic from her first name. And the idea that she might ever have been confronted with the question of conversion after hundreds of her relatives were killed (presumably by a nuclear bomb) and she gets an offer for the UK throne is utterly ridiculous.
If someone is not notable at all it must be possible to get rid of their article even if they belong to a poor disadvantaged minority group such as Catholic Hohenzollerns. HansAdler18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is getting nasty, I am not aware of any evidence of a Protestant bias in Wikipedia. See WP:OSE, "other stuff exists" is generally not a good argument on Wikipedia. I have had a quick look at most of the articles listed earlier and quite possibly some of them should be deleted. However in some cases they are e.g. a genuine Countess, or in the official line of succession to a genuine monarchy (British or Norwegian) or a fairly close relative to a genuine monarch. The crucial issue here, which some people seem to have missed, is that anyone in Italy and Germany (which has a Protestant majority) who may still use a title is only doing so unofficially since these countries are now republics. Contrary to a previous argument, a republic does have a "fount of honour", the president. This is nothing to do with Protestant bias, there are still some Catholic monarchies: Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco and Liechtenstein. PatGallacher (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is getting nasty, (I make no comment on the religious aspect), but it's true; if they are British it's "lets bow down and worship them" and if they are European it's "let's chop their heads off and delete them." Ironically, for those who admire blue blood, because of unwritten laws governing these archaic matters, the blood in the veins of a European aristo is generaly bluer than those of the British aristo - Wikipedia needs to get its act together here and have a level playing pitch. Giano (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the serious allegation - that European aristocracy are generally beter bred or that Wikipedia prefers the British aristocracy over European? Giano (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was merely messaging editors who have edited other Hohenzollern-related content on Wikipedia so that they could have a say in the article's fate. And I prefer to be referred to by my username and not "the canvasser." --Caponer (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just gone to the trouble of having a look at all the British people listed earlier by Caponer. Here is my thoughts on them:
Louisa Cavendish-Bentick, Anne Caroline Salisbury: I accept that there is legitimate doubt about their notability and I have therefore put a notability flag on their articles,
Lady William Cavendish-Bentick: there already is a notability flag on this article,
Albert Windsor: an AFD discussion a while ago decided to turn this into a redirect, somebody changed this, it had now been changed back to a redirect,
Alexander Lascelles: an AFD discussion in 2006 on this article resulted in no consensus, it might be worth putting this up for a 2nd nomination.
However I would say some of these articles are notable for these reasons:
Frances Bowes-Lyon: a genuine Countess,
Patrick Chichester: a genuine Marquess,
Lady Davina Lewis, Lady Rose Gilman, Xan Windsor: all within the official line of succession to the British throne, as stated on the official British monarchy website,
Emma Tallulah Behn: might have a funny name, but the granddaughter of a Norwegian king and fairly high up the line of succession to the Norwegian throne. PatGallacher (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that mention of her ranking in the line of succession to the British throne has been removed in the grounds that she was a devout Roman Catholic - therefore it is surprising that such a devout Catholic, especially of her generation, could bring herself to be divorced twice! Giano (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the difference between nobles and / or royals from Britain as opposed to Italy, Germany and France is that the three countries mentioned last are Republics now, while Britain retains its monarchy. I don't think that should make the mention of royals (former royals) from these places an anathema on Wikipedia. Royal geneaology is notable in itself. We don't have to endorse concepts like "fons honorem" for that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, royal genealogy is notable, although there is currently no article under this name. Telephone directory is also notable. But that doesn't imply that New York telephone directory is notable, let alone every individual entry in it. Neither was Maria Hess (her name at the time) necessarily notable in 1961 just because if 870 of her relatives including the slightly younger UK Queen and the even younger Prince Charles had died a sudden death, she would have been offered a throne. HansAdler20:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The members of former reigning houses are not an anathema on Wikipedia. It’s ridiculous to have to an article on every single royal of these formerly reigning houses. If they are notable then there is no problem in them having an article, but surely not every single royal is notable. This princess was not head of a royal house, not a member of a reigning royal family how is this princess remotely notable? The subject of royal genealogy may be notable, not everyone covered by it is though. - dwc lr (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't agree more with what PatGallacher previously said. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Obscur royalty, even though she is granddaughter of a king, that doesn't make her worthy of an article. Way too many of these articles exist, all done similarly, with the same template. Merge this article into her father's or husband's would be the perfect solution, information would not be lost, etc. What annoys me the most with these so-called articles is the "titles" section. Germany is a republic, right? I can understand the importance of titles for a reigning monarch, but not for members of former noble/royal houses. EDT95 (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't find the alleged protestant monarchical bias argument particularly convincing and although this isn't paper and it's useful for people interested in the history of European royalty to see information about descendants of such an important historical family as the Hohenzollens, we can't have pointless pages for every one of thousands of offshoots. I do think to qualify for articles, aristocrats need to be either currently notable for some reason, high-ranking (eg currently the main royal/sub-royal title holder or a close relative of such) or close family members within currently monarchical states. I agree that we are not simply building a genealogical database. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge somewhere) - fails WP:BIO; we are not a genealogical database. Simple as that, really. I'm aware there are many other similar articles like this, and they should be deleted as well. Robofish (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article, recently created, is a point-of-view fork of Australasia. The article creator has not satisfactorily explained, or has deflected explaining, why the content in this article cannot be dealt with in the parent article, nor have they attempted to do so. Notices were placed on the talk pages of Australia and New Zealand, and the fork was redirected; the creator(s) -- and I am certain that there is a certain degree of sockpuppetry happening, as there are a number of IPs and at least one registered user who appear to hold the same stance -- restored the article. At the very least, the content can be merged into the parent, but for it to flourish violates policy. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a POV fork. The Australasia article details several different definitions of Australasia, which cover different landmasses. There is already a separate article which deals with Australasia as a bioregion and the article listed for deletion is one which deals with another definition of Australasia - that of Australia and NZ. It would not be appropriate to detail all definitions of Australasia on the one page and it is better the Australasia page remains as a sort of disambig page with links to other pages which give greater detail. --110.32.136.121 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point I am making is that the Australasia page is not suitable for the content on the Australasia (A & NZ) page because it is pretty obvious that Australia & NZ are very closely tied both culturally and economically, which neither is with other nations that could be considered under other definitions as a part of Australasia. They form a cultural and economic entity commonly called "Australasia".The points are really simple. 1. There are multiple definitions of Australasia. 2. One of these is Australia and NZ. 3. Australia and NZ form a cultural, political and economic bloc as Western democracies distinct from the other nations of the region. 4. There is a difference between an article discussing the bilateral Australia-NZ relationship and one which examines them as a regional bloc (details of a single market, demography of people who can move across the national border w/out restriction, important population centre, combined organisations and regulatory authorities, etc.) This is an area in which I have done a considerable amount of research and I am happy to footnote anything that others feel should be footnoted. What is not helpful are requests for deletion without proper discussion. Why don't other make a case for why this is the same as other articles and then I can respond to that? Bosonic, I disagree with your view on this, but am happy to make my case. Merbabu, get your facts straight. I have provided ample examples of "Australasia" being used to refer to Australia and NZ and could easily provide more. If you have never heard of it being used in this manner you clearly do not know much about this topic.--110.32.136.121 (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your riposte above simply iterates why this article is a POV fork: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." You insist on maintaining it despite current articles which can or should deal with the topic matter: there is nothing I see that requires a separate article as such. There has been sufficient discussion, and you have not even attempted to discuss making 'Australasia' a DAB beforehand, but there nonetheless appear to be article ownership issues at work here. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bosonic, you just keep stating this is a "POV fork". There is no attempt here to present anything other than a neutral point of view. As I have stated so many times there is currently no article about Australia and NZ as a single economic and demographic entity. The bilateral relationship is a different matter. The definitions of Australasia are diverse and deserve separate treatment.--110.32.136.121 (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. All info is either redundant (repeated under other articles) and/or synthesized. Most fundamental of all is the basic tenant of this article being wrong - australasia is not Aust + NZ. What's next? PNG + aust = Oceania? Or USA + Mexico = north ameriica? When I requested citation the tag was removed. That the "australasia GDP" figure was the sum of nz and aust GDP referenced to IMF pages on each seperate country shows synthesis. --Merbabu (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In many aspects Australia and NZ already function as a single economic market. In fact, John Key arrives in Melbourne tomorrow for a 4 day trip to Aus to discuss further integrating the two economies into a complete single economic market and announce a timetable for the establishment of a common Australasian border. --110.32.136.121 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Australasia is a notable topic; it's a very commonly used term, and it certainly warrants an article - the sources would be abundant. This said, it should be at Australasia, and the current tone of the article seems a little bit bizarre. Rebecca (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would suggest that "Australasia" in this sense is an historical term and the article needs to be virtually completely re-written. Australia-New Zealand relations very adequately covers the current situation and Australasia covers the geography but Australasia in this sense, I feel, refers to the era from first settlement until really into the 1950s when the people of the two countries saw themselves all as Britons transposed to the South Pacific with very little difference between the colonies on the mainland, Tasmania or New Zealand. This started to fall apart when NZ did not join the federation and now some New Zealanders see it as a mildly pejorative term (a professional association I am a member of changed its name from Australasian to Australia and New Zealand a few years ago to keep the NZers happy - personally I wanted to tell them to p**s off and form their own association). If the article survives,even say as Australasia (historical term) I would like to put it on my to do list to re-write emphasizing this angle. Porturology (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is clearly no agreement on which countries constitute Australasia, (I would certainly include PNG and am not sure about including NZ in all contexts) hence the article's existence is POV. dramatic (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have indicated, this article is an unnecessary fork (although I don't think it qualifies as a POV-fork) and the information in the article is dealt with in other articles. The title is confusing as it implies that the term "Australasia" refers to Australia and New Zealand. It doesn't. Historically Australasia has referred to a vaguely defined area encompassing Australia, New Zealand andPapua New Guinea. For political reasons western New Guinea was generally excluded but, in recent years it has expanded to cover all of New Guinea. Australasia is adequately covered at Australasia. The ties between Australia and New Zealand are addressed at Australia-New Zealand relations and can be expanded if necessary. This article is redundant. Any rewrite, as suggested by some editors, would only serve to perpetuate this redundancy. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This material could easily be merged into Australasia where it would make more sense. Having multiple articles for what amount to different but related usages of a term when all the usages could easily be covered in one place is confusing and just invites POV forks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 5 references and 1 note not one of which support the term. There is nothing a rewrite could achieve as this is a synth at best and at worst its a POVfork. Gnangarra10:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork of Australasia which incorrectly asserts that the main use of the term Australasia is for Australia and New Zealand alone, whereas most uses of the term include Papua New Guinea (far more than the number which include New Zealand, from what I've seen, which is often considered primarily part of Polynesia). Grutness...wha?01:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of Australasia has a long history, particularly in the nineteenth century prior to Australasian federation, but also in recent years as Australia and New Zealand have come together to form a single market. News reports today have John Key talking of a "combined Australasian unit" of 26 million people. Anyone who doubts the concept of Australasia should really read some of the work of some of NZ's leading historians - Philippa Mein Smith and James Belich amongst others make it very clear that Australia and NZ historically and increasing presently form a single socio-economic unit. --Mastronarde (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is a fine argument for why we have the article Australasia - it doesn't explain why we need this separate fork of that article which covers a lot of the same ground. Grutness...wha?01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the concept of "Australasia == Australia+NZ" seems worth discussing, it's such a subtle point that it's never going to work well as an article. Best dealt with under Australasia and Aus-NZ Relations, as discussed. Having this as an article is like having America (United States) (redirect), Old Europe (very specifically about the term, rather than any discussion of geography etc), etc... Stevage15:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. This article is about a DJ and performer from Azerbaijan. No valid grounds for deletion are stated. If he's notable somewhere, he's notable here too. I have no competence to judge the quality of the given sources and can only assume good faith about them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only one of those sources that might be reliable and independent is slushaem.com, the others are just his own websites. cab (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the invalid nomination rationale, this guy is apparently just the usual kind of musician with only a Myspace/Facebook page about him. Can't find enough non-trivial sources. Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL. Obviously searching for "DJ exE" is harder as Google "helpfully" ignores case and punctuation so you get a bunch of results for "dj.exe" but if you search for "dj exe" and the word Azerbaijan in Russian, Azeri, or English, you get nothing useful. cab (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is good known in Azerbaijan and slowly becoming famous, there is billions of unfinished articles in WikiPedia that needs to be deleted rather than this one.
Please add new comments to the bottom of the discussion rather than the top. And if he is famous in Azerbaijan, perhaps you can tell me where we can find newspaper articles about him? Thanks, cab (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Essentially a case of WP:BLP1E. Weinig was non-notable before being convicted of his crimes, then pardoned. Most of his coverage in the media is because he was pardoned during the closing days of the Clinton administration due to perceived political connections. I believe he fails WP:N/CA. Although there is coverage by a couple of very reliable sources, the coverage centers on the criminal history leading up to the pardon. All the coverage I viewed ends up back at the pardon, which is what leads me to my belief that this is a one event case. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
close to no improvement to this spammy article since the last AfD. very little third party coverage [74], noting there is a company with the same name in London. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Youth (under 16) team of a non-notable amateur club with no history playing in a non-notable district league. Fails GNG by the width of the Grey River dramatic (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable youth team. Good work on actually making it look like an article Arran10 but it doesn't meet the requirements.Cptnono (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Though lovingly maintained by a SPA (who also maintains the brother's article unsurprisingly), this page seems pretty much vanispam. The chap seems to have done a good bit of work (self released albums) and some soundtracks for his brother; but nothing to make him pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO at this stage in his career. I thought that this would be uncontroversial but same SPA silently removed prod tag. Here we are then. I wonder sometimes if there is some handbook to self promotion at suggests creating a wikipedia article for oneself. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:ENT; has not had any major roles in anything. Also unable to find any reliable sources showing significant coverage. Furthermore this page appears to be a vanity page from a COI. Triplestopx302:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Band is very famous here in Serbia, and all neighbouring countries and made a breakthrough to the worldvide scene this year thus it deserves a page for future reference..
i am sorry if i made some mistakes in formating of the page it's my first page ever made..
if u still feel is for deletion, ok its your buisiness to evaluate pages, so i'll understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruesomedeath (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this is a discussion page, so you are welcome to say what you know and help improve the page. We generally don't allow pages "for future reference" (WP:CRYSTAL). However, if the band is notable, there won't be a problem. If a page gets improved from a deletion discussion, that's a good outcome, in my opinion. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Of the references only one is a reliable, third-party source that covers the subject in detail, and WP:MUSIC requires multiple sources. Ironholds (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "How exactly do photographs show a notable band?" Brilliant! I'm afraid there's not enough notability yet for this article. Even Serbian Google yields less than breadcrumbs. Rafablu8803:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however concerning our country and it's internet content that is pretty low (comparing with other european countries), tv stations and movie databases about our cinema or music are dim, just because people here just dont go organizing data online or poorly administrate their news feed...some of the greatest metal bends are of this european region - but until large record label picks them up u cant fing nothing about them. This band particulary is one of the 5 bands voted as 9/10 album battleboard for first half of 2009!Gruesomedeath (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok as i noted in above post, its your buisness people, to monitor articles...just i always looked on wikipedia as a Practical thing, a SOURCE of info not a thing needing sources..i wonder how people wrote "Serbia" page..When Americans were bombing us, every TV station in the world was publishing different storyline...that creates a really "solid" sources..
And one more..sorry for size. If u take a look at serbian band Tales Of Dark wiki entry how exactly they qualify? Lover google finds, smaller record label with no worldwide distribution.. DS "Suffering Upon..." is worldwide release, has merch packs, people from Cannibal Corpse (Alex Webster), Tirant Sin, influenced its release! That got to count for something...Gruesomedeath (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, we can go only by what we can search. I understand your comment about Tales of Dark but we can't use other articles to prove this one should be included as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. In fact, that one should have its AfD nom, too! Finally, I would advise you to find printed media like magazines that have covered Daggerspawn if you still think they are notable but would not have had internet coverage due to Serbia being poor on that account. Rafablu8804:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources today, and tomorow i will add more of the printed media issues, but i dont have them all for writing down exact page of articles. Is that going to be a problem? also i will include their official website ( but if the wabsite has no article of the band, is that going to be off-topic or not?). Thanks a lot.Gruesomedeath (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sorted out your references section and removed my delete conclusion temporarily. I see no reason why a weak keep/keep conclusion cannot be arrived at, provided, of course, you incorporate information/citations from the references you have added/will add. Rafablu8820:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI added more sources i found, went to my neighbour and used the citations he had in couple of our metal magazines..i know a lot of serbian newspaper where the band appeared, but i dont know the author - to shorten, should i put that into consideration and where in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruesomedeath (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you need to translate into English what you have added from Nocturne. Second, the Butcherian Vibe ref needs an article title, author, and date. Finally, more citations are needed from the sources you have added in the article's text. Don't be afraid to remove text as less is usually more if it is nicely sourced. Rafablu8818:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope less is more, since I just made the article more by making it less--I hope. I started editing this and didn't even notice the AfD template. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources proving notability, and for not passing muster on the release-test (two releases on a notable label). Drmies (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Band signed for both record labels, if u google it Butchered records is a sub-label of Sevared.Record labels are notable as thay signed more than a dozen famous bands in their respective genre.Gruesomedeath (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the band is not notable. I claim that as perhaps the greatest contributor to the articles about Serbian metal bands. Gruesomedeath's comments about the band being very famous in Serbia and the neighbouring countries simply aren't true. I guess they have a certain numer of fans, but there are dozens of Serbian metal bands that are more notable, more famous, signed for bigger record labels and don't have their article on Wikipedia. Ostalocutanje (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Serbia does not have a dozen notable bands in this genre. And by which bigger record label those bands released? "Big" serbian labels dont release technical death metal, and dont have a credibillity of an American worldwide distribution labels.Gruesomedeath (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia has a dozen notable metal bands, but almost all of them have their article on Wikipedia. And there are still dozens of Serbian metal bands more notable than this one. If you're talking about death metal, the fact that Serbia doesn't have a notable death metal band doesn't mean we should create articles about some of them even if they're not notable enough. As far as I know, One Records has a number of extreme metal, including death metal, releases. Ostalocutanje (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm withdrawing my nomination, as I think some good sources have been added; however, the concerns of Ostalocutanje mean I can't exactly put up a keep. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I claim that Irbisgreif is not well versed in serbian metal scene, for he speeks of notability of all bands through serbian labels. Nothing personal, he is exellently versed in serbian popular rock/metal culture, but he quotes labels that dont have as much contact with world distribution as international ones and thus cannot compete with them. Also a few death metal releases of One Records were in the begining rise of the label, but this label stopped releasing anything now similar to death metal. There are bands famous enough to be mentioned here, considerring the strict policies of Wikipedia, this list i downsized to 3-4 bands. The article Serbian death metal musical groups needs to be refreshed since the bands in Serbian music including the group mentioned above have progressed during these years. I personaly monitor this scene for over 10 years now, and many bands just sought international labels, thus escaping interest of Serbian press, already not interested in not so profitable genre.Gruesomedeath (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. The label is not a notable indie, despite some claims to the contrary above, and there is simply isn't sufficient coverage in independent, third-party sources (which naturally exlcudes all webzines). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but Sevared is not a notable indie, by any standards. "Spirit of Metal" is clearly not a reliable source, and the Discogs link simply highlights the fact that the label doesn't have a historical roster of notable bands. Wikipedia is not for advertising, and at present Daggerspawn are yet another garage band... that is unless you can find multiple, independent, third-party sources to say otherwise (i.e. discounting webzines). I had a look and couldn't see any myself, but if you can, please do so and the article may stand a snowball's chance of surviving this AfD. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to editors About the notability, i know that probbably every day this or that editor can jump in and put this discussion right back to the start, fact is this is an active serbian band, one of the rare serbian bands that managed to catch an American label specialised for this type of music, one of the few bands form Serbia that have a worldwide distribution, thus I really think they deserve to be put here. To the label the band was introduced by Dennis John, vocalist of Tirant Sin,(on one of our serbian forums there is a picture of him in a daggerspawn T-Shirt! i think i can't put that link here its not allowed so if I you want i will post it.) and other person that helped his release is Alex Webster of Cannibal Corpse. Both of them are fathers to florida death metal. Serbian bands already put here have almost one or two references of notability, this article will grow with the band I assure you.Now if u really think the article should be torn down, please do so. I planed to refresh all Serbian extreme metal articles since almost all band entries here are outdated, bands broke up and nobody gives a damn on updating their entries. But these discussions are tiresome as editors u probably know how much.Gruesomedeath (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article should be deleted, and here are my reasons for it:
1) The band notability was based on the fact that it is one of the most popular Serbian bands (and Eastern European if I recall), which really is not the case. Maybe within the undeveloped death metal scene, but I doubt that either. If you want to prove the band's popularity, put in the article the reference to your statement of the countries where the band had played or the recordings are distributed, in order to present this strong fan base you were talking about.
2) The notability based on the major record label album release is still not enough. There was the case with the Serbian black metal band May Result which was, despite being formed in 1995, having four full length albums released both by Serbian and foreign label and international live appearances and tours, deleted due to the band's lack of notability.
3) For the Serbian metal bands in general, there are several notable which could not get their articles on Wikipedia because of not having official discography, despite being the pioneers of the genre.
4) Due to the nature of the articles I write on Wikipedia, mainly concerning the Serbian rock scene, this is just another example of the self promotion of a band made by the band themselves or promoted by the people closely related to the band. The article is then not used for the presentation of the works of a notable band, but as means of commercial promotion which, as this is NOT Amazon.com or e-Bay, should be restricted by the deletion of the article and all other articles written with similar intention.
I dont have any time for this here as i mentioned before, in any case i have not written this article with a promotional intent, it was just the first in a series i planned to incorporate into serbian extreme metal scene. Unfortunately, the scene is undeveloped enough, and as it seems nobody plans to intervene on this. On user Milosppf comments of ""Eastern Europe etc" i think he intentionaly over-hyped the sentence.Gruesomedeath (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Closed, wrong process. Nobody has objected to the proposed deletion, so the PROD tag should not have been removed. I have restored the PROD tag because the person who removed it indicates below that they still want the page deleted. If anyone objects to this, they can remove the PROD tag, and then the article can be taken to AfD. Metropolitan90(talk)04:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Non-notable artist with no significant coverage from reliable sources. Author's only contribution and author may also be the subject. Already deleted once via WP:PROD (old version was also that author's only contribution). Nothing found in Google search to establish notability. Wknight94talk01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No such river. The NZGPD confirms that "Over the River" is the name of a homestead (almost certainly non-notable), not a river. Grutness...wha?01:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This convicted murderer on death row seems like a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I'm withdrawing the nomination due to a discussion with Adumoul. Someone can close this afd since there has been no delete votes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two events, no suitable merger target. The well-publicized multiple murders and the controversy over the reportedly corrupt appointment of his trial attorney. The latter was covered by the Washington Post, as referenced in the article, which wouldn't happen for a garden-variety Texas murder spree. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is notoriety. The controversy about the trial attorney appointment is not the only irregularity of the case, there is also a pending appeal about untested evidence, there is a debate about capital punishment itself, and why to single out this one? all the 80 articles of the category "People convicted of murder by Texas" should then also be deleted. Adumoul (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though Skinner is considered guilty by most, he is a focal point for people who oppose capital punishment in the U.S. in general, and Texas in particular. As a research subject for those examining capital punishment the article is relevant. It should be noted that this whole deletion incident started after vandalism was done to the article by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The article had been developing for several years, was in the neighborhood of 2000 words, people on both sides of the issue were making good contributions and all of a sudden Hullaballoo Wolfowitz blew through and reduced it to little more than a blurb. It's not like a bad article had sat dormant for months or years and he pruned it. That user apparently has a checkered history at Wikipedia - being blocked, causing disruptions, etc. So not only do I say keep the article, I say restore it to its state prior to the vandalism and let it evolve naturally, as it was doing.grifterlake (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
a lack of significant third party coverage on this topic, mainly sport and mulitlateral. [75]. French search. limited coverage like [76] and one visit 10 years ago [77], but would need more to have an article. Sporting results like this [78] do not advance notability but I know of at least 1 editor that thinks so. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a matter of style per the bilateral relations discussions, and handle via the Foreign Relations of X articles listed at See Also here. JJL (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ooh, I don't know. Glancing at the external links brings up enough bilateral links dating back centuries till the present to warrant an article. Rafablu8802:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"dating back centuries till the present" --- I think you'll find that Moldova has existed as an independent state for less than two decades. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're referring to. I was talking about diplomatic meetings, economic ties, aid, cultural links etc. The reflist is pretty solid now. Rafablu8821:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Moldova and the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, the countries maintain diplomatic relations and have multiple bilateral agreements between them[79][80]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally, if there's not a notable relationship (i.e., not much more than exchange of representatives and some agreements), these are mentioned in the Foreign relations of... articles. The information survives, but not as its own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added some possible sources as external links - mostly Swiss aid. If someone works them into the article, it might be enough to show notability. Aid is a form of relationship. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External links maybe show potential, but the decision should be based on the article itself. This one has been around for a while without being expanded. The links do not show much 3rd party interest in the relationship, just that some verifiable content could potentially be added. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please recall WP:NOEFFORT and the fact that the post-Soviet Republic of Moldova is only 19 years old. Additionally, one can easily argue that unless there is a very good reason to think otherwise, such official sources as foreign ministries and departments of external affairs can also be admissible as objective, reliable sources. Here's another two references: [81], 2a2b. — Rankiri (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid argument. Official sources can be assumed reliable and information from them can be included - it is verifiable. But they do not show notability, for which independent sources are needed, and the article is very short of such sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
official govt websites generally say relations are good and we want to improve bilateral relations (yet to see "we want to worsen our relations"), Government websites can verify relations and agreements but you need more to establish a notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to assume that most of the participants in this discussion speak neither German nor Moldovan, and I find it unreasonable to expect extensive coverage of these bilateral relationships from uninvolved English-speaking media outlets and news agencies. Besides, did you even look at the references? — Rankiri (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate doesn't have Moldavian but I was able to find more significant coverage in Russian newspapers:
Delete. I'm not seeing anything here that looks notable. All I'm seeing is the ordinary functions of government. Ordinary is not notable. Notable means beyond the ordinary. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia jargon, notable does not mean extraordinary or unusual. It just means that reliable independent sources have discussed the subject. There is a shortage of such sources here. A subject could be very dull and routine and still be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided five nongovernmental sources and a good reason to believe that more such sources exist. It should be enough to establish the subject's notability, don't you think? — Rankiri (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough content now, with enough independent sources to establish notability. Thanks to Rankiri for tracking down sources and noting them in this discussion, and a gentle slap with a minnow for failing to add the content found to the article itself. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this doesn't address the WP style/organization issues. Is this the best format for WP given every possible X-Y relations article? JJL (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially there are about 20,000 of these articles (200 x 200 / 2) but in practice far fewer. Some are large, like Canada-United States relations or Cuba-United States relations and clearly should be separate articles, some are smaller like this one, and some are just stubs that should obviously be merged into the parent "Foreign relations of ..." article. I am inclined to say that if there are more than 10-15 lines of content (not refs etc.) it is better to make a separate article, just because the parent would get unwieldy and potentially enormous if all the related X-Y relations articles were merged into it, particularly for countries like China or the USA. The format will tend to depend on the content. An article should give balanced coverage of all significant aspects, and that will vary from one article to another. Our readers are very unlikely to notice inconsistency. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Discuss - the topic seems relevant but this is an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Especially, the introduction needs to be completely removed. McMarcoP (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an essay, but essays can be cleaned up, and this would be a valuable article if it was. It doesn't seem like original research to me, but I could be convinced otherwise. Like McMarcoP says, the introduction is far too OR and essay-ish, but the rest of the article seems good to me. If kept, it should be renamed, probably to Ethnic groups of Rwanda. Recury (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic is highly notable in light of the ethnic warfare there, and this is a reasonable topic for a break-out; clean-up. JJL (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Willing to entertain options for using the content elsewhere on my talkpage, but the consensus is that the article should not exist in its present form on en-wiki Fritzpoll (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whole lot of OR, no references whatsoever. The list itself seems to be on the crufty side to me; I know of no precedent for an "Issues addressed in" article. Remurmur (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge; a discussion of the topics and audience/societal reaction to them is appropriate for this controversial show, but this doesn't seem like the right format for such an article(s). References are the episodes themselves so sourcing seems OK to me, but where's the source for the claim that addressing these issues is notable (i.e. has been noted)? I think that's likely sourceable but don't see it here. Is this a breakout of Nip/Tuck#Controversy for length? Were all these truly controversial? That seems unlikely. JJL (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork, unsourced, would set a horrible precedent. To top it off, one would need a third party, reliable source saying that the concept of issues addressed in the show was itself notable. If there were any sources for this sort of material then it must be treated in the main article--it's precisely the kind of real world info these articles often lack. Abductive (reasoning)05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. This is a very interesting one to discuss. Whether or not the article was originally spun off the main article, it is now too large to merge in full. Any re-merger would have to be very selective, perhaps picking a few items that had WP:RS for third party commentary, therefore demonstrating notability. This seems a shame because the content is interesting, and I agree with JJL that the use of primary sources seems sufficient; it's just the WP:N policy that stands in the way. If not Wikipedia, there is a fan wiki, so transwiki to http://niptuck.wikia.com - Fayenatic(talk)21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
^Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league, and fails WP:GNG as hasn't received non-trivial media attention. See WP:NTEMP for reasons why passing, run-of-the-mill sports reports & the like isn't considered significant enough. GiantSnowman 13:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
