Knowledge (XXG)

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< 15 October	17 October >

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Double K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article subject of dubious notability and no sources to verify. Claims to have had mainstream success and popularity in South Korea, but no citations given – Google search for "Double K" "Positive Mind" gives nothing other than message boards, wikis or other user-generated content. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Looked for reliable sources to verify claims to notability, could not find anything. ~~ GB fan ~~ 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I have searched through Google hits, including translations of pages in Korean. I have found social networking sites, blogs, youtube, promotional sites, etc, but nothing that could be regarded as significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Shaun husband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy was declined with the reason that there is a claim to notability, but I'm not seeing it. Tragic, yes, but being killed in a war is not a notability criterion. ... discospinster _talk 23:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - while I believe we should respect and remember those who have parished in these wars, Knowledge (XXG) is not the appropriate means for doing so. Can't find notability. Racepacket (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• A7 No claim of notability. (Letting this go longer risks creating unnecessary drama, too.) Peacock (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7 as there is no claim of notability from reliable sources. Doc StrangeLogbook 00:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is neither asserted or shown. Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. Edward321 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete "Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial" may seem harsh, but it's one of the more democratic rules that we have, and a necessity for an encyclopedia that can be contributed to by anyone. Mandsford (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Unsure - Only because it just seems wrong to delete. This page was set up, looking at the history, by his widow Erin Kerr just two days ago. It's perhaps her way of getting closure. I know that Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial and I agree with Edward321, however, I personally haven't got the sang froid to delete this grieving widow's words two days after she has lovingly put them on Knowledge (XXG). I was wondering whether we could go against our own principles and recommend that this gets deleted after a longer period of time. This is an extraordinary case and was wondering whether we could perhaps set a mini precedent here, in this case. After all, it is the widow who has set up this piece, just two days ago. Perhaps give it a month? (Yes, I know that this is contrary to countless Wiki guidelines, I've been an editor for long enough, but this particular case seems to call out for special treatment, don't you think?) Tris2000 (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I had considered that as well, but I note that Mr. Husband died five years ago. I think that, as an unwritten rule, administrators tend to give the usual five days before making a ruling on memorial articles, and that editors generally refrain from asking for a ruling. Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete It was my speedy that was declined. I have a lot of sympathy for his widow, and respect for a soldier who gave his life for his country, but wikipedia is not a memorial. Syrthiss (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - as Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ascension (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable band. Sources appear to be Myspace and press releases of dubious credibility. Claims to have toured in the "Ultimate Pawnage UK Tour" but no evidence that this tour is an actual tour, per se, and not just gigs in different cities around Scotland co-booked with other acts, or that the other associated acts confer notability on this act. Appears to be self-published artist as well. Tone of article also seems autobiographical. Ultimately, no reliable sources indicating notability per WP:BAND. --Kinu /_c 22:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: a version of an article about this band was speedy deleted last year at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ascension (Band), but this version appears somewhat different and WP:CSD#G4 does not apply to speedy deletion. --Kinu /_c 23:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Peacock (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Have now included a link to a Video interview with Ascension at Metalfest UK.

Ultimate Pawnage UK Tour did happen. is a 5 date UK tour in scotland, and england ( not just scotland ). if you research broken melody's myspace page to, and Ascensions. there is a lot of info about this. including tour posters and pictures of the 2 bands ( from 2 different countries ) together, at the venues described in the tour etc.

• Myspace is not a reliable source. Is there a reliable source about this tour? --Kinu /_c 05:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bravewords.com/news/107436 http://www.darkfaery-subculture.com/music/press-release-ultimate-pawnage-uk-tour-2009-broken-melody-ascension/

Tour press releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.199.78 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Press releases are not reliable sources. Those arguing for retention are advised to read those guidelines. --Kinu /_c 15:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Civilization Loop: The End is the Beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This self-published book do not appear to be notable and the two reviews given are not from professionals. A Google search only returns the usual kind of pages: mostly WP clones and advertisement. See th Talk:The Civilization Loop: The End is the Beginning for some remarks by, apparently, the author himself. Goochelaar (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have begun researching your sources you have requested others to look at, such as search, news, books, scholar, and images. Search and images have plenty related to this book. Scholar turns up nothing, but even The Plot to Save Socrates hardly even has a citation, with only books such as the Harry Potter series or Stephen King novels having a large volume of citations. Google books allows self-published authors, like myself (yes, this is my book), to post their own books simply by mailing them a copy, such as Publish America's production Vortex of Revelation which is visible on Google books currently. As far as news, even the Plot to Save Socrates, which you have as an article, does not turn up any results related to the book.

Furthermore, in terms of notability, Knowledge (XXG) is not considered a highly notable source for information, specifically because of allowing any user to enter information as they see fit, from any location on Earth. Please see the following article from the New York Times blog about Knowledge (XXG) and the Stokke's article: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/who-gets-a-wikipedia-entry/ Lesliejas (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add for Google books, the major stipulation for inclusion is "your books must have ISBNs in order to be included." See the site for yourself: http://books.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=43782 That by definition makes any book represented hardly note worthy if that is all that is required, in addition to sending them a copy.Lesliejas (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have found it quite interesting that you refer to the two reviewers of this book as not being professionals. I would like to direct your attention to the following link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional which outlines the definition of what being a professional is all about. I'm sure the reviewers who practice reviewing books at these sites for a living and consider themselves professionals would have something to say about your comment.Lesliejas (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for want of any substantial treatment of this book in reliable independent sources. Fails all criteria of WP:BK. Deor (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete i could find no references to this author or title beyond websites that can be user edited, or blogs, etc. This article will have to wait until its either reprinted by a major publisher, optioned for a movie in production, or gets a groundswell of critical attention that brings it to the attention of more mainstream sources. to the creator: i would like to address your concerns on your talk page, but you can add it here if you want.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage of substance. A coup eof reviews in minor websites, one of which is actually a blog do not establish notability. Note that this would be true regardless of whether the book was self-published or not. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Chaos Faction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non-notable webgame that was previously deleted once as an expired prod. Google would seem to indicate that it's a somewhat popular online game, but I can't turn up any substantial reviews that would provide the non-trivial coverage that we need from reliable sources. Bfigura 22:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. --Bfigura 22:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently no significant third-party coverage. Peacock (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Opinions are evenly split here between the BLP1E argument, and those arguing the volume of news coverage. The BLP1E argument has not been refuted, and in this case the policy arguments outweigh those based on more general notability. Kevin (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keith Bardwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article on a local Louisiana justice of the peace who yesterday refused to issue a marriage license to a mixed-race couple. No notability other than this event. The article is contrary to WP:NOTNEWS, as well as WP:BLP1E; in addition, there are serious WP:COATRACK issues (e.g., "Bardwell insisted that he is 'not a racist' and claimed to have 'piles and piles' of black friends who use his bathroom.") I would suggest merging to another article, but the truth is there's not much worth mentioning apart from the basic fact, already covered in articles such as Miscegenation ("Nevertheless, as late as 2009, a Louisiana justice of the peace refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, justifying the decision on grounds of concern for any children the couple might have."). This would be another outstanding candidate for Wikinews, however. TJRC (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Seems like a clear violation of WP:BLP1E, which would remain even if all the other issues were cleaned up. It may be that this story will be deserving of a WP article (though that's not clear yet), but I don't think there's reason to have an article about Mr. Bardwell. -- Narsil (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this isn't a BLP, this is a brief media frenzy out of which someone has attempted to produce a BLP. A biography does not consist of regurgitated media news stories centered around one event. RMHED 23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete While the event itself may be notable enough for a section in Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, as a biographical entry, unless this becomes a major Supreme Court case, neither this person or event requires an article of its own. Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree that this is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as event itself is notable for mention in Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. As per the policy WP:BLP1E this individual does not warrant a biography at this time. If other events takes place as a result of the denial of the license then he may warrant his own biography. Currently he doesn't. Nolamgm (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is big modern day news, as though there are many who disagree with interracial marriage, there are few if any instances of government officials breaking the law to not marry someone. --rock8591 01:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. He was also involved in a controversy about the ownership of the land beneath a local stream. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Unless that was reported upon in a secondary source, it's not worthy of note in the article. We don't report on every thing a judge does during their career even though you could reference it to the primary source court documents (or in this case, the AG opinion). Postdlf (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, notable due to massive press coverage—but it's worth noting that the article could potentially be restructured as an article on the controversy rather than the individual. Everyking (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It's notable due to the large news and reactions it's getting now as well as the issues rock8591 and Eastmain brought up. Kuralyov (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nom has it right. The standard "look at all the press coverage" arguments above carry no weight unless they can demonstrate that this is not: WP:NOT#NEWS & BLP1E, which are policies conceived directly to address incidents which garner lots of news coverage. The WP:COATRACK stuff is also problematic. Eusebeus (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• 'Delete borderline WP:NOTNEWS but clear WP:BLP1E. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, though I could see this article being reshaped/renamed into an article about the controversy. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I understand the WP:NOTNEWS concerns, but it's too early to tell whether this will be a flash in the pan or a sustained topic of interest as he is investigated, sued, etc. Which could be taken as an argument to recreate it only if more reporting happens, but I'd prefer to keep it and revisit the issue in a month or more rather than jump the gun and delete it. He's already received international coverage, and despite characterizations above that this is really about "one event" or a "controversy," he is the controversy, and the "event" is that his continuing conduct and attitudes have finally been publicized because the most recent of four such couples he denied a license finally complained. It isn't like he's one of many doing this in modern day America (as far as has been reported at least). The coverage is solely about his conduct and words, which are...unusual...for a member of the judiciary and public official in 2009. If deleted, it should be moved to user space so it can be updated as his story develops further and recreated easily once it crosses whatever threshold it needs to for moving back to article space. Postdlf (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed my comment to unqualified "keep," per my comment below and links to further coverage. Postdlf (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, Per Nolamgm. Sperril (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete clear WP:BLP1E --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but reshape into an article about the controversy. Autarch (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename Denial of marriage license to interracial couple controversy or something like that, and remove biographical detail re Justice Bardwell that is not of direct relevance to the case.  --Lambiam 22:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. It's not really a "controversy" unless there is at least a contested point, and there isn't any serious debate as to whether interracial marriages should be permitted in the U.S. Perhaps an "incident," but not a "controversy" except in the loose, pejorative, and sensationalistic sense of that word meaning "something shocking and/or worthy of criticism." Postdlf (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:BLP1E. FWIW, the event itself is mentioned in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. 68.167.191.43 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Retain the article on Keith Bardwell. People rely on Knowledge (XXG) for information. Government officials should not be in charge of approving or disapproving what people choose to do within the law, and Knowledge (XXG) editors should not be in charge of denying information to people who are seeking it. The Deletion Policy is well thought out and articulated. Yesterday it might have applied to this situation. Today it doesn't. The concern has been mooted by a market issue, demand. Rammer (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Retain the article on Keith Bardwell. People who read the news articles about Keith Bardwell are probably curious about the man and where else would they go to find information on the man? I would bet this article has had many thousands of hits since it was put on Knowledge (XXG). Drearlmurphy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drearlmurphy (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as the individual is notable even before the recent event. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as this story could have mushrooming political implications. →Baseball Bugs carrots← 05:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Recent stories report that Governor Jindal has called for him to be fired and that Bardwell stands by his denial of the license. This story (and WP article) is really about the man, not an "event", and particularly since he is recalcitrant it's going to continue. We can expect coverage of the judiciary committee's investigation of him and civil rights lawsuits at a minimum. This isn't going to go away. Postdlf (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and shuffle relevant content to articles on miscegenation (or Loving v. Virginia). Everything else belongs on Wikinews. The case is fascinating, but the man in question is a flash in the pan at the moment.--Carwil (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Only time will tell if this person is notable enough to get a biographical wikipedia entry. If, in another few months, the person is still even remembered at all, a new article may be started. Knowledge (XXG) is not a news/current events site. 68.101.143.168 (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete BLP1E and NOTNEWs apply here. Any relevant information can be merged into another more appropriate article. AniMate 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to note Knowledge (XXG):Merge and delete. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that essay. In this case, I don't think it is relevant. The information can easily be incorporated with original writing into another article and the history of this article needn't be preserved. AniMate 17:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean; I would not typically associate that with the term 'merging'. But why not use what we already have? Skomorokh, barbarian  17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Why err on removing the story? Err on keeping it. I came to Knowledge (XXG) to read more about the man, and the presence of the entry on him is helpful. All too often in the past have I tried to read an article that was on Knowledge (XXG), only to find that it's no longer there do the desire of people who like to delete. Err on the side of keeping articles there. The presence of the article helps some. The lack of the article helps no one. -antispook 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antispook (talk • contribs)

• Keep I consider him and this controversy to be notable enough to have an article here on Knowledge (XXG). I would not be opposed to it being renamed, however. But the controversy deserves its own article. Michaelh2001 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and rename: In the level of government where he works, Bardwell would be notable only for the outrageous thing he did to the couple. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and rename: I don't see that he's particularly notable. But the incident clearly is. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - clear-cut failure of WP:BLP1E. Individual has done nothing of note other than show his ass on the national stage by refusing the license and will soon fade into the nothingness he so richly deserves. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree that the incident is pretty notable and much covered news; a rename is possible as well -- Shadowolf (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - notable incident. If needed, a renaming should be made. Artichoker 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep Renaming may be necessary. However, the individual has international coverage. There's no NOTNEWS issue because the matter is having real substantial impact on the political and legal landscapes more than that of a simple flash in the pan news event. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important news story, and will continue to be one for some time, since Bardwell hasn't resigned and apparently it will take a long time to remove him from office - if that happens at all. Perhaps the article should be renamed, since Bardwell probably wouldn't be notable except for this one incident. But the article should certainly remain in Knowledge (XXG), either under the present name or a different name. Krakatoa (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No real notability here. This is one 'flash in the pan' news story that will have little or no relevance a year from now. Additionally, this article claims to be about Keith Bardwell but it is, in fact, solely about this one incident and has little in the way of other biographical info. Ithizar (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge or rename. Keith Bardwell is not himself notable other than this one event, so we should not have an article about him; it's a coatrack on which to report this incident. And yet, this incident is notable - to refuse to marry a couple of the grounds of race is shocking, which is why his refusal has garnered umpteen column inches. The article should be reworked under another title or else merged somewhere such as Interracial marriage in the United States, perhaps as the beginnings of a new section on Opposition to interracial marriage in the United States. Fences&Windows 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. You intelligent folks who want to delete Bardwell need to consider the question posed by William Butler Yeats in "Among School Children": How can we know the dancer from the dance? Besides, in 4 days this article has received >5000 hits (see Henrik's hitcounter). Rammer (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Many hits is not by itself an argument for notability. That's especially the case when one is dealing with a subject of a recent news event. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for voting to keep the article. Rammer (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The fact that I'm agreeing it should be kept and yet think your argument is a bad one isn't a good sign. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom pretty clear BLP1E violation if you ask me. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep content. The story is notable, but does not justify two articles (the case and the judge). Information could go on either one, I'm neutral on this. --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Why are we trying to predict now whether this will be a story of lasting interest? Right now, it's interesting enough to attract a reasonable quality of editing, and useful content is resulting. If it turns out not to be needed, so bad; if it is, we'll be sorry to have lost it. ciphergoth (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - It would appear that the only thing the subject is notable for is refusing to officiate at an interracial couple's wedding, and instead referring them on to another JP. This is clearly a distasteful act on the subject's part, but it is also clearly an example of one event. I accept that the incident may be notable, but the person - who serves as the subject of the article - is not. I'd also add that this is a good example of why 1E exists, as it would be next to impossible to balance the weight given to this event in the article, simply because nothing else he's done has come to the attention of reliable sources. - Bilby (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Raejohn Shiplee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is ridiculous. There is nothing on Google about this person. Everything is a mirror. There has been blatant vandalism left in this article through many, many reverts for months (including the edit that removed the speedy tag. How an admin could read this article and not edit it is just beyond me).

The living person by this name has contacted OTRS to question what this mess is. Lara 21:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

List of road accidents 2010-2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Empty list for obvious reasons. Lead was copied from List of road accidents 2000–2009 (so it would be easy to recreate later) but looks bizarre on an empty list, for example requesting additional citations and talking about "the prevalence of bus accidents in this list". Without the copied content it would be a WP:CSD#A3 (no content) candidate. Prod contested by creator on talk. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense. With all due respect to the creator, it is ridiculous to create an article about traffic accidents over the next nine years. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep because of the fact that 2010 is just under 3 months away, and it would be recreated later should it be deleted. Maybe add a preparation tag just like Wikinews does for news articles that have yet to happen, but have not happened yet. ConCompS (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's bad enough to hold a place in line for 2010, let alone the entire next decade. It won't last long if recreated in this form on January 1. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#A3, "No Content". TJRC (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Empty list it can be recreated when it becomes useful after there is an accident to place in the list. ~~ GB fan ~~ 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- did anyone think to try G3? This certainly could qualify, methinks. if not, blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL, so delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The creator currently has 88531 article edits (lots of them spelling) and certainly looks constructive. I don't suspect bad faith. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No bad faith, the article is just not necessary now. > RUL3R_>vandalism 03:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This can be recreated when there are significant accidents to write about in the coming decade. Warrah (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep 2010 is only two monthes away, and once deleted wiki won't allow it to be recreated. Tabletop (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, it can: see 2009-10 in English football. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Further comment - I can't actually find that debate now, but I did see one once. (It also came up when I recreated it.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The prohibition against recreating an article deleted as the result of an AFD is only if they are substantially the same article. If this article is recreated with appropriate accidents it will not be the same article that will be deleted here and it can be recreated. ~~ GB fan ~~ 01:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, deletion now will not prevent recreation. Creator may ask for userfication if desired. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice against recreation with a style and similar to List of rail accidents (2000–present) when there is content that can be added. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Wp:CRYSTAL. For obvious reasons. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment – I have no strong opinion either way (both Delete and Keep are not a big deal one way or another), but I find the invocations of WP:CRYSTAL ludicrous. Come on people; road accidents are almost surely going to happen in the period 2010-2019, unless the world comes to an end before that. WP:CRYSTAL is meant for unverifiable speculation about what might happen but is not at all certain.  --Lambiam 22:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTAL isn't such a crazy objection. As you point out, the most that someone can say is that road accidents are going to happen in the period 2010-2019, which is similar to having an article that says that there will be a U.S. presidential election in 2016. When there really is nothing to say, the article is nothing more than a "placeholder", someone wanting to be first in line to write about the subject. I'm still not sure why someone thought we needed to write about the news events of a decade that hasn't yet begun. Mandsford (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  But we do have an article United States presidential election, 2012, which is a lot farther away than 2010. We even have an article 2024 Summer Olympics. The objection that "there really is nothing to say" may be valid but is not covered by WP:CRYSTAL; the objection raised there is all about "unverifiable speculation", something this list proposed for deletion is not guilty of.  --Lambiam 16:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Both of those articles have actual content. A list solely of future events inherently does not. TJRC (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no content until 2010 at which point the article can be recreated. Someone jumped the gun here. --Triadian (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete You can recreate it when 2019 comes. Or if you want an article of just the year 2010, then create it when that year begins, preferably after the first road accident happens and you have something to put in it. Dream Focus 08:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin Bronx Jimenez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I find no evidence that this person is notable. I prodded the article before. The prod was contested by the article's creator (and given the username probably also the subject of the article) Justinbronxusc but no reason was given. CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Article is premature. His day will come. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing of note yet. The Ava awards are apaprently given out like candy with no preset number of winners. Here is the 2008 platinum winner list on which I could not find this individual. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Addendum - There are 2 entries for Trojan Television on the list which are presumably what is being referred to in the article, but the awards are not to an individual. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Diary of a wimpy kid movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural AfD - Declined speedy. User:Artichoke-Boy said "this article’s subject looks to be just an assumption, and is unreferenced, thus containing no notability whatsoever." \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: the article sucks, but there are reliable sources for it (sample google news search), so it should have no problem meeting WP:NFILM. tedder (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. In a hasty search I haven't found anything explicitly confirming that filming has begun, but this seems a pretty reliable indication that it was scheduled to begin in "late summer" of this year. Given that and a sourcable cast list, I think there's enough here for an article that doesn't fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL. Article needs retitling and extensive cleanup and wikification, of course. Deor (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Deor made some excellent points. Coverage in reliable sources allows this article to meet WP:NFF, and I have begun cleanup and expansion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment to any helpful admin: I just tried to move the article to the proper title Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film), but that name is already set as a redirect to a section in the book series. That redirect needs be undone so that this article might exist under the proper name. Thanks, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm an admin, I try to be helpful, but I'd prefer to do pagemoves after the AFD closes; it's just a technical limitation of some bots that they don't handle pagemoved AFDs very well. So feel free to ping me once it closes if I've forgotten to move it. tedder (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Click the Google News search, there plenty of coverage of this film project. Dream Focus 22:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern grunge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am not convinced that this is the name of a genre that is distinct from grunge or post-grunge, and the article is only sourced with various artists' MySpace pages. Prod removed without source improvement by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

its not really distinct from grunge but every time anyone tries to bring up grunge bands on the the grunge page after the 1990s it either gets deleted or someone just says its not grunge cause its not from the 90s and this was annoying several people so the page had to be created to stop arguments --Justing101 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Justing101

• Comment I can see the point of the article, but think that if it were better referenced it might stand a better chance of survival. Sorry, but myspace and bebo are no good as main references. I've only done a cursory search, but so far not found much use of the term. 'Grunge revival' seems to attract more hits. Have you tried putting a 'Grunge revival' section in the Grunge article (and explaining why on the talk page)? It's not my scene musically (I go for heavier stuff), but I do know there is a problem with some people and current grunge. Can't really see where they're at, but that's life. If this article survives, remind me to do a copy-ed for you. Peridon (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as there is no recognition or outside notability for such a classification as "modern grunge", which makes about as much sense as "modern 60's music". This is essentially a content fork of material rejected at grunge. Post-grunge is obviously a recognized (albeit awful, but that's just me :) ) genre. Try to work with this material there. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

ok good idea start a grunge revival page instead then and try to get better references justing101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justing101 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge How about just merging anything salvageable into grunge? Peacock (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

ok then merge time Justing101 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Justing101 (talk • contribs)

• Delete. None of these bands are notable, and myspace pages are not references. This all looks like promotion for nonnotable local bands. Nothing to merge. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing worth merging. GlassCobra 12:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete all. Jayjg 01:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Réda Elghazoufi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no evidence that these players have made an appearance in their semi-pro league. It is worth noting that some also qualify for speedy deletion as they are recreated from deleted PRODs.

• Ismail Ait Chehboune
• Salaheddine Saadi
• Nacer Eddine Terina
• Abdelilah Bendioua Spiderone 19:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 19:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all - they fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Also, please note that articles that were previously deleted via PROD are not eligible for speedy deletion - only those recreated after having been deleted through AfD are. GiantSnowman 19:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all, as per GiantSnowman, they fail both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all - all fail both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. A simple google search proves that Elghazoufi HAS played for KACM.. However, it appears he is know as Ridallah El Rhazzoufi. 8lgm (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The league isn't fully professional still Spiderone 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That may or may not be the case. However, you stated that they hadn't played at all, which from my very simple google search, is blatantly untrue. I've stopped short of suggesting the AFD is not valid due to the rational being untrue.... 8lgm (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

G.W. Carver Middle School (Miami, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable secondary school, no reliable sources. GlassCobra 19:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The author could probably make this article stick by writing about the (apparently, closed after integration) high school, and then including a section about the middle school in that article. Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• I found a history of the school at this link. Apparently, its predecessor schools date back to 1901, and it was historically a school for black students until desegregation in 1970. I think there might be enough history to this school to merit keeping it. --Elkman 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. (Keep— based on TJRC's complete re-write. --Whoosit (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)). The article is so poorly written might as well delete and start over again... If you feel the school merits inclusion, please be bold & re-write! --Whoosit (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that all of us were, at one time, new to the practice of writing. I never stop learning. Mandsford (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Bearing in mind the quote "Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it." (), it's worth remembering that the context was about a "decent 2 page article"; and this one is not that. TJRC (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep; based on the quote above, and other comments in the AfD, I've changed my position from "Delete" to "Keep". In penance for my snark, I've rewritten it to overcome the quality-based objections. It still needs work, however. TJRC (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Middle schools per usual practice. The History should be kept since there is material, that if sourced, can be used to write an article on the former high school. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- my bad; I should have checked the list of Blue Ribbon Schools. Thanks DGG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Meets one of our accepted standards for middle schools: "Our international school is a nationally recognized Blue Ribbon School of Excellence" . Article of course needs rewriting. But you can;t judge whether there might be something behind an apparently iffy article without at least looking at the links it gives. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep Since it's a blue ribbon school, that type of national recognition merits its own article. I wasn't aware of that, and I imagine that Terriers probably wasn't alerted to it either. Nice catch on that, DGG. Perhaps someone can offer assistance, in a non-condescending manner, to the middle school student who started the page. Mandsford (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect per TerriersFan. A new article may be writable about the former high school, but the middle school itself is non-notable. Orderinchaos 07:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; assuming the article is kept, it should be renamed to George Washington Carver Middle School (Coral Gables). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJRC (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Blue Ribbon Schools are notable. I agree with TJRC's that this article should be renamed, but I think George Washington Carver Middle School (Florida) is a more suitable title per the naming guidelines. Cunard (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Harris (inventor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unverifiable story, no reliable sources listed or found, not the antropologist, claim of invention of transistor radio is highly doubtful, entire source of article appears to originate in a story from December 1999 Harper's Magazine about the war on drugs.

Dubious notability, people get arrested for smuggling all the time and many find religion while in prison. Not the inventor of the transistor radio. Not even enough bigraphical detail (dates, a city or state of residence, arrest date, etc. ) in this article to identify which person it is and research the subject further. There are many Marvin Harrises popping up in Google. Talk page says this individual was born around 1930, if that helps. Wtshymanski (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete notable for a solitary - and non-notable - event. The claim that the subject of the article was the inventor of the transistor radio had a source, but it was removed as it was not reliable. Doc StrangeLogbook 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - being busted for drugs is not notable. Being the inventor of the transistor radio would be if the claim were credible but it is rather doubtful given that our article on transistor radio indicates the first showing of one was in 1953 by a German firm. He may have designed an early transistor radio but there are no good sources documenting this. The attribution appears to be circulating around Mormon web sites. See , , and . --Whpq (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was TRAINWRECK. With seven subsections, three or four "compromise proposals," and apparently detailed statistical analysis of sources, you'd think we'd have some result from all of this, but it seems I'm mistaken. From what I'm able to tell from how jumbled this has become, support for keeping and deleting the article is split roughly down the middle, as is support for all of the alternative proposals. This discussion seems to have veered heavily from the scope of this forum, and if anything is clear from all of this it's that we have absolutely no consensus to do anything here. Hersfold 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reason After extensive debate content from previous Persecution of Falun Gong moved and merged with other content to create History of Falun Gong a minority of editors dissatisfied with this move. One of these editors recreated Persecution of Falun Gong - with blatant disregard for WP:FORK. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Let them. Let them live in their world. Let them create an obvious POV-piece. It will be easy to nuke later on. Sane people have better things to do with their time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment With all due respect this PoV fork is just an end-run around consensus and offensive to me, as an editor who put substantial time into trying, since July, to fix this damaged group of articles; as have many other editors despite considerable resistance. It's just plain frustrating.Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Again, it's not because the subject is not notable, but we should at least work out the bigger pieces like history first. I thought this was a very clear conesnsus. Colipon+(Talk) 18:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Agreed, notability not at issue. Issue is WP:FORK as this content should be notably (and neutrally) discussed in History of Falun Gong until such time as consensus confirms a separate article should exist for the PRC crackdown on the religion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. There are literally hundreds of third-party news sources using the term. Examples:
  • "China syndrome: the persecution of Falun Gong" in The Christian Century, an American mainstream Protestant source.
  • US Department of State source containing multiple references to the "persecution of Falun Gong": http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/67820.pdf
  • San Francisco Chronicle: "SF supes vote to condemn persecution of Falun Gong"
  • June 2009 Boston Globe article: Perhaps nothing today so exemplifies the totalitarian implacability of China's rulers as their ruthless persecution of Falun Gong, a quasi-religious discipline of meditation and breathing exercises, combined with moral teachings about truth, compassion, and forbearance. By civilized standards, it is incomprehensible that anything so innocuous and peaceable could provoke bloody repression.
  • Academic publication by Ashgate Publishing:

The article has to get away from overreliance on Falun Gong (and PRC) primary sources, but the topic as such is clearly notable. Arguments such as that we must not have an article on this topic until we have created a standalone article on the overall history of the movement are not persuasive. --JN466 18:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

*I've made a compromise proposal below and am putting my vote on hold for now, pending further discussion. --JN466 13:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep because History of Falun Gong and Persecution of Falun Gong are obviously two different topics, of these I'm not sure if "History of Falun Gong" is notable enough, because sources exists only since 1992, but "Persecution of Falun Gong" is something that is strongly documented, and sources include, United Nations, Amnesty International, US Government, etc... Since the topics are different I don't see WP:FORK here, and as it is mentioned bellow Notability is not even being questioned. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment it is true that for the moment much of the content is similar, but just because it went thorugh a failed rename attempt. I'll put the {{Underconstruction}} tag on both articles and I think in a month they will be cleaned up. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Failed rename attempt?!?!? Which talk page were you reading? Consensus overwhelmingly supported renaming Persecution of... to History of... for very solid reasons, not the least of which was WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Toldya. Dreamworld. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Fine, anyway that is how I see it so that is how I refer to it. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• It failed because this Falun Gong SPA is doing all he can to scupper it. Ohconfucius 02:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Declaration of interest: I have been asked to get involved in Falun Gong issues. I have no vested interest in the topic - I feel certain that both sides in the dispute will agree that I am neutral, fair, and dedicated to NPOV and accurate sourcing. I created the Persecution of Falun Gong article with a crude cut and paste from History of Falun Gong - there is much editing to be done to make both articles fit for purpose. However, it meets WP:N as there are many reliable sources on the topic of "persecution of Falun Gong" . It is not a WP:POVFORK as the intention of the creation of the article is to deal appropriately with the topic in a NPOV manner The discussion in which the reason is explained is here: Talk:History_of_Falun_Gong#Contesting_the_legitimacy_of_the_move_to_the_new_name. SilkTork * 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. POV title of article troubles me, even though I personally believe there is merit to the underlying concept. Changing to Keep. Given that there are articles on persecution of other religious groups, and given the massive publicity on this issue, my POV concerns are assuaged. (China really won't like it, but they already ban Knowledge (XXG) anyway, don't they?) --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Note: Merger was attempted and stalled by said group. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Comment Precisely. This is why I took this to AfD. There was a clear consensus based on very valid reasons to move Persecution of... to History of... This just led to a person asked to participate by a self-identified member of the FLG coming in and recreating the consensus renamed article as a PoV fork. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Can I see the diff, where I recreated the page? Otherwise I would recommend you to read wp:honest. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Actually I said a person asked to participate by a self-identified member of the FLG which is not you. However you were the one who contacted SilkTorc and asked him to participate on FLG articles. Previously, when I thought you created the re-created page, I was mistaken. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Now you are precise, Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Note @JohnnyB256: There where several long disputed attempts to rename the page see here the list of the actual names it went through: Talk:History of Falun Gong#Page move history, however at the end of the day it boils down on what the reliable sources use to refer to this event. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. While I'm sympathetic I think that having "persecution" in the article title just doesn't work.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See here: Category:Religious persecution and Category:Persecution. This was brought up by SilkTorc. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...... I see your point. Changing my vote to keep.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid defense for violating WP:FORK in order to go against consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Additional Note: Note that History of Falun Gong has been given a move-protection so that it cannot be moved. Creation of separate article is a simple attempt at overriding protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment wp:AGF - Focus on content, not the intentions of others: we cannot determine why individuals act, but we can see what they have done.- Sinneed 21:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - it is easier for me to see an argument that the Falun Gong and History of Falun Gong articles be deleted than that the persecution be deleted. While my view is narrow and I don't argue this: Most of the wp:Notability I see is of the persecution. Were the movement not banned and China not intent on "Wiping Out Negative Influence of Falun Gong", it seems innocuous and unlikely to gain the attention of the broader world. - Sinneed 21:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It makes no sense to divide the movement's history into persecution events and non-persecution events and describe them separately. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I felt the same way until it was pointed out to me that there are indeed articles on the Persecution of the Jews, Persecution of Buddhists and several other religious groups. The Falun Gong are today defined by their conflicts with Chinese authorities. There was even a Law & Order episode on it a few years ago - that's how much persecution and conflict are part of their identity. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• comment - that seems to be a straw man - no one is proposing to do so. One might argue that all articles in WP are forks of the Universe article.- Sinneed 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Expanding a bit... the history article would certainly need a summary of the persecution, and the persecution would refer to bits of the history.- Sinneed 23:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I must argue for deletion, as this page is a copy-paste, and therefore improperly attributed. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I am concerned about that. Maybe a history merge? - Sinneed 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - the copy paste is being addressed. Normally the history page, should have been built up gradually, but as it stands right now it will be cleaned up. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question - what is a history merge? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Too long for this venue, see Knowledge (XXG):How to fix cut-and-paste moves.- Sinneed 23:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing that out. I think history could be maintained like this:
  1. Copy content of History of Falun Gong to a sandbox
  2. Rename History of Falun Gong to Persecution of Falun Gong
  3. Copy content of sandbox to History of Falun Gong

This way the old page, Persecution of Falun Gong keeps it's history and the new page, can do that from now. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• When a spin-out article is created from an article with more general scope, copy-paste is the normal method used. Spin-out articles are not built from the ground up, starting life as a stub. So the present arrangement between parent and daughter article histories is quite normal – daughter articles based on a section of the parent article do not inherit the entire parent article's edit history.
• The edit history is better off staying with the History of Falun Gong article, because much of the content that was built there is not about the Persecution of Falun Gong at all, but about the movement's history. To that extent, the page move from "persecution" to "history" made sense. However, we still need an article on the persecution, as this is a major topic with a substantial literature. --JN466 00:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete History keeps repeating itself. There is no place in Wikiverse for yet another battlefield where Falun Gong single-purpose accounts can feel at home and pontificate and push their point of view. It was renamed by consensus (after RfC) and now it's back. I don't actually feel it's productive to delete it at this stage because there seem to be some dedicated people willing to roll their sleeves up to fix this. So keep it as you will, but remember that one more article which is now automatically subject to Arbcom probation, like a baby born into captivity. Surely not a sane way to proceed considering the History of Falun Gong has not even found its feet. As the persecution is the most important subset of the history of FLG (other than the fairy tale of its creation), I actually think the best thing is to redirect it back to 'History of Falun Gong', until such time that article is stable and mature, and we can spin out the content in a controlled manner. Ohconfucius 02:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The table above measures how many time the exact phrase of "History of Falun Gong" appears vs. "Persecution of Falun Gong" --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors should note that among the news sources mentioning "persecution of Falun Gong", around half are Falun Gong sources (Epoch Times etc.) Many others are articles quoting Falun Gong adherents speaking of persecution, rather than using the term in the article's editorial voice. However, this still leaves genuine third-party news articles whose editorial voice speaks of the "persecution of Falun Gong". It might be interesting to do a frequency analysis to establish if "persecution of Falun Gong" (as opposed to repression etc.) is the term most commonly used by third-party sources to characterise what is happening in the PRC. --JN466 20:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, after Epoch Times is filtered out see here return count is 1680 instead of 1800, for persecution and for history is 13 instead of 14. The ratio now is 1680/13=129.23 Now I'm not sure how to filter out when they quote Falun Gong practitioners talking about their plight, but I think since that is quoted by a third party source, it is fine to count it in. As for "Suppression/Repression of Falun Gong" that was covered here, but I guess I can update the table. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This frankly strikes me as blatant wikilawyering. "History of Falun Gong" is a topical title, which roughly follows Knowledge (XXG) format "History of ". On Google you will find that "Islamic Jihad" has a 4:1 "search-notability ratio" to "History of Islam". This does not somehow make "Islamic Jihad" more notable than "History of Islam". I can't think of any user who will buy this "table" as a method to establish notability of "persecution of Falun Gong" over "History of Falun Gong". Colipon+(Talk) 21:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The table method does show just how notable the Persecution is. Also as Sinneed mentioned according to WP:RS coverage, the most notable topic on Falun Gong is it's persecution right now. So Falun Gong and implicitly the history of Falun Gong draws on that notability. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have time to completely debunk your googling, but I added one line which clearly shows the effect of googlebombing on your results. Ohconfucius 13:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and if you take out "WOIPFG", you get this, roughly 64,000 results. Colipon+(Talk) 14:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, here is the updated table, now the news searches do not contain Epoch Times as a source. Also I included crackdown additionally to suppression/repression, because that is more notable on every front then suppression/repression. If you think that the Persecution per History ratio column does not contain valuable information, please ignore that column. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After filtering out all the Epoch Times sites, I'm left with less than 800 matches – still substantial though. Reading through them, most – but not all of them – are quotes of what followers have said. The BBC tends to speak of "alleged" persecution. All sources agree that it is banned. On the other hand, amnesty international is absolutely positive in its charges of "persecution": . So is the U.S. Department of State: Perhaps we should ask for advice at the Human Rights project. --JN466 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's really the best reason not to go for 'persecution' in the title - that that paragon of NPOV refrains from using the term. Ohconfucius 13:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please show me how did you filter out all Epoch Times sites? I used source:"-epochtimes", based on the template provided by the header of this AfD. Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the search result I got, using parameter -site:epochtimes.com and -site:en.epochtimes.com: I think that gets them all. --JN466 21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I updated the table again. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I spoke too soon. It doesn't get them all. Have a look at the last search page: I think many of these are still Falun Gong-owned sites. --JN466 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, ok, I guess, I'll wait and stop updating the table until we have a better way to filter. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't have to look far. Just look at these basic google search results of those keywords. All results on the first page point to a Falun Gong site, Falun Gong-related site, Falun Gong-sponsored site, or Knowledge (XXG). Of the one source outside this realm, the Guardian, we see that they call it "crackdown", and avoid using "persecution" except in the context of a quote. No major media outlets explicitly refer to it as "persecution", as evidenced by a recent Google News search, all the results were basically from the Epoch Times, or quoting a practitioner. From this we can gauge that the phrase "Persecution of Falun Gong" is used, but it is primarily used by Falun Gong sources and Falun Gong media.

These search results also highlight just to what extent the Falun Gong Public Relations network has infiltrated the World Wide Web. I would therefore argue that using "persecution" explicitly to describe the Chinese government's actions is very much analogous to using "cult" to describe Falun Gong. Both of these terms carry inherently non-neutral connotations that should be avoided on Knowledge (XXG). Colipon+(Talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually google has a way to filter out certain sites, when we have a good way to filter it, will run the tests again, sounds good? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also if you look in the table above on the news searches, you will see that such filtering is already done, and it does catch most of them, only not all just yet. We are working on it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Colipon wrote, No major media outlets explicitly refer to it as "persecution". That statement is not quite true, either. Here are some mainstream news organizations using the word "persecution":

• MSNBC: The persecution of Falun Gong members also has strained relations with the United States, which granted residency to Li and refused to extradite him to China to face trial.
• Opinion piece in the New York Times: The persecution of Falun Gong has caused China to carry huge political costs without any conceivable benefits.
• Boston Globe: Perhaps nothing today so exemplifies the totalitarian implacability of China's rulers as their ruthless persecution of Falun Gong
• San Francisco Chronicle: There is no question that China is persecuting Falun Gong members. In 2004, the U.S. State Department reported that, "tens of thousands of practitioners remained incarcerated in prisons, extrajudicial re-education-through-labor camps and psychiatric facilities. Several hundred Falun Gong adherents reportedly have died in detention due to torture, abuse and neglect since the crackdown on the Falun Gong began in 1999."

But I am having difficulty finding similarly clear statements on the BBC or CNN websites. They more often refer to "alleged persecution", or state that Falun Gong members call it persecution, and so forth. To recap though, the US Department of State does call it persecution, as does amnesty international. --JN466 22:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, three of those four sources are opinion pieces from individual editors. If we can demonstrate that the use of "persecution of Falun Gong" in mainstream media (and not just American media) to describe the topic area is in the clear majority, then it is fair to say that "persecution of Falun Gong" is a suitable title to describe the subject. Colipon+(Talk) 23:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interview in Deutsche Welle (the German equivalent of the BBC World Service) with a Professor specialising in Asian Politics (given that he refers to Li's "huge propaganda machine", I think we can safely assume he is not a follower); the headline is "Ten years of persecution of Falun Gong": google translation

Here an article in Der Standard, a major Austrian daily, speaking of "brutal persecution" etc.: google translation

Here an article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, saying it is undeniable, even taking into account the massive Falun Gong public relations effort, that there is "massive persecution" of Falun Gong in China: google translation

I wonder though: if, as many of these reports say, people are tortured, arrested and put in labour camps without a trial, and not a few end up dying in prison, all because of their adherence to Falun Gong, what would be the difference between what is happening and religious persecution? JN466 23:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What I find in other German mainstream publications (Die Welt, Der Spiegel, etc.) is similar to the above. Around 30% of all German-language articles mentioning Falun Gong also raise the issue of persecution ("verfolgt" or "verfolgung" in German).

Here is an article in the Washington Post: Persecution of the Falun Gong and another in the New York Post that has Bush accusing China of religious persecution. JN466 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Our main book references on Falun Gong—Ownby, academic, Porter, academic, Schechter, journalist, Lewis, academic, Gallagher/Ashcraft, academic, Davis, academic—all say that there is persecution, using that word, even as they say that Li Hongzhi and his followers are media savvy and highly manipulative of the media in their survival of the persecution JN466 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• HappyInGeneral, from a manual count, I think if you assume 600 third-party (non-Falun Gong) mentions of "persecution of Falun Gong" in google news, you won't be far off the mark. --JN466 01:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Google is not research Ohconfucius 11:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• That is a good article, thanks. Did you read it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note OhConfucius' search results for "persecution" without these Falun Gong websites, and then note that even within those results, the usage of the word is mostly allusions to Falun Gong practitioners using the term or links to yet another Falun Gong organization - the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong. Once we filter out those sites as well it is safe to conclude that about 90 - 95% of these "persecution of Falun Gong" websites that HappyInGeneral believes legitimizes that term are either self-published Falun Gong sources or Falun Gong PR vehicles run by Falun Gong practitioners. Brilliant facade, maybe, but I'm not buying any of it. Colipon+(Talk) 14:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you try also news, books and scholar? There I don't see much changes in the ration, but you are welcome to prove me wrong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• When you did the search, you excluded words instead of sites. See here how to exclude sites. But even after we exclude a few sites, there are still many SPS sources, or questionable sources like mirrors - wapedia, torrents, all kinds of blogs, still remain. These are automatically excluded in the news, scholar, and books. Now in news I already filtered out somewhat Epoch Times, and Jayen466 did a manual estimate and came up with about 600 reputable sources on Falun Gong, of which a few where already mentioned in this thread. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Heaven knows what other domain names FLG practitioners have created to bypass the Golden Shield Project... Technically, Happy may be correct. However, in my revised search, the only term which could have incorrectly filtered is 'clearwisdom'. The others are pretty unambiguous domain names not much used elsewhere. I would add that I had omitted epochtimes, and all the wiki mirrors, of which there are thousands. Ohconfucius 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kind of interesting to see that the highest number of searches are coming in from Ottawa. I believe this is where Falun Gong's organization in Canada is based. I seem to recall some Falun Gong media articles being tampered by a bunch of IP addresses from Ottawa. They were quickly reverted though. Colipon+(Talk) 10:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a search history tool on Knowledge (XXG) which is very accurate. Persecution of Falun Gong searches last month , Repression_of_Falun_Gong , History of Faulun Gong , and for comparison - Tiananmen Square massacre , Tiananmen Square protest . We really should be following WP:Common name and giving our articles the titles that readers are looking for. This tool is available via the history tab. Once accessed, any search term can be input to find the results. SilkTork * 14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

SilkTork, that tool is used for article hits, not for article keyword searches. Colipon+(Talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was well aware of the tool, and wasn't even going to go there, for reasons which were all too obvious to me - that being the way what is available drives the result. Externally, 'Persecution' is the first WP page on GSearch for "Suppression of Falun Gong". Internally, there are articles around WP which link directly to 'Persecution', including the main {{Falun Gong}} template, while not many articles are directly link to 'History' or 'Suppression'. If a search term not available, it goes to a list of search results of available items. Ohconfucius 03:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Even so, if you compare on this month the Persecution of Falun Gong with History of Falun Gong that will give a pretty clear picture on what people are looking for. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, it is an utterly fallacious comparison. Ohconfucius 03:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that academics and media use the term "persecution", nor do I oppose using the term to describe the topic area of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. But I must remind all editors here that this is part of a much broader issue related to Falun Gong articles that cannot be solved with a simplistic notability check from Google searches. The reason I have held reservations from the beginning is that the articles' scope is limited to a confined subject area most extensively employed as a public relations tool for Falun Gong, and as such amounts to a POV fork, even if we can work to neutralize the content. A look into the articles' history and it will be clear that "Persecution of Falun Gong" was an article began by Falun Gong SPAs for the purpose of Falun Gong advocacy.

The persecution of Falun Gong practitioners takes place within the greater context of the suppression of the Falun Gong movement, which is part of the history of Falun Gong. Having an article on "Persecution" implies that the article will be about how Falun Gong practitioners are mistreated, tortured, organs harvested etc., but the greater campaign against Falun Gong by the Chinese government, such as the media campaign, is part of the suppression of the movement, of which persecution is only one of the means.

If we want the article to cover such topics as - how many Falun Gong practitioners have died under the hands of the PRC gov't, what are the torture methods used, are organ harvesting allegations true - then indeed, "persecution" may be the best title. But the much wider topical area - the suppression of the movement - such as the 6-10 office, extensive propaganda, mobilization of schools/work places - is, by definition, not persecution. Within this greater context, it would be difficult to argue that "persecution" can be placed in priority sequence over both the suppression of the movement on the wider scale, and on top of that the movement's history in general, and that we place its notability above both, and we dedicate our energies to it above both.

Of course, all of this still does not change that even within the persecution context, "persecution" is not universally agreed upon as a NPOV term, but at this stage, that is only a secondary consideration. Colipon+(Talk) 01:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the persecution page, can cover without any problem the media campaign, the 610 office, etc. Since it is part of the mechanics of the persecution. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh* Did you even read what I wrote? Colipon+(Talk) 14:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Actually twice (again tonight), just to make sure if I missed something notable. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Having thought this over, I would like to suggest the following compromise:

• We include a Level-2 header "Persecution" in History of Falun Gong, after the existing "Ban" section, and include in the Persecution section all the related issues.
• We temporarily redirect Persecution of Falun Gong to that subsection of History of Falun Gong.
• We then work on that text in History of Falun Gong, using third-party sources (neither PRC, neither Falun Gong, unless referenced in third-party sources).
• Once we have mature and stable content in the Persecution section, we spin it out into the standalone article on the Persecution of Falun Gong, retaining a shorter summary in History of Falun Gong. Would this be acceptable to everyone? --JN466 13:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Ohconfucius 13:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the problems that I believe we are likely to encounter is the wars over which content gets placed in which article and the various likely "fork"-wars that would arise. I myself have said from the beginning that there is grounds for both articles, but anticipated that these forking problems would be more counterproductive than useful. Also, regarding the notability issue, I clearly acknowledge the multiple news reports regarding the persecution. However, it should be noted that in the one source I at this point pretty much carry with me everywhere I go, the book by the recognized expert on Falun Gong, Ownby, the first chapter after the introduction is a "history for Falun Gong", and the persecution is not in fact explicitly mentioned in any of the chapter titles. The one chapter covering the subject is about the "conflict between Falun Gong and the Chinese State." John Carter (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support (Basically, that was (almost) everyone's thought from the start) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Yes. This was basically the plan from the beginning. Colipon+(Talk) 14:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I think that a spin-off may not be entirely necessary at this time; it is certainly something that merits discussion and a decision should depend on how discussion proceeds on that issue. Notwithstanding that your proposal would satisfy me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Why? So that those who oppose the name can have more time with an article without that name in the encyclopdedia? Again, the notability is for the persecution, not the faith/practice/organization. Why not say "Compromise proposal: Delete Falun Gong and History of Falun Gong, and if notability is shown outside the claimed persecution, those articles can be added after the persecution article is stable?- Sinneed 16:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The idea is to have one place to focus on, to work on developing this content in something approaching an orderly and collaborative fashion.
  • Re notability:
    • Showing notability for Falun Gong is not a problem: apart from several book-length studies covering all aspects of the movement, it is covered in standard reference works on new religious movements. Two representative overviews are here, for your reference:
    • Having a History of Falun Gong article is dependent on the quantity of material available, and the overall length of the Falun Gong article if all that material were retained there.
    • The Persecution of Falun Gong is an article-worthy and notable topic.
  • I hear Ohconfucius though when he says he just wants one place to work on this material. This topic has been very contentious and volatile, and it can be really tough to keep track of content spread out across multiple articles. Ohconfucius has just worked very hard to get the related Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident to FA status. Chances of getting the other articles stable are improved if we all get together at one place and work things out. As far as I am concerned, that can just as well be Persecution of Falun Gong, but things will be easier and make more manageable demands on editors' time if we can agree on one place. --JN466 17:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - This does not make sense from the start. Since everybody is saying that notability for "Persecution of Falun Gong" is perfectly valid, I don't see any grounds on which this can be deleted/moved/diluted/etc... I actually do agree to build up a history section in the "persecution" article/page, then when it is mature enough move it out in it's own article/space. I mean really if you think about it rationally, this is the only sensible option. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It really does not make sense to build a general history section in the persecution article. We have a History section in Falun Gong; at present, History of Falun Gong duplicates significant parts of it. As far as I am concerned, we can blank the persecution section in the History article and then work on the material in Persecution of Falun Gong. When we're done, a summary can be placed in History of Falun Gong. --JN466 19:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Edward130603 (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We temporarily delete all content relating to the persecution of Falun Gong from the History of Falun Gong article, replacing it with a 2- or 3-sentence summary and a "main article" link to Persecution of Falun Gong. We'll then work on the material in Persecution of Falun Gong and place a more complete abstract in History of Falun Gong once we have got mature and stable content. --JN466 19:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support because I think that it is not rational to touch the topic title of the notable Persecution of Falun Gong for the new topic of not so notable History of Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question Why exactly did we need another compromise? The one above was just fine. Colipon+(Talk) 21:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Because it was not.- Sinneed 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - this is my position on the original AfD.- Sinneed 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support SilkTork * 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. To me, it's common sense to say that the persecution of Falun Gong should be understood in the context of the movement's history. This is as true for readers as it is for editors. I believe first collaborating on the "history" article facilitates a better overall picture of the subject matter. I think if we all worked together on "history" first, we can all gain a better understanding of the greater context in general, which would facilitate a more rapid process in constructing a "persecution" article thereafter. Colipon+(Talk) 23:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Falun Gong was first made public in 1992, until 1996 it was encouraged by the PRC, after that the books where banned, and there where some orders issued to find faults in it, in 1999 it was officially banned and the persecution began which still continues today. Now I'm sure that the persecution page should have a background section, which will lead to History of Falun Gong as a main article. I don't see why the whole persecution topic which is highly notable should go under History of Falun Gong. That does not make any sense to me. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose what I said. Makes no sense having two articles when we should only have one. This one is either a minefield or a battlefield. Ohconfucius 06:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ohconfucius and Colipon Edward130603 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Per Ohconfucius et al. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Some editors have expressed concern about use of the term "persecution" in relation to the Falun Gong. So why not, instead, change the name of the article to Opposition to Falun Gong or some other word than "persecution"? There is no question in my mind that activity against the Falun Gong is notable and deserving of a separate article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• See #Not a simple issue above. Colipon+(Talk) 14:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• My problem in using Opposition/Suppression/Crackdown etc over persecution is due to two reasons.
  1. Notability, per WP:RS count, and I am in process of building up a sources page to attempt to include all notable WP:RS on the subject.
  2. Common sense. The PRC policy against Falun Gong is to wipe it out, and against practitioners is to "Destroy their reputation, bankrupt them financially and annihilate them physically.". There is no legality regarding the PRC actions against Falun Gong under the international human rights. The only reason why I don't ask for the article to be called Genocide of Falun Gong is because there is a minority in sources calling these actions a genocide. But other then that the PRC's actions it fits perfectly the definition of Genocide. If anybody would like me to provide more sources regarding this, just ask and I'll provide them. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support in principle,but later. Let's develop one article first. After that, on the title, media manipulation by the PRC and Falun Gong are both prevalent and are equally unacceptable. "Persecution" is simply too loaded a term to be used here on WP, especially considering that the BBC, widely respected for its objectivity, refrains from using the word in an unqualified form. As Sinneed noted, there were far, far, far too many loaded terms in the article which this sort of title just invites, and to carry on editing the article in that vein without addressing the root cause of the problem as far as the article is concerned is just cloud cuckoo land. The loaded wording has been there almost from the start, and it was bad enough when the article was named 'Suppression', when it started becoming an attack page of the government of the People's Republic of China. But at that stage, it was the content posted mainly by the FLG possee which they used as a pretext to change it from the consensus version back to 'Persecution'. Ohconfucius 01:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm with Jayen. Kudos to him for finding yet more high-quality sources which suggest that 'Persecution' really isn't the best title for this article. I believe this solution is pragmatic in that it gives us a way ahead, and I am sure we can agree on a clear delimitation of the scope of the articles to avoid content forking. Ohconfucius 01:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this what you call media manipulation by Falun Gong: , , ..., and perhaps these , , , , ..., ...  ? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Li Hongzhi and his followers are media savvy and highly manipulative of the media in their survival of the persecution" - it's a quote from Media and Cultural Transformation in China by Haiqing Yu, not me. Perhaps 'Persecution' was the only word Happy was able to see from when Jayen posted the reference? Ohconfucius 16:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to give you that impression, still I think I gave ample reasons. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the primary issue is not the title of the article so much as it is the presence of a PoV fork in the first place. I'd be happier with a sub-section called "persecution of..." within the "history of..." article than with a separate article with a less overtly PoV name as it would still be an unnecessary fork. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Repression of Falun Gong per UN position paper below, making clear in the article that this may amount to persecution. --JN466 17:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I can agree to any term that is most notable, per WP:COMMONNAME. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found a number of related government and UN documents that comment on the matter.

UK Border Agency

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4a2f976e2.pdf

"There is widespread repression of Falun Gong by the Chinese authorities and Falun Gong practitioners/activists may face ill-treatment in China if they come to the attention of the Chinese authorities. Falun Gong practitioners and in particular Falun Gong activists who have come to the attention of the authorities are likely to face ill-treatment that may amount to persecution in China and therefore are likely to qualify for a grant of asylum under the 1951 Convention by reason of imputed political opinion.

However, the Court of Appeal found in L (China) v SSHD EWCA (Civ) 1441 that anyone can become a member or cease to be a member of Falun Gong at any time and can practise Falun Gong exercises on their own in the privacy of their home without significant risk of being ill-treated. The IAT found in UKIAT 00122 that there will not normally be any real risk from the Chinese authorities for a person who practices Falun Gong in private and with discretion. Therefore, ordinary Falun Gong practitioners who have not come to the attention of the Chinese authorities are unlikely to qualify for a grant of asylum or Humanitarian Protection." (p. 6 of 24).

Asylum cases following this line of assessment:

• 2006 asylum case, UK court denying an ordinary follower asylum
• 2007 asylum case, New Zealand court denying an ordinary follower asylum

This latter one, from the United Nations HCR website, includes an interesting passage from the—

Position paper on Falun Gong (2005) by the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees

In a position paper published in 2005, the UNHCR stated that (despite the widespread repression of Falun Gong in China) there was no evidence to suggest that all Falun Gong members were systematically targeted by the authorities and that therefore, membership of Falun Gong alone would not give rise to refugee status, although a prominent role in certain other activities (such as proselytising or organising demonstrations) which brings the member to the attention of the authorities may do so: United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees Position paper on Falun Gong (1 January 2005).

Other documents

• UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Human Rights Report 2008 – This speaks of "harassment" of Falun Gong followers and says they are targeted for "reeducation through labour".

• Refugee Documentation Centre (Ireland) – This is hard to summarise here, as it combines quotes from a number of disparate, but high-quality sources; the Austrian source probably speaks most emphatically of persecution, while a Canadian source only uses the word in quotation marks.

• UN Special Rapporteur on Torture asking the PRC government to explain the reported rise in organ transplants, which seemed to correlate with the beginning of the "persecution" of Falun Gong practitioners (page 48, with PRC government response). --JN466 17:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Note: The direct link I gave may not work. If it doesn't, go to and select the English-language version of A/HRC/7/3/Add.1. --JN466 09:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is a certain element of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT going on here. The question isn't whether the term is notable. The issue is WP:FORK. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think on Knowledge (XXG) sources do help to answer that question. But please feel free to quote relevant parts of WP:POVFORK that are breached here. Until then let me quote the nutshell from WP:NOTABILITY "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant WP:POVFORK; forgot about the other fork-related WP page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Simon, a POV fork would be if we had two articles like the following: The fight against Falun Gong religious superstition in the PRC and The religious persecution of Falun Gong in the PRC. They would be about the same thing, seen from two different points of view. --JN466 18:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A PoV Fork need not be as blatant as that to be one. This is a clear WP:POVFORK. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If that where to be the case, this could give "legal" ground to make lots of "inconvenient" pages to disappear on Knowledge (XXG). So I did ask the question here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we please limit discussion to the AfD and not rehash the same debate that we had prior to the move. This is not the right place to continue post-move discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• If we are back to 'binary mode', my !vote is delete. Ohconfucius 04:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. While I think the discussion on this page has been useful, this is basically an article naming dispute, and AfD is not the appropriate forum for that. Notability of the term is easily established:
  • parliaments of major countries like the US and Germany have called what is happening "persecution" and have condemned it,
  • as have human-rights organisations like amnesty international and Human Rights Watch,
  • as has practically every scholar who has written about Falun Gong (Ownby, Porter, Schechter, Lewis, Gallagher/Ashcraft, Davis).
  • Further to what I said earlier about the BBC mostly speaking about "alleged" persecution, I have since noted a few occurrence of the unqualified term even on BBC websites (e.g. , ).
• A previous discussion of the title at WP:NPOVN ended with a clear majority of uninvolved editors endorsing the title.
• The article is not a POV fork, because there is no other article addressing this specific topic area.
• At best there may be grounds for a redirect here, noting that redirect titles are exempt from NPOV per Knowledge (XXG):Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects, but even that is conditional on editors agreeing to work under an alternative title. I think we're done here. --JN466 10:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

JN, please read what I wrote at #Not a simple issue to see why the term is inappropriate. Colipon+(Talk) 10:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, I read your comments. I am happy to meet editors half-way and call the article repression of Falun Gong or suppression of Falun Gong and treat the persecution within such an article, but that is an article naming issue, not an AfD issue. See Knowledge (XXG):Content_forking#Article_spinouts_.E2.80.93_.22Summary_style.22_articles, Knowledge (XXG):Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV. There is a huge amount of sources on both the repression and persecution of Falun Gong; either is a valid article topic in its own right. There is no discernible difference in POV between how this is presented in History of Falun Gong and how it is presented in Persecution of Falun Gong; SilkTork simply cut and pasted existing material across (which we should work to improve). Nor is there any intention to create a different POV balance in the subarticle to the main history article. --JN466 11:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the candid reply. If we are to decide between delete and keep, I still vouch for delete. But I would otherwise be fine with moving the article to "repression", or perhaps "suppression". Colipon+(Talk) 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BryanBlaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSICBIO, no albums on major labels, no third party reliable sources that address notability. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COI problems as well. Tassedethe (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this rapper. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO as mentioned. JBsupreme (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator - I think I Googled "Ping Pong Player" instead of "Ping Pong Playa". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping Pong Playa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable film (see WP:NOTABILITY). I have removed a long plot summary which was a copyright violation cut-and-pasted from the official site. Since it is possible that this film may be notable, I'm putting the remaining stub up for deletion rather than requesting speedy deletion as copyvio. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Obvious keep Multiple reviews in mainstream, reliable sources, more than meeting Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films). See. Took all of five seconds to find those sources on Google. -->David Shankbone 20:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

William Reed Borden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it.

congratulations on completing the Iditarod, being from such a warm climate and competing in such an extreme race in a cold climate took some preserverance.

proposed for deletion - this is an obvious vanity page, submitted by the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.48.178 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC) tedder (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I must agree, I personally consider it quite impressive to finish that race. Regardless, particularly without backing from independent sources, merely finishing the race is not sufficient cause for an entry on Knowledge (XXG). -Verdatum (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verifiably notable. Claim to fame is being the first from Georgia to complete the race. Location (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted and WP:SALTed. No reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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 Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Lockerz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability for a website/product/company. Google News gives a reasonable number of hits, but they are blogs, non-notable sources, trivial mentions, or invite spam. Strongly suggest salting article, it has been deleted six times previous to this version. tedder (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Does the fact that I am already infuriated by this company's viral marketing mean that I have a conflict of interest in voting to delete this? 69.128.47.243 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Page needs a TON of work though. However, Lockerz is notable precisely because of it's very widespread viral marketing. Since it has not yet been officially released, you will be unlikely to find a great number of references, however, as the site is officially launching very soon, I expect that to change. --HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

  Comment This is unlikely to be true. I suspect that the "launching soon" and "Beta ends soon" is part of their marketing strategy. It appears that users are instructed to post "Beta ends ________" (where ___ is a couple days later) when they post their referral link, because we've been seeing messages of this nature for weeks. Without more proof outside their own word, this is an unverified statement and should NOT weigh on whether this article is kept. If anything, it should probably weigh against it — TheBilly 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Websites spamming the internet doesn't make them notable, see Knowledge (XXG):N#cite_note-1. And 'it's going to be notable soon' isn't much good either, see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL.--Otterathome (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - What HeroofTime55 said. I keep hearing about this site, and without Knowledge (XXG), I'd still have no idea what it was. This article definitely needs a lot of work based on its current state, but it's still a necessary one. --V2Blast (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Tedder. Site does not meet our guidelines for inclusion for websites.— Dædαlus 02:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot see how this is notable at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Lockerz is simply another non-notable reward site that functions just like YourFreeiStuff. I do remember seeing someone spamming links to this site on 4chan last month, in an attempt to get others to join Lockerz. 68.79.95.80 (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - What the other two "keepers" said. People should be able to go here just to check what, for example, Lockerz is without risking getting viruses or alike by having to go to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.197.132 (talk) This template must be substituted.

That isn't a reason to keep. The website simply does not meet our criteria for being notable.— Dædαlus 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a website directory. We're not here to help you find out what this website is. It has not been reported on by any important or reputable media outlets. There is nothing encyclopedic to say about it at this point. In the future, maybe it will be seen as something that was notable (I'd wager for negative reasons), but currently it's just a random website. It may have the illusion of "notability" to random passers-by because links to it are spammed out ad nausem, but that's not WIKIPEDIA notability. That's not OUR standard. Any referral scheme will be spammed out constantly; that's the whole point of it. The fact that links to it pervade all messsageboards currently means absolutely nothing at all. For comparison, "MyBrute" was the craze a few months ago. That was spammed out in the same volume, and it didn't warrant a Knowledge (XXG) article as a result......which should be obvious. Until Wired reports on it or something (again, probably for negative reasons), there is nothing substantial here and no potential — TheBilly 08:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - MyBrute was covered on BBC Click a few months ago. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and salt - fails verifiability and notability tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and salt per Orangemike. ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails all applicable notability guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • response - declining speedy - there is what I read as an assertion of notability; despite my opinion (already given), the AfD process should be allowed to take its course. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - has sources such as these , so it is verifiable and notable. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Neither of those appear to be reliable sources, as they are blogs. tedder (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the two blog post references from the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Kori Ellis, author of the Splendidcity post, is the Senior Editor at b5media. Doesn't that make it reliable?--Joshua Issac (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. No outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Empreintes DIGITALes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

mass spam effort from founder and director of the empreintes DIGITALes label (from editor with promotional username). lacks coverage in independent reliable sources Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related artist pages because they are part of the mass spam from the record company. Most articles were created by Empreintes DIGITALes and their notability relies on a walled garden based on two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie label. Without each other there is no real notability shown an a almost complete lack of independent reliable sources. wp:5p, "Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press":

Annette Vande Gorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Roxanne Turcotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Randall Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Denis Smalley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stéphane Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Robert Normandeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adrian Moore (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jonty Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gilles Gobeil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Louis Dufort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Francis Dhomont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paul Dolden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yves Daoust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Darren Copeland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

:Michel Chion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Christian Calon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ned Bouhalassa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

:Jon Appleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mathew Adkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See also other related Empreintes DIGITALes spam articles prodded. John Young (composer), Marc Tremblay (composer), Alain Thibault, Jacques Tremblay (musician), Pete Stollery, Claude Schryer, Daniel Scheidt, Carole Rieussec, Mario Rodrigue, Åke Parmerud, Arturo Parra, Philippe Mion, Theodore Lotis, Philippe Le Goff, Dan Lander, Daniel Leduc, Monique Jean, Bernard Fort, Stephan Dunkelman, Marcelle Deschênes, Jean-Christophe Camps, Michèle Bokanowski, Christian Bouchard, Yves Beaupré, Wende Bartley, Sergio Barroso, Natasha Barrett (composer), Patrick Ascione, Serge Arcuri, Pierre Alexandre Tremblay, Micheline Coulombe Saint-Marcoux. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But the artists and label do exist, don't they? Then the pages should be neutralized rather than deleted. --Jotamar (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And at the very least Denis Smalley, Robert Normandeau, Jonty Harrison, Francis Dhomont and Pete Stollery are internationally significant composers. --Deskford (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I almost left some you mentioned off this list. If they are notable please help show it and I will remove them. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If they are notable then the articles should be fixed and kept. Existing is not notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the names already specified, Michel Chion should certainly be included in the keepers. I have added a References section to his article with an important monograph about him, and it should not be difficult to find more reliable, third-party material on him.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you can add Jon Appleton to the list of notables, as well. I have added his New Grove entry as "Further reading", though it probably should have been used as a Source in the first place.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Relist appropriate individual ones separately after examining carefully each article and its sources. This is a mass nomination for a reason that does not apply to all the entries. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Relist, because several are clear keeps. Most though, are verified only by self-citation, which doesn't really satisfy WP:NOR and thus will be more debatable. - Draeco (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Segregate, relist, and rewrite - identify those works which might be notable on their own basis and segregate them out. Re-write them if necessary. As for the rest, if they are written promotionally, it's better to mass-afd/delete them and start over, allowing re-creation if and when they meet WP:N. Notability says whether a subject can have an article or not, it says nothing about whether the current article should be kept or deleted for other reasons, such as being adcruft. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Åke Parmerud's New Grove biography is now added to the References list, as well as an article from a research journal.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

'keep all' every one of these composers has won at least one major international award for electroacoustic compostion, a number of them have won multiple awards. The article may have arisen as a result of a promotional drive, but that does not lessen their notability. The prods should be removed as there is no cause for deletion here. Measles (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawn to consider serperate listings. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why not simply hide the list in the original article and wait until the others are tidied up? Most are probably notable, though at first glance I only recognise a couple. Don't mass delete potentially useful entries! In actual fact, why not simply delete the original article (since it is balatant advertising) and leave the others to be Wikied? --Jubilee♫clipman 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Travis Wise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable attorney (see WP:NOTABILITY). Author of "free" study guide hosted on sites.google.com which solicits money for checklists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable person. Essentially, this is a vehicle to carry links to advertisements about a book that he has for sale. Tip for people taking an all-or-nothing professional licensing examination: It's worthwhile to spend more than ten bucks on your future. Mandsford (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:G11, Unambiguous advertising or promotion. TJRC (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, insufficient sources to verify notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for failing to meet any solid test of notability. Would not oppose G11 speedy. JBsupreme (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Ollivier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This subject appears to fail any reasonable standard of notability. The article was tagged two weeks ago and no attempt to assert notability has been made. There is no evidence of any media coverage, significant or otherwise, or of industry recognition that I can find. Rje (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Subject appears to have some notability as he is fairly easy to find through Google. Notable enough? I don't think so. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 18:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown. Edward321 (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambi (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable programming language. Page created by language creator. No secondary sources available that I can find. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure of the relevance of the list of seemingly unconnected AfDs... As to Ambi, there's quite a lot on Google - but... A lot of it seems to be not the stuff sought as reliable sources here. I'm not feeling up to digging too much at the moment, but someone who isn't full of flu might find something worth adding. Or the creator of the article might.... It seems an interesting concept, but that's not a basis for an article. Peridon (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment 2 It is worth noting that the nominator of this AfD is an SPA, which always makes me suspicious. Peridon (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not an SPA, I had a previous account on Knowledge (XXG) (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/chaos_on_the_internet). I thought that name wasn't professional enough so I've been editing on IP addresses and finally just registered a new account with my real name (as per Knowledge (XXG) policy, I didn't request a name change because I didn't feel I had a significant enough edit history to warrant it). This, however, is the first AfD I've done. I merely followed the directions on the Knowledge (XXG) page; I don't know where all of those unconnected AfDs came from. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Fair enough Suspicions allayed. Peridon (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability suggested. Knowledge (XXG) invariably fails to maintain articles about obscure software. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bangor Celtic F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - not only plays at level 4 in the Irish pyramid, which emerging consensus indicates as the threshold for notability, but they are the current champions of that division. The way forward is to add available sources and expand the page, not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - as TerriersFan says, level 4 of the Irish football league is notable enough. GiantSnowman 18:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - if this is a notable level to be playing at, there should be 3rd party references where the team is the subject of the coverage, could you add some?--RadioFan (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Google News provides quite a few hits, which I believe would be enough to pass WP:GNG. Bettia (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. BigDunc 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have even watched them a bit on TV in a summer friendly match! Govvy (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment a count of Google hits doesn't do much to demonstrate notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources does. Just not seeing that here. Since this is a amateur team, no presumption of notability can be made, the references need to be there.--RadioFan (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Estrojam's Decibelle Music and Culture Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was de-prodded just hours before its scheduled deletion. I guess we have to give it another week of life, but hopefully no more. It's promotional fluff about an event not covered in independent sources, after all. Biruitorul 21:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This page should be deleted as it violates the policy WP:NOTADVERTISING. All information on the page is from the festival's website and promotional materials, not independent sources.Waypunkerthanyou (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC) — Waypunkerthanyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• This has been edited with independent resources and is now neutral. Electriclady66 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The article name is awkward; it should be Decibelle, Decibelle Music & Culture Festival or Estrojam (the festival's former name). I was able to find several newspaper articles about Estrojam and added them as references. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, it exists, but the first three links are mere abstracts, and as for the fourth, well, hopefully we can do a little better than the Windy City Times. Regardless, this will have to comply with WP:MOS, and it's far from doing so. - Biruitorul 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The three Chicago Tribune articles are each about 800 words, but you have to pay to see the full text. The brief abstracts are displayed by pqarchiver.com to give people a taste of the full article so they can decide whether to buy it or not. And I think the Windy City Times is a reliable source. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. In 2007, Estrojam was deleted as "R1, redirect to deleted article" -- Eastmain (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Islam in Christmas Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A one sentence stub about a very small minority religion on a rock in Indian Ocean. The material is covered and better placed elsewhere, such as Christmas Island#Demographics or the articles linked in the templates, not least since there is little or no significant information that could be added to it. HJMitchell You rang? 22:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. These were mass cookie cutter stubs, several of which have already been deleted (eg Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Islam in the Pitcairn Islands) Orderinchaos 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment for a start the CIA Fact book as the raison detre of an article is a very very unfortunate and sad sign of no understanding what a wikiedia stub is at all about; secondly it looks like non english speakers composition in title and terminology - the subject itself is in fact valid one - and there are indeed issues about malay/indonesian moslems on cocos and christmas which need some mention some where - and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands&action=edit&section=8 has no citation or reference either - the presence of practising moslems - regardless, on (not in) need something to discuss their presence - i was once a tutor to an australian medical student who was stationed on cocos who never forgot the call to prayer after having lived on the island SatuSuro 17:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments SatuSuro 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, RS Fifelfoo (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Christmas Island. Small island with a small population. Its Muslim population must be tiny. This subject has almost no potential to grow into something bigger; any information on the topic belongs in the parent page. Digestible (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge the factoid, along with the citation, to Christmas Island, and delete the redirect as an unlikely search term. Note, however, that the cited source says that the percentage of Muslims is 25%, not 7% as this article states. Deor (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I now see that the "Demographics" section of Christmas Island already contains religion information (though it's unsourced and the percentages don't agree at all with those given on the CIA Factbook page). Changing my opinion to delete with regard to this article. Deor (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This is apparently supposed to be interesting trivia. Maybe they were hoping to be featured on the "Did you know...?" section on the main page. "Did you know that 7 percent of the people on Christmas Island are Moslem?" Now, tell me how many live in Corpus Christi, or on Easter Island, or in El Salvador... no, don't. Mandsford (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Corpus Christi is a municipal rather than regional political division. Apples and Oranges. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard that it's a city in Texas, and that godless liberals are going to force a court action to have its name changed to plain old "Corpus". Mandsford (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I miss your point. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't one. I was making a a pointless remark. Mandsford (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - although all the redlinks at Outline_of_Christmas_Island are kind of an invitation to create this kind of thing. If I wasn't a mature and responsible editor, I'd give in to the temptation to create the redlinked-from-the-outline-page Glaciers_of_Christmas_Island with the text 'none'. 69.128.47.243 (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, though I must say that the idea of Muslims on an island named "Christmas" is interesting. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There's no need for this trivia to be a separate article, given that it's covered in 4 words in the article. Bfigura 21:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unless there is something unusual about the demographics or if there a famous mosque on the island, then the nominator is correct. Warrah (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Retain Merge into Christmas Island demographics along with template. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Islam in Australia as Christmas Island is a dependency of Australia. Donama (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Malahide United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - plays at level 4 in the Irish pyramid which emerging consensus indicates as the threshold for notability. The way forward is to add available sources and expand the page, not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - as TerriersFan says, level 4 of the Irish football league is notable enough. GiantSnowman 18:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - if this is a notable level to be playing at, there should be 3rd party references where the team is the subject of the coverage, could you add some?--RadioFan (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Google News provides quite a few hits which I believe would pass WP:GNG (including their near cup giant-killing of Sligo), and their appearances in the FAI Cup would be enough to pass the general rule of thumb for football club notability. Bettia (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment While Google hits can indicate how well known a subject is, it's no guarantee of meeting notability guidelines. Amateur teams can meet notability guidelines with demonstration of sufficient coverage, but this isnt there. There are no claims of notability in the article nor any references at all. --RadioFan (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Level 4 team. BigDunc 20:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, appearance in the later stages of the FAI Cup pass notability in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Govvy (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Orion's Arm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently non-notable fictional universe. This page has been around a while, but the subject doesn't seem to actually be notable; I'm unable to find any coverage in independent reliable sources. They've published a book, but even that doesn't seem to have attracted any attention - I can't find any coverage beyond blog mentions and press releases. (Note that it only has 1 review on Amazon.com.) If anyone can demonstrate the notability of this project, please do so. Robofish (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable. Google returns 72,900 hits. Against a Diamond Sky was only published at the end of August, in other words only 1 1/2 months ago. It is a bit unfair to expect a mass of Amazon reviews in such a short time. Google book search also shows several references in print (which I have added to the page). In any case, a website and online community's notability does not have to be judged by the standards of print references. It is true that the entry could be better served in terms of citations/footnotes, but that is no reason to nominate a page for deletion M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep or delete without prejudice. Reliable references are a problem. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Your use of "Apparently" seems to mean that you aren't familiar enough with it to judge whether it's notable or not. As User:M Alan Kazlev points out above, your research standards are apparently misapplied. --Noclevername (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. OA is mentioned as inspiration for other settings and RPGs, notably Eclipse Phase, published by Catalyst games (no good ref - I suspect it's in the credits - I got this from personal discussion with the designers at GenCon 2009).

  Some of the complaints (mostly historic ones on the talk page) about reliable references seem to conflate attempts at substantiating the science behind Orion's Arm with its status as a fictional universe; that is, its scientific and other setting claims do not need substantiation, so much as they need reference to others discussing them. In line with WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, reference to Orion's Arm's text describing its setting is insufficient (as this is primary source material with indeterminate authorship), but links to other bodies discussing its setting are. Examples of this might be the extremely large publicly available archive of listserv traffic (all of which is verifiable by virtue of being ascribed to particular authors). Regardless - what is required from references in this case is verification that Orion's Arm makes these claims, not that these claims are scientifically true, probable, or even sensible (it's a fictional universe, after all).

  As for notability, Knowledge (XXG):Notability points out that notability need not necessarily imply fame, and goes on to lay out specific criteria. Concern over Orion's Arm notability boils down to a lack of citable references discussing its activities from reliable and independent sources. In particular, its own promotional and self-publicizing activities are not sufficient evidence for its notability, and mention by external sources would be necessary. As an insider, I know there's an interview / article coming up fairly soon in H+ magazine, and I believe there's been previous articles and interviews over the years. Lack of these references brings concern to its notability. However, it's my perception that this is due to a lack of thorough referencing rather than actual lack of notability - the setting is by far the largest fictional construct exploring the modern Transhumanism movement, consists of numerous subgroups, spin-offs, and projects, and is cited by some (again, personal communication only) as a significant source of inspiration in other, better published material in the same area.

  I strongly support keeping this article, but agree that perhaps there should be more emphasis and exploration of the project's impact on science fiction and transhumanism than on the particular peculiarities of science within the setting. -- Xorgnz (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I was searching for Orion Arm in Google and this article appeared. This is cheap publicity stunt. Pick up famous term, create article on Knowledge (XXG) and get famous. Anyone searching for Orion's Arm will click this article. It does mislead readers like me. This is new kind of spam. So please delete it. Viraan (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Searching for "orion arm" Gets two direct links to the fiction site (not through Knowledge (XXG)), one wikilink to Orion Arm (the galactic structure), one wikilink to the article listed in this AfD, and many more links about the galactic structure. The presence or absence of this Knowledge (XXG) article is unlikely to affect the list of pages returned by Google, given this breakdown. Searching for "orion's arm" yields two direct links to the fictional site, one link to Knowledge (XXG)'s article about it, and a host of other links to the fiction site. The presence or absence of a Knowledge (XXG) article is again unlikely to affect this breakdown. Long story short, your complaint seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur (Knowledge (XXG)'s article is not causing the problem you describe). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Seconded. Search for anything that wikipedia would consider "notable" on google and you almost always find the wikipedia article among the first results. I don't think blaming wikipedia's success is a valid argument --graham228221 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agreed. Also, the claim that the name choice is a cynical attempt to manipulate wikipedia doesn't hold given that the project has been around for almost a decade (predating wikipedia). Xorgnz (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above. It's among the most notable of the non-commercial transhumanist fictional works. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It has a membership of well over 1,000, has been around for almost a decade and is well-known enough in sci-fi circles (especially online) to be considered notable IMHO. Anders Sandberg has contributed significantly to the project in the past.--graham228221 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment also, a number of other articles link to Orion's Arm. Collaborative fiction, Dyson Sphere and many "... in fiction" articles are some examples. It has also spawned it's own articles, specifically related to terms used in the setting (Archailects and Transapient). --graham228221 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Helpful in buckling Orion's Belt I suppose. Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The only independent published reference I see in the article to establish notability is that it is recommended in a teacher's manual. The sort of thing that would establish this topic's notability would be in-depth coverage in one of the gaming magazines out there. The existence of references that could support notability would not surprise me in the least. But until such references are uncovered, perhaps this topic isn't ready for an article just quite yet. -Verdatum (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on this, though, deletion seems a little strong - merely flagging the lack of citations as a problem being worked on seems more appropriate. Perhaps trimming back the article to only information that is cited and passes WP:NOR and WP:N would be appropriate, too. --Xorgnz (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I can't find any such sources on Google. As new evidence: the fact that Against A Diamond Sky has been out for over a month, and I can't find any reviews by published critics, print or online. There is reasonable suspicion that such sources do not exist. Deletion isn't all that "strong" a move anyway. If it's deleted and recreated with proper establishment of notability, it is pretty easy to do a "history-only undelete" to retrieve and merge any beneficial deleted content. -Verdatum (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep --Klimov (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you explain the reasoning behind your opinion? This isn't a vote, ya know :) -Verdatum (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • My opinions seem to be very similar to the ones expressed by user graham... on October, 16 (see above). Additionally I'd like to express a kind of disillusionment or something like that. This deltetionistas secret agenda, heh heh, seems to be heading to the borders of funny. This is not the first article with such deletion request that seems to be only strange. There seems to be a need to do something, to reformulate policies maybe... Otherwise more and more people, myself including probably, would start turning to other venues for sensible activities. All the best, Victor --Klimov (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix F.C. Navan Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - plays at level 4 in the Irish pyramid which emerging consensus indicates as the threshold for notability. The way forward is to add available sources and expand the page, not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - as TerriersFan says, level 4 of the Irish football league is notable enough. GiantSnowman 18:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - if this is a notable level to be playing at, there should be 3rd party references where the team is the subject of the coverage, could you add some?--RadioFan (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Level 4 team. BigDunc 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment In this and similar AFD's the team's participation in "level 4" is stated as evidence of its notability. Can you be more specific? How do you feel this helps the article meet WP:GNG or any guidelines on sporting articles? Particularly with this one sentence article that makes no claim of notability. --RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - all the pages that you have AfD'd clearly meet WP:FOOTYN. In the case of level 4 Irish clubs, they all play in the main national cup competition. Whilst meeting WP:GNG is good, it is not essential for the article to be kept. This is a guideline, the preamble to which states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Consequently, it is open to the Community to elect to keep an article that may not meet the guideline. This contrasts with policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc which must be met. The reason for a threshold is not to include notable teams but to exclude the mass of non-notable clubs. It is the nature of football clubs that they tend to get extensive coverage in the media and this one is no exception. Since the absence of sources from the page is obviously bothering you, I would suggest that you might like to add some yourself rather than asking others to do the work? TerriersFan (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

'Comment You are correct that all of these are guidelines but references are not optional regardless of what guidelines exist for a particular topic. Also, it is the responsibility of the editor who creates the article or adds information to it to properly source it. --RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, appearance in the later stages of the FAI Cup pass notability in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• KeepApears notable enough, and has come a long way since original PROD. DB 103245 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject satisfies WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keith Barber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable enough (despite drinking Tesco value larger) Iamtheabelman 16:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The lager preference is a nice touch.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete almost a speedy, notability isn't established beyond being a university professor; consensus says that isn't enough. -Verdatum (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete would appear to fail WP:PROF. Bfigura 21:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep per evidence of meeting academic notability standard. --Bfigura 05:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. According to Google scholar, he has three publications with over 100 citations each and an h-index of 22. Beyond bean-counting, I think "peat stratigraphy" is a notable topic — Google scholar finds about 1000 papers on it — and his are the top hits, and five of the top ten, so he's the world expert on the subject. I think that's enough for WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As shown above, clearly satisfies WP:Prof #1 according to usual criteria with a solid record of scholarship. Article needs expansion. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
• Keep Has more than 3 good publications. --Donotask-donottell (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep clearly enough, Scopus has 52 publications, with highest citation counts 157. 92, 89. As usual, lower counts than GS, because Scopus only counts citations from journals, but enough to show him an authority--as one would expect for a full professor from Southampton. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Merging may be discussed on the article's talk page, if desired. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Požarevačka gimnazija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article doesn't seem notable. Would suggest a merge. LouriePieterse 16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Secondary schools in the US are apparently automatically notable, but I don't think the principle applies to overseas.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. For most people the US is "overseas". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.
• Keep. All secondary schools everywhere are notable. I added an infobox and a newspaper article about a careers event there. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep We should use the same rationale to keep this high school just like we do with the Americans, if not this is a case of WP:BIAS. It should be noted that the article has a reference confirming the existence of this school. --Jmundo (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - secondary schools are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep if secondary schools in the US are automatically notable, secondary schools everywhere are. ~~ GB fan ~~ 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep All secondary schools are notable. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Just had to post here that I strongly object that all X is notable is a valid argument for any X, as per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And yes, this includes schools. No opinion as to the individual article at hand, but just had to get that out there. ThemFromSpace 03:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Požarevac - This article seems to represent the problem of systematic bias on Knowledge (XXG). I have not found many sources through Google in English, though given that this school is in Serbia I am not surprised. I suspect there may be coverage in Serbian and some help from those that speak Serbian would be good (yes sources do not have to be in English per WP:V). While I am not a fan of mergers of probable notable articles, a merge into Požarevac may be a good compromise. That locality article currently does not even mention the school, and if the article is kept a summary and link should still be provided there anyway. Don't get how WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies, as nothing listed there seems to apply here. As for inherited notability, well for schools that is a wider Knowledge (XXG) dispute on which there is not a clear consensus on, I would prefer to focus on the article at hand for AfDs. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Inherited notability is not what I would call it --this is a practical working standard, very well accepted for a few years now, that essentially all secondary schools have enough sources if they are searched for carefully enough, and therefore we should not waste time debating them to catch a few percent that might not. Middle and elementary schools-- they get merged, for the complementary reason--almost none of them can be shown to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: DGG I am becoming one of your many fans! - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheetle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:DICTDEF of non-notable WP:NEO; only ref is an online slang dictionary that does not provide any WP:RS evidence of its actual notability. Only other g-hits are to urbandictionary.com (a user-contributed compilation) and others that are similarly non-reliable or that cite these non-reliables, or blog/bulletin-board postings that use it. Need actual articles about it, not anecdotal cites of use. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom, Google shows no evidence of this even being a real word. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not there yet. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Peacock (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Common word around campus. 32.142.148.192 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. However, in principle, if someone really cares about this subject, they could try adding a section on "Cheeto fingers" to either Cheetos or Cheese puffs and redirecting "cheetle" there. There have to be reliable sources about this phenomenon out there, right?--Chris Johnson (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary's List of protologisms. Firstly this is a dicdef, and so doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG) but on Wiktionary. Secondly, it does not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion for the main namespace. However it does fill a lexical gap and is thus suitable for the list of protologisms. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete Anyone who wants to know a word should know how to use Wiktionary or their favorite book or on line dictionary. Keeping an article like this just promotes more abuse of Knowledge (XXG). There should not be an article for every word in the English language, and there is no reason that this recently coined slang should be an exception.--Fartherred (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not think I meant the contributor intended abuse. Some articles just do not belong in Knowledge (XXG) regardless of how helpful the intentions of the contributor were.--Fartherred (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Even if it was notable, it's more-or-less a WP:DICDEF, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

GanttProject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable "project management" software, part of a great morass of WP:SPAM. Contested PROD, rejected by an IP editor. Google News Search archives yield only links to download pages, press releases, and links to specialist computing sites of limited circulation and interest. This page has been speedily deleted 4 times before as obvious advertising, suggest salting to prevent re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Per this, this, this, and this. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any consensus about whether these sources you found are more than specialist or technical publications of "limited interest and circulation?" - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Saying that the coverage is or is not can only be based on someone's opinion which is why there is AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This discussion is about a piece of software. Why are you quoting an irrelevant section of WP:CORP?--Michig (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC) As a 'product' of an organization perhaps? But as this is a non-commercial 'community' product, I don't feel that WP:CORP applies here, and the Google Books results hardly fall into the category of "media of limited interest and circulation".--Michig (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I agree, that is clearly notable coverage. Clicking on the Google News search I find and other reliable sources giving it adequate coverage as well. Dream Focus 00:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I've used it and it's really not very good, but the coverage is maybe enough to be kept.--Michig (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep since potentially useful, free software should always have a place in WP. The article alone may attract others who can improve it, or upon it. -MBHiii (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep sources exist to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

D-Pryde (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable musician... Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO... Also, this article is a copy/paste job directly from the subjects Facebook page (WP:COPYVIO?)... Was prodded, but prod was removed by IP (said IP's first and only edit to date)... Adolphus79 (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete "Hoping to make it one day" If that one day comes he may be notable. Is not now. Myspace/facebook/twitter sourced OR. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this rapper. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

David M. Huntwork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article appears to be an autobiography by the subject of the article, Dkhunt (talk · contribs) (and I am suspicious about the bona fides of Mistermarkwhite (talk · contribs) as well; the account looks very sockpuppety). It is an orphan and much of it is unsourced. The few sources it does cite are a mixture of personally authored works published on personal websites and thoroughly unreliable websites such as WorldNetDaily, and articles by other people which merely quote the author (e.g. ""A secular and atheistic jihad," cries a guy named David Huntwork on the GOPUSA Web site." ) This does not remotely assert the notability of the subject, and the author's conflict of interest is self-evident. The entire article appears to be little more than an exercise in self-promotion for a non-notable individual. ChrisO (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - There are COI concerns regarding the article and its author, but the subject himself has some weak notability. Not strong enough to satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO in my opinion. I do see work like this, an article David wrote at a "daily internet publication". That's about the extent of the notability claims, so I would say that his notability depends on whether or not such contributions are considered notable. I would say no, they aren't much better than blog posts. -- Atama頭 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – None of the cited sources are more than a passing mention, and few of these sources are reliable. I'm more notable than this guy, at least based on the evidence in the article. Rees11 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no awards, no significant contributions (WP:ANYBIO). Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, either. Being the first to blog about Rathergate is not exactly what I'd call a significant contribution to the annals of journalism. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Robbie Willmott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD by IP user, no reason given. Footballer fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant independent coverage. --Jimbo 15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, player fails WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above as the Football Conference is not a fully professional league. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Hasn't played at a professional level Spiderone 16:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be a general agreement that the subject is only marginally notable, if at all; this, combined with the fact that the subject of this article requested deletion, pushes me to conclude that consensus supports deletion. –Juliancolton |  14:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul LaViolette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject has requested deletion. At first glance it appeared to pass WP:ACADEMIC, however, as I went about cleaning it up, I think it is indeed short of meeting the applicable inclusion criteria. Lara 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Weak Keep Subject is of borderline notability. I lean towards probably notable however if he has asked to be removed... As this appears to be nothing more than a continuation of the "lible" comments Mr. LaViolette previously posted on the talk page and not a result of anything new I'm changing to keep for the moment. Willing to reconsider depending on discussion. Recent comments on weakness of notability enough to sway me back over to delete. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not an easy decision to make. On the one hand, it does look like he passes WP:ACADEMIC. On the other hand, when you read further there really isn't any indication that his contributions have made significant impact. We need third party sources to show that these were infact significant contributions to physics. So, delete per nom. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that subject's wishes must be taken into consideration. However, this person does seem to meet the notability criteria, and the article is amply sourced. If he has a good reason for requesting deletion, if he feels the article is flawed in some way, I may reconsider.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  This section on the article's talk page details his concerns. Lara 20:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, my vote remains keep. His concerns are far too broad, sweeping and lacking in specificity. If he has a problem with the article, he should take the time to go point by point: "A is incorrect, it is really B. C is incorrect it is really D." He should do that with every single thing in the article that he says is incorrect. It's not our job to carry out detective work based upon vague assertions by the subject of the article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  I hope you someday read your last sentence and see it in a different perspective than the one you wrote it from. Lara 22:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Look, let's not be mysterious about this. Can you list the aspects of this article that are problematic? If this is a bum article I don't want to keep it, but I just can't favor deletion based on what he has stated.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  When notability is questionable and the subject does not want a Knowledge (XXG) biography, why is it not better to remove it? When it's a close call anyway? Your last sentenced read as if the responsibility to research and write a complete and accurate biography is not on us. That seems absurd to me. He did not ask for a biography on our website, why then should he be burdened with the work? Lara 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  No, he didn't ask for a biography, but he is asking for deletion, so it's reasonable to expect him to provide reasons as to why that is necessary. He has an email to you in which he requests deletion, but per Nomoskedasticity's comment below, his deletion request is seriously undercut by his post indicating that he'd be OK with an article if he controls what it says.-JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Ok... if that is what this is about I don't see him say "remove my page" so if there isn't some new communication to that effect I may have to change my vote. As JohnnyB256 rightly points out he is notable - if weakly so. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  The request for deletion is new and came through OTRS. Lara 20:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Unusual case... normally people want to tweak stuff written about them in their favor. If the guy doesn't want to be mentioned here, then cool. Article barely survived first AfD, I thought we were doing him a favor by tweaking and keeping. If he doesn't accept that favor then nuke it into oblivion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The subject is notable enough to meet WP:GNG, mainly for his activities on the fringe. I would ordinarily give weight to a subject's request to be deleted when the subject is basically a private person who did not seek the notability on which his/her Knowledge (XXG) presence is predicated. LaViolette is certainly not shrinking from the public light as evidenced by his multiple appearances on Coast to Coast AM, which in my understanding is about as notable as radio gets when you're talking about fringe-y stuff. His complaints about the article (as reflected on the talk page) strike me as being more about tone (and a misunderstanding of Knowledge (XXG) policies) than any substantial misstatements of fact-- except maybe for his implication that we should ignore Science as unreliable (!). As JamesBWatson has pointed out on the talk page, while the subject may object to the use of the term "unorthodox" to describe his theories, that description seems entirely correct. On the other hand I do grok Seb az86556's sentiment, which is why I'm currently "weak" on this. If there is anything more to his OTRS request, it would certainly be helpful to know.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Their email is quite detailed, though I can't divulge the contents of it (I'll request his permission for that); however, his concerns are understandable and his notability is shaky. Lara 22:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF. His paper predicting the "high intensity volleys of cosmic ray" has been cited 6 times only. If it were really important, it would have been cited more than that since 1987. The rest nothing special. Perhaps notable as an author (seven books), but rest of it is not. Hence delete. Especially when considering the potential BLP problems. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty marginal notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- LaViolette's request for deletion is seriously undercut by his post on the article talk page, where it is clear that he is perfectly happy to be the subject of a wikipedia article -- as long as it says what he wants it to say. I'm holding off on a "vote" for now, but I'm not convinced by the premise of this afd as presented. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete according to subject's request. Notability is marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

• Comment. I honestly don't understand why people keep saying this person isn't notable or is marginally notable, and the nominator keeps repeating that without providing sufficient basis for that assertion. Look at the man's bio, which he vouches for as accurate and look at his resume . He is far more notable than a great many articles on Knowledge (XXG). Hell, somebody is seeking to retain the biography of a composer because he wrote the anthem of a Spanish football club that has its own article on Knowledge (XXG)! That is a typical subject of an AfDs, that and utter rubbish and hoaxes. This Prof. LaViolette, however, is an accomplished scientist with a long record of achievement.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• He maybe passes criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. That's it. His notability is not solid. Lara 18:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• The reason why people are saying that notability á la WP:Prof #1 is not attained is that academic notability is measured not by the volume of material published but by the number of independent citations to the subject's work. GS gives tops cites of 27, 13, 9 , 6, 6.. with an h index of 5. The precedent developed on these pages is that an h index of 10 is required to achieve even borderline notability. The subject's index falls far below this criterion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

there is no such precedent of an h=10 cutoff. And there never should be, because it depends greatly on the subject field--and it also depends on the actual distribution. h index of 10 can mean 10 papers with 10 citations each or 9 papers with 200 each, and 1 with 10. I Going only by h index is a grossly inaccurate criterion even for a screen. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. You're, of course, correct. There is no hard limit. But, there certainly is an informal consensus that cases falling below about 10 are red-flagged for more comprehensive examination. Results are often presented by listing, in order, a sub-set of the citation counts starting with the highest number (as Xxanthippe did above). This is a reasonable safeguard against the distribution problem you illustrated. There are other legitimate issues with citation counting, but since the subject works ostensibly in physics, most of those should not be relevant here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

• This is a matter of phenomenology. Examination of these pages for the last six months shows that articles about scholars with an h index of greater than fifteen usually get kept and those with an index of less than ten usually get deleted. There is often much argument about those in between. The h index therefore provides a useful starting point for further investigation but has the same pitfalls as any statistical measure. The issue has been extensively discussed on these pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

• Keep notable enough, though not very, and not necessarily because of his science, but GNG as fringe. As Arxiloxos says, he is not at all a private character, but engages in public controversy. No weight at all should be given to his concerns, exactly as Nomoskedasticity has it and said at the previous AfD also: "I went in and read how I (Paul LaViolette) have been presented in Knowledge (XXG) and do not agree at all with much of what was written. To protect my reputation, I have tried to make the necessary corrections...in the future anyone wishing to make changes, please first email me the text they wish to post about me so that I may check it" I presume he says something similar in his letter. Accepting this as a reason is directly opposed to NPOV--and NOT WHOS WHO, where such gross bias is the standard. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you fail to appreciate that the Knowledge (XXG) model isn't immediately understood by those who first arrive on Knowledge (XXG) based on someone telling them that they're featured on it. His email does not make an ownership request. If the article is kept, there's going to be a lot of improvement required for the article, going through his complaints and suggestions and determining what's verifiable, neutral and relevant. As even you say, he's "notable enough, though not very". I don't suppose you'll stick around later to help sort through it all and write a good biography? Lara 15:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

as for editing the article, :I think someone who actually knows some physics might do better. I agree the request on the talk p. was "please do it my way", but together with the deletion request, it says "and if you don't, please remove the article." DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Per previous discussion I do not think the subject\s request to have the article removed should be heeded and for the reasons which other editors have elaborated. As in the previous AfD I am satisfied with the references to his work and person which the article currently provides, and having previously involved myself in that particular aspect of improving the article I still believe more references will be forthcoming to further solidify his notability. __meco (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can tell, there've been no substantive changes in the notability situation since we last debated this case a few months ago. Summarizing, there wasn't enough to pass on WP:PROF, so the debate seemed to focus on more of a general pass, e.g. keep "the improved article as meeting WP:GNG. MichaelQSchmidt". But WP:GNG is not really satisfied either. His books are not widely held, nor is there significant and reliable coverage. All the instances of "coverage" were overstated. There was "George Noory's biography of LaViolette...", but this turned out to be nothing more than a few sentences on the web page of some late-night radio show. There was also a bunch of material from the Starburst Foundation, of which the subject is evidently the director (so not independent). Then there was the "article" in New Scientist, which turned out to be just a short mention of the subject's USPTO fracas in that particular issue's Feedback column. (This column gives "short commentaries on amusing topics" (emphasis mine), as quoted from our own WP page of New Scientist.) Yet again, not a dedicated article that substantively discusses, him, his work, etc. Finally, the best that could be mustered was an article in a local alternative newspaper, the Washington City Paper. The "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" that we were reminded about several times in that debate never materialized. My esteemed colleague __meco seems to still be holding out for these. Now would be the time to produce them, in which case I'll be delighted to change my position. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC).
• Keep mostly per DGG's arguments. He's certainly notable enough by my estimation. - Draeco (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep Since LaViolette is a willing public figure, his opinion about whether or not he should have an article should not get weight. I can't tell if he meets WP:PROF but he easily meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question. Might the previous two commentators elaborate on their "keep" votes in light of the fact that the coverage of the subject is now seen to be vastly overstated and that "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" (which actually would establish notability) are still yet to be produced? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

• Comment I was basing GnG when I was saying leaning towards notable on the sources Agricola44 mentioned. However if the only source is Washington City Paper there is a problem - the Washington City Paper is not a WP:RS according to Mr. LaViolette. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Mr. LaViolette's views on this matter are irrelevant, especially in relation to establishing notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Generally I would agree with you except that the article was primarily biographincal in nature and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to establishing the accuracy of non-contentious biographical data. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: He satisfies WP:BIO as normally applied. The Patent Office case alone was covered in multiple sources, including a couple of articles in Slate that don't appear in GNews results (I see them in results using Nexis); I've just added a quote from one and a ref from another. As usual, there are more sources than are available via GNews. Sure, I could add them, spend hours working on this article, but it's not necessary for me to do so before I express the view that I'm well satisfied that the sources available establish notability. And again he is not eligible for deletion on privacy grounds. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The only specific point you mention is the patent office case. But, as argued already in the first AfD by David Eppstein, this fails on WP:BIO1E. So, unless there's something else? Perhaps we should all just cut to the chase and insist that anyone who maintains that there are "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" produce these, or else concede that such cannot be found. Truly, it's been months now and given the claim, it should be quite trivial to cite at least one "headline". Without these, the various oblique or insignificant references to the subject and his WP:BIO1E episode do not add up to notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

• I'm sure you read my entire comment, so I'm puzzled by the implication that I did not produce any sources. In any event, here's one headline for you (which, again, I did add to the article): "Is It Religious to Believe in Cold Fusion", Slate 24 Aug 2000. As for whether this is BLP1E, the article makes it quite clear, with sources, that there are other bases of notability, in addition to the patent office case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, but this is clearly not what is being referred to by "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world". __meco and Bilby both refer very explicitly to the subject making essentially world news in the 1970s. If true, this sort of coverage would (1) be easy to find, and (2) automatically resolve this debate in favor of keep. The problem again is that the slate article goes right back to the patent office episode. We don't seem to be able to come up with anything else besides what has already been rehashed above, hence the WP:BIO1E concern. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

You might want to re-read that original AfD. __meco did not write that there were "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" -- he/she wrote that the Washington City Paper had asserted that there were "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" -- but that these appeared during the 70s and so might not appear in electronic searches. So perhaps you'd like to concede that any failure to produce these sources does not undercut notability in any real sense -- this conclusion would simply reinforce the usual wikipedia bias towards whatever google can lead us to. Now, granted, notability still needs to be demonstrated. But I'm not impressed by a comment directed towards me that critiques my expressed view with reference to a point that I didn't make and that in any event is easily debunked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, I think we've all read the original AfD quite carefully – precisely the reason why I reminded you that the slate article you would like us to focus on is not part the group of "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world". Clearly, __meco and Bilby were quoting the Washington City Paper and did not originate this statement themselves. Semantics aside, the salient point is that all we have gotten is deafening silence with respect to these headlines, so I think it is now probably time for us to accept that they will not be forthcoming. If the man and/or his deeds truly did garner world attention in the 1970s (as the quote very explicitly says is the case), then documentation would be easy to find – and there've been 2 months to do the searching! (Check, for example, bona fide world news events from the 1970s like the Nixon resignation – they're easily found online from newsprint of the time.) Google is simply not as biased as you would have us believe when it comes to people and events of world-significance. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that the headlines haven't been found because they don't exist and he's not actually notable. What appears to be the case here is that the Washington City Paper article from whence the quote comes is basically a puff piece – there's plenty of sensational wording – but it does say, very plainly, "For a short, sweet time, LaViolette made headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world. He was heralded as a hero." If that's true, then surely we should be able to find something. Oddly, the article was written by a pop music critic, not a science reporter or some such that you might expect. At this point, I'm doubting that the Washington City Paper article even meets WP:RS itself! The deeper we dig, the more tenuous LaViolette's case seems to become. But again, I'll happily do a humble "about face" should even one bona fide headline be delivered. Very respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

• Delete. Notability is marginal at best no matter which guideline we go by, and so we ought to give some weight to the wishes of the subject. Kevin (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Marginally notable? Subject wants it deleted? Not the subject of a dead tree encyclopedia article? default to delete. Come on, people, be nice. We're supposed to be nice, not mean. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - marginal at best, barely squeaks by WP:PROF if at all. The subject-request clinches it for me. Per Jimbo's famed comment; "We are not here to hurt people" - Alison 22:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There may be a subtlety here that escapes me, as I don't know physics. Looking at the article as a layperson, it strikes me as a positive article that reflects well on the subject.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Setting aside specific issues the subject has voiced concern over, the article is a poor one. It is not comprehensive, it's poorly structured, and it gives undue weight to insignificant things, such as putting mention of two appearances on a radio show (two of who knows how many public speaking appearances) in the same paragraph as a major milestone in his career. It's just silly and amateur. Attempts to clean up the article are merely reverted. It's an embarrassment for him in his professional career and it's an embarrassment for Knowledge (XXG). Lara 14:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think that's a serious overstatement. The article is very typical for Knowledge (XXG). --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Enquiry I just wanted to make sure it was clear that if this article is deleted it will stay on watch-lists and an attempt to reintroduce the subject matter in a manner more to Mr. LaViolette's personal preference will probably result in a speedy deletion nomination. AfD is not a good way to clean the slate for a PoV overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 October 2009

• WP:CSD#G6, specifically. Lara 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Did you mean WP:CSD#G4? I share Simonm223's concern about this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed I did, thank you. Lara 17:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#G4, yup, that's the one. As long as we are clear on that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: per Nomo - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. We are not here to hurt people, but rather to build an encyclopedia. This "article" isn't really helping either way. JBsupreme (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, any merger proposal can be discussed in the usual way. (NAC) RMHED 19:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unicorns N' Rainbows Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails to establish notability as per WP:GNG. Fails WP:MUSIC. There is nothing inherently notable about a concert tour. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate list of information - that includes long lists of tour dates that belong on fan sites and not an encyclopedia. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Read the article. It's slightly unusual perhaps, but it certainly seems encyclopedic.--Firefly322 (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Read the article." is not a counterargument to an assertion that there are no sources to satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion. A valid counterargument, that actually would hold water and rebut the nominatino, would be citations of such sources. There are none in the article, and you've provided none here at AFD. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment It's really the nominator's responsibility to follow WP:BEFORE and not the !voters. Sigh. There are plenty of reliable sources available and a good faith effort (e.g., a simple find tag like the one I have just placed on its talk page) would have revealed them. See these Google news search results. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I think Limp Bizkit is notable enough that a major tour deserves an article. It does need sources though. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The tour got some media coverage, and is a notable event since it involves a rather large number of people. How many people went to every concert? If an event involves hundreds of thousands of people, even if spread out over time and at a different locations, then surely its notable. Dream Focus 10:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of the sources referred to in the link above are "PRNewswire" or press releases. Others are trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Limp Bizkit. A concert tour by itself is not notable.--LAAFan 04:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax _{So let it be done} 14:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep On the basis on continual relisting. If consensus cannot be reached after SEVEN DAYS then it should default to keep. Lugnuts (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Another approach, one that may be profitable, would be if the editors in favor of keeping the article articulated a reason backed by our inclusion polices or guidelines rather than assuming that their superior numbers will result in a keep. Closers don't (or shouldn't) just count noses. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 19:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Limp Bizkit due to the lack of multiple reliable sources. The only in-depth reliable source in the article that discusses this tour is this article from Las Vegas Sun; furthermore, that article covers a local event (The title is: Limp Bizkit plans free concert July 18 in Las Vegas). This tour is not notable and there is not enough coverage to warrant a separate article, so a section in the band's article is sufficient. Cunard (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

John Titor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Some random person's online hoax propped up on a mass of references to fringe websites and internet forums. Entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Contested PROD, PROD was deleted by IP without comment. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep Nom lacks a valid reason to delete. riffic (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment being more specific WP:NOTGUIDE Item 3 and WP:INDISCRIMINATE Item 1 and 4. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Oh yeah, and can't forget WP:MADEUP. In short it is entirely inappropriate.Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Nominator also hasn't followed processes outlined in WP:BEFORE to see if sources could exist, which they do ( Click those links in the header next to "Find sources"! )
• Comment Some online chatter about an online hoax. No major coverage. Notability restricted to fringe sources. No books. And tihs doesn't address WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:MADEUP Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep- While we're waiting for the nominator to supply a reason for deletion that's actually applicable, I see nothing deletable about the article. Its not the greatest, but it certainly seems reasonable to keep. FYI- Since it had been through a deletion process before, PROD can not be used. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Previous AfD not properly listed on article or talk page. Became aware of it after contesting of PROD. Reasons provided entirley valid. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep . This guy gets trotted out every time someone wants to mock the internet, so there should be plenty of vcoverage out there. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep Has received some attention from mainstream sources , , although not as much as I would have expected. Zagalejo^^^ 17:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Apparently well-circulated hoax that has enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Besides, I checked with John and he says the article will survive until the 5th AFD in the spring of 2012, so we don't need to waste time on this one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Too many big names in the media coverage. K2709 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Very very weak keep on the basis of the minor media coverage. I agree with nominator that this article doesn't belong in Knowledge (XXG), and if he can come up with a convincing argument for deletion per policy I'll happily reconsider. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - While it attracts fringey people, I've heard it discussed on the radio. The article even establishes notability by noting some of the non-internet attention it's gotten. To respond to the nominator's listed reasons:
  • WP:NOTGUIDE item 3 says articles shouldn't "exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website." Since this article isn't about a website, it doesn't apply.
  • WP:INDISCRIMINATE item 1 says articles on fictional works shouldn't consist largely of plot summary. Since the article in question does discuss impact, this isn't really a problem. Even if it were, because we can reduce plot summary and expand reception, this should never be a reason to delete.
  • WP:INDISCRIMINATE item 4 is about covering something just because it's in the news. That's not what's happening here so it doesn't apply.
  • WP:MADEUP is, explicitely, about not writing content about things you yourself have made up but that aren't verifiable (it is not, as you seem to think, about things that are not true). Since there are outside sources for this, this also doesn't apply. — Ƶ§œš¹ 19:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A hoax, but enough reliable sources to show it's a notable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is very notable hoax. Some hoaxes do indeed need to be kept as reference material for help in identifying future hoaxes, as well as distinguishing hoaxes from non-hoaxes. Consequently, this one belongs here on Knowledge (XXG). Tangurena (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The sources in the article may not be top-notch, but a quick scan through the Google News results linked above finds coverage in The Guardian and Wired, and The Times reporting that John Titor was the subject of a segment in Horizon, the BBC's flagship science documentary TV series. The Google Scholar results look fascinating, with, according to the search result listing, the subject being mentioned in an article by one A. Einstein (which would mean that he travelled a bit further back in time than described in our article) and in an article about Luther Blissett, who I, as a Watford supporter, regard as something of a hero. It turns out that the first of these is a misattribution by Google Scholar and the second is a product of this distinctly unreliable outfit. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep There are far less notable and encyclopedia worthy pages whose status are not contested. I don't want to seem like I am using the existence of those pages as a means of justification, but I think this subject just passes the required level of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watto the jazzman (talk • contribs) 08:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known enough that it should be kept for its cultural reference. Would we kill a page on the balloon boy's family because it was a hoax? This was a story relevant enough to warrant coverage in major media. (MaxPhd)(talk) 12:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentActually I would because WP:NOTNEWS Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You're showing a gross misunderstanding of policy and you're not convincing anybody by ignoring rebuttals. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply since John Titor doesn't appear in just one news article and doesn't constitute "routine news coverage." — Ƶ§œš¹ 05:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually that last comment was a direct response to MaxPhd's enquiry regarding the {not in a} balloon boy. I would delete a page on his family on the basis of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS if the news coverage of the hoax was the only point of notability. I've already resigned myself to the fact that Knowledge (XXG) will continue to be marred by the presence of a page on this farcical hoax. Oh well... there is also a page for lolcats so I guess I shouldn't be suprprised that another piece of online drivel gets inclusion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I stand corrected. I misread your post as talking about both Titor and BB. I'm not sure if you know this, but WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. — Ƶ§œš¹ 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully aware. And I stand by my original reasoning. Fact is that others disagree. This sometimes happens. That is why we use the consensus model. The fact that I also happen to strongly dislike the article is secondary in my mind. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But none of your reasons actually relate to the article (see my rebuttal above). This is what I was talking about when I said you don't seem to understand the policies you cite. This is why simply citing general policies doesn't stand in for reasoning. — Ƶ§œš¹ 17:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Received good media coverage, thus passes WP:NOTE, which is enough for me. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Even as a hoax it made enough impact on popular culture that it should be kept for reference. Which is enough for me too. 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.176.101 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Dawson (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not quite notable. Grammy-nominated but apparently hasn't won. No objective evidence of notability.  Frank  |  talk  01:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep His song was #1 for 5 weeks. That's notability as per WP:NMUSIC. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  Do you have a citation for that? According to our article on Dawson, he apparently produced an album by Daniel Powter, although even that is not sourced. Even so, it is not the same thing as "his song was #1" per WP:NMUSIC, which refers to musicians and ensembles having a charted song. I would also note that WP:NMUSIC refers to things which may indicate notability; it neither assures it by evidence of something on the list nor denies it by lack thereof. It is a guideline of generally accepted criteria.  Frank  |  talk  19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - having a #1 song if he were the singer would establish notability. However, he is the producer, and based on this article, it's not clear how much of the production is his. In any case, I can find no reliable sources writing about him. He is mentioned in passing in may articles but that is not significant coverage. Being grammy nominated isn't enough. I acn find no information about what he was nominated for. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Grammy nominated. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry WP:ANYBIO says "has been often nominated", my mistake, missed the often. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. NMUSIC does not apply because he is not a performing artist.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg 01:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

South Park action figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Within the world of action figures and merchandise, can't see why this particular line is notable, or why the action figures warrant an article any more deservedly than the line of t-shirts, dolls, magnets, stickers, etc. If notability can't be established, this is essentially an indiscriminate collection of information. SoSaysChappy (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete as much as a fan of the show and as much of being an inclusionist I am, this "stuff" is truly pointless and actually uninformative. Nergaal (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep No more trashy than the average WP article. And one article on the action figures of a very popular, and cult-popular, TV show is probably not a bad thing. I bet Star Wars action figures have a hundred articles here. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notability is not inherited. Plus...WP:OTHERSTUFF. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect & Merge. Article should be redirected, and information merged into the article South Park. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  13:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge per RightCowLeftCoast. Orderinchaos 19:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of notability and no 3rd party sources. Would appear as trivial if merged. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Álvaro Ramírez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NN Note that Globalvoices is a self-published source. Toddst1 (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable per nom.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't see notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC).
• Delete. No evidence of notability. CronopioFlotante (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy as hoax, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Chupet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clear Hoax and Vandalism RWJP (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Under WP:DICTDEF, WP:MADEUP and WP:HOAX. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this piece of junk.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I am using my common sense and closing this early. Circumstances have overtaken the original nomination - which has been withdrawn - and the article would now pass WP:ATH, which was cited as the primary reason for deletion. In closing this I am making no assumption about GNG. I feel that any future discussion on that topic ought to be separate from this one. Rje (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Hussey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD by IP user - no reason given. Football fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-pro level. Also fails WP:GNG as there is not enough significant third-party coverage beyond the odd WP:NTEMP stuff. --Jimbo 12:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw nom, as per this appearance, Hussey now satisfies WP:ATH. --Jimbo 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - as Jimbo says, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. No sources go into any detail about the player. Spiderone 15:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Player has signed for Coventry City and will likely make an appearance at Championship level in the near future. --Thewatchtrick (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:CRYSTAL. What if he falls under a bus tomorrow? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If he falls under a bus tomorrow then there be loads of press and maybe, just maybe, he might make it past the Wiki deletionists!!! No on second thoughts, delete it. We can only waste out time putting it back when he plays on Tuesday or Saturday!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.13.202 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. There's absolutley no reason to delete this page, Hussey made 83 appearances AFC Wimbledon and 11 for Windsor & Eton, so deleting is page wouldn't be necessary. – Michael (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Neither of those teams is professional or plays in a fully professional league, though, as required by the WP:ATHLETE policy -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Recreate if he does play for Coventry -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Player has made his professional debut for Coventry City on 20th October 2009, so i assume this article for deletion note can be removed. --User:MrHorse1982 (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted at original contributor's request and also per WP:SNOW -- The Anome (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Knowledge Which No One Can Have (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Meaning no offense to the creator, but this isn't an encyclopedia article, it's an essay, and seems, in its current form, to violate many of the things which Knowledge (XXG) is not. I don't see how it can be sourced properly and satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR. (And well, if it's salvageable, at least this AFD will bring it some needed attention.) • Anakin 12:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No one except the intellects can make things which cannot exhibit: 1. divisibility 2. comparability 3. connectivity 4. disturbability 5. reorderability 6. substituability and 7. satisfiability. So, people must be educated not to ask the questions in order to keep reputation of intellectual integrity. --Virginexplorer (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel like there's an inside joke here that I'm missing out on. Since this article was first created (and CSD'd) on October 7th, the content seems to have been published everywhere from Uncyclopedia to Yahoo! Answers to the Internet Archive to Wikibooks and a bunch of other places. • Anakin 12:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: appears to be entirely original research -- The Anome (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I would nominate for speedy deletion if i was more familiar with process. article doesnt indicate reason for notability. the idea of there being unknowable things is, regardless of the truth of it, a notable subject. it may be covered in other philosophy articles, but this is pure original research, and can be safely deleted. i dont believe its even debatable at this point.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  CSD is as simple as putting a tag on the page (and notifying the author, to be polite). But the CSD categories are very specific and so not always usable even in the case of some pages which should be undebatably deleted. This particular article doesn't qualify. • Anakin 16:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete clearly original research/synthesis. Also clearly the work of someone who feels very strongly about a priori propositions, this does not present a neutral overview and the article title is indicative of this. The article has been substantially revised but the fundamental problems remain. As a result of reading the older version, I am now haunted by visions of non-disturbable and indivisible potatoes. (edited after article revisions) Ben Kidwell (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this article biased? If biased, to which it is biased? Kindly let me know, so that I can remove it.--Virginexplorer (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is on the topic of epistemology with a particular focus on A priori and a posteriori statements. The question of what can and cannot be known and stated has no established philosophical consensus and a neutral treatment of the topic requires a different presentation than this article. You might, for instance, incorporate quotations from your source authors into other relevant articles as part of presenting an overview of different philosophical perspectives on this topic. Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Are they apriori propostions alone? Aren't they post ori obervations?

• Keep First of all, this artcile is not out of any original research. Every part of the artcile can be found as facts in various textbooks and research articles. Students are generally informed on the relationship between the knoweldge one can have about a thing and the properties of things, and about the limits of human knowledge. No part of the article is a new knowledge acquired through any extensive research. Although it is told in the classroom, no attempt has been made before to prepare and publish a formal article. The reason for preparing this article now is that the present day school teachings somehow make the students to think that there is no conceptual relationship among the subjects which they study in schools. Being a biophysical chemistry teacher, for the last four or five batch of students, I find that the students completely fail to go beyond what they have studied in the undergraduate courses and make a exhaustive search on the knowledge base. Other than this, there is no intention in putting this artcile in wikipedia or any other site.

The article has been completely revised again so that it meets the wikipedia quality standards. If any further references or any modification is needed, kindly let me know before deletion. I can spent time to revise, if any further modification is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 09:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The questions to wikipedia are:

• Are the information content of this article not known to the people before?
• Is the information content of this article offensive?
• Is this article inadequately referenced?
• Is this article biased? If biased, to which it is biased?
• Is the information content of the article unverifiable?
• Is this article worthless?
• Do the younger generation have no right to know the knowledge which no one can have?
• Do the younger generation be ignorant of the relationship between the properties of things and the human knowledge?--Virginexplorer (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this article a thesis? Is this article an essay?

• 1.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about divisibility; I have not heard that everything is divisible; I have not heard that nothing is indivisible? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is divisible’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit divisibility cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit divisibility’? ‘Everything is divisible: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or common knowledge out of experience?

• 2.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about comparability; I have not heard that everything is comparable to everything else; nothing is completely isolated? How can one say that a thing is different from or similar to the other things without making a comparison? How can one compare things which cannot exhibit comparability? How can one arrive at a conclusion – this is different from that or this is similar to that in no thing can exhibit comparability? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is comparable to everything else’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit comparability cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit comparability’? Everything is comparable to everything else: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or a common knowledge out of experience?

• 3.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about connectivity; I have not heard that everything is connected to everything else? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything exhibits connectivity’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit connectivity cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit connectivity‘? Everything is connected to everything else: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?

• 4.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about disturbability; I have not heard that everything is disturbable/sensitive/susceptible; I have not heard that nothing is insensitive? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is disturbable’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit disturbability cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit disturbability‘? Everything is sensitive and disturbable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?

• 5.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about reordering; I have not heard that everything is reorderable? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is reorderable’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit reorderability cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit reorderability ?‘ Everything is reorderable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?

• 6.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about substitutions; I have not heard that everything has a substitute? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is substitutable’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit substitutability cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit substitutability‘? Everything is substitutable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?
• 7.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about statisfiability; I have not heard that everything is required to satisfy the plan with which it is created; I have not heard about need or requirement? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is satisfiable’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit satisfiablity cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit satisfiablity‘? Everything is satisfiable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?

How much research or intelligence is required to put the arugments 1 to 7 and make the statement : ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit: divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorerability, substitutability, and satisfiablity? Is this a thesis or common knowlege?

Is the title biased?The most appropriate title for an article on the knowledge about cow would be THE COW. The most appropriate title for an article on the knowledge about swine flu would be THE SWINE FLU. In the same manner, the most appropriate title on the knowledge about the knowledge which no one can have would be THE KNOWELDGE WHICH NO ONE CAN HAVE. What else would be the appropriate title for an article on the knowledge which no one can have? --Virginexplorer (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Indistinguishable from a parody. I checked a couple of the sources and some could be said to confirm the imprecise sentence for which the source is cited. However, it is extreme WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to make an essay out of the cited components. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between fact and parody? Do you mean every fact of this article parody? If there is, highlight it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 03:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment it is still OR after any changes that were made. creator doesnt seem to understand: for this kind of work, you have to get your thesis published in a peer review journal, from a publisher of note (not a vanity press or self published), then get the material adopted for a class, or discussed in major venues, or found a widely supported nonprofit educational organization based on it. THEN you get an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any knowelge which is undisputable? D0 the journals publish the common knowlege? --Virginexplorer (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete. As Johnuniq noted above, this article is based primarily on synthesis. The subject is too ill-defined for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The last line:

Do any one of the wikipeida reader or admin or editor heard about - ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENCE? It is not late, Start seaching. You won't find it in internet. Come to me I will teach you - what is meant by ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I found another article,The Indestructible Properties which also doesnt have refs, which i proposed for deletion, and which has some overlap with this article in editing and commentary on talk and deletion pages. the IP address shown here has edited this, and previously edited it as User:Jeyamalini. this is NOT an accusation of sockpuppetry, just pointing out a second article in this vein, and hopefully someone can help good faith supporters and creators of these articles understand why this kind of material doesnt belong here unless its a summary of a published authors views, with refs. These essays may be in fact true (not our call), but they are not verifiable from reliable sources, and WP is not a peer reviewed journal of philosophy, or a free webhosting service.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As the author says "Are the information content of this article not known to the people before?" since he says it is not, it does not belong here. I suggest a SNOW to avoid his further embarrassment. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Indestructible Properties -- The Anome (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: see also Talk:The Knowledge Which No One Can Have, where a recent edit by the article's creator seems to accept that this article should be / will be deleted. -- The Anome (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I learned something very useful for my future from wikipedia. Make people to write on your behalf, never write which is useful to the public. Many people will come with the same title or titles like indivisible potato or indivisible egg. If you are curious to know what I did, just looks at this link: http://the.secret.angelfire.com/secret.pdf Knowledge (XXG) will have daytime nightmares in deleting the article. I know how to motivate the people by insult. Let us play a fair game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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