Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 11 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:BAND, no one in favor of keeping. Carabinieri (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Band vanity page that was deleted by consensus once before. Does not meet the criteria for notability. Seanmercy (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW and agreement of nominator below. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The article is being treated as a means of self-promotion despite having been warned about being a COI editor. User page is also promo ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite the wording of this person's comment, his edit history indicates that he is not an SPA. I would advise him to avoid the appearance of being a canvassed voter however. Sven Manguard Talk 23:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. While WP:COI is certainly cause for concern, it is not an automatic criteria for deletion. While Candace Frazee may have been a major contributor to the article, I see several other people have contributed in major ways to it who have no discernible connection to the museum. I'm also finding plenty of third party coverage, including . And that's just three pages into the more reliable of the Ghits. I see no reason to delete. If you feel it is promotional, improve it to make it less so. I personally don't see anything inherently promotional about the article. Redfarmer (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Look again. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, then, revert her if she continues and report her to AIV if she continues after being warned. AfD is not the venue to be fighting this battle. Redfarmer (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:PGL, it is. WP:Promotion is clearly listed as causation for deletion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not if the promotion is only a small portion of the article that would not merit a significant rewrite, and other editors have actively edited the article. The instance you cited was one sentence that could be and was easily reverted. If it was truly promotional in nature, it could be speedied. This could not be. As I said, you're pursing entirely the wrong venue to take care of this problem. Redfarmer (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I up and removed the useless and irrelivent About the Owners section, which drastically improved the quality of the article. Being that this museum is recognized as a Guniess record holder, it meets notability requirements, and now without that "fluff" section on the onwers, I see no major problems with the article. Sven Manguard Talk 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I added a number of references to the article and helped re-write it. It seems to me that the subject is perfectly notable and has coverage spanning the ten+ years that the museum had been active. Silverseren 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep COI is not a fatal poison to the existence of an article, so that is not a strong reason for deletion. User page is irrelevant to AfD discussion. Leaving, alas, no solid rationale for deletion. Collect (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: As article writer I feel this is sourced and would like to make it very clear I have no connection with this subject matter other then adding the article. It passes general notability guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Doesn't hit any of the criteria for deletion. In particular, while the article may have been created for advertising, it does include relevant and useful content. me_and 09:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Seems notable enough, and seems very well cited. I do not see any good arguments for deletion offered. --Stroller (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can we close this discussion per WP:SNOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meand (talk • contribs) 11:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and has never made an appearances in a fully pro league. He has one appearance in the German cup, but it was in the first round against a fourth division team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify. How does this make the person notable? As far as I can tell he does not meet WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't meet the WP:ATHLETE. The only notability guideline I'm aware of that deals with cup fixtures is WP:FOOTYN, which specifically requires both team played for and against to be fully pro, and ATHLTE specifically states that youth international appearances do not count towards notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not enough coverage to satisfy the GNG, and cup appearances only satisfy WP:FOOTYN if both teams are professional, which isn't the case here. Recreate if and when he becomes notable.J Mo 101 (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: He does not meet the GNG and he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. Would Art, Jared or anyone else care to proffer a valid reason to keep? "it's who you play for, not who you play against" is not, as far as I can find, anywhere found in policy or guideline as an answer to deletion.  Ravenswing  16:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Once again, please specify how this cup appearance makes him notable. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nominator makes a plausable case for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS but I have to go with the rough consensus to keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Tragic event which fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Page itself says, "The incident is now almost entirely forgotten...". Deprodded by article creator. Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Event does not fail notability guidelines in the least, 'largely forgotten' or otherwise. Many other fires on Knowledge from the same period, particularly those from Western countries, had 1) a lower death toll and 2) raise no social and cultural concerns. The incident was also an arson, which gives it further notability regarding criminal history, 11 deaths is one of the highest counts for any convicted killing in the UK. As the complaint itself says, "Tragic event...". (AbrahamCat (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC))
  • Yes, other stuff does exist. Other equally notable articles. While the piece does mention that the incident is largely forgotten, this is only in relation of the scale of the incident in itself, which has cultural bearing in itself, and for sure the event has not faded entirely into obscurity. And at the risk of a tit-for-tat battle it probably was one of the highest death counts in the UK resulting in a conviction - 11 deaths is just 1 less than Fred West, and 2 less than Peter Sutcliffe. This whole instance seems very discouraging to contributions from non-wikipedia veterans. I'm at a loss to fathom why this article was forwarded for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbrahamCat (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment A significant fire. A significant crime. patsw (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable film. Prod deleted by IP author. No independent sources can be found to verify that this film exists. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 20:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This appears to be (a) blatant advertising (written in the first person) (b) unsourced (and I can't find any) and (c) directly copied from something (but I can't find what). Chris (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete The sources he used are at the bottom, just remove the word template and you have a functional web address. That being said, the sources are inadequate and the subject fails multiple policies, including WP:N. Sven Manguard Talk 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Really? Because one of the links is dead and the other one comes up with a web site that does not have the word for word information this article does. Can you quote a specific URL where you found the copyright infringement? Redfarmer (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Directly copied no, poorly written and/or ESL, yes. This is full of personal opinion, sections written as advertisements, and still is not properly sourced. The one existing source is a self-source, which doesn't really count. A lot of people see ESL (English as a Second Language) writing and think it's copied from somewhere. I don't see copied text, but the other issues do concern me. Sven Manguard Talk 23:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It isn't an article about a school, it's an advertisement for a religious institution and the beatification of one of their sisters. I can't find information about a school on their website, certainly nothing about a high school (the policy you are referring to says that generally high schools and up are notable, while middle and below are not) Sven Manguard Talk 01:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Tell me, where can I find a specific part that justifies the claim that it's about the beatification of one of their sisters. Or am I skipping some part of the text?--JL 09  12:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverified. There is absolutely no solid information at the article worth retaining - not even an address - and I could find nothing solid on the web. I couldn't even find out whether it is a secondary school (which are generally kept per Knowledge consensus) or an elementary school (which are generally merged to the locality). In this case, I wouldn't even merge to Molo, Iloilo City since nothing is verified. The school doesn't appear to have a website; the only link provided is to a convent (which is where all the cheerleading about beatification is located). (BTW there appear to be dozens of schools, in different parts of the Philippines, called Holy Rosary Academy.) We do try to keep articles about high schools, but there is nothing here worth keeping. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable flatulist. Peter Karlsen (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the reference and the only other mention in an RS I could find, he appears to only be discussed in passing. This doesn't seem to rise to level of significant coverage required by WP:NOTE. Peter Karlsen (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails notability criteria. Chris (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, "The Love That Is True" (note added quote marks). Chris (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

From the contributor

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 deletion under criteria A7 (web content with no indication of importance)

Spam. Related to other article which was nominated for deletion (English Premier League Fantasy Football). Bobbymozza (talk) 19:16 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was already deleted. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep This belongs at Redirects for discussion, not here. Apparently what is at issue is a redirect from Judgment of God to a different spelling in the title title Judgement of God. The redirect will assist those who have trouble deciding how to spell the word. This is not an opinion on whether the article about the 1952 French film in question should be deleted should be deleted. No reason was stated for the deletion, so it is a defective AFD in any event. Edison (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as G6 and tagged as such. This was created by the nominator and immediately proposed for deletion by the nominator so G6 applies. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Belongs at RfD. Although the article states that it is being discussed at RfD, I could not locate a discussion there. In my opinion, this is a plausible and useful redirect and should be kept. Cindamuse (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It means if I will create another article with misspelled title it should remain as redirect page. I did not know that. On other wikis misspelled redirect pages are deleted. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete Dravecky (talk · contribs) at 07:32, 12 October 2010 per A9. (NAC) Armbrust Contribs 16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS Jayjg 18:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. (A9) Unremarkable musical recording where artist's article doesn't exist. Lacks notability shown through significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. Cindamuse (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Mandsford 20:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The Knowledge is not a memorial to non-notable victims of tragedies. Classic, textbook WP:BLP1E for a person who would not even be considered for an article apart from this event. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2010

  • Please don't create straw man arguments. The claim to notability is that the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Any sort of claims of fleeting notability are debunked by simply checking the dates of the sources in the article, most of which are from years after the incident. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Brewcrewer. The classic example is trying to delete Lee Harvey Oswald because he was notable for one incident. Kansan (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of strawmen, you two are building a fine one. Of course there are exceptions, as noted at the WP:BLP1E page itself, i.e. John Hinckley, Jr.. If you can explain why this event is similarly significant or historical...without resorting to the usdual Israeli-Palaestinie topic area rhetoric...I'm all ears, bro. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E does not apply. She is not a living person.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. The most updated version of the article has 16 sources, 12 of which were written at least two years after the incident.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a such thing as a memorial page, and this ain't it. Kansan (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Knowledge is not a place for tendentious news summaries of one side's losses in the interminable Israeli-Palestinian civil war. My friend died in a car crash that was covered in the newspaper, does that mean I should write a Knowledge article about him? Take your pick: NOT NEWS, ONE EVENT, NOT A MEMORIAL, POV-PUSH. Carrite (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Was your friend's car crash talked about for years to come in internationally known newspapers? Kansan (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Indifferent I am getting sick of seeing editors write up articles about individual victims of this conflict. Between Asel Asleh and Applebaum I honestly can't tell the difference. IMO, a tit-for-tat struggle has evolved among editors trying to one-up each other over who can create the biggest collection of Israeli or Palestinian victims of war. Personally, I find the AFD dubious and reactionary considering the article was created a mere day ago. So I support Keep if the other articles are to remain. Only fair I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:BASIC by virtue of the numerous reliable, intellectually independent sources cited in the article. Also passes WP:VICTIM (though this is less clear-cut) by virtue of the numerous charities and such in her name. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • merge to the article on her father or the incident. She herself is notable only as one of several victims who happened to have a certain associated pathos from personal circumstances. This is tabloid coverage, not encyclopedic. The lead quote, calling her a tragic heroine, is diagnostic of tabloid writing. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Those exact words don't appear in the lead quote; "epic tragedy", which does, is not in WP's own voice. Time has shown that she and her story are especially notable, and remembered, not "only as one of several victims" (emphasis added). Hertz1888 (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, death and article about a non notable person. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Kepp—as sources make clear, this person is notable for her legacy, not necessarily any actions during life or the event itself. In fact, I believe that the last section should be renamed to "Legacy". —Ynhockey 18:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
it used to be "Legacy", but I changed it because I felt it may be a bit too melodramatic sounding. Of course I'm open to changing it back if the change is supported by another reasonable editor such as yourself.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
...whose article was kept despite never proving long term notability, unlike this subject. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Unsourced BLP that appears to be about a minor politician - PROD removed without rationale - unclear whether they meet WP:POLITICIAN Black Kite (t) (c) 18:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Doesn't appear notable; sources are either SP or not relevant to subject. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Does not appear to meet notability standards. No references, cannot be verified. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete The term non-random mutation is the creation of a Dutch creationist (who as a Knowledge user created this page) who tries to use Knowledge to legitimate his "theory" as science and spread the word. This page is an offshoot of GUToB Theory, which has already been deleted earlier. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Unreferenced stub with ambiguous notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 18:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Please refer to WP:BEFORE before nominating something else for deletion. The first thing that google spat out was the show's website, it took all of a minute to see that it opened 3 nights ago in the Wembley Arena and to see that the show has garnered numerous pieces in the UK press, notability is blatantly obvious to those who'd care to look. Someoneanother 20:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I found all that as well, within 5 minutes of looking. Is it just laziness to list for deletion instead of going out and looking for sources and additional information. This article should never have been nominated.scope_creep (talk) 20:23, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. I'm sure that the article will in short notice include a section summarizing reviews both from "mainstream" sources such as The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Daily Express and, er, The Herts Advertiser, and reliable sources aimed at the specialist audience such as SFX and Den of Geek; not to mention previews from Scotland on Sunday, Doctor Who Magazine and plenty of other sources, on- and offline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • All of these "reviews" simply amount to the standard UK-press back-slapping for the BBC. They do not represent anythinbg like the sort of critical and objective analysis that Knowledge would expect. They are, in fact, mere "advertising puff" such as would support an AFD-delete for almost any other commercial product. If this is till around in a year's time, or five, then it may be time to write up such subsidised fan-cruft. 62.25.109.196 (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Did you read the Telegraph review? Although the tone is light, I'd say that it contains substantial "critical and objective analysis" — for example, "the resulting jamboree – dazzling, deafening and brazenly gratuitous – is probably best appreciated by 11-year-old children and younger, or indeed those with an equivalent mental age" and "But to cite the deficiencies of Doctor Who Live is to miss the point entirely. " This is a proper review, no different than the sort of material that has been used to take the very similar Doctor Who Prom (2008) to GA status. Of the links I provided above, IMO only the Scotland on Sunday one can fairly be described as "advertising puff". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Newspapers cover stage performances, there's nothing unusual about the newspaper attention. Den of Geek is a UK-based online sci-fi magazine, SFX is in print and online and is again UK-based, why wouldn't they cover Dr. Who? There is notability here in spades and there are plenty of reliable sources which contain obvious criticism. Someoneanother 15:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Keep: The notion that Knowledge requires reliable sources to indulge in "critical and objective analysis" in order to qualify is an interesting one that, nonetheless, is nowhere found in policy or guideline. I want a better reason to disqualify organs such as The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph as reliable sources than an anon IP's dislike of the subject of the article and the newspapers' coverage of the same.  Ravenswing  16:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep please. Shouldn't have been nominated.htom (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This is a ludicrous nomination. --Divebomb (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

No references, cannot verify the existence of this genome. Either original research or an outright hoax. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Group does not appear to meet notability standards. Only one reference, and that has no link so it is difficult to verify. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable novel. No sources. Makes undocumented claim of Pulitzer Prize nomination, likely false. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable actor. No refs other than IMDB. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Appears to be original research; can't be sure, because there are no references whatsoever. Veracity is questionable. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete The term VIGE is the creation of a Dutch creationist (who as a Knowledge user created this page) who tries to use Knowledge to legitimate his "theory" as science and spread the word. This page is an offshoot of GUToB Theory, which has already been deleted earlier. This blog should suffice to prove that this is all about creationism and not science. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Notability not established. This article appears to be an autobiography (based on similarity of the contributing editor's name (Iwroteit1) the the subject's company name (Ingrid Wrote It)), and all references are self-published press releases or blogs. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable television commercial (advert). Only ref is a Youtube clip. No coverage by any independent source. Contested prod, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his reckless mass de-prodding of articles on October 11. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

HAL 9000 in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted through this process; recreated; still seems to be an indiscriminate list of popular culture references. Kansan (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • This article can serve no purpose Completly unsourced, barely notable, fancruft trivia. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It does serve a purpose, in that is aggregates the knowledge of the cultural concept of Hal 9000 and the use of that knowledge in common culture. An aggragation of knowledge exists no where else on the web. Sure the article needs some work, but it can be cleaned up, sourced added etc. Its is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 19:28, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
If it is notable as a cultural concept, this should be reliably sourced, and I see no such assertion. Furthermore, such an aggregation existing nowhere else online is not a reason to keep. Kansan (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Dude, I know you want to delete it. You have already stated your arguments for deletion. Let us discuss it first. Let me state mine. Knowledge is extremely bad at providing different views of information, that any modern database design engineer would spit at, because of it's crudity. It tied to a simple textual model that is extremly rigid in it's delivery of meaning and context. Simple articles like these could be created in seconds and tore down in any modern knowledge management system. But for this system, you can't do that, so we need static views of information, that otherwise can't be created. A reader can't sit down pull that information out of several articles without hours or days. So these types of articles are extremly useful.scope_creep (talk) 21:45, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
I do, but my point isn't just that; it's that the reason you've given to keep could be used to justify keeping almost any list. In fact, It's useful is specifically listed as an argument not to use in these discussion. Kansan (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The nom is an argument for improvement not deletion. The list on its face doesn't meet the Knowledge definition for indiscriminate patsw (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delayed fuse delete—I suggest giving it six months to cite what entries can be cited, then move the rest to a trivia sub-page off the talk page. If nothing can be cited, then it should go.—RJH (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment. This vote does not support the nomination, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's no deadline to provide cites. If you want some cites, add them. This argues for improvement, not deletion. patsw (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete - it was a random and unsourced list, is currently, and is likely to remain thus. Although I feel terrible ... poor Hal is always being deleted. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Also here: an argument for improvement, not deletion. patsw (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - as a repost of previously deleted material. If not considered eligible for speedy, then delete as a repository of unreferenced trivia and original research. "This one TV show has a computer with a name that's kind of like HAL 9000 and this other show has an episode with a computer that says 'Dave'" is not the basis of a Knowledge article. A Radish for Boris (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Removed the speedy. It's already at AfD, please don't try to circumvent discussion of it,once started. As for the "re-creation" issue, that was three years ago and non-admins have no way to see if it bears any relation to the previous article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the backhanded accusation of bad faith. If it's eligible for speedy then it's eligible for speedy whether an AFD is opened or not. There's nothing in the speedy deletion guidelines that says otherwise. A Radish for Boris (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A Radish for Boris has been blocked as a sock of User:Otto4711, better known in these parts as User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • KeepHAL is a big enough influence that there's plenty here for an article, even after removing the cruft. Once again, these items each need to be sourced - being "obvious influences" isn't enough (even when true), as that's WP:OR. Cleanup still isn't the same thing as deletion though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment If you think about it, the article itself, is the sources. Its utter nonsense to say that because their isn't a definitive web page or book, apart from Colonel Wardens reference, somewhere on the web, to establish notability, doesn't make it not notable. Its a core part of popular culture, especially in geekdom and the science fiction folks and has been parodied more times over the last 40 years, than I can shake a stick at. The fact that nobody has sat down and aggregated that knowledge somewhere else, doesn't make it less notable either. The reality is that is taken for granted that is part of popular culture, otherwise it would drop of the cultural map and be forgotten about. Keep the article. scope_creep (talk) 19:18, 12 october 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-referenced, useful article. It's not like we're going to run out of shelf space anytime soon. AkankshaG (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to the parent article (from where it should not have been split in the first place, or Keep - can be sourced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • SMerge back to HAL 9000. This list could be endless, but in the end all this list says is "Hal 9000 has often been referenced in popular culture." Only a selected few entries are needed to make this case, and would in fact make a decent section in the main article. – sgeureka 06:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup There's a bunch of worthless, poorly phrased junk in here, but I don't doubt that it can, in fact, be cleaned up. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess Keep cuz I kinda like these things (and I've never understood why the media example itself can't be the reference. An obscure book or magazine no one has access to is fine as a ref, but a TV show widely available on DVD is unacceptable?!), but my purpose in posting here isn't so much to influence whether it stays or goes, but to ask that should this article get nuked, why can't it be turned into a redirect to HAL 9000, and if you're really worried about it being brought back, then make it a protected redirect. If deletion in all forms (Grrrr...) is somehow an absolute necessity under WP:BORING,NOFUN&CRUEL, then would it be possible to move it to Annex Wiki or WikiList, and by that I mean use the export and import functions to properly transfer the contents, history included, and in doing so credit all of the contributors. It's too late for that to be done with List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey. The fact that this not only doesn't get done in most instances of this kind of deletion, but worse yet doesn't appear to even be considered is a beef I have with Knowledge. Think it doesn't belong here and should be wiped out? Fine, but just don't take away the capability users have of transferring the content to where it can be relocated and considered appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.251 (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that: Per User:Casliber. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep with the codicil that the references be added. Skier Dude (talk 06:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient material and sourcing. This is possibly the most famous fictional computer, and would consequently be expected,as it does, to be celebrated in popular culture. Dpo fsr from there being need for a section with only a selected few items, there is need for an extensive listing. we aim an full encyclopedic coverage, not just selected highlights. This isnot an abreidge encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect or Merge. This is a list of appearances of HAL 9000 in other media. Such a list of appearances is not an article. It has no analysis, and is a content fork of the HAL 9000 article. That article shamefully makes no mention at all of the resonance that HAL 9000 has had in popular culture. I really dislike forking out these "... in popular culture" pages, not because the topic of "... in popular culture" is somehow bad, but because it is a violation of the WP:Neutral point of view policy when the main article is "sanitized" of pop culture. Abductive (reasoning) 09:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Relatively new journal established in 2007, not indexed in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals). Deprodded by an editor named "The De-PROD Meister" with justification "You cant be sure, take it to AfD", so here we are. Crusio (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Unneeded list. There is no equivalent list for actors of any other national origin, and creating such a list gives inappropriate attention to national origins. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 17:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

List of secular law schools in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undefined, unreferenced list. At best this is a subset of the List of law schools in the United States, but clearly does not contain all the "secular" schools from the latter list. I don't see any point in trying to make the list more complete, because even then it would merely duplicate information listed elsewhere, nor is there anything in the article to explain the alleged significance of a distinction between "secular" and "non-secular" law schools. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep What's wrong with duplicating information? The information is held under a different name, so in reality, it's not duplicated, it's just ordered differently and as such is a different Ontology. As regards the secular, non secular argument, it may be important to somebody looking for information on secular law schools, who don't want to be badgered at a religious organisation, because they are secular. Its good encyclopedic knowledge. Knowledge that is sorted is much better than knowledge that is generic and unsorted. It's a good subgrouping. scope_creep (talk) 19:38, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just thinking out loud here... I'm wondering whether this list is predicated on a POV, that law schools connected to universities that have no religious affiliation are different in character from those that do. I went to a law school connected to a Jesuit university, but the law school was managed completely separately from the main campus, had a faculty that appeared to be mostly Jewish, went out of its way to provide multi-faith services to students... It felt just as secular in most ways as the state school I went to for undergrad. All of which may be completely beside the point, I don't know. I'm just thinking that this list is attempting to say something by its categorization that may or may not be true of its entries. Maybe it would be cured by renaming it to something like, List of law schools in the United States without religious affiliation, but as with the nom I wonder what the point of such a list would be. Maybe just add a sortable column for religious affiliation to List of law schools in the United States? postdlf (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Since a majority of law schools (and 100% of the publicly-funded ones) are "secular", this is a pointless exercise. Might as well make a list of U.S. Senators who are white males. List of law schools in the United States would benefit from an extra column to distinguish between private and public universities, and, to the extent that a private law school has a religious component, a note to that effect. Mandsford 22:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless list, very incomplete, probably propounded by someone with a POV agenda. As pointed out by Mandford, probably 90% of the 200 or so law schools in the United States do not have a religious bent or affiliation, but this list contains fewer than 50. Actually, if you want to make the distinction for some reason, it would make more sense to list the ones that do have a religious slant. There are no comparable articles such as List of religious law schools, List of secular medical schools, List of Christian universities, etc., so you have to wonder what inspired this. If kept the name should be changed as per Postdlf, but there is no reason to keep it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. The list has no purpose. U.S. law is secular, making it difficult to imagine what law schools would not appear on the list. (My best guesses as to what law schools would not deserve to be included are schools of sharia law, schools of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical law, and schools of Judaic law, but I'm not aware that any such exist.) Not only is there no purpose to this list, but I agree with the others who have pointed out that it's woefully incomplete. --Orlady (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Special Science Senior Secondary School, Makurdi, Benue State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is largely a procedural nomination due to a contested deletion. This article was originally marked for deletion under CSD A7 by User:Abutorsam007; User:Dpmuk removed the CSD notice on the grounds that schools do not qualify under A7. Abu then came to the #wikipedia-en-help channel on IRC and spoke to myself and several other users about how to proceed with the article. We came to an agreement that the article needed to go (I'll explain my reasoning in a moment), but while it was borderline for several, we could not find that it fit squarely within a single speedy deletion crtieria. In the end, I deleted the article with the reasoning "single sentence provides no encyclopedic value", as while no CSD applied, I felt that PROD'ing or AfD'ing the article would be an unnecessary waste of the community's time, and the narrow definitions of the criteria were in this case preventing efforts to improve the project - or perhaps more appropriately, preventing the community from focusing time on improving the project elsewhere.

Dpmuk has now contested the deletion (discussion here), and so we're back to what I'd tried to avoid. I still strongly feel as though this article, such as it is, still needs to be deleted. It does not justify the notability of the school in any way; it provides absolutely no encyclopedic content beyond the founding date of the school and its rough location; due to chronic grammatical errors, what little content it has is difficult to read; it is so short it nearly qualifies for speedy deletion under A1 or A3; and anyone wishing to write a proper article would need to start from scratch with a more proper title for the page in any event. Hersfold 16:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject hence lacks WP:GNG, Also its a one line statement with no encyclopedic content.(  Abu Torsam  18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC))
    But aren't all high schools considered inherently notable because sources will be there. We can't apply one rule for US high schools and another for Nigerian high schools as that's extremely biased. If we assume the sources are there for US high schools then we have to assume they're there for this school, just harder to find. Dpmuk (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is "inherently notable" - see WP:INHERITED Codf1977 (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, if we're going to be pedantic, nothing is de jure inherently notable but de facto they pretty much are as has been demonstrated by numerous AfDs. Doesn't alter the fact that we could be showing bias, because as mainly English speaking editors in a limited number of countries we'd stuggle to find sources in Nigeria. Tikiwont below has shown that it is possible to find some sources. I was mainly asking to explain a bit more the justification for your !vote given past precedence (this could be as simple as I disagree with the precedent). Your second point I agree with, but it's not currently a speedy delete criteria, and see my comment below on why I think it's important to have discussion on the issue - hopefully by having them now we'll make things easier in future - think of this as a bit of a test case. If consensus is very clear here then I may well use it as the reason to start an RfC on extending the speedy delete criteria. Dpmuk (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it as bias, but understand how some might see it that way, I tend not to be governed by precedent, but what is there in frount of me at the time. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG - agree with nom this is a waste of the community's time - is it getting cold ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    Please see my reply to the above !vote. Dpmuk (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think I'll explain my reasoning more for asking for this to be brought to AfD. Secondary schools have repeatedly held to be inherently notable and at the same time one-line stubs are often held to be viable stubs, hence I think it's a stretch to think that a one-line stub on a secondary school will inevitably be deleted. As the speedy deleting admin stated this article met no speedy delete criteria and consensus is far from clear when IAR speedys should be allowed but most people seem to think it should only be in very clear cut cases, which I've just explained I don't think this is. Additionally, unless an article is unsalvageable it is unusual for an article to be deleted because of the state it's in. A few minutes work by me has made the article I think in a much better state.
    In many ways I hope that this is a very clear cut decision so that we can start forming consensus that articles such as this can be speedy deleted but until such time as a consensus is clear (on wikipedia, allowing all wikipedians, including those that don't use IRC, to take part) that they can be, speedy deletions like this are out of line and could be harming the project in two ways. Firstly and most importantly by hindering consensus building that such articles should be speedy deleted and secondly by possibly discouraging new users who see their new article deleted for no allowable reason. Dpmuk (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Seems that one of their teachers developed a "Multipurpose Solar Energy Device". . It has recently been renovated and there should be other more positive news that this stabbing. --Tikiwont (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tikiwont has already found some sources, and there's coverage in these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've added some sourced content to the article. This is a good demonstration of why admins should not be speedy deleting articles against the consensus-agreed criteria. The waste of time has been caused here by the rush to delete an article rather than making any effort to improve it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. In Nigerian terms this school is more important than most US High Schools. It should have been pretty obvious that with time and effort, sources would be found, as they have been. English is one of the languages of Nigeria. We should cover it as well as we cover the US, UK, Australia etc. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable school. Verifiable information. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. WikiManOne (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The existence of this school is confirmed, and its status as a secondary school is confirmed, per links provided at the article. According to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes##Schools, the consensus has been to keep secondary schools unless they fail verifiability. Thus, this is a keeper. I hope we are not trying to apply some kind of First World prejudice against Third World schools that may not have a website or a plethora of web-listed newspapers to prove notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It is firmly established that all secondary schools with a genuine existence are considered notable for Knowledge purposes.-- and, as expected, sources have been found, which is why we have that general practice. We also have a general practice of making decisions about articles in open discussions on Knowledge, not on irc. The article cannot be judged on the basis of prior discussion there, which should not even have been mentioned here. The nom's speedy was totally out of place, as he seems not to understand the basic speedy criterion that a short article with identifying information is not empty. He is welcome to his own view at AfD of course, but he has given no reason for not following our usual criteria. Indeed, the result of investigation further supports them. I additionally mention cultural bias, with respect to the area of the world about which we have the most disproportionately scarce information here. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Since the nomination of the article the source situation hos improved dramatically. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This page is original research, problematically interpreting the given countries of origin for Nobel laureates with current population estimates of the countries that have changed over the years when laureates received their prize. This article does not assert importance of such a list; further, many prizes are shared, so the statistics don't work anyway. Quigley (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You just mentioned it. List of Nobel prizes by country is a perfectly reasonable list - I'm sure we already have it's equivalent somewhere. The OR is adding 'by capita' - the creator has sourced the population of the modern country (with present day boundaries) in 2010, then divided the 2010 population by the number of prizewinners as ascribed by the BBC to each country to make some kind of a point - as evidenced by the criticism section. That is classic OR - the BBC remarked on the relative distribution per country. No-one appears to have ever done research on prizes per head of population. The editor himself (and no-one else) appears to have arbitrarily decided to calculate all the Czech winners based on the 2010 population of the Czech republic, despite the fact that 4 of the 5 won the prize while it was Czechoslovakia. Knowledge editors are not supposed to do this kind of thing. Classic OR.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've completely removed the OR bits from the article and moved it to List of countries by Nobel laureates. Maybe the table should be merged into List of Nobel laureates by country? Pristino (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would not be inappropriate I think.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz 19:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Amateur sportsman - Rotherhan Phoenix is an amateur club Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete. This is all written by him and his mates. Chris (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. FruitMonkey (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Speedy SNOW Delete - This is obviously a hoax article written as a joke. It should have been CSD'ed. Brinsworth School for "Kids Who Can't Read Too Good"? Come on folks, application of a bit of common sense here. GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete - too small and fat for wikipedia...--Stemoc (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agree totally with GainLine. noq (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  06:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Academic journal of unclear notability. Apparently not indexed anywhere, no third-party references. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG Deprodded by article creator, who posted a few book references on the talk page where the journal was being cited. However, a few citations does not make for notability. As far as I can see, it's basically just a sort of email list, even if it has an ISSN. I would like this to stay, but unfortunately I don't see anything that establishes notability. Crusio (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Free electronic refereed journals: getting past the arc of enthusiasm
Reviewing the Review Revues
Comparative literature in an age of globalization page 146 *might* have a passing mention of the journal's archive of book reviews, but it is outside Google's preview
TMR notes:
  1. Crawford, Walt (2002-04-01). "Free electronic refereed journals: getting past the arc of enthusiasm". Learned Publishing. 15 (2). Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers: 117–123. doi:10.1087/09531510252848881. ISSN 0953-1513. This informal study looked at 104 titles listed in the 1995 Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters and Academic Discussion Lists ... 1993: ... 2000: 12/250+. Bryn Mawr Medieval Review (now The Medieval Review). Reviews only.
  2. Persing, Bob (2003-09-12). "Reviewing the Review Revues". Serials Review. 29 (3). Elsevier Science Inc.: 237–242. doi:10.1016/S0098-7913(03)00054-6. Examples of both types of journals are examined to see how well their online versions reflect and enhance their print content ... These two journals dispensed with the longer criticism, focusing specifically on book reviews written by a broad cadre of academics.
-84user (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not saying it's not legit or not useful. All I'm saying is that there are no sources establishing notability, which is not the same thing. I'll work the refs that 84user has dredged up into the article, but I don't think they are of sufficient import to make this journal notable. --Crusio (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I started the page for only one reason: I wished Knowledge could have told me what it was. If I search for something and I have to do multiple searches, I build a Wikipage, so other people can get that info. So I think the page is needed, and it appears in books here, here and here among other places. So I say keep the page, it is notable. History2007 (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Look, it makes not a dime if difference to my life whether this page lives or dies. But if Knowledge is to help users, might as well tell them what this journal run by a group of distinguished academics who live 900 years ago is. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • PS And although I agree that this journal would be an RS, being peer-reviewed does not guarantee that. There is currently a proliferation of very low-quality e-journals and I think many of them will not survive and even if they do, won't ever be noticed/notable. Except perhaps for being bad... (see Bentham Science Publishers, for instance). --Crusio (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I frequently read the book reviews at TMR with interest, but there is simply not sufficient substantive coverage in reliable independent sources for this to meet the requirements of WP:WEB or WP:N. There are many delightful, interesting, and useful things in the world that do not lend themselves to being topics of Knowledge articles. Deor (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Established cademic journals published by major academic presses are always or almost always going to be notable. (BTW, it may not be obvious, but the original title "Bryn Mayr medieval review" is a tribute to the American school that was one the the 19th century pioneers in graduate study in classical and medieval studies.) I very rarely disagree with Crusio on this topic, but I do here. Even though our discussion of the notability standard --a discussion in which he and I took almost identical positions --is fairly recent, I think opinion on Knowledge is moving to a broader inclusion here. My own view has changed, in fact,to the opinion that we should as an exception to WP:N decide that it is appropriate to write an article on every publications used as a source in a Knowledge article or likely to be so used, as a guide to users. Such guidance is an appropriate auxiliary function of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
How do you class this among "established cademic journals published by major academic presses", DGG? What is the "major academic press"? This is an online "publication" that, as near as I can tell, is unaffiliated with any university press. Deor (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You know guys, I wish to God I had not come across this journal. Would have saved so much time for everyone. But now that it is there, let me just observe and be amazed. History2007 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I "came across this journal" (which is actually a forum for online book reviews, not a journal) a number of years ago and appreciate its existence, but the fact remains that nothing that DGG or you say or do will magically turn it into an "established academic journal published by a major academic press". It looks as though this discussion is such that no admin will dare to delete the article on its basis, but that doesn't mean that the article satisfies Knowledge's inclusion criteria; it simply means that no admin will apply those criteria in the face of "keep" !votes from a fellow admin along with a few editors who have opined without sufficient investigation. There's no reason for you to wish to God for anything; it's simply business as usual at Knowledge. Deor (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I do wish to God I had not started this page. Given that Intangible property has zero references, the effort in the discussion here, should go there, I think. Also Search engine technology, zero refs, etc. History2007 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. This is an unreferenced article about a non-notable house in Windsor, England which is now a Bed & Breakfast hotel. Its only apparent claim to fame is that it once appeared in the background in a 1963 slapstick film - even the B&B's website doesn't mention this. No encyclopaedic value whatever. andy (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This article concerns a musical act that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. The "sources" provided are actually only two collections of downloadable files, an information page on pulque, and an interview(?) for which I can't find any online record. Several combinations of Google search terms failed to demonstrate any significant, independent coverage. The claim of "four tours of the United States and one tour of Europe" is not supported. — Scientizzle 14:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This user is attacking all of my contributions (of which there are not many) as a result of a disagreement carrying over from another article (AIDS Denialism). I move to remove this article from consideration for deletion, on account of his demonstrable personal bias. Also, he has no sense of humor, which is widely evident from his stupid user page. Eliseunder (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we've interacted in any fora, including AIDS denialism or Talk:AIDS denialism, but your dubious edits in another arena and childish personal attacks really have no bearing on whether this subject meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC. Perhaps you can provide some major independent coverage about this artist that I may have overlooked? — Scientizzle 13:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A check shows that although both have edited AIDS Denialism and Talk:AIDS denialism there has been no interaction there. This appears to be simply a personal attack and irrelevant to any policy or guideline issues concerning this AfD. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a thoroughly non-notable group; the article is close to being promotional and makes no demonstration of the group's notability. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Knowledge:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

  • "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
  • "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
  • "Winning or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
  • "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. First, this is not a Recentism issue. Second, Brad still holds the record for biggest total money winnings on Jeopardy! For that achievement alone he is notable. Third, a quick Google shows that his win over Ken Jennings was highly publicized and that voluminous outside treatment should be enough to establish notability. Fourth, even if Rutter had never been on Jeopardy! he would still probably qualify as a minor Pennsylvania television celebrity for his hosting of Inquizative. Robert K S (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment–Biggest total money winner on foo game show does not prove notability. There are not articles for the biggest winners on Wheel of Fortune, Family Feud, Price is Right, etc. because this is not criteria that alone proves notability. WP:ENTERTAINER–Every person who has hosted a television show does not meet notability guidelines. Subject has not had significant roles in..television shows...does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, etc. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You're simply fabricating rationalizations for being deletionist. This is a figure of notability. He held the record for winning more money on American TV than anyone. And he didn't do it in a one-off gig like Wheel--he went up against a lot of tough competition over several difficult tournaments. This alone should make him notable, but I notice you also ignored my other points. You're simply interested in focusing on one thing--"delete all game show winners from Knowledge"--and that's sufficient justification for you. It's a little tiring to keep up with all your nominations and it's basically unfair because it monopolizes the time of all who would challenge your determinations in order to keep the content around. Robert K S (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sottolacqua, I'm a major deletionist, but that deletes 95% of television biographies if you only keep those who "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Rutter is clealy notable, and your comparisons fail to stand up. I've made some broad notability assumptions too, but calling every game show winner non-notable is absurd. Reywas92 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I've not stated that every game show winner is non-notable. There are several game show winner/contestant articles that are clearly notable subjects (Charles Van Doren, Marie Winn, Joyce Brothers, Randy West, Larry Toffler, Charles Ingram, etc.). I have made no statement claiming that all game show winners are non-notable, and to categorize my efforts as that "is absurd". The AFDs I have started recently include similar arguments that simply becoming a champion on a game show does not make someone notable enough to warrant an article here. There have been hundreds of game shows with tens of thousands of contestants. Holding a one-day winnings record (that was later exceeded) on any given game show is not criteria that proves notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. However, that was not the case with Rutter, who was never a one-day winnings record holder. He was and remains the all-time Jeopardy! winnings record holder, and also was at one point the all-time highest American game show winnings record holder. Either of these would be sufficient to sustain notability provided that they were backed up by some press, which is no problem in Rutter's case. While certain one-day Jeopardy! record holders probably don't meet notability standards either, the one-day record in combination with additional notable achievements results in a compound argument for notability which you seem to have only been attempting to attack by dissecting each factor rather than attacking the figure's notability as a whole given all of the factors involved taken together (as with, say Chuck Forrest or Jerome Vered). Robert K S (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, can anyone in this discussion actually name a single Wheel of Fortune contestant who wasn't their friend or relative (without doing a Google search)? You can't lump all game shows together. Jeopardy has a different sort of cultural resonance. Zagalejo^^^ 06:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin close) there isn't really a policy-based reason to delete the article. Secret 22:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Knowledge:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

  • "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
  • "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
  • "Winning or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
  • "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Frank's notoriety for decades on the NYC subway beat as the Jeopardy!-winning transit cop, along with his distinguishing height, trademark mustache and soft-spoken manner made him one of the most memorable Jeopardy! contestants. His name frequently comes up on the show as one of the show's greats. His records were longstanding. He was one of the few champions chosen to be highlighted in a "where-are-they-now?"-type "Champion Update" interlude on the Jeopardy! program. Your quotations above give unfair treatment to the subject as they give the impression that all he did was win money. That's not what fixed him in the minds of so many, and the same can be said of several other of your nominations. Robert K S (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment—Appearing on a game show and being remembered for it by your coworkers does not equate to meeting notability guidelines for inclusion on Knowledge. His ("memorable") physical characteristics are not part of the article and should not be used as a factor for determining whether or not the subject meets notability guidelines (and wouldn't be a valid argument, anyway). Appearing on a "where are they now" video on the show's official site also does not elevate the subject's status to meet notability standards here. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Knowledge is not the Guinness Book of Gameshow Trivia. Are we going to start memorializing lottery winners, too? —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
Revisiting this after seeing the other Jeopardy winner pages, I note one NY Post cite, which I think can be dismissed under the aegis of NOT NEWS. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
Incidentally, Knowledge does treat (not "memorialize") certain most notable lottery winners. Abraham Shakespeare is a significant example. I don't think it's too much to ask for some of the most noteworthy game show winners to be similarly treated. We are not talking about dozens of individuals. We are talking about only the most significant record-holders, or those people who are otherwise notable in other fields. Robert K S (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Knowledge:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

  • "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
  • "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
  • "Winning or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
  • "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Bulk of references are links to an unpublished Jeopardy! fansite. Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep; Forrest's records and style of play exemplified the Jeopardy! champion for a generation. He co-authored a book on the subject. Even as late as 1999, well after his appearances, his name was used as a synonym for the Jeopardy! player par excellence. While I agree that in most instances Jeopardy! players who are not noteworthy for accomplishments outside of the show do not meet notability criteria, Forrest is an exception. So too, clearly, would be Frank Spangenberg and Brad Rutter, contestants whose records and achievements on the show are well-remembered and well-documented in the press. Robert K S (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment–Style of play "known as the 'Forrest Bounce'" is WP:OR. The ref in University of Phoenix Special Edition Series: Financially Focused Quality is a very brief, two-sentence mention about one player's strategy in picking clues. One single mention like this does not prove notability, nor does the strategy hold the clout that the article claims it does. This strategy is not well-documented or employed by other contestants beyond Forrest's appearance on the show. WP:Author does not apply as the subject is not regarded as an important figure; is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Please, "Forrest Bounce" is not OR, any more than "zone defense" is OR. The "Forrest Bounce" was called as much and written about before Knowledge was around. The statement "This strategy is not well-documented or employed by other contestants beyond Forrest's appearance on the show", however, is OR, and you should be a little embarrassed that you're fabricating statements in order to justify your nomination. Robert K S (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Zone defense may/may not be a technique employed by multiple sports franchises, however that article is equally filled with original research and lacks sources documenting its employment, the same argument that can be applied to the "Forrest Bounce". My statement about the "Forrest Bounce" strategy is not original research; Googling key terms returns results back to the Jeopardy Archive (an unpublished fansite), Forrest's article here on WP, and links to various blogs/message boards discussing the strategy. These are not links published in notable, verifiable media. You could reference the strategy as it's mentioned in Bob Harris's book may be an arguable inclusion for notability, but one reference by a secondary contestant in his own book is not notable media coverage of the article subject or the strategy employed. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not just Bob's book, it's also Mike Dupée's, and have you checked Jennings's? Not to mention the book by Forrest/Lowenthal? See, the problem is you're making stuff up. Robert K S (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that these items are not referenced within the subject's article. As an editor, it is not my responsibility to find these sources. If these are notable references to the article subject (or a strategy that would otherwise make the article subject notable), it is the responsibility of those editors who feel this topic is notable to include those references in the article and to argue for notability. Accusing another editor of "making things up" is clearly not assuming good faith and is also unrelated to this deletion discussion. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sotto, you lost the presumption of good faith with me years ago. You're a deletionist whose editing actions show that you believe that improving the encyclopedia more or less involves whittling it down. And it is not ethical of you to marshal falsities in support of your agenda, which you have done here, regardless of whether all the references you desire have been added to the text of the article. "Forrest Bounce is OR". False. "This strategy is not well-documented or employed by other contestants beyond Forrest's appearance on the show." False. Why not just say that such things appear not to be in evidence in the article, rather than making assertions? Robert K S (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
"Forrest bounce" is now cited: Bob Harris. Prisoner of Trebekistan. p. 85 (3 paragraphs about Forrest bounce; subsequent pages provide humorous anecdote about Forrest applying the technique to his book of study material to a resigned Harris). RJaguar3 | u | t 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment re: "Bulk of references are links to an unpublished Jeopardy! fansite.": references are to the episodes themselves, which qualify under WP:SELFPUB as information on how Forrest did on those episodes (although we must be careful to avoid WP:OR); the J-Archive link is merely a courtesy link. I just got rid of the "references" not meeting that criterion. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm getting tired of copying and pasting. Jeopardy seems to have a fan following sort of like sports, which is probably why game show trivia pages get made for its champions. Nevertheless, the fact is that it is NOT a sport. Create a page called List of Jeopardy! money winners and I've got no beef, but pages for a multitude of successful players is beyond reason, in my opinion. Top champ? Sure. That Jennings dude? He crossed over into popular culture, no problem with him either. Other than that, this is trivia and should go away, in my opinion. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
Most of human history is "trivia" to most people. There are no "facts" at issue here, merely notability. And multiple, independently published sources have been produced here in this discussion attesting to Forrest's notability as a player and as the creator of the eponymous "bounce". 271828182 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - As noted in the recent AfD discussion about David Madden, we should never delete an article that has appeared as a "Do You Know" on the Main page. Forrest is also notable for being an author and Congressional candidate. --Punchi (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Per WP:POLITICIAN, Forrest was merely a candidate in the primary election for the House seat and not a "politician who held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" and was not a "major local political figure who received significant press coverage." WP:POLITICIAN also states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." The DYK section merely gives publicity articles that are new or had been recently expanded and is a way to "give thanks" to editors who are doing the bulk of work. Appearing in the DYK is not criteria that also equates to notability, and the notability discussion is unrelated to the article's status or visibility here on WP. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I cannot find any sources that verify this let alone make it notable. I originally thought this was a hoax but perhaps it is not. Google searches for Budi swamy and Budiswami come up with nothing but Knowledge or Facebook links. Nyttend points out that there may be a transliteration issue; if sources are found I will withdraw. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment I put the verify tag on it because I had suspicions. I still have suspicions, especially as 'Budi swamy' is on Facebook. I've checked 'budi swamy', 'budy swamy' 'budi swami' and 'budiswamy' but can find nothing except one or two to the temple - which doesn't indicate much notability for that either.There's nothing much for 'sant budi' (saint budi), or -y, except Facebook again. If he did exist, there's no notability found yet. Peridon (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete No sources have been presented at all, and none are extremely likely to appear. I declined the idea of speedying this as a hoax simply because of the subject; it's not surprising that a seventeenth-century person from India would have no web presence. Additionally, Facebook links make it somewhat more plausible that this guy existed. Nothing that I've said is enough of a reason to keep this article, but it's enough of a reason to delete it slowly in the odd chance that (1) print sources are available, and (2) someone with such print sources is able to contribute to this article before the debate time ends. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Copied from article talk page
  • "Till today no information has been posted about "Budi Swamy",who was a great saint and yogi of 17th century,whose temple exists in Satigihalli,Hirekerur taluk,Haveri district,Karnataka state,India.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Knowledge:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

  • "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
  • "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
  • "Winning or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
  • "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Being a blind game show contestant is not something that is notable. He didn't set a trend of other blind contestants appearing on Jeopardy! or any other game shows, he's not the biggest winner ever, he's not foo, etc. His appearance has had no notable impact to the show, television, culture, etc. whatsoever. There are not articles for hearing impaired/deaf contestants who have appeared on Wheel of Fortune, handicapped/wheelchair-using contestants who have appeared on Price is Right, etc. These are not notable criteria.

Subject authored articles that appeared in USA Today, however wp:author does not apply as the subject is not regarded as an important figure; is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc.

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy keep, plainly notable as a blind contestant with an exceptional achievement and a great deal of press and repeated recollection through the years. Additionally, the nominator should withdraw the above nomination and re-nominate with remarks addressed to this individual article and its notability rather than a generalized cut-and-paste nomination which may falsely attribute quotations of anonymous other editors, out of context, to this nomination. Robert K S (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Status as blind contestant (combined with articles in NY Times and USA Today) put this page in a different class than the run of the mill "This guy won a bunch of money on a game show" pages. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
  • Keep as I suggested in the previous discussion. Articles from Washington Post about his job as a basketball statkeeper and about his Jeopardy! appearance demonstrate significant coverage that creates a presumption of notability. Whether this proved to be significant in the course of history is irrelevant. The sine qua non of notability is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which the sources given clearly demonstrate. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply for the reason I stated above (he's also noted in Jackman as a statkeeper and USA Today sports correspondent); even if it were, this would be an argument for move to Eddie Timanus's Jeopardy! appearance (an article about the event, cf. Steve Bartman incident) or merge to List of Jeopardy! champions (where notability is presumed as a criterion for inclusion. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Primary and secondary sources are available for the act, and the information is demonstratably useful, so is good encyclopedic knowledge. Worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 22:04, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep BLP1E is not an issue. Timanus was in the news for his statskeeping work years before he was on Jeopardy. It doesn't matter if he failed to "set a trend" for blind contestants; all the GNG asks is that he received the coverage. (I would actually argue that the lack of other blind contestants makes Timanus' accomplishments more impressive. But I've told you that before.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge multiple contestants who have no other coverage into a list article, such as List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. No reason for each person to have his or her own article, based on my brief review of the evidence, but these appear to have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thus, if merged into a list, there's a clear potential for an FLC to come out of this. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jeopardy! (or a suitable other target) for the time being, the suggestion to create a list of important contensants that don't otherwise support a stand-alone article is a good one. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Knowledge:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

  • "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
  • "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
  • "Winning or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
  • "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD.

Sottolacqua (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy keep on the grounds that the deletion nomination and the arguments above are generalized statements cut-and-paste by the nominator to a large series of deletion nominations and are not directed to this individual article. This individual is a co-author of a book on the subject of Jeopardy!. Essentially, the nominator has set up several "straw men" in this and his other nominations that the individuals whose articles are nominated for deletion do not qualify for notability because "just winning on a game show doesn't make one notable", ignoring that in each case these aren't people who "just won on a game show" but instead have other factors involved as well: superlative records, long-standing records, significant press, authorship of books, repeated and long-standing recollection on the show, or other minor claims to celebrity. Faced with these arguments, the nominator simply argues them one-by-one--or declines to address them--in either case ignoring what ought to be seen as a compounding effect that adds up to notability. Robert K S (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment—This individual does not have a superlative or long-standing record, and has not received significant press. He merely won about $160k on a game show, a figure many others on several different shows have surpassed. Not even every $500,000 or $1 million winner on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? is notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The subject fails WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines, which state that the subject must be regarded as an important figure; be known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; or has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc. This person simply wrote a book about their experiences on a game show. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment how much money a contestant wins or how many times they appear is irrelevant to WP:GNG, which I claim is satisfied (see below). In particular, notability is not about winning a WP:BIGNUMBER of games or dollars. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is probably the worst of the Lucky Winner of a Gameshow pages. No biographical nothing, scant information about routine amount of money won, no compelling sources. There are a FEW of the Jeopardy Winner pages that clear commonly accepted notability standards, in my opinion, but this clearly isn't one of them. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
  • Move to Mark Lowenthal's Jeopardy! appearance per WP:BLP1E (when a living person is notable for only one event, we write about the event), and rewrite article accordingly. I found sources covering his appearance significantly:
    • Patricia Brennan. "Man Wins Jackpot on Game Show." The Washington Post. November 20, 1988. p. y.05. (498 words; Lowenthal is the main subject)
    • Patricia Ward Biederman. "Backstage at 'Jeopardy!': Tune in for the Nervous Hopefuls, the Hard-working Researchers, the Well-dressed Host and the Amazing Winners on the Smart Set's Favorite Game Show." Los Angeles Times. January 29, 1989. p. 19. (4671 words; Lowenthal is covered specifically in three paragraphs in the article).
Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject creates a presumption of notability (WP:GNG). Thus, the article should not be deleted but moved to cover the event per WP:BLP1E. (Incidentally, I saw Forrest and Lowenthal's Secrets of the Jeopardy! Champions cited in a bunch of articles but not significantly enough to qualify as a second event.) RJaguar3 | u | t 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Knowledge:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Subject authored a story that appeared in an online speculative fiction magazine, however wp:author does not apply as the subject is not regarded as an important figure is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

  • "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
  • "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
  • "Winning or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
  • "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD.

Sottolacqua (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment The nominator should withdraw the above nomination and re-nominate with remarks addressed to this individual article and its notability rather than a generalized cut-and-paste nomination which may falsely attribute quotations of anonymous other editors, out of context, to this nomination. Robert K S (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment – Reasons for nomination stated apply to this individual article and it's lack of notability. "Subject authored a story that appeared in an online speculative fiction magazine, however wp:author does not apply as the subject is not regarded as an important figure is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc." Earlier AFDs are referenced as this subject's claim of notability is similar to those discussed in the earlier AFDs, and the same arguments for deletion and non-notability apply to Larissa Kelly as they do for the other article subjects.
The bulk of the subject's article is about her winning $223k on a game show, something that is not notable as many other individuals have done the same. Kelly has won over $900k less than the #10 person on the American game show winnings records list. This person is not notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
She's still the biggest female money-winning Jeopardy! champion, and while I wouldn't say that that alone makes her notable, it should be a factor for consideration, one which you're content to ignore. Robert K S (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Being the biggest female game show winner on any show is not criteria that proves notability, just as being the biggest Hispanic winner, being the shortest person of stature, being blind, having six toes, etc. does not prove notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You might look to my remarks the last time this article was nominated for deletion. Robert K S (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Referencing your own comment in that discussion, "If not only because she is a woman, then why?" Sottolacqua (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Status as top female winner, plus substantial biographical information and possible interest as a sci fi writer breaks this article out from the mass of Gameshow Winner Trivia articles, in my estimation. Sources cited include Boston Globe and UPI. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
  • Keep - Knowledge establishes a long precident of having "first of" being a criterion for notability, and "Female" has always been included. Rapier (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Clarification that the subject is not the "first of" anything. She is (according to the article) the fourth-highest winner (excluding tournament winnings) and is the "highest winning female contestant in non-tournament play." According to the article, Maria Wenglinsky, another female contestant who does not have an article, is the highest single-day female winner. Also excluded from this article is information about who is the highest female winner including tournament winnings. Is it Kelly, or another contestant? Sottolacqua (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion is already noted, and there is no reason to spit semantical hairs with other editors comments. On a list of "Female Jeopardy Winners", she is first. This is the second time that this article has been of for review on the grounds that the subject is not notable. In my opinion, she meets those criteria. Nothing further need be said. Rapier (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Good sourcing by the way too.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Nobody supported an individual article about this subject. Mandsford 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Knowledge:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

  • "Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
  • "It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
  • "Winning or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
  • "Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD.

Sottolacqua (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment The nominator should withdraw the above nomination and re-nominate with remarks addressed to this individual article and its notability rather than a generalized cut-and-paste nomination which may falsely attribute quotations of anonymous other editors, out of context, to this nomination. Robert K S (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment–Being the Nth highest winner on a game show does not make a person notable. The reasons for nomination within this discussion are accurate based upon the article subject. Earlier AFDs are referenced since this subject's claim of notability, the same arguments for deletion and same arguments for non-notability apply to this subject. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
My reservations about the deletion of this article are less strong than any of the others, but it is still improper of you to use unattributed and inapplicable quotations in support of your nomination, and to act as if each one of them carried the weight of a "delete" rationale, and to cut-and-paste such quotations under numerous AfD nominations, and for this reason I ask that you withdraw and re-nominate to start this nomination off on proper footing and footing that doesn't rely on false justifications. Robert K S (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
My reasons for nominating this article for deletion follow similar arguments listed in the other AFDs, and I have used the quotations referenced to make my case for deletion. That is not an unscrupulous action to take for beginning a deletion discussion. The justification is equal to arguments that have been made for inclusion in other AFDs that also can be applied to this article by editors who feel this article should not be deleted. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
"I have used the quotations referenced to make my case for deletion. That is not an unscrupulous action..." Yes, it is. As you admit, you have taken quotations that are unattributed and may not even apply to this article at all in order to bolster a deletion argument. That is dishonest. Robert K S (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I have linked the earlier deletion discussions above, making no attempt to hide their original source. My nomination states that this article was proposed for deletion because the "Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following..." I nominated this article for deletion because the (lack of) notability argument used in favor of deletion within those discussions is similar to the case I am making in this discussion. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I am repeating myself. Failing to attribute the quotes and link each one exactly to its source (e.g., as a diff) is a concealment. Applying the same quotes to numerous AfD nominations disingenuously represents them in each case as applying to that individual AfD, and is an act of bad faith done, as you have admitted, to bolster a deletion argument, i.e., to make it appear as though the AfDs have more specific support than they actually have, which is a misrepresentation. Robert K S (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising: one of the world's fastest growing film production companies working in the business to business sector. Tracc's global audience networks span a cross section of industries, engaging with online channels operated by the world's most successful publishers. Tracc produces compelling film content for these media partners, which inspires and shapes the way people think and behave, over 40% are C-Level Management...... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Advertising, not sourced. --Fiat Lux (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus - every possible opinion has been voiced in the past eight days by respected editors, and since none can agree, neither can I. Copyvios have been removed. Send it back for editing and re-nominate or re-evaluate it in a few months if it's not improved. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

No sources at all, no indication of importance, no third-party coverage. Seems to be a joke page... "recalled how silly he looked..." and/or an attack page, but G10 was declined. This article has none of the qualifications to remain on WP. — Timneu22 · talk 13:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think the phrasing you are construing as a mean joke sounds more like the fond recollections of a relative, which the username suggests the article's contributor (who is a new editor) may be. Assuming good faith on this one while I take a look for sources Gonzonoir (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Oy. After all that, the article content appears to be a copyvio of http://www.grahamstevenson.me.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221:tony-gilbert&catid=7:g&Itemid=108 . Sigh. So it's back to the CSD tag. (This isn't to say I don't think the subject is notable - no opinion on that yet) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • oy back, the article did borrow from other sources, and does contain some personal recollections. He was my father in law. I still believe that his inclusion on Knowledge is the the benefit of the site, and I aim to improve the information the article contains over the comming months. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslanp (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Right now, this doesn't read very much like a standard encyclopedia biographical article. If this fellow is notable enough to sustain an article, it's probably through his positions in various left wing political organizations. Fighting in the Spanish Civil War, in WWII, and being a POW probably aren't in themselves enough to make him notable. He certainly led an interesting life. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, not at all likely to be notable. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - As the head of a political party. I favor the inclusion of political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections on the basis of per se notability. Admittedly, this is not backed up by written WP doctrine at this juncture; nevertheless, I believe the principle is sound for an encyclopedia to follow. This is absolutely not a joke or attack page, although it was definitely written by someone close to the subject, which is problematic. I particularly question whether the gravesite at Highgate "opposite Karl Marx" was still looking for a tenant in 1992. Regardless, this is an editing issue, not a notability issue, speaking from my perspective. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
    • Additional comment - I'm pretty sure I can get this fellow over the notability bar and am going to go to work on this. Please hold off with the DELETE votes for another couple hours pending substantial revision. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Take your time; these discussions last about a week. — Timneu22 · talk 17:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
      • One thing I've learned thus far is that Gilbert's papers (together with those of his wife) are in the British National Archives. The listing is under his wife's name (she was a founding editor of the British Daily Worker and a political luminary in her own right), but they died in the same year and the material seems to have gone in together. This is not decisive in notability terms, obviously, but it seems to me indicative that there's a notability case to be made here. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong 14:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to Movement for Colonial Freedom. Case for notability is borderline, but as he is primarily notable for his association with one notable organisation, that looks like the best home for the encyclopaedic information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Google news search shows a lot of different people named "David Gilbert" so I'm not finding anything. Are any of his books notable? Google book search shows he was interviewed for a book once. Being in charge of an organization for 12 years, doesn't really make you notable. Dream Focus 11:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep sufficient sourcing for notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Declined PROD. Author did have an article, but it has been deleted once as a copyvio, and a recreation by the creator of this article is currently tagged for copyvio. Not a notable book - niche market (young adults with poor vocab/reading skills), has not won any awards, had major reviews etc as far as I can see. Article does not make any particular claims for notability, just consists of plot (although that would not be a reason to delete if notability could be established).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. As mentioned, no-one is suggesting that some of this material does not belong in the main article. Equally, though, the arguments for not having this as a separate article are clearly made and I do not see that they are refuted by those supporting the article's retention. I am happy to userfy the article if anyone would like the content to add to the base article; attribution history can be worked out at that point. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The article has "Although .... has never been found guilty" in the first line. Which is a pretty good reason not to have this fork. IMHO it is undue and a magnet for BLP breaches. If anything does need to be included in the main BLP it can be given due weight and will be protected by the watchlisters of that article. ϢereSpielChequers 13:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that this chap is notable, clearly he is, as is the subject of doping. But we need to check this carefully against WP:BLP and ask ourselves
  1. Are the article structure, overall presentation and section headings broadly neutral? I don't think a spinout article of this nature can pass that test.
  2. Have we avoided claims that rely on guilt by association? We hadn't, I've just deleted a whole section that was pure guilt by Association.
  3. Does this article comply with: "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Knowledge's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Not in my view. ϢereSpielChequers 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

this is no witch hunt! and there are a lot of cyclist that have done more than armstrong.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.68.193 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - Non-trivial topic, highly notable subject, clear criteria for inclusion, finite list, fully sourced = good list. It is extremely important that this page be monitored as it's a potential BLP mess if unsourced material creeps in. Nevertheless, this is a logical split from the main Lance Armstrong biography, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep with preferably change of name. Judging by the news I see, I'd have thought it more noteworthy if an athlete was found to be totally clear of any sort of drug, but that's irrelevant. This article could be taken to be an attack, but if the clearing on each allegation is also documented, then it could be to his benefit. So long as everything is reliably documented, and he himself is notable (personally, I had never heard of him and so am quite neutral on the issue), then it appears to me to be quite encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The article simply details the allegations made with a very well researched list of sources, the fact that the allegations have been made cannot be disputed. The article itself does not accuse Armstrong of having doped so the article cannot be accused of being biased. Thaf (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is suggestive of a WP:POV fork with cherry-picked references. The semantics of first sentence clearly imply that what is to come is going to be a negative portrayal. Nothing has been proven against Armstrong, so this article does not even need to exist. In simple terms, it's like having an an article such as 'List of reasons why the Apollo landings are a hoax'. Knowledge is supposed to be neutral - always. --Kudpung (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • There are no reliable sources that provide "reasons why the Apollo landings are a hoax". There are reliable sources for "doping allegations against Lance Armstrong". Big difference. Also, most sources for most articles are "cherry picked" (they're not chosen randomly). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There have been plenty of articles over the last 40 years that suggest that the Apollo landings are a hoax. The sources to those articles are all reliable. Depending on how one 'lists' them and wraps them in tabloid style sensationalism, it could influence public opinion. Sources for courses. --Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I challenge the assertion that "there have been plenty of articles that suggest that Apollo landings are a hoax". Consider the sources used in this article... The Guardian, The Times, BBC News, The Austin-American Statesmen, Lequipe, San Francisco Chronicle, Daily News, ESPN, the Los Angeles Times, NPR, etc. Are you seriously suggesting that secondary source publications of this caliber have had articles that suggest the Apollo landings are a hoax? Please. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete absent a reliable source of clear evidence of doping. Fred Talk 14:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment CN has more information about these issues. RR theHog and myself we all believe in miracles and Texas is proof, we all are his #1 fans and can not believe these unfounded allegations.PythonRH Talk
Second vote by an account, User:PythonRH, apparently created specifically to vote on this. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Second !vote struck through. Peridon (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as a WP:POV fork structured in a way that is liable to breach WP:BLP rules. If reliable sources can be found for evidence of doping, they should be given in the main article on Armstrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Allegations serious enough for the U.S. government to launch an enormous investigation, as documented in reliable sources, are not serious enough to be documented in Knowledge?

      This is not a POV fork. This section was part of the main article for a long time, it just kept growing because the well-sourced and serious allegations kept growing and so finally became too long for the main article. This is a legitimate and normal spinout, not a POV fork.

      Folks, let's try to be objective here. NPOV, please. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete A plain and, in my opinion, outrageous, violation of NPOV and BLP. Even if he should eventually be convicted of something, a separate article on that would still be a violation of both, as excessive emphasis--even though he is a public figure, and even though what is alleged is relevant to his notability. I do not know how anyone could claim this is a normal sort of a fork. . Looking at Category:Drugs in sports I can see only Legal problems of Barry Bonds, and he has at least been actually indicted. My normal reaction to an article like either that one or this would be speedy G10 as an attack page. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I did consider {{G10}} but restrained myself because of the "and unsourced." clause, as though the sourcing isn't all that good, it is far from unsourced, and much of it to reliable sources as well. However I note on rereading it that WP:attack does not restrict things to unsourced pages, so my bad - clearly it needs to be deleted, perhaps I should have deleted it G10 rather than filed an AFD. I'll post a query on talk speedy as to whether these policies need to be synchronised. ϢereSpielChequers 00:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is O. J. Simpson murder case, and Simpson was acquitted. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

  • That's the nub of it "it belongs in the article" - no one is arguing that we shouldn't cover this topic in the BLP, the question is whether it belongs in the article as a reliably sourced section, or should be spun out in this fork which was padded out with stuff that wasn't reliably sourced. ϢereSpielChequers 08:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • So the criteria for inclusion of content in a legitimate spinout of an article is different from that for that article? On what grounds? This is exactly what a spinout is:

If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out. In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to include in the encyclopedia).

The reason this section was made into a spinout article was because it had "a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article". I agree it's an area that needs particular care, but that's just as true of a section of a BLP as it is for a spinout of a BLP - in neither case is it basis for deletion.

If there is "padding" in the article that is not well sourced, than it should be properly sourced or removed; not the entire legitimately spunout article. I should point out that I argued against spinning out this section, but consensus was for the spinout because it was felt the section was too long for the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I just checked. There are no tags for "source needed" in the entire article. Not one. I'm not saying everything is properly sourced; I'm saying that if something in a legitimate BLP spinout is not properly sourced the correct action is to delete the content in question or cite it accordingly , depending on the situation, not to call for deletion for the entire article. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
On the 12th I mentioned 8 deadlink tags, I now count 7.... ϢereSpielChequers 17:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Great. Lots of articles have that problem. How about tagging them accordingly instead of deleting the entire article? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, but carefully. The issue here is whether or not doping allegations against Armstrong are themselves an encyclopedic topic, and they clearly are, based on the RS coverage. Having said that, is it possible to write a neutral, BLP-compliant article covering the topic? Sure: the exonerations are as important as the allegations themselves. By covering the allegations in a comprehensive manner, noting the timeline of allegations, appeals, debunkings, and whatnot is essential to provide material in context in a way that allows the reader to come to his or her well-informed conclusions or simply withhold judgment. There is no one connected to the Internet who hasn't heard about these allegations, so by deleting this article, we would be depriving the public of a neutral, encyclopedic reference to the topic. It may seem paradoxical, but by deleting an article on such a BLP basis, we may be doing Armstrong a disservice: while allegations always scream to the top of the headlines, exonerations and retractions do not. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. It looks awfully naive to want to delete it when the heading is "List of Allegations". These are oft-reported and some of them the subject of ongoing formal legal proceedings(see other references). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.71.76 (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge and reduce I think that this content, if taken as part of the larger picture of "Our coverage of Lance Armstrong" violates WP:UNDUE. I support remerging the verifiable information back to his main article, and reducing the detail of the coverage. Note that I am here because of canvassing on WT:BLP. Gigs (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete there's been a number of allegations, that can be narrated and illustrated in the biography, where is is properly balanced with other aspects of his life. Having this article breaches WP:WEIGHT in term of our coverage of this individual (and just feels wrong).--Scott Mac 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:COATRACK, WP:CFORK. Abductive (reasoning) 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Coatrack??? The article in question is only ostensibly about "doping allegations against Lance Armstrong"? That's absurd.

      Yes, WP:CFORK, specifically Knowledge:CFORK#Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles, a "completely normal Knowledge procedure." --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

      • I agree this isn't a Coatrack article Secret 22:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
        • This situation reminds me of cops who don't like to see bicyclists riding in the road, and then look for laws hoping to find one that the bicyclist is violating. Impeding traffic! Yeah, that's it (never mind that only drivers of MOTOR vehicles can be in violation of that statute). Coatrack! Never mind that this is article IS about what says it is about, and coatrack is the opposite. CFORK! Never mind that this is the quintessential spinout explicitly allowed by CFORK. There is no limit to how much human beings can rationalize, it seems (often not at all maliciously), especially when they don't like something. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Do you think the argument that it's undue weight is just pulled from thin air? I agree it's a normal spinout, so we need to consider the weight compared to the total coverage of the topic. When you do that, it becomes clear that this is too much coverage of what should be a fairly minor aspect of his biographical coverage. Gigs (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict)Good point. I stand corrected. No, I don't think the argument that it's undue weight is pulled from thin air, or a rationalization. I have no reason to doubt that those who argue the article gives undue weight to this topic really believe it's undue. However, the broad coverage in secondary sourced indicates otherwise.

              Remember, there are entire books devoted (mostly) to this subject, like David Walsh's From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France and L. A. Confidentiel. As someone else noted, the allegations about 7-time Tour de France winner Armstrong cheating to win is a real and very serious sports issue, and Knowledge readers deserve to have an objective and well-balanced article about it. The article as it stands notes ten separate allegations, each well documented and presented in a fairly balanced description (and thus not a violation of WP:UNDUE). To remove any of it, much less all of it, would be a disservice to our readers.

              Deadlinks are a problem that should be fixed, but not a reason to delete. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Advertisement for a WP:UPANDCOMING new dog breed being created in the U.K; violative of notability standards, to say nothing of WP:CRYSTAL. Orange Mike | Talk 13:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

fails WP:ORG. the 4 gnews hits refer to a different organisation by the same name in the USA. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The list is built on a similar list that existed on the German Knowledge but which has been turned into a category. Over half of the entries in the list does not have articles in en.wikipedia yet, and therefore are of questionable notability. The list should be turned into a category also here at the English wikipedia, new category members can be added as their articles are translated from German. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Strongest possible keep Far superior to a category given that soon enough this will be fully sourced and a category will not be. Bad faith nom given that this is in the process of being referenced and I'm spending a lot of time doing so. If you categorize any of these entries as "Nazis" this is not sourced. This list should be FULLY sourced and will be given a week or so. I think it is a highly valuable page and if sourced and verifiable should not be controversial. This list is more important than many other lists on wikipedia. I am gradually sourcing this list and along the way am finding some very notable biographies which are missing and should be blue linked asap. Maunuas has no idea what he is talking about, just because they are red linked - every biography I've come across so far which is missing is notable (and has a decent article on German wiki), some of them are of high importance and should not be missing from wikipedia. It is far more beneficial for wikipedia to keep this list and ensure that it its sourced entirely and to begin esnuring each has an article (which I'm gradually doing).♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral I think that there would be less problem if the entries were actual articles and properly sourced. Explaination, there was an OTRS complaint about an unsourced red link that was, in my opinion, perfectly justified. My view is that any unsourced entry must be removed pdq to avoid harm to any surviving relatives. I am unimpressed by Blofeld's attitude to this because there is no real reason under any policy to retain unsourced redlinks in a list like this. Spartaz 12:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The IDEA is that neither is red linked or unsourced. Knowledge is a working progress, eventually I want each name to be sourced AND with a nice article to boot. Yes the names should be referenced asap but please look up each of these names on German wikipedia and you'll see that each is notable. The task now should be to ensure each is transwikied but I can't do it by myself. Why do you think there are no red links in section A and the start of B? Because I've started those which were red linked there myself. We'd be better off in the long term having a comprehensive coverage on this and with articles red linked it gives something to work towards ensuring they have articles. One solution of course would be to source all existing articles and hide the red linked names until the articles can be started and blue linked but that is likely to diminish the chance that somebody other than myself who knows they are hidden will start a missing article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually I don't think we can leave these around for ages unfilled and unsourced. Why don't you take them off line and restore them when there is a source and an article? That would mean that everyone was happy. Spartaz 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
By all means use the sources from the German wikipedia to source these but the German wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for anything, let alone an allegation as serious as this. Spartaz 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking in lines of sourcing but pointing out a poissble temporary working tool. Such a link indicates that the German wikipedia currently has an article which can be verified whether or not it states that the person has been a party member and what references are given there, e.g often the one by Ernst Klee. Not linking is perfectly fine with me, but if there are principal doubts it might be better to examine the approach of systematically transwiki them. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Presumably a bot could do that. Spartaz 15:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was just thinking of that. Instead of a red link you could have the German link at leats until the article is put in english. See the example of Veit Ulrich von Beulwitz and Lothar Beutel in the list. Naturally though every entry in the list will need to be sourced, missing or not, so it shouldn't be a problem and given the amount of content missing, a list is productive I think. Forgive me for having "attitude" on this but try psending a considerable amount of time on something and bothering to start sourcing it and then you see an AFD on it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD wouldn't have been my choice for this article. I can see the utility of the list as soon as the unsourced redlinked issue is resolved but either taking them offline or moving them to an noroboted area like someones userspace would be an acceptable intermediate step. Spartaz 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I was going to try to get at least half of it sourced today, I can't now as it might be to no avail!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
How about the incubator?--Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
that's fine by me, it can have a norobots tag added but, honestly, there isn't any reason to take it from mainspace if we just removed the unsourced redlinks and restore them as and when they are sourced. As an aside, I presume that the Nazi party had 10,000s of members at its height. How do these ones rate a mention and not the others? 15:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The list is supposed to be a list of notable Nazi members. People who were only very briefly or narrowly connected with them should really be removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Blofeld, its clearly not going to get deleted. The sooner you source it the sooner we can all go do something else. Spartaz 15:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not confident of that. The best thing we can do in regards to red links is change them into de wiki links. Then gradually they can be transwikied and blue linked when the article is started. Every link must be sourced though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • hint I'm a deletionist and I don't think this needs deleting, Its a bit indiscriminate and needs a focus but what it needs is sourcing. I actually think as a list of notable nazis it has a valid existance. Spartaz 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The German category has now 4.527 pages. In general notability would not stem directly from being a party member but from some more notable role or a later career. So I think beyond using this list to improve so far missing coverage the original it is not illegitimate to ask whether or not we should have it in list format in the long run. Actually we also have List of former Nazi Party members and List of Nazi Party leaders and officials. In brief, I'd rather see a case for more specific and informative lists such as e.g. List of Nazi physicians with the cat covering all party members. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think this may be the source of much of the disagreement. This isn't a list of notable Nazis - it derives from a category that includes everybody with an article on de.wikipedia who happened to be an attested member of the Nazi Party. Inclusion says nothing about their degree of involvement; both en.wikipedia and de.wikipedia have categories and articles on prominent Party functionaries (and on the SS, and on the Ahnenerbe, and on the Concentration Camps, etc.) It's a more or less incidental attribute of a person; look at the size of it. If you want a list of prominent Party members (I believe our situation is we have one but it could do with improvement), this isn't it or a good tool to get to it. I agree with you, several people on this article need articles writing on en.wikipedia. That's one of the reasons I oppose replacing the redlinks with interwiki links - that has a deterrent effect on article creation. Nobody's fault except whoever made the colors almost indistinguishable, but there it is. But I disagree that the best solution is to rush rush rush to make either stubby articles or poor translations. There is no deadline. It will be better in every respect if multiple editors create articles for those people on the list who they have adequate sources for. The sources aren't going away and neither are the de.wikipedia articles if the people are notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with en.wikipedia category. We currently have a very incomplete category "Nazis" - we could simply add all teh pages here for which en.wikipedia articles exist to that category, but I think it should be renamed Nazi Party members for accuracy; it currently includes at least one self-confessed admirer of Hitler who is at most a neo-Nazi. I think linking to the de.wikipedia articles is misleading at best. It's hard to see the difference in color and so people will click in the mistaken belief there is an English article - or not be inclined to create an English article because the slightly different blue does not give the clear indication that a redlink does that we don't have one. Also I do not see the urgency for creating articles for all these redlinks. Some of them are more notable to German speakers than to English speakers; that's one of the reasons we have different language Wikipedias. There are always going to be people and topics on de.wikipedia that aren't worth anyone's while to put on en.wikipedia, and vice versa. Otherwise in arguing that this list is vital to preserve including redlinks, aren't we thinking being a Nazi Party member is in itself a criterion of notability? I would oppose that POV. It wasn't that extraordinary a thing. And the de.wikipedia articles will always be there as starting points (I just used their rather poor article as my starting point for Helmut de Boor, for example.) When I encountered this list it had been created from the de.wikipedia category - if there was an antecedent de.wikipedia article, I'm not aware of it - and that seems to me to be the appropriate form of listing. It's a serious enough fact that any article stating someone was a Nazi Party member should have a reference for the statement under the verifiability policy, so that problem is properly solved at the article level. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Its only temporary and you have mistakingly assumed that just because the de link is there they won't be referenced. WRONG. You are worng on both accounts. Firstly ALL names will be sourced externally regardless. Secondly ALL articles will become articles on english wikipedia gradually. I strongly disagree BTW in regards to German wikipedia, I'd say 99% of content on German wikipedia is perfectly suitable for english wikipedia. Rather the other way round, a lot of english wikipedia content isn't suitable for German wikipedia; they have much higher standards for encyclopedic content than us.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
So include them gradually.I think its a pretty good hint that if the German wikipedia didn't consider this list to be important enough to keep as such then we shouldn't either. I don't think that all, or even most, of those names on the list would pass .en.wp notability criteria - being a party member is not notable in itself. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it then that even the missing article are easily referenceable then and have an abundance of book hits in google books if they aren't notable.? Every name on this list is notable for whatever they did and sources are available to prove it.This was never a list on German wikipedia to my knowledge. It was a category. If there was a list on German wikipedia it was only deleted out of fright. So List of Power Rangers characters is encyclopedic yet a list of Nazis isn't. Mmm.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" isn't an argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
And neither is your extreme ignorance that articles on other wikipedias which should immediately be put into english aren't notable. If your arguments had any validity we would not be missing a single notable article just because as it is missing obviously it isn't notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I note that you have stooped to personal attacks. You are alsoo twisting my argument - the point is that the article being there is the only proof we have of it being notable.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Just because there are red links doesn't mean they aren't notable. Not every notable German topic has an English one, and vice-versa. This list works hand-in-hand with the category per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
comment what is clear about the inclusion criteria? It could never be a list of all members of the nazi party. Currently the inclusion criteria seem to be "Members of the Nazi party who have an article in the German wikipedia and who will get an article here as soon as Blofeld gets around to it (if they are indeed notable)". It should be a list of members of the Nazi party that have an article in the English wikipedia, but it isn't.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not superman. New articles shouldn't be rushed (unless you have material e.g public domain material all ready to quickly post). I could create the remaining red links enmasse with little content and guaranteed that would be worse.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Blofeld's arguments. Referencing is ongoing and other time the redlinks will be created (I've done a few myself the last couple of days). It would be up to standard a lot quicker if others joining in the referencing as there only seems to be about three of us on it at the minute. Keresaspa (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Good list that will be built up over time, that provides valued encyclopedic knowledge, that otherwise would be locked up in a library somwhere. Sure it will take time to complete, but that is not a problem, its a solution. As regards the boundary of the article, the member of the Nazi Party, who were prominent is a finite number, and Knowledge is not a paper encyclopedia. All of them can be added, as all of them played their part in leading to the death of millions, so all of them are notable, all of them. scope_creep (talk) 19:28, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
  • KeepThe list is muich improved, with unreferenced redlink entries removed, and apparently with persons who have articles for things other than incidental party membership (ie, not notable primarily for being Nazis) removed. *Delete unless all redlink names are removed and all memberships are reliably referenced. In general it is unacceptable to throw up hundreds of names in any list which says they are in some way reprehensible, without a reliable source. The German encyclopedia is not a reliable source, any more than the English Knowledge. Are any of the persons still living? A redlink listing a living person as a Nazi is a BLP violation unless a reliable source is present in the List article itself. Use a category, and only for persons whose membership is reliable sourced.Some of the articles do not explicitly say the person was a Nazi, and the reader has to infer it from their military or governmental position. Do not just throw a mass of calumny into a list and expect others to source it, or resort to handwaving assertion that some foreign language Knowledge is all the reference that is required. This would be just as true for a "List" of terrorists, thieves, charlatans, murderers, traitors, incompetent professionals, people with a loathsome disease, etc. Claiming "Work in progress" does not trump WP:V. There were likely hundreds or thousands of people in Nazi controlled countries in WW2 with the same name as many of the redlink party members, and without an article or reference, all those innocent people and their descendants are branded unjustly. This is as bad as the "No Fly" list. I knew someone who lived during those years who had the same name as one of the redlink Nazis, but who definite;y wasn't one. Edison (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"A redlink listing a living person as a Nazi is a BLP violation unless a reliable source is present in the List article itself." Every single name in this list would have been completely sourced within three days if this hadn't been nominated. Also your BLP claim is redundant given that the vast majority are deceased people. A tiny proportion are living people. Each name in the list would have been completely sourced red or blue linked and any name in the list which a source could not be found for would have been removed plain and simple, no BLP issues or controversy if I could just spent some time on it without fear of it being swiftly deleted. The list has existed for over a year. Surely you could allow a few days for it to be entirely sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" promises do not trump WP:BLP and WP:V. No grace period. Remove the redlinks now or the article must be deleted. The redlinks must be removed immediately as a BLP violation, since innocent living people who were alive in the Nazi era doubtless also have many of those names. This is the very definition of a careless and haphazard smear. Edison (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as a clearly notable and encyclopedia-worthy list. Now, the comments... (1) This stuff needs to be sourced. (2) I have less of a problem with redlinks as some people seem to. However, unless the redlinks are removed and a bluelink made one of the criteria for inclusion, this becomes an unmanageably large list topic. (3) The layout is dreadful. Each letter needs to be a subhead and the names under that name columnized. Having a vast list that must be scrolled is super annoying. Carrite (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion, I've reformatted it, much better I agree. Red links will be temporarily links to German wiki article until it can be started in English. We are gradually starting them but this will take time and should not be rushed. If this is kept all names will be referenced so it shouldn't be a problem. Eventually this should be a decent fully referenced list with every one of them having a decent article but wikipedia isn't complete yet...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference in scale. And there are a finite number of people who were a member of the Nazi Party. And this article is supposed to only list those people who were active within the party, not just being affiliated with it. Especially for a party with such historical significance as Nazism a resource which lists notable members is perfectly encyclopedic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You are still dealing with a couple of hundred thousand potential articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hundred thousand? Rubbish. Read my lips. This is a list of notable people who were active as members of the Nazi Party. Only a smallish percentage of the Nazi Party members that existed are notable enough to have an article or be listed it is not a list of any party member whoever existed for Christ's sake. Coverage in reliable publications will route out who or who not is notable. I've already removed a lot of names from the list who did not have a range of sources linking them to the Nazi Party. The ones which are are clear cut.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Guess I have to put together some separate pieces that I already said to some more comprehensive recommendation trying to clear up possible misunderstandings. looking first at the eventual outcome, I think wee will and should have articles on most articles from the original German cat. For sheer size and the fact that party member ship is one aspect regarding their role, I find a category here superior to a list of mere names, even if all correctly linked and cited which actually creates double effort. I just don't say delete because I can also imagine that the list develops or gets split up more systematically. More importantly, there need to be good articles and rushing one line stubs under pressure just because they are in the current list may not be the best way to start them. The German articles and the sources listed are possible starting points, though, not reference themselves of course, and I don't think anybody said that. Besides I merely wanted to suggest that if not only the German cat but also this list is to be used for creating articles, it should be moved out of article space to the incubator with temporary interwikilinks to allow for a swift conversion to a verified list (after languishing for 14 months).--Tikiwont (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I assume that this article is meant to include only notable members of the Nazi Party, because the party had over 8 million members by the end of World War II. However, anyone shown here as either a redlink, or an interwiki link, has not yet been established as notable within the English Knowledge. Also, many of the list entries are unsourced. It is stated above that every single name in this list would have been completely sourced within three days if this hadn't been nominated. However, having an AfD should not delay the sourcing of this list significantly, so hopefully the list will be sourced anyway notwithstanding the AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that you guys will vote to keep this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't ned to convince you of that, but if its fully sourcd in three days I'd say that the likelihood of it being deleted decreases drastically.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Exaggeration. This is a list of notable party members. At best there is likely to only be a few thousand. The directory argument is a f*****g joke. We have a an unreferenced directory of minor planets on several hundred pages!!!! That is a directory!!!! This is a single page which lists notable members (soon to be all referenced) of a political party form A-Z, there is a small difference... Any which can't be sourced or have only light association will be removed from the list. Your argument is redundant and invalid as it violates absolutely none of those which are addressed at WP:NOTDIR; we have thousands of similar lists which are accepted on here. Smelly socks and List of Power Rangers episodes (authored or supported by Colonel Warden) encyclopedic, a list of prominent Nazi Party members not. Oh deary me... Stinky socks and a list of children's episodes is somehow perfectly encyclopedic yet a list of people who were part of a party which led to the elimination of millions of innocent people is somehow not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF - and I think there is a differrence between a list of power rangers and a list with a large potential for BLP problems that have already caused one distressed family to contact the wikimedia foundation.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Colonel Warden is not voting to delete based on BLP paranoia. I will reference the entire list as soon as this list is no longer under threat so don't make up lame excuses about BLPs when this list would be sorted in a few days with references and those names which can't be supported removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Good intentions "Promises! Promises!" does not trump WP:V and WP:BLP, and the existence of an article in some foreign language Knowledge does not satisfy BLP objections to including the name in the English Knowledge. Edison (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair when the article was first given the prod treatment on October 8 it was completely unreferenced and now less than a week later it has 310 references so there is hardly a need for the "Promises! Promises!" jibe. It will be fully referenced but it will not happen over night as it is a big job (especially seeing as many of the articles it links to are unreferenced) and the more people get involved the quicker it will happen. Keresaspa (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It would be a few minutes work ( I would be happy to do it) to remove all the unreferenced names, including ones only referenced to the German Knowledge (NOT a reliable source). Then, at his leisure, Blofeld or other editors can reference and restore the deleted names. We are not on deadline, and there is no justification to violate policies so that unsourced content can be in a list RIGHT NOW. They will still be there in the history. I think the result will be a useful article which does not violate WP:V or WP:BLP. Why the insistence on keeping unsourced or unreliably sourced names in such a horrible list? Edison (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are two keys to this list. One is size: it must not be a list of EVERY member of the Nazi Party, which would be unmanageably large, but rather a list of Nazi Party members for whom there are Knowledge pages — which would make this an effective navigational tool. Second is sourcing: every single fucking name on this list MUST be sourced out, because listing a living person here improperly would be defamatory. I think there is a real effort being made to bring this list into compliance with these fundamental requirements. I would further urge that this page in its current form be userfied and the names brought into the list in mainspace only when sourced. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater, but the bathwater needs to be thrown out... Carrite (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagree about only people with articles being in the list. Those are gradually being started and soon enough will all be blue linked. As long as every entire name on the list is sourced this should be fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If a name is not notable enough to have an article, then it is clearly not notable enough to be in the list. Knowledge is not a directory of nonnotable entities. Linking to German Knowledge is clearly not adequate, because a Knowledge is not a reliable source. See WP:RS if you are in doubt on this point. Having an article about the person also lessens the chances of smearing an innocent person with the same name, like the "Terrorist No Fly List" or "Lists of Commies" during McCarthyism. Edison (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly your light bulb isn't working today. An experienced editor such as you should know that just because an article is missing doesn't mean that it isn't notable. My god you clearly know little about German wikipedia if you dismiss every article which we don't have in english to not be notable. This is highly concerning that I have editors surrounding me who think this way, and is probably why the gap between German and English wikipedia is so great. Pure ignorance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the missing articles. And it took me a whole hour to do so, not two minutes. If a few of us can source those in the list fully now which do have articles then this list should be kept. I've moved the big missing list to my workspace where I and a few other editors can gradually start the articles and gradually build up the list over time enuring that additions are sourced and are notable. Edison has a point but a]I strongly disliked the way your undermined our work to add over 300 references in a day or two with your "Promises! Promises!" bullshit and that but for this ill-timed AFD we'd have had all entries sourced to reliable publications within a few days. b] The way you cruelly ignored our clear intentions to reference even missing links externally and that the link to German wikipedia were not intended to be a source. c] That you showed an astonishing ignorance that ALL missing articles are not notable and therefore tshould not be included in a list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry - were you talking to me? Either way, you are way out of line. StAnselm (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Errm I was talking to Edison, can't you read english?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless you are clearly out of line with your personal attacks Blofeld, without regards to whom they are directed at. One thing is being frustrated, another is taking it out on others.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I closed this is keep after the nomination was withdrawn but have reopened following a request on my talk. Apparently this is not as clear cut as I had supposed. Spartaz 05:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment As can be seen, before this AfD was re-opened, I removed all unreferenced names (and might continue to do so every now and then).
    In its current form, I wouldn't be completely opposed to it, I just fail to see the sense in it -- in order to be someone or become notable in the Third Reich, no matter what one did or who one was, for all practical matters, one had to be a member of the Nazi Party. It was almost akin to being a citizen of the United States during the invasion of Iraq. I therefore find this not notable.
    A list of those who were not members of the Nazi Party would be much more manageable... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a list of notable people who did something significant as part of the Nazi Party/leaders or are strongly linked to them for whatever reason. Those plain ordinary citizens who were just a member will never have an article and therefore your concerns are unfounded. If you could have waited one god damn day I and the other editor workong on the list would have fully sourced it as promised as was in the process of doing so. You guys are a serious diappointment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not curse at me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not curse at you personally, but your comparison of a select number of prominent Nazis to the entire American public is about as warped as it can get.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You now say that in one day you could have fully sourced all the names. But on October 12 on the article's talk page you said "This is a valid list, give it a few months and you'll see a lot more blue links." "A few months" to source "a lot" of the names, or "a day" to source all of them. Seems a wide margin of uncertainty as to how long the process would take. You say that all the names "did something significant as part of the Nazi party/leaders" and are not "plain ordinary citizens who were just a member." That sounds like a good principle for the ongoing maintenance of the article, since apparently party membership was a requirement for many professional positions in Germany at the time. How many of the names have no ref indicating they were important in the operations of the party, rather than just being say a high school principal and a Nazi, or a journalist and a Nazi, or a college professor and a Nazi, as opposed to political or military leaders? This will be an ongoing editing question for the article. Would you advocate keeping all the names with such a conjunction of "has German article because their job as a scientist, journalist, educator conferred notability" and "Party member" as opposed to "person important within the party?" How many names in the total list (red and blue links) are notable only for something they did postwar, and were just random rank and file party members? The article is improved from its start, and I might favor keeping it if the basis for inclusion is made clearer. Edison (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Point in case: should the pope be on this list? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're sorely mistaken. If you actually scout for sources you'll find that a lot of even notable figures like Eugen Herrigel, Kurt Hessenberg and Sepp Herberger who were party members are not notable Nazis so the end product is a refined list. The majority of Nazi Party members were not famous or notable. And even many who were were only loosely affiliated with the party like these two men are not included as they are not linked close enough in multiple publications.. If you look at sources you'll easily root out the prominent Nazis to those which just happened to be a member/didn't even really support them but were pressured to. The key to this list is sourcing as it spots those people who are discussed as Nazis in multiple publications and which will guide us to a refined list of notable Nazis rather than a list of every Nazi Party member ever. Maybe this list should be renamed so as people like Seb doesn't get their wires crossed. So what I'm saying Edison is that multiple sources linking members to the Nazis is a good criteria for inclusion. I'm currently referencing section H in the workspace and i'm removed half the names on the list like those above as they are just not notable members. So what we get at the end of it is a refined list which can be verified as being significant Nazi members in publications. I'd recommend moving it to a List of Nazis as there were many party members who were not true Nazis and were pressured to be a part of it due to their power at the time. This is supposed to be a list of true Nazis who did something significant as part of the party or were well documented believers. I've renamed it and added some intro notes to make this clear. For example

This list now has 600 sources and is fully sourced and still this AFD is open!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge:Articles for deletion states that "Articles listed are debated for at least seven days". StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Knowledge subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. I do not know what the deWP practice is on lists, but many of their policies are different from ours. That they would delete an individual article on a German figure is something I would take into serious consideration (though still not necessarily definitively) , but not whether they turned a list into a category. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment all entries previously removed as unsourced have been restored with sources and those referenced to sources based on Knowledge have been referenced to elsewhere. As such all sourcing problems are now over. Keresaspa (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable footballer who has not made any professional appearances Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This seems just a wee bit too morbid to be encylopedic, and yet pointless because each individual fatality is not notable, while a summary would be. Granted, now that someone went through the trouble of gathering this information it'd be a shame not to preserve it somewhere, but Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Joy (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested BLP PROD, non-notable individual. While some references have been added, they largely consist of myspace, blogs and youtube. In particular this blog quotes the subject as saying "I am music composition student at Tbilisi State Conservatoire." It should be noted that the creator of the article is Giojano (talk · contribs) so highly likely to be an autobiography too. role 11:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was closed as moot. Article was deleted by User:Nyttend. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Hard to read, not notable, cannot be found on Google, the website page looks like a forum. Whenaxis (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Not a worldwidely recognised person. Doesn't match WP:ANYBIO. Minimac (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This award does not seem to be notable since not a single source that meets the general notability guidelines seems to exist (though only one is usually not enough). It has also been deleted before. Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. GedUK  12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This article contains no useful information and is about a complete non-entity. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn

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

My prod (and all the article tags) were removed with no explanation, no other edits to the article and no attempt to address the concerns. So bringing to AFD.

I am unable to successfully source this as a valid term. Despite the article claiming that much has been published on this topic I can find nothing of use on Google Scholar or Athens.

I pinged my brother over this, a musician, and he has never heard the term (though that is not a conclusive answer).

More unsourced content exists at Gregorian chant#Melodic restitution and, if this can be sourced, I think it is of minor significance and so should be dealt with in the Gregorian chant article. Errant 09:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Melodic restitution, as a concept is valid. Google Book has many books with information on it. The entry at gregorian chants is good, although it doesn't go into detail on how it's actually accomplished. A seperate article on that would be useful, so I think the article should be expanded by the present editor. The Google book results have good primary and secondary sources. I think the detail in the Gregorian chant article should be removed and merged into this article. scope_creep (talk) 20:00, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, that's a really interesting book (I'm about 3 chapters in at this point) but it only seems to mention melodic restitution in passing, the topic of the book is on the general topic of restoring Gregorian chants. However, I may have located a decent source with which to build an article, but it is on order... --Errant 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Very nice... but useless because it does not mention melodic restitution at all ;) Look, the problem is sourcing the following: melodic restitution === restoring Gregorian chants. The current article also implies this is a wider term, but I can't find specifics on that. Google book search has a few hits, but none with previews so it is as yet impossible to verify the definition. As I said; I am waiting on one of the books to see what it says. --Errant 18:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • My impression is that it is the title of the article which is bothering you. This may be amended by moving the article - a standard editing function which does not require deletion. The primary scholarship for this topic seems to be mainly in French and this may perhaps explain why it seems clumsy or confusing in English. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No, the term melodic restitution is my problem... this is very simple stuff, don't confuse matter! We could quite easily write an article about the restoration of Gregorian chants. But it is unclear what melodic restitution is, if it is the same thing etc. I desisted moving the page because the article was specific in saying this is a general term but often relates to chants - but I cannot find a RS for that at this stage. If you have French sources please feel free to provide them and I can do the legwork verifying them. --Errant 18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you still seem to be misunderstanding. none of those deal with melodic restitution as a term. I am trying to establish a firm definition melodic restitution. If it is a descriptive name for restoring gregorian chant then we are onto a winner, but so far there is no verified RS that deals with the issue. Do you understand this? --Errant 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Fine, I will move the page and remove mentions of melodic restitution. I honbestly can't be bothered with the headache, persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is just getting disruptive :( --Errant 19:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Valley2city 09:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

2011 SPSL Spring-Summer Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. This socer league has only just started its very first season. The whole of this artice is based on "The league will play a spring-summer schedule in 2011 before the first full 40 match, natural season, schedule begins in October 2011." from the "about" page of the league website. Whether it will actually happen remains to be seen, but for the moment, this is a totally non notable possible future sports competition, which hasn't received any attention in independent reliable sources. Fram (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Corps. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Not significantly different from the existing page Corps to justify it's own page. See my standard justification below for more detail.

As part of the series of Guomindang military units:

My knowledge of the Guomindang military isn't quite at the level where I can say this for certain, (my academic interest focuses much more heavily on pre-gunpowder Chinese warfare) but as far as I can recall, there are no significant technical differences between the Guomindang army structure and that of the army structures western powers that backed the Guomindang at the time. Those western army structures are the basis for modern army structures. Considering the existence of the pages Platoon, Company (military unit), Regiment, ect., I can see reason to keep this page. There is not enough content as it is to currently justify this page, and sourcing, while available, will likely not be wholly on topic or add value to the coverage of the article. I doubt a redirect will be helpful, and there is not enough for a merge. Sven Manguard Talk 07:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Sven Manguard Talk 07:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Notes: The page NRA Squad already redirects to Squad. The page NRA Division is significantly differnt from the others in the series in its level of detail, however the sourcing is slim and the content is hypertechincal. Sven Manguard Talk 07:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I object to NRA Corps being deleted, it along with the NRA Division clarify the important difference in the quality of NRA Army formations from other standard Divisions and Corps as a result of the lack of artillery, and other support formations that occured after 1938. The few arsenals that the NRA had that could build and maintain feild artillery were overrun so the remaining feild artillery in particular was husbanded carefully, usually held at Army level or higher. Mortars, which the Chinese were still able to construct replaced feild artillery in lower level formations. Isolated from the cities other technical personel were in short supply so support units were also held at higher command levels. Asiaticus (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

2011 Big 12 Championship Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a sporting contest that never occurred Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why don't they have a Big 10 instead? Peridon (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
At the university level of American football, a conference must have at least 12 members to be allowed to hold its own championship game. There is a major realignment of the conferences in progress, which, among other things, will result in the conference now known as the Big 12 Conference being reduced to 10 members, while the Big Ten Conference will expand to 12 members. However, there are no plans for them to swap names. Yes, it is somewhat odd. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The more I learn about American football, the more rational cricket appears... Thanks for yet another of your clear explanations. Peridon (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, anyone who needs to know (like police, ice cream vendors and so on) will know - you say all fans will know - why would anyone else be interested anyway? Peridon (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

NRA regiments are probably no different than any other military regiment D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete My knowledge of the Guomindang military isn't quite at the level where I can say this for certain, (my academic interest focuses much more heavily on pre-gunpowder Chinese warfare) but as far as I can recall, there are no significant technical differences between the Guomindang army structure and that of the army structures western powers that backed the Guomindang at the time. Those western army structures are the basis for modern army structures. Considering the existence of the pages Platoon, Company (military unit), Regiment, ect., I can see reason to keep this page. There is not enough content as it is to currently justify this page, and sourcing, while available, will likely not be wholly on topic or add value to the coverage of the article. I doubt a redirect will be helpful, and there is not enough for a merge. Sven Manguard Talk 07:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Notes: The page NRA Squad already redirects to Squad. The page NRA Division is significantly differnt from the others in the series in its level of detail, however the sourcing is slim and the content is hypertechincal. Sven Manguard Talk 07:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. I'd also like to add the company's championships to this AfD: WXw World Lightweight Championship, WXw World Heavyweight Championship, and WXw World Tag Team Championship. Nikki♥311 05:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't see why NRA's battalions are different than anyone else's D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete My knowledge of the Guomindang military isn't quite at the level where I can say this for certain, (my academic interest focuses much more heavily on pre-gunpowder Chinese warfare) but as far as I can recall, there are no significant technical differences between the Guomindang army structure and that of the army structures western powers that backed the Guomindang at the time. Those western army structures are the basis for modern army structures. Considering the existence of the pages Platoon, Company (military unit), Regiment, ect., I can see reason to keep this page. There is not enough content as it is to currently justify this page, and sourcing, while available, will likely not be wholly on topic or add value to the coverage of the article. I doubt a redirect will be helpful, and there is not enough for a merge. Sven Manguard Talk 07:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Notes: The page NRA Squad already redirects to Squad. The page NRA Division is significantly differnt from the others in the series in its level of detail, however the sourcing is slim and the content is hypertechincal. Sven Manguard Talk 07:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't see any reason why NRA's Companies are different than anyone else's D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete My knowledge of the Guomindang military isn't quite at the level where I can say this for certain, (my academic interest focuses much more heavily on pre-gunpowder Chinese warfare) but as far as I can recall, there are no significant technical differences between the Guomindang army structure and that of the army structures western powers that backed the Guomindang at the time. Those western army structures are the basis for modern army structures. Considering the existence of the pages Platoon, Company (military unit), Regiment, ect., I can see reason to keep this page. There is not enough content as it is to currently justify this page, and sourcing, while available, will likely not be wholly on topic or add value to the coverage of the article. I doubt a redirect will be helpful, and there is not enough for a merge. Sven Manguard Talk 07:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Notes: The page NRA Squad already redirects to Squad. The page NRA Division is significantly differnt from the others in the series in its level of detail, however the sourcing is slim and the content is hypertechincal. Sven Manguard Talk 07:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I see no reason why the NRA's platoon or any difference than anyone else's. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This one is so absurd that I went ahead and put up a CSD A7 on it. No reason to waste everyone here's time unless by some technical miracle/colossal error/flurry of editing, the article survives the CSD. Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 06:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe it meets speedy deletion criteria - being part of the National Revolutionary Army does give it some historical significance and does provide a claim of notability. While I do believe this should be deleted, I think speedy is overkill, and I'm deleting the tag. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Your call. The article itself is a simple definition of a Platoon, rather than anything on any specific platoon in the Guomingdang Army. Everything in it is covered in Platoon. I don't see how a CSD is at all overkill, but its 3:00 AM where I'm at and I have no desire to push the issue or get involved any further in the AfD. Sven Manguard Talk 06:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Google search shows only the developer's website and a few random youtube clips which may or may not have anything to do with this. Only major contributor has clear COI issues. Sven Manguard Talk 05:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was restore redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

A fictional character, who I'm not so sure is even an important part of Dragonball. The similarly named Mr Popo redirects to List of Dragon Ball characters, a page that doesn't even mention the character. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring a redirect is pointless, as the target article you suggest doesn't even mention the character - such a redirect would be useless. And I find it hard to believe that we can't delete the article. This isn't an office action, administrators can still access the content and its history if needed. Knowledge:Merge and delete doesn't really explain it very well to me, and besides, you shouldn't have expected me to hunt it down. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The content of the article was merged into the list back in 2007 and the later removed from the list during a cleanup discussion in 2009. Since the content of Popo article is part of the list's history, we must preserve attribution, even if the contents is no longer present on the list. —Farix (t | c) 01:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that we can't delete the record of who contributed to the article as long as any part of it remains on Knowledge, then? Thus, if an entire article was deleted and had never appears elsewhere, deletion is no problem, but since the content was previously elsewhere, the author needs to continue to be credited. I would say that if not deleted entirely, the content should probably be returned to the list of characters, but someone who knows more about Dragonball than me would have to let me know of the character's importance so I know where to put it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"So what you are saying is that we can't delete the record of who contributed to the article as long as any part of it remains on Knowledge, then? Thus, if an entire article was deleted and had never appears elsewhere, deletion is no problem, but since the content was previously elsewhere, the author needs to continue to be credited." Exactly. This is why all contributions are licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA, it gives credit to those who contributed to the article's, and later the list's, content. Even in cases of clear vandalism, we don't WP:REVDEL the vandalism except in a few exceptional cases.
"I would say that if not deleted entirely, the content should probably be returned to the list of characters, but someone who knows more about Dragonball than me would have to let me know of the character's importance so I know where to put it." As I previously said, that is a debate that is beyond the scope of this AfD. However, since the contents of the article was previously merged into the list, we are required to preserve the history of those who contributed the content. —Farix (t | c) 02:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, it was already merged a long time ago, so really I mean restore redirect. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, a merge/redirect can be discussed on the talk page if deemed necessary.  Sandstein  06:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

There is already a fairly large Criticism section in the Harry Reid article; Criticisms of Harry Reid essentially duplicates that information and throws in a couple more. I was tempted to just redirect it to Harry Reid#Criticism but figured an AfD would probably be more appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. And the main Harry Reid page "Criticism" section can now be tightened down even further and more rigidly policed. Carrite (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that dropping the "s" is a sensible suggestion. Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I am also nominating the following related article for the same reason:

BASIS Tucson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm offering this for discussion because I can't find a suitable criterion or rationale for CSD or PROD. This is not a mainstream secondary school - which would have been automatically de facto notable. It is possibly a commercially operated 'cram' school; all Ghits are to low level mentions in local press and one mention in a local government press release about a ribbon cutting ceremony. Kudpung (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom, also this institution has had a number of unreferenced articles of questionable notability created about it by Ipodfanz (talk · contribs). WookieInHeat (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability. These are a couple of a series of articles, all of them essentially spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment - WookieInHeat has proded the BASIS Scottsdale article. There is also a separate article for the entire chain, BASIS schools. Racepacket (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The louder the national praise grows for Tucson's Basis Schools, the more some local critics question the reasons for its success. Basis Upper School, 3434 E. Broadway, is annually named one of the top public high schools in the country by Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report magazines, and this fall it was featured as a model for global education in a documentary film. But some local educators and parents say the school's enrollment practices make the school only marginally public, despite being taxpayer-funded.

There was a follow-up article on this topic in the same paper, published just this week. Also, I found a 2004 column about the school in the Washington Post.
So what I see is a high school for which there is actual, not just presumed, notability--high rankings in the national magazines, national coverage, controversy of actual significance to educational theory. Maybe there is an argument to merge all the schools into a main article about the Basis Schools, but that would still not call for a delete at AfD. In short, this seems like a clear keep to me.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

unencyclopedic strange list. I would support the creation of Flora and fauna of Okinawa Prefecture, in which this could be included, but as it is, a throwaway list Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy keep -- nominator withdrew nomination and only !vote was 'keep'; non-admin closure. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

completely unsourced article, only indications of any notability are from dubious claims which i failed to find any references to support. for instance, the lead states "one of largest privately owned education systems in the world", no credible indication this is true except for the claim on the organizations own website "possibly the largest privately owned education system of its kind in the world". entire article reads like an advertisement, particularly the "beyond education" section which discusses the organizations other business ventures (keep in mind the school is "privately owned", i.e. for profit). with that in said, i don't believe this article meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. see also the other two pages regarding this organization that have been nominated for deletion as well. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep: Surprised to see this nominated. Clicking on the "news" link above produces plenty of evidence for notability, including support for the hyperbolic-sounding "one of the largest" claim you questioned. (Various news articles describe it as "one of the world’s largest private school networks", "one of the country’s largest private school chains", "the largest private sector network of schools in Asia and the first Pakistani education system to cross borders to export quality education to Malaysia".) I will add some sources to the article and remove any blatant advertising I see. I disagree with your assertion that the whole thing reads like an ad. I feel it is important for Knowledge to document giant corporations like this to allow us to trace their influence. The fact that this is an arguably successful school system emerging as a huge educational force in one of the world's most illiterate countries makes it worth documenting, don't you think? I agree that it needs to contain more "meat" beyond the current listing of the company's assets, but this is a start, a good skeleton to hang more meaty material on when it is found. I find that most articles about Pakistani subjects are not nearly this sober and factual. Anyway, there's no question of this company's notability, and I think education in Pakistan is an important story right now and this is a big part of that story. AtticusX (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep agreed, on second look there does appear to be information suggesting notability (i aplogize for my lack of thoroughness) and your noted intention to improve the article is appreciated as well. i'm going to remove the "beyond education" section however as this remains totally unsourced and promotional in nature in its current form. but seeing as that is a content discussion and not deletion related, lets continue the conversation on the article's talk page if you require further correspondence. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment i've withdrawn my deletion nomination of this article and removed the AfD template from the page. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable choir. Over 26 million hits on Yahoo--but not many of them are very good. As written, a vanispamcruftisement. Blueboy96 03:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How many of them were reliable? A subject can have infinite sources, but if there aren't enough reliable ones, it's not enough for an article. Blueboy96 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whilst there may be an article to be written here (and you would have thought with the names apparently associated with the establishment that there should be some notability), the closing comments appear to be correct; the article still contains no third-party sources to establish its notability. As usual, I will userfy if anyone wishes to make at attempt at this one. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

as below from nom

The corresponding article has been deleted from the german wikipedia. Since it is a mostly german/austrian organization, simple logic suggests that it in not relevant in the international context either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabel (talk • contribs)

  • German wikipedia AfD.
  • I suggest that we at the English wikipedia make up our own minds on this based on a proper proposal for deletion, rather than expecting us to go to the German wikipedia and read their reasoning in a language many of us do not understand. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But I think that it is at least a reason to restart the deletion discussion. ;-) Not sure what your further comments mean (I am rather a newbie here). Please tell me if I made a mistake! Thank you.
I could not find any objective, trustworthy source that says that the IAS is a genuine, important group. Please correct me if I am wrong here!
Who are the "120 Nobel Prize Laureates" that are supposed to be members? Is there a list somewhere?
Websites are offline. While I do not like to kick a defenseless victim, they are offline for at least a week now (I checked last monday!)
Is there any proof that the members mentioned in the article are actually members? Mr. Dausset is no member (at the very least anymore) because he is dead, but is there any evidence that the other mentioned persons are in any way affiliated with IAS?
Looks more like namedropping to me.
Castle Tratzberg can be rented for meetings and similar things, but that's it. To make absolutely sure I have sent an email today to the castle info address. I will come back with the result (if I get one)
I found a conference held in russia by the IAS: http://www.ecologicalproblems.ru/english/
The only non IAS speaker there seems to be "Rector of M.A.Sholokhov Moscow State Humanitarian University Vladimir D. Nechaev" and it seems that the conference was held at that "university"
I found this homepage relating to it: http://www.mgopu.ru/index_en.htm Looks highly trustworthy...
http://www.mgopu.ru looks more like a school for teenagers to me? Sorry, don't understand russian, just pictures ;-)
I have emailed rggu.com (a definitely genuine university in moscow) about this site, I hope that they can confirm/deny it's status.

-- Crabel (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: No answer from Castle Tratzberg about IAS. A second mail (from another address) with a question about renting the castle was answered rather quickly.
A russian friend answered my question about www.mgopu.ru and it is indeed a genuine university in moscow. I think, the english page is kind of dead weight, it seems it wasn't updated for years. Crabel (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In case somebody is interested: german discussion Crabel (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I would guess something like this is notable enough to require an article. At a quick search I had troubles finding member lists but the facebook page seems to list some. It was interesting to find that UMichigan says about a professor that is a member of the American Physical Society, Royal Society of Science, International Academy of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. This means in their opinion, the IAS is in the same range of reputability as APS, RSS, and NAS. I am tempted to go with 'keep on this one. Nergaal (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I mailed Mr. Donald Glaser about his membership but no answer so far. Will update in case I get one.
Update: No answer from Mr. Glaser. And I guess, I won't get one... Crabel (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Prof. Häder/Uni Erlangen, one of the members in DE stated (deletion discussin DE): "I was asked about membership many years ago and agreed but never had anything to do with the IAS since then".
This sentence was taken from the homepage when it was still online: "Honorary Academicians of the International Academy of Science are all ICSD members until 1990 which are Nobel Prize Winners. All Nobel Laureates signed the foundation covenant of the Initiating Committee. A Nobel Prize Winners can become honorary fellow ("Honorary IAS Academician) by assumption of membership. Until 2008, 119 Nobel Laureates are or were honorary fellows." Here is a list of honorary members as taken from the now unreachable sites.
Members like Dieter Broers(according to himself Head of Biophysics) did not help the case for keep either (he as a degree from Rutherford University, a known degree mill) and wrote a science(!) book about the apocalypse in 2012. Crabel (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. This sounds to me like one of Pauling's efforts at international cooperation, & there may be some more historical info.in bios of Pauling. I am not sure the international organization is important now, but it once was, and so it remains notable. There is good evidence that the Russian section at least is still active--they have scheduled events as currently as Oct 26, 2010 ; and see . DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyber-Attack-Warning: The brand new user Crabel is member of in illegal activities involved Esowatch Group. Esowatch.com is registered in Hong Kong on Linh Wang (who is involved in many german lawsuits - all sides were deleted from German courts!), and anonymous hosted in Turkey hosted. For many peoples ESOWATCH.com is an illegal Cyber-Mobbing Organization. They attack German citizens, scientists - and so on. One person gave a head money of 100.000 € for identifying the organization (I not !). Crabel planed the attack of the International Academy of Science in the esowatch forum, user crabel - with the title "Hoppla ! Bei Knowledge gibt es 100.000 Euro zu gewinnen !" engl. "Hoppla ! We can win 100.000 € by Knowledge !". They think that Dalia Lama cooperates with Nazis, that the new German federal president is a extreme fundamentalist, the love to classify scientists as pseudo, e.g.. There is an ongoing discussion in German Knowledge – especially if esowatch is a criminal esoteric organization or not. Please set Crabel and esowatch.com on your spam-filter! Thank You.--84.148.181.110 (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

While I am not sure how relevant this is for this discussion, I think I should reply. Yes, I am a forum member at esowatch.com. It is not an illegal organization but it certainly has many "friends". Please take a look at the small English section to get an impression of EW: EW-Wiki Mainpage English. If this is to emphasize my WP:POV, well I agree, I am biased against IAS because it is an "importance factory" in my opinion. If there are further questions, please ask. Crabel (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mandsford 20:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The relisting rationale is that additional discussion began in the last two days of this listing. Mandsford 20:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under A9 (no article for artist) by Malik Shabazz. AfD closed by 28bytes (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This article is about a non-notable future album. It violates WP:CRYSTAL, and the only source is a YouTube video. ~NerdyScienceDude 02:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, A9 The singer has never had an article. And there's nothing to indicate s/he merits one--a grand total of ONE Yahoo hit (this article) and 6 Google hits. So tagged. Blueboy96 03:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This is very-low budget movie that was apparently never released. The entry is a sea of red links. The sole source is IMDB. It's had various tags on it since 2007, and no sign that it can be improved or that the film will achieve any actual notability. Fails WP:NF.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete for the same reason as in Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Clyde Lucas. It was a straight copy and paste of the subject's own copyrighted autobiography the last time. It's a straight copy and paste of the subject's own copyrighted autobiography, with some of the sentences lightly touched up, this time. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Clyde Lucas (2nd nomination)

Consensus? I'm not sure how best to proceed with this. The article seems to have been created and almost solely edited by the subject himself, creating problems with WP:AUTOBIO and WP:YOURSELF, as well as WP:OR. It takes the form almost exclusively of a resumé or list of credits (WP:STYLE). It has no inline citations (WP:IC). Virtually all of the references are either to disputed areas of IMDb sourcing (WP:RS, WP:CIMDb), or to self-published promotional websites (WP:SPS). While I have no doubt that the credits listed are reasonably accurate, and I have myself encountered the subject's name online outside WP, (albeit only through his own promotional efforts, personal appearances, or other non-citable publications), I am concerned about the issues of style, self-promotion, verifiability, and notability that this article raises. (It should be noted that the Clyde Lucas described in this article is NOT either of the rather more famous Clyde Lucases, the big-band era orchestra leader or the jazz drummer, neither of whom have articles despite being considerably better known in their times.) I do not object to the article remaining, but I think these issues need to be addressed. It is extremely difficult to research WP-accepted citations on this subject in order to provide proper inline cites, since almost everything available online seems to have been created by Mr. Lucas, and from the tone of the article and the almost invariable editing by a single ISP, such would seem to be the case with the article itself. How do we best address such a situation? Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Article's subject matter is not notable. No info save the possible authors own site. WP:FAILN There is too much speculation. No information available regarding the subject to verify any claims as there is no information outside Jonson arms regarding the subject.

Possible copyright violations with image(s)

Possible conflict of interest WP:COI

Possible sockpuppetry/meat puppetry

Please check discussion in talk pages Talk:7.62 Jonson DeusImperator (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The main issues with the Jonson cartridges 6.5 Jonson 7.62 Jonson and the 9mm Jonson is that whole or together there is no interest in the cartridge. While it is possible that interest in the cartridge has been communicated to the parties involved there is no evidence in print or on the internet. In print media the only entry for the 6.5 Jonson is just that a single line saying 6.5 Jonson. So we know the 6.5 Jonson existed but noting about it. The 7.62 is the not listed but the Jonson arms site is the only entity with some information and it appears that that was a project since 1985 with nothing to show for it in the end. The 9mm Jonson has no info regarding it anywhere. Jonson arms may have put the 6.5 or the 9mm on hold or abandoned them altogether for the lack of interest. The 7.62 was to bare fruitfulness in 2009 and a push was made by the company beginning in the later part of 2008 to drum up support but there has been nothing since then on the company's website regarding the project. The general lack of interest and the non-existence of data outside wiki cannot be overcome at least at the present time. It appears to indicate that writers of the articles concerning these cartridges for the Wiki were intimately aware of the subject due to WP:POV nature of the article, and it appears that no information can be substantiated or verified as the information is in itself unsourced and the original work of the author(s). None of the references provide factual data concerning the cartridges. A smattering of other links provide are about subject matters not remotely connected to the subject. It is merely dressing up and only works at providing window dressing to the articles.

Other issues can be overcome through good re-writes, whether it be the WP:COI or the possible copy violation etc. The puppetry is only side issue when strictly looking at the article. The fact that there is no data will leave a header and a schematic drawing of the cartridge uploaded by Jonson aRms to steve's pages - and that is about it. DeusImperator (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete Yet another example of someone's personal project. Did a nice job on layout, but serious POV issues and nothing to establish notability, probably because there aren't any good sources. Also mostly cut-paste with 9mm Jonson and 6.5 Jonson AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Poorly sourced BLP, Google search of her name does not bring up reputable sources. Sources used are IMDB, Star Wars Official Film Challenge and Action Flick Chick. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:12pm • 09:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
AKA: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AKA: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

no individual notability for this album, release for band not showing individual notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

At the last AfD, mention was made of the GHits. However, many of these are Ghazali's own byline (i.e. not independent coverage); the transliterated results were not a precise hit - they found article's which had the three transliterated words, but not necessarily together! I couldn't find the significant independent coverage required by the notability criteria. This article is still unsourced since 2007 - and the only links in it are to Ghazali's own website! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not seem to be notable. No secondary sources and no information about him besides resume items. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: I have notified all the participants in the last AfD (in a neutral manner) that this AfD is open should they wish to comment here-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Patently notable journalist. When did systemic bias become something Knowledge strove for instead of, y'know, tried to avoid? Rebecca (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    I understand the "systemic bias" bit, and it's something I try to avoid - but if he is that notable a journalist, I'd expect to find some significant coverage in Arabic sources. Although these are not as extant as English-language sources online, there is plenty of Arabic sources of various types that are online - can you find a couple which would verify the information in the article? A quick look through the ones found at Google by the above-added Find sources reveals his by-line, but not coverage about him. I could find a journalist on my local newspaper who has their byline on a lot of articles, but the presence of those would not indicate that she was notable enough for inclusion. Of course, if "systemic bias" means that we ignore WP:N, then I'm OK with that if that is the community consensus - but I'd like to see a policy or guideline which actually says "ignore the requirements if the subject is not in an English-speaking location"! OK, I'm being deliberately obtuse there, but Knowledge:BIAS#Biographies doesn't say that, does it? Is there an Arabic-speaker who can find reliable sources other than the bylines? Also, we should bear in mind that Ghazali is not living in the Arabic world - he lives in California, he worked in English News departments... is there really no significant coverage from reliable sources? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rebecca and per the argument in the initial AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, finding lots of GHits does not make one notable. This is an unreferenced BLP and has been so for nearly three years. I have attempted to find reliable, non-trivial sources independent of the subject and have been unable. J04n(talk page) 21:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn and no !votes for delete. (NAC) Armbrust Contribs 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Empty, referenceless, sourceless page with no information or value of any kind and three external links that all go back to the product's site. Lahnfeear (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Daily Pennsylvanian. GedUK  12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

34th Street Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "arts and culture" magazine at U Penn that is operated by The Daily Pennsylvanian college newspaper. No references to establish notability. Its connection to the college newspaper or the university do not impart notability. GrapedApe (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Though apparently used by enough providers to be a neologism, it does not appear to be in sufficiently common use to warrant an article or even a redirect. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • As I suggested, perhaps it could be merged with debt relief. HalfShadow 20:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The term is definitely used by attorneys advertising their services, but I could find absolutely no sourcing for the term via Google News or Google Books. Without reliable sourcing it fails Wiki criteria. It could be merged or redirected to "debt relief," with which it appears to be synonymous. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GedUK  11:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Album with no evidence of notability, as far as I can see. Battleaxe9872 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑