Knowledge (XXG)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Article was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7 some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it (non-admin closure) jp×g 09:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

My bio info was posted without my consent, and the page was vandalized on October 10th, 2010. Information in the article is false. A user with the IP 68.102.207.125 vandalized the article and it contains wrong and erroneous information about me. This post also falls into the category of articles which are grossly libellous or otherwise completely unsuitable. There is nothing to prevent this person from posting false information about me again. Please, I am asking for you help. The information about me doesn't provide anything worthwhile. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEAVERRULES1980 (talk • contribs) 2010-11-24T13:12:46‎

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Starland (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)

Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

American singer, songwriter, music producer and musician. Helped to discover Lady Gaga, but that article doesn't even mention her. The majority of the sources on her are about her dealings with Lady Gaga. Claims of notability under NMUSIC not sourced. Article is currently a mess and should be stubbed (if not deleted). Christopher Connor (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy keep regardless of the fact I wrote this early on; it is somewhat of a mess at present and not all of the facts are updated. I don't wish to sling accusations, but I believe this to be a mistake at best. It had been protected because of vandalism after the Lady Gaga info had been added, the nominator requested unprotection, proceeded to tag it with notability claims and now this. The Lady Gaga claim is legitimate and verifiable in the New York Times, MTV had a recent interview with Wendy as part of a Lady Gaga special and even without that claim, she remains a major artist on a major label who has charted hits. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you find sources for the claims under NMUSIC? I fear that if the article is kept it's mainly going to talk about Lady Gaga and the lawsuit. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I think she is notable. She especially is if she helped discover Lady GaGa. And the sources say she did discover her, so that should help the WP:V and WP:N. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 23:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean Up - something odd is surely going on here with this nomination and the history of vandalism and protection on the article. It does need to be cleaned up and better references are in order, and it appears that some editors have been trying to make a good faith effort. The true issue here is not necessarily notability, but instead reliable sources and verifiability. A lot of unverifiable material in this article could be removed but there should still be enough left for an informative stub. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing odd is going on (at least not from my part), so I don't know why you say that. It was protected apparently because the subject, who apparently wrote most of it, requested it, which was granted against the protection policy. It astounds me that an adminstrator would full-protect an article (1) a subject had written because they requested it (2) for three whole months (3) when the article had serious violations of NOR, V, BLP, NPOV, and was an autobiography full of promotional junk. I saw the article was in abysmal shape, asked for unprotection, tagged it up, and nominated it for deletion when no-one wanted to source the claims. Notability was weak from the start, and most of it comes from Lady Gaga, so there's going to be an unbalanced news article if we do keep. Even now, from the article it's not clear that notability is met, just unsourced (or poorly sourced) assertions. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and take a Valium The Lady Gaga doesn't cut it for me… I discovered Gaga too, I think, but if assertions are to be believed, she's been nominated for a couple of Best Emerging somethings, which much be sourced and verified. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Since I'm primarily responsible for this article in the first place, I'll take the reins and clean it up when I have some time to sit down and do it properly. I don't always lock articles down like I did this one, but it had been getting pretty badly savaged after the Lady Gaga news was added. My bad. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

AChat (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 sources provided Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 23:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - could not find any sources beyond download sites. Marasmusine (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete No independent sources provided. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:14, 1 December 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. The numbers seem fairly strongly to delete (I say "seem" because exact counting is rarely helpful) and the arguments, viewed objectively, support that as the consensus result.

There is quite a firm consensus here that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support the notability of the intersection between Judaism and heavy metal. Sources have been presented, but it has been pointed out that the sources generally cover intersections between Judaism and genres such as rock & roll and punk, not heavy metal (aside from the occasional brief coverage such as and ). While the BLP problems raised early in the discussion have been dealt with by sourcing (it seems), the notability questions have not. In that respect, the detailed and unanswered analyses of Jayjg, Uncle G and Cptono are illuminative. On the keep side, the notability arguments are generally bare assertions of notability (or even just "interesting") or references to sources that have been demonstrated to be about different intersections (eg rock & roll). It is therefore on the notability question that there is a consensus to delete. Discussions regarding categorisation are less relevant to the outcome (it being questionable whether WP:BLPCAT even applies). Also of little relevance is the discussion regarding the existence or otherwise of a Jewish nation, the point being that notability has been demonstrated not to exist by reference to Judaism as a religion, ethnicity, nation or otherwise.Mkativerata (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish heavy metal musicians (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)

Viol8er (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable intersection. Unsourced, so a BLP problem. Contains OR. Also has a link to Jew Watch. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I removed the link to Jew Watch, so that's not an issue now. No assessment yet from me on the noteworthiness of Jewish heavy metal, but see these refs at least before !voting:. p.s. In this vein there's a book called Heavy Metal Islam. Fences&Windows 02:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• DeleteUserify BLP issues abound. I just deleted the Megadeath line, as neither musician's article referenced Judaism at all. I suspect if I were to keep pulling at threads, most would unravel. Fences and Windows, I suggest that if you think this topic is notable you quickly remedy the unsourced BLP nature of it. Beyond that, I have no particular enthusiasm for the topic selection--is there any RS which asserts Jewish Heavy Metal musicians are somehow notable? Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't found one yet, but I can give you another encyclopaedia's whole encyclopaedia article on Jews in Rock and Roll, which — incidentally — lists one of the very people whose names you just excised, as one of the "Jewish heavy metal bad boys". (Altschuler 2008, pp. 676) harv error: no target: CITEREFAltschuler2008 (help)
    • Altschuler, Glenn C. (2008). "Jews in Rock 'n' Roll". In Stephen Harlan Norwood and Eunice G. Pollack (ed.). Encyclopedia of American Jewish history. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781851096381.
    • Billig, Michael (2001). Rock 'n' roll Jews. Judaic traditions in literature, music, and art. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815607052.
    • Buhle, Paul (2007). "Jews and Rock 'n' Roll". Jews and American Popular Culture: Music, theater, popular art, and literature. Jews and American Popular Culture. Vol. 2. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 9780275987954.
    • Stratton, Jon (2009). Jews, race and popular music. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 9780754668046.
  • There are even sources on the subject of Jewish punk rock. (See Stratton 2009, pp. 1–2 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStratton2009 (help) for several source citations.) Of course, the article at hand is yet another example of cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing — build a list of instances of a concept and magically a discussion of the concept will arise when some mystical critical mass is reached — if it isn't simply the unencyclopaedic pointmaking that Christopher Connor implies it to be. It's nothing like what an article (on Jews in Rock 'n' Roll) built from the above sources would be like. Bukszpan's Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal has no entry for Jews that I can find, and it seems plain from the extensive sources that do exist that Rock 'n' Roll and punk rock music are the foci of what's actually documented in sources, not heavy metal music. Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but given the BLP implications, I would prefer to see it userified and NOINDEX'ed until it was properly referenced. I've adjusted my !vote accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
      • @Jclemens--Yes; see below, and refs added to article.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Just checked a smattering of the names, perhaps half?, and all had RS sources. One source even indicated a book could be written about the large number of Jewish performers in Heavy Metal. If there is a serious question about any, especially after checking RSs, perhaps a cite tag would work best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Good job finding refs. - Should simply remove those that refs cant be found for and monitor the page for unsourced additions (have added it to my watch list).Moxy (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, none of the references seem to confirm self-identification as required for living persons. Dee Snider is included even though a reference specifically says that Snider is not Jewish. (scroll to the footnote at the bottom of the page). This is an unnecessary list with serious BLP issues. Yworo (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yup. Whether the secondary sources totally contradict the lists' contents doesn't matter, because this whole article is little more than a listified version of a coffee table book dissembling as some type of encyclopedic study of Jews and music. The whole point of it seems to be "Look, grandma, Guns 'N Roses is Jewish like you! Ain't that cool?!" Bulldog123 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, violates BLPCAT, EGRS. Jeez, how many of these are there (incl. all ethnicities)?--Therexbanner (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete violates BLPCAT. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the mere fact that a few minos logistical errors were detected in one or 2 of the citations does not mean that the entire aritlceshould be deleted. an acceptable compromise would be userification, but an outright deletion would only strenghen the criticms of wikipiedia as a truncheon of mindless deletionism. User:Smith Jones 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Instead of criticism for being cargo-cult collections of instances of subject X in the hope that an article providing analysis and knowledge of subject X will magically arise? That isn't "minor logistical error". That is outright bad writing. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Therexbanner Bulldog123 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Of course this doesn't violate WP:EGRS, which is explicitly about adding categories to articles, nor WP:BLPCAT, which is mainly about Categories, and only impacts lists when they are about religion or sexual orientation ("Jewish" is an ethnic designation). Nevertheless, this article is an inherently non-notable intersection, one of a series of such lists that are and constantly attract WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V violations. Jayjg 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I am firmly sitting on the fence, but what does "inherently non-notable" mean? Is this a made-up reason to delete things you don't like? 'Cos it sure looks like it. This list doesn't inherently have any BLP, NOR or V issues (if properly sourced and maintained, as with any other article concerning living people), so you'd better come up with better arguments than some vaguewaves to those policies. Fences&Windows 12:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Inherently non-notable" means that reliable secondary sources do not address the intersection of the attributes of "Jewish" and "heavy metal". Moreover, even if they did, the topic would be better addressed in an actual article, that discussed this intersection (its history, influences, interactions between Jewishness and heavy metal, prominent examples) rather than this arbitrary list. See also Uncle G's comments above. As for not inherently having issues, you say it doesn't "if properly sourced and maintained"; that's the catch, the only ones that are are the ones ruthlessly monitored by me - I think, at this point, there are two on Knowledge (XXG) that are fully compliant with WP:V and WP:BLP. No-one else bothers, and many actively resist bringing them into compliance. Jayjg 18:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• WP:CIVIL please -- other users are entiteld to their own reasons for voting no, and if they really feel that Jews are inherently non-notable then thats their opinion and it must be treated with respect even if you (and me) disagree. User:Smith Jones 15:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• weak delete Unlike the similar other AfDs going on, I'm not at all convinced from what appears here that there are sources talking substantially about the intersection in general. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable listcruft. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a trivial intersection. "Jewish musician" might be defendable but "Jewish heavy metal musician" is overly specific and of no obvious encyclopaedic value. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: trivial intersection & BLP nightmare. Hrafn_Stalk 15:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This is a perfectly interesting topic. Here we have a book about "Jewish Comedians in America". These are subsections of the population that have been identified and apparently enjoy a good deal of interest from the general population. Transpose "Jewish comedians" with "Jewish heavy metal musicians" and you have another meaningful segment of the population identified. I don't think the logistical problem of maintaining accuracy in the list constitutes a sufficient reason for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment--Jews as an ethnicity and nation. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. In addition to the other points presented above, this is one that militates in favor or a !keep.

--Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a country. There is no country called Judaism on the map. You cannot obtain citizenship in the country of Judaism. There may have been a Jewish nation 2,000 years ago, but there isn't one today. This is why we don't have a List of Czechoslovakian heavy metal musicians, because Czechoslovakia no longer exists. The Jewish diaspora is not a sovereign nation with a government. It is a way of describing Jews who live outside of Israel. Let's not get bogged down with semantics. List of British heavy metal musicians is not the same as List of Jewish heavy metal musicians. SnottyWong  18:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• The closing admin will no doubt have to carefully weigh the RS-reported views of Justice Brandeis and Albert Einstein vs. those of Snotty.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong  19:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR, criteria #6, which states that: "Knowledge (XXG) articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." This article is an almost exact fit for "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", where religious group X = Jews and organization Y = heavy metal musicians. SnottyWong  19:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• As DGG pointed out today in reply to your parallel comment elsewhere, "as usual, if they have a Knowledge (XXG) article, including them isn't a violation of NOT DIR. A violation would be including every such actor, whether or not notable."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, except there is no article on Judaism and heavy metal or Jewish heavy metal, so your argument is moot. I have responded to DGG's comments on the original page, but I will not repost my response here. SnottyWong  22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• That there is no article on Judaism and heavy metal or Jewish heavy metal goes to justifying the use a list format for the topic Jewish heavy metal musicians. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Additional comment--In addition to the above comments, I would note as permitted by wp:otherstuffexists (which states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument"), that we have myriad similar lists, such as: List of Palestinians, List of Palestinian-Americans, List of Muslim scientists, List of Muslim mathematicians, List of Muslim astronomers, List of Muslim writers and poets, List of Muslim actors, Muslim doctors, List of American Muslims, List of Shi'a Muslims, List of converts to Islam, List of Arab scientists and scholars, List of Arab Americans, List of Arab Canadians, and List of Arab American writers.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The mere existence of other similar articles does not mean that any of them are appropriate, encyclopedic articles, and therefore does not mean that this article is appropriate or encyclopedic. SnottyWong  19:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• As discussed above, we clearly have more than the "mere existence" of similar articles. And as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument".--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• The examples in NOT DIR would correspond to Jewish musicians in band X, or Jewish musicians in city Y. This is a much broader category, and to the extent that the examples guide the interpretation, they permit not exclude this one. And the proper use of "other stuff exists in is showing the general practice with regard to a general situation. If we routinely have lists like this for other ethnic groups, or other occupations, we can not justify omitting a particular one of them. These types of articles are navigational devices, and an encyclopedia should use them in a uniform way. We're notoriously inconsistent in whom we include articles on in most subjects, but at least the connecting structure should be consistent. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as a trivial intersection of unrelated concepts, with no indication that the topic is notable. As Snotty points out, we don't have sources to support an article on Judaism and heavy metal so a list of individual examples is also unsustainable. All this is is a mish-mash of a religion/ethnic group with an occupation. What's next? List of Protestant bricklayers? List of Armenian florists? Ludicrous. Reyk _YO! 23:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Armenian agriculture has a long tradition of selective breeding, and there were distinct Armenian schools (plural) of horticulture - both vernacular and academic. Yes, a standalone list of notable Armenian horticulturalists (even limited to Armenia the independent country) is quite possible. East of Borschov 16:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, indeed a non-trivial and unexpected intersection. The very "un-relationship" makes it worthwhile (but also a vanda-pov magnet). I'd give this curiosity a benefit of doubt. Disclaimer: Brought to this exquisite gem of a list by none other than Epeefleche. Now I know who is behind all that trash they play in bars! KISS wore makeup to disguise their noses! Ah, but KISS weren't exactly heavy metal, they were the teletubbies of their period, weren't they? East of Borschov 08:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - religion does not have an impact on the type of music an artist makes (i.e., it may make a difference, but that is not what this list reflects). --Dirk Beetstra 08:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete to be honest I was surprised by the list initially. Then I realized that none of the people listed here have really made a significant reference to their ethnicity during theirs careers. Furthermore, the ethnicity and the idea of a hard metal musician don't mix well. Pardon the comparison, but it is like having a list of African winter Olympians. Nevertheless, while that one is probably notable, in this case, I have serious doubts that any heavy metal musician truly cares about his ethnicity or follows the any religious aspect even in the tiniest amount. Nergaal (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Is there such a thing as Jewish heavy metal? Apparently not; but if there was, we could have a list of musicians associated with it, titled (for clarity) something like List of musicians associated with Jewish heavy metal. Otherwise, we're in BLPCAT territory, so delete per Reyk. Rd232 11:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete there seems to be no connection whatsoever between these two categories, and nobody has suggested any d=sort of connection. RolandR (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I'm sick and tired of arguments like: "Judaism is only religion so if one is not an adherent of Judaism he/she's not Jewish"-that's both far from being the true and in any case consist POV (sometimes antisemitic one BTW). I also don't have much regard to arguments about how bad the categorization of people by their ethnicity is while almost only Jewish categories are being attacked on this basis and when we have many informative categories about people from certain city, school and etc. I do think that people of partial Jewish origin are much harder to be listed in this categories -though self identification should be enough.--Gilisa (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable intersection amounting to vanity and trivia listcruft. Also a violation of WP:BLPCAT.Griswaldo (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Knowledge (XXG) should not be placing people into subjective and potentially contentious ethnic or religious categories, particularly when those categories are not relavent to the subject's notability. Doing so is against the spirit of WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - notable intersection. Now is sourced and OR removed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• "-ish" heavy metal in which Knowledge (XXG) follows: British, Danish, English, Finnish, Irish, Jewish, Northern Irish, Polish, Scottish, Spanish, Swedish, and Turkish. In addition, there are separate Knowledge (XXG) followings for countries of these "-ish" heavy metal topics (e.g., Ireland, Israel, Scotland, Spain, Turkey, etc.). There is no basis posted in this AfD to exclude Jewish from the "-ish" heavy metal coverage. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Some cats: Christian metal musicians, Black metal musicians, Dutch black metal musical groups, Oriental metal musical groups, and Unblack metal musical groups. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no indication that "Jewish heavy metal" is a notable topic. By its very nature, this article pushes the POV that being Jewish is important to these act's careers, which is not supported. Resolute 14:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Keep There are sources suggesting this is a notable intersection a quick google search shows that people regularly ask about the subject "Who are some notable Jewish heavy metal musicians?", "anyone in metal bands Jewish?", etc. As for a lead article, this should probably constitute a section in something like Secular Jewish music which currently ends at the Jazz Era even though it has a scope up until the current day. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not seeing the question mentioned above answered in reliable sources from a quick search so I do not believe that is relevant. Both articles and list topics must be notable (lead of WP:N). Unlike the list of Jewish Nobel winners, this has not received significant coverage as a topic. I am also having such a hard time verifying the inclusion of the Calaveras that it makes me question the one of the sources that gives some play of the topic as a whole.Cptnono (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added another source, to address your concern. The book Jews Who Rock by Guy Oseary; Introduction by Ben Stiller; Afterword by Perry Farrell, 2001, Macmillan, ISBN: 978-0-312-27267-8.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: This might assert some notability. This might but the article/list would need to be "rock". This cool story would be better for Heavy Metal in Israel or Heavy Metal in the Middle East (not to be confused with the amazing Heavy Metal in Baghdad).Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a good source. I'm still seeing notability being a stretch and the deal breaker for me is this being a list and not an article since the last source certainly would add too many asterisks for a list. We do have enough sources for Judaism and rock music and might have enough for Judaism and heavy metal.Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the book. Would that also be better for a list on Jews in rock music as opposed to only metal? I think I would consider !voting keep for this if it was "rock" and if how the artists were Jewish was added (one guy mentioned his father gave it up early, another mentions his grandparents, and so on)Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I thought that this is a non-notable intersection, and was surprised to see that the sources in the article and in Fences&Windows' comment demonstrate the exact opposite. People should read them. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This relates to one of nom's concerns at the time of nomination -- all individual entries are ref'd at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:19, 1 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Suicide (Seinfeld) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

This episode of Seinfeld fails to meet the GNG or the interpretation of it given in FICTION. TV plot articles without any clear rationale for significance fail the definition of WP:IINFO#1. This article may be suitable for creation at http://seinfeld.wikia.com but Knowledge (XXG) is not for episode guides or a fansite. This article has been around since 2006 waiting for evidence of significant impact (and yes, there is no evidence of anything on GNews archives or in GBooks) so raising for AfD rather than PROD. Fæ (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Keep with a Caveat I am of the camp that think that not every episode in a series deserves an article. If you look at something like Family Guy, which I do like as a show, most of the articles are GA class because there is a group of people that watch the show, put the work in, and make sure that whenever anyone mentions that maybe, just maybe, every single episode isn't notable, there is a roar to drown the idea out. Well, if it is going to be psudo-policy that every episode in a series gets a page, this page shouldn't be deleted. That being said, it needs sourcing work, preferably before this AfD is over. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: Without going into the huge history here of battles over episode articles vs. season summaries, each seinfeld ep seems to have its own article, so that's the categorization scheme we've installed for this series. This is usually only the case for very popular series.--Milowent • 05:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Much to my continual bafflement, Seinfeld is undoubtedly one of the most notable, successful and influential shows in the history of television. I'm quite prepared to accept that it's one of those few shows that can sustain an encyclopaedic article on each and every one of its episodes. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to LoE. Currently only consists plot in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, no indication why this is WP:NOTABLE. That nearly every other Seinfeld episode has a plot-only article is a sign that more articles should be deleted/merged/redirected, not all of them kept (WP:OTHERSTUFF). The article should be allowed to be recreated easily if and only if the NOT#PLOT and NOTABILITY can be figured out, therefore I prefer redirection instead of deletion. – sgeureka 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't matter how famous Seinfeld is, this article is currently completely void of independent sources and currently fails both WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Help - Isn't there a policy or guideline somewhere that says plots (book, TV, movie, etc.) don't need to be based on reliable source material and a Wikipedian editor can merely summarize the plot so long as the plot remains close to the actual plot? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Found it! Knowledge (XXG)'s kiss of death says: Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes"). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material. This style of writing should be preferred for plot summaries that encompass multiple works, such as a series of novels. Such conventions are not as important for plot summaries of single works, such as novels that are not part of a series; nevertheless, some real-world language at the beginning of such summaries is often good style. The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Correct, so all that has to be done is get the rest of the article to meet WP:GNG, which currently it does not. Fæ (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • You simply can't delete one seinfeld ep without considering that we have articles on every episode. You would upset a long term organization plan for this content.--Milowent • 17:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
        • WP:OTHERSTUFF. All those articles should be redirected/deleted if they don't meet WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GNG. There hasn't been any sign of a long term organization plan in the past 4.5 years, so let's finally (re-)organize them à la "No established notablity, no article". – sgeureka 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Deletion decisions are not made on the status of the article but on the likelihood of material being available for the article to meet WP:GNG. Knowledge (XXG)'s kiss of death provides the significant bulk text to maintain the article. Then it is only a matter adding citations to the article for material outside the plot, which can be done per my below post. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
        • The likelihood of material being available for the article to meet WP:GNG seems to approach zero after 4.5 years of no-one establishing the notability of this episode. Now the onus is on the people who argue otherwise (WP:PROVEIT). – sgeureka 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Do you know how many articles could be sourced that aren't sourced after more than 5 years? Scads of them.--Milowent • 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure you can summarize the plot. That's what episode lists and season articles are for. They can cover plot summaries as well as the trivial real-world information of an infobox and a lead. They are also in accordance with WP:AVOIDSPLIT, unlike this episode article. – sgeureka 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The unsourced, Knowledge (XXG) editor original created plot (justified by the Knowledge (XXG) kiss of death guidline noted above linked from the NOT policy) provides enough material from which to maintain a stand-alone article on the topic. With the quantity of available material satisfied, we then turn to other policy guideline issues. NOT says strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary. Well, this page has a lead, an Infobox Television episode template, and a Seinfeld template - certainly more than consisting only of a plot summary. In view of the popularity of Seinfeld, there is no double that reliable sources have discussed this eposide, a summarization of which can be added to the article. Here are books having Seinfeld in the title and discussing Suicide, much of the reliable source text of which can be added to the article. Here are books having suicide in the title and mentioning Seinfeld - a likely source of reliable source material. And the motherload, this is 1,120 books mentioning Seinfeld and suicide, surely enough reliable source material is in there to move this article further away from NOT#PLOT than it already is. Because there is enough material to maintain a stand-alone article on the topic (via the free flowing plot) and there is no double that reliable sources exists to continue to move this article further away from a plot summary only article, the article should be kept. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confusing TV episode guides with reliable sources that might demonstrate notability of this episode in a meaningful encyclopaedic sense. The plot summary guidelines in MOS and NOT that you have quoted are unambiguous and clear in stating that articles should not be mere non-notable shells around an episode plot summary. Knowledge (XXG) is not a TV series fan-site. Fæ (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Plots should be based on reliable source material like all other article content. Knowledge (XXG) kiss of death allows a Knowledge (XXG) editor to add plot content, making that Knowledge (XXG) editor a relialble source for the plot. That plot text counts as reliable source material that goes towards satisfying WP:N. (If it wasn't reliable source material, then it would not be allowed in the article, would it). That is why I call plot Summaries the Knowledge (XXG) kiss of death because true reliable source material is what separated Knowledge (XXG) from the rest of the Internet website. With that boundary broke for plots, just about all plot base media topics will find a home in Knowledge (XXG), including anime, Pokémon, wrestling events (which are scripted so that they do have plots), etc. With the lines blured between fan websites and Knowledge (XXG)'s plot based topics, Knowledge (XXG) is moving towards fan website for plot based topics. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The end of the quote you cited above says: "Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary." Articles should only exist for these kinds of topics if they are backed up with non-plot information, citing reliable sources (therefore passing WP:GNG). Jujutacular  02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to list of episodes. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 1 December 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. New references added clearly establish notability per WP:ARTIST Kim Dent-Brown 13:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Paola Pivi (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 not an article that can be easily improved by editors. The subject is not necessarily notable. All we have is a pasted in CV from commercial gallery. Artiquities (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep This is not an article that can be easily improved by editors. So, do you think it is better to delete the information? Paola Pivi is a notable and interesting artist and meets our criteria for creative professionals , , etc etc. The article is in a bad shape and needs work, as well as cca 3.300.000 articles on this project. However, I can't find any harmful (or commercial) information unacceptable for this encyclopedia - what we have now is rather a list of exhibitions. If you suspect copyright infringement, please could you explain in a more specific way what's wrong? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Vejvančický mentions above that this is "a notable and interesting artist" but this opinion could not have been from ed from WP as there is no evidence of notabilty included. WP is not a place to simply paste a resume. As it stands this article does not meet criteria for notability--i.e, subject mentioned in reliable sources.--Artiquities (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability at all. Curiously Vejvančický, the only person so far asking for "keep", uses straw man arguments by answering hypothetical reasons for deletion that have not been put forward. Nobody has claimed there is "harmful" or "commercial" information, nor has anyone suggested copyright infringement, so Vejvančický's arguments are irrelevant. As for "a notable and interesting artist", "notable" has not been demonstrated and "interesting" is irrelevant: see WP:ILIKEIT. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I assume you've noted the links in my comment, they're all substantial reviews published by major newspapers in Europe (Guardian), USA (NYTimes) and New Zealand (NZHerald). You could ask me if I plan to use the sources in the article. Instead of it you review my "irrelevant" arguments ... It is strange. I'll work on the article. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Vejvančický has presented plenty of evidence of notability above. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but needs fixing - reads like a resume, not acceptable as is...Modernist (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment None of the three sources linked above by Vejvančický gives substantial coverage of Paola Pivi. All of them give mentions of her in the course of covering other topics in which she is involved. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's not clear what you are looking for if those sources don't meet the signifcant coverage criteria.
    1. is the New York Times covering an exhibition which she organised, and in which she exhibited. The review touches on both, and to me that is significant coverage. And that's the weakest of the the three sources.
    2. is a review of one of her works—exclusively. That's significant coverage.
    3. is a review of another of her works as primary subject of the article. Again, that's significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep with significant coverage that demonstrates the subject meets the guidelines for the general notability guidelines. Also, criterion 4 from WP:CREATIVE is applicable as exhibiting twice at the Venice Biennial shows her work is receiving critical attention. That's not some small gallery somewhere, it is a major arts exhibition. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

This episode of Monk (TV series) fails to meet the GNG or the interpretation of it given in FICTION. TV plot articles without any clear rationale for significance fail the definition of WP:IINFO#1. This article may be suitable for creation at http://monk.wikia.org but Knowledge (XXG) is not for episode guides or a fansite. PROD removed, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I am one of those people who believes that Monk (like every other show out there) should have an article for every episode. House, The Office, Seinfeld, and many others do. Unfortunately, for some reason, not all shows are allowed to. I understand the notability rules, and yes, not every single episode of House is that memorable, and neither is every episode of Monk. However, I believe that Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist has its significance and helps influence the plot of several later episodes. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Keep with a Caveat I am of the camp that think that not every episode in a series deserves an article. If you look at something like Family Guy, which I do like as a show, most of the articles are GA class because there is a group of people that watch the show, put the work in, and make sure that whenever anyone mentions that maybe, just maybe, every single episode isn't notable, there is a roar to drown the idea out. Well, if it is going to be psudo-policy that every episode in a series gets a page, this page shouldn't be deleted. That being said, it needs sourcing work, preferably before this AfD is over. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. There are a couple other episodes of this show that are currently up for deletion, and I voted delete on those. However, this episode is memorable, and not just to fans of the show. A section with comments about the episode's reception would be nice, and the section with the song lyrics might be better at Wikisource, but overall, I vote keep. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate in what way it is memorable? All TV shows have a couple of memorable episodes, but this one doesn't demonstrate how (except that it's a favorite of a cast member, without a statement why). Otherwise, the article state is not better than any other Monk ep article. – sgeureka 09:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Like I said, it needs a reception section, and probably more than just that. I think it can be done, though. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect I'm one of those that thinks that there shouldn't of necessity be a vast article about every episode of some TV programme. (Or for every track of every record of every singer...) And especially when it appears there are no independent reliable references anyway... The series itself appears notable (and even I've heard of it but without knowing or wanting to know what it was...) and has its own article. I have doubts about the inclusion of the lyrics, as presumably they are copyright to someone or other. I don't think publishing the full song here is fair use or even necessary. Peridon (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Delete endorsed by the article creator and main contributor (F.R Durant). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Spider man reboot (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)

A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Too similar to Spider-Man (film series) article's section # 2.5.1 Spider-Man reboot (2012) Wlmg (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• This article is a beginning article which has facts that are similar to what is on that page but is completly different. In the end i want this page to be the official page for the spider man reboot before and after its release. This movie has to have its own page and i hope this is it. Please reconsider this proposal, and any help with editing this article will be greatly appreciated. Also, ive changed the article since this proposal so please reveiw my new article and make your suggestions then, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.R Durant (talk • contribs) 02:28, November 25, 2010

• Delete. Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. When the movie has a name, it can be page-d (presumably as Spider-Man (201x film)). - The Bushranger _{Return fire} 05:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete change of heart, i will help j henderson manage his article. It is far better sourced and better written. F.R Durant (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect for now to Spider-Man (film series)#Spider-Man reboot (2012) where this topic is already well-covered and far better sourced. Userfy this version to its author. I had a discussion some months ago with User:Jhenderson777 about his own in-work User:Jhenderson777/Spider-Man (reboot), and with respects to User talk:F.R Durant, his is far better sourced than is yours. I ask you to read the guidelines dealing with "future films" and understand that while discussions of future events are definitely allowed, per WP:NFF it is sometimes better to have this information included in a parent article... in this case this Spider-Man (film series) article. I do agree that the topic is almost ready to be considered as an exception to WP:NFF... but not quite yet. I suggest you ask to have your version userfied to you at User talk:F.R Durant/Spider-Man reboot and then be a bit patient. I also urge you engage in discussions with Jhenderson777 so that your collective efforts will present the best possible article in the near future. The time for the reboot IS approaching... just not quite yet arrived. Schmidt, 10:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect For now. This movie should be ready to be an article in December 6 2010 when it's going to be filmed, which is very soon. − Jhenderson 01:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. In a conflict between two editors who argue the specific NSPORT guideline should be applied, and three editors who argue that the GNG should prevail, the result is no consensus. Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Derek Wathan (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)

Just one more for today. Derek Wathan is a retired minor league baseball player who never reached the major leagues. He currently does not hold any other "notable positions" such as manager or coach. Therefore, I do not believe he is worthy of an article. Alex (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. What about his 600 plus gnews hits?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• See WP:GHITS --Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• I did. It says: "using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is". It also says "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)." I suggest, therefore, that since per the guideline cited we have established that he is quite well known, you read the articles which reflect that he is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). The quality of the search engine results are high, as you will see. Also: "Note further that searches using ... Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search."--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You ask someone to see WP:GHITS, while you have done practically the same exact thing with WP:Not notable. Both of these arguments to avoid in Articles for Deletion discussions are on the same page, even. Agent Vodello 05:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Alex's reasoning. I should have been more explicit. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Man.. I knew this AFD would show up someday for someone to get brownie points after the baseball notability guidelines were changed to exclude Triple A players. Responding to someone saying that there's a lot of reliable news sources with WP:GHITS is wrong, since that applies to Google Web Searches. GHITS clearly states, Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search. One day I was going to expand the Derek Wathan article to great lengths since he was my favorite minor league player, and at the time his article satisfied baseball notability guidelines. Then an admin and two of his friends changed it after he made a bunch of AFDs that failed.

Derek Wathan is an article with a lot of potential, and seeing how there's several hundred news articles to use as references, I could easily turn this into a B-Class article if not higher. But no, someone got upset one day that his AFDs failed and went off to change the rules himself. The only reason I didn't participate in the discussion was because I saw the whole thing as a farce, especially with all the events leading up to the guideline change. Articles like Derek Wathan were made because they did in fact meet baseball notability guidelines a few years ago. Sorry, I am going stick with my gut feeling that this article has WP:POTENTIAL and enough reliable sources to satisfy general notability guidelines, and that trumps the tainted baseball guidelines every time. Agent Vodello 05:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I bet it was Wizardman. Alex (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't want to remember since the whole series of events were awful, but I believe it was actually Wknight94 that destroyed the baseball notability guidelines over a giant series of failed minor leaguer AFDs on his part. Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability is only the final part in a long series of BS. Wizardman is a good editor, and as far as I know he did not take part in the farce discussion to change the guidelines either. Agent Vodello 06:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem with setting the bar for notability where it is. There are so many career minor leaguers that to deem them all inherently notable would be unmanageable. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont remember Vodello participating in the notability discussions either when I originally was involved in making it more inclusive or when WKnight and others changed it to the current rules which I reluctantly supported. If you want to reopen said debate, I dont think you'd get much support right now.Spanneraol (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If it reopens, feel free to ping me to let me know. I missed the change discussion, sadly. The prior approach worked fine, from my perspective.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Per above comments I made, and per Vodello. Note: The preceding vote was from User:Epeefleche. Thanks! Agent Vodello 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above this subject passes GNG -Drdisque (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Chris Walker (baseball) (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)

30-year-old minor league baseball player who is not even in affiliated baseball anymore. He never reached the major leagues and there does not seem to be anything too notable about his minor league career. Alex (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. I see no evidence he's ever been in the Phillies' organization. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunately Delete. I don't think he'll ever be able to meet general notability guidelines at this point. Agent Vodello 06:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Purta (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 have been found that conform to WP:RS and WP:V, notability fails at WP:ENT, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, WP:BIO. None of the biographical details are supported except perhaps the single bit-part at MTV which may prove the subject's existence but does not assert notability as an established actor. Kudpung (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Appearing in one episode of a reality TV show two days ago does not bring him anywhere close to satisfying any of the notability criteria contained within WP:ENTERTAINER. Also fails WP:N in general. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely no reliable sources to confirm the WP:BLP. At best, it's waaaaaaaaay WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, 22:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hamfatter (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 discussions on the page's talk page bear out, this is a pretty unknown band: most of the claims on the page are uncited. They're an ephemeral phenomenon and any major information about them could easily be incorporated into the Dragons' Den page ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak Keep Their singles made the charts, which is the only reason why I think this should be kept. I'm just not sure if #54 for the single "Sziget (We Get Wrecked)" is poor enough for the band to reflect the whole notability aspect. Minimac (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, January 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: Relisted because AFD nomination process was not fully completed (see this thread). January 19:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I really messed up this NfD, didn't I? Thanks for sorting it out on my behalf, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I will have to agree with Minimac above. Some unverified claims in the article can be removed, and publicity-style infomration should definitely go. But the band did achieve a small amount of notability, so if someone wanted to take the time to create an article, so be it. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to The Fionavar Tapestry. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fionavar (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'm nominating this for deletion because of a lack of reliable information from independent sources. Without independent sources, there's no objective way to WP:verify notability or create meaningful information that is not just a plot summary. So it violates two key guidelines. It's also a WP:CONTENTFORK for The Fionavar Tapestry. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect I wouldn't have thought I'd be saying get rid of something about Fionavar. Fionavar, which I am just re-reading and wish I'd written. (No, I didn't...) As the info here seems to be in the Fionavar Tapestry article, there's no point in keeping it, but there is point in a shorter title redirect. I've taken the 'unreferenced' tag off the latter, by the way, and added a 'refimprove' as all the refs are subject linked. (Ah, the good old days... Now it's almost grounds for a hanging, drawing and quartering.) Peridon (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to the book. Primary sources (the books) can meet Wp:V for elements, they just cannot be used to establish notability. Thus, to the extent that any of this can be sourced to primary sources, then a merger is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to The Fionavar Tapestry per nom. Selective information may enhance the value of the book article, but per nom a stand-alone article on Fionavar is a violation of NOT#PLOT and NOTABILITY. Also a likely search term. – sgeureka 09:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The nomination clearly establishes the reasons why this article should be deleted. Additionally, the article is written with an in-universe perspective and it's an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 21:04, 1 December 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) 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Era (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)

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

Nominating this article for deletion for four main reasons:

• No independent sources here to WP:verify notability of this topic.
• The main source for this article appears to be copied word for word and is thus a WP:COPYVIO
• The article is entirely redundant to Mobile_Suit_Gundam_SEED#Plot and represents a WP:CONTENTFORK
• The article is almost entirely a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Knowledge (XXG) isn't a place for detailed plot summaries that have no meaning to the real world.

The copyright violation strikes me as a reason for speedy deletion. But even if you were to tweak this article until it no longer resembles the copyrighted material, it would still fail to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines for the other reasons. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Per the reasons stated in the nomination. Anything of real-world relevance is already covered in the Gundam and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED articles, so all information in this article is an unnecessary content fork that doesn't meet the criteria of fiction-related subjects neither the general notability guideline. It also fails at the criteria of appropriate topics for lists and notability at the manual of style for anime- and manga-related articles, being mostly an indiscriminate collection of information, more appropriate for a fansite. Jfgslo (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Rebuild As "Comsic Era" is the name for a set of TV series, books, comics, etc, an overviewing article should exist. As "MS Gundam Seed" is only the first property in the set, it should not be the overview article, it should only cover the TV show that it is named after. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Rebuild the article? If a person would do that then all the info in this current article would have to be deleted and new info added in, it is just easier to make a new article then to go through all that, plus the history of Cosmic Era is saved this way for future reference or AfD's. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't add anything more than what is already covered by the main article at Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, therefore it is a violation of WP:CFORK —Farix (t | c) 15:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per above I see no potental in this article based on what I am seeing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical Wheel of Time events (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 doesn't even have a single reference, all text is original research, it has an in-universe perspective exclusively, it does not meet the general notability guideline, fails the criteria of fiction-related subjects and it's an unnecessary content fork. This article clearly fulfills the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that this has already been DELSORT'ed into Literature and Fictional elements, without those being listed here. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unfortunately this is a WP:CONTENTFORK that duplicates the subject matter at The Wheel of Time. Worse still, the main Wheel of Time Article can be encyclopedic because it's about the series and its development and reception. This article is just about the events in the fictional universe, making it impossible for this article to meet WP:NOT#PLOT. For both those reasons combined, there should be an article on The Wheel of Time but no fork about the events within the Wheel of Time. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (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 High Fin Sperm Whale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nikon lens. Fails GNG. Sold in some shops but couldn't find any RS about it. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, or maybe Merge. WP:PRODUCT is pretty clear that individual products should only have their own articles in relatively rare cases where a product itself matches the WP:GNG. Otherwise, it should be presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services. In this case, an article exists for Nikon_F-mount#Nikkor and a mention there is probably sufficient - otherwise, we are doing little more than creating a catalog of every variation of Nikon camera lens. -Addionne (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Sopranos timeline (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 consist of original research, written with an in-universe perspective. The sources referenced are unreliable and the topic does not meet the general notability guideline, having no significant coverage, no sources independent of the subject or no sources that provide evidence of notability. It fails the criteria of fiction-related subjects and it's in line with reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Transwiki to annex.wikia.com 76.66.194.212 (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK redundant to the plot summary in the main Sopranos article. Being an article that tries to present the plot in an original way not covered anywhere but Knowledge (XXG), it runs into problems in that you can't offer anything about this timeline that is WP:NOT#PLOT. Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for articles that are entirely or mostly plot summaries. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Survival Redemption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (]  • AfD statistics)

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

Prod removed. Author stated in History "This is based off a story I have written, and in the stages of development, and this will help with some populartiy and acknowledgement of my work. It would be appreciated to keep this on wikipedia." This is a summary of an unfinished work of fiction by (I think) a fairly young writer - unpublished and unreferenced (and possibly unreferenceable). While I think there is potential in the story, its time here is not yet. Peridon (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established with verifiable sources. Seaphoto 18:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Good luck to the author, but Knowledge (XXG) is the wrong forum for his project. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Knowledge (XXG) is not the forum to gain popularity, however, the author should consider using mediawiki on his own server space somewhere to aid in his collaboration.  :) -Addionne (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

The article is in clear violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies about self promotion and conflict of interests.

First, the only source available is the book's author himself, and the website itself has no references except the author's. As one can see from the language homepage, there is no community for this language: the web page contains an embarrassing Lorem Ipsum excerpt. (Source: http://www.plasm.net/community/)

Second, the article is a clear copy-and-paste from the author's language homepage. (Source: http://www.plasm.net/docs/tutorial/introduction_to_fl_and_plas.html)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lispwizard (talk • contribs) 2010-11-24 18:03:43

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nom. Plus, this article is FULL of jargon. There is no way someone could possibly read this article and have any way of getting a better understanding of PLaSM. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 00:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Anthony Bradbury. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bouchesa (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)

It's a Greek insult with no context and no possibility of encyclopedic coverage, and it's here because speedy deletion hasn't worked. There's not much else to say. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How about moving it to Wiktionary instead? DS (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to it, but it doesn't belong here. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - speedy- 'nuff said. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 18:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete The only reason for its existence was to link it for vandalism here: diff. Dr.K.  19:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Also with 107 ghits this slur cannot seriously be considered for wiktionary. Dr.K.  19:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Radia tapes controversy. In closing I'm going by the wider consensus on how to deal with 1E cases as there seems to be no doubt that notability is almost exclusively related to the tapes. The arguments to merge and have an article about the tapes that contains some bio is therefore the winning argument as it reflects the way the community usually deals with prominent 1E cases Spartaz 13:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nira Radia (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)

Radia is notable primarily for Radia tapes controversy. Thus per WP:ONEEVENT, her notability is questionable. Redtigerxyz 17:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Keep .Apart from the tapes,Nira Radia was also behind an airline which never came to daylight Magic Air.Article needs to have this though. Srikanth (Logic) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong retain You're underestimating the kind of impact this development is currently having on politics in India. 21:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.30.178 (talk) — 59.95.30.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep I have a feeling she will only get more notable in the next few weeks - Amog | 07:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Move to Merge into Radia tapes controversy - Amog | 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong keep : Just search on Google news for her name. Notable & verifiable by reliable sources -- Tinu Cherian - 09:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. These news articles were published before the recent fuss. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep : Her page should certainly not be removed especially because of the light that recent controversy has thrown on her. She could be involved in one of the largest valued scandals in Indian economic history and in 2009's cabinet-fixing, and people will want to know who she is.
  Nira Radia is notable and deserves an article on Knowledge (XXG) - she is all over the Indian press at this time. Do you need any other reason? Ira1307 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.56.89 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC) — 67.186.56.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge into Radia tapes controversy. Figleaf (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 07:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong retain The page needs improvements for accuracy, but her role is significant in understanding how policy is made. I'm a reporter in New York who is trying to understand technology policy around the world and came to this page for information. DaveBurstein (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong retain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.76.64 (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure why this article is proposed to be deleted. Gs44631 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is nothing in this article which is not already in the Indian media. She is a lobbyist and got caught while trying to lobby for her clients. Infact, this article helps in spreading the messaging that one should not indulge in lobbying and corruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.58.204 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And your point is? - Amog | 18:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• This article is about a corrupt British citizen of Indian origin. Please keep it. Skarmee (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is already an effort to cover-up. So Knowledge (XXG) must retain this page - I repeat must retain. Cheque the external links of this Nira Radia page in Knowledge (XXG) - it leads to - Noesis Stratic Consulting Services - Ms. Nira Radia : Director - Brief profile. And that page now is missing (HTTP Error 404.0 - Not Found on Noesis). Isn't it a cover-up for such a recent entry? I urge for strong retaining - further decision based on Supreme Court ruling, if any needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.248.30 (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge into Radia tapes controversy. One event notability. Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Merge into the Radia tapes controversy page. I don't think she is notable on her own. MikeLynch (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Retain : Retain this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.133.10 (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This person is notable for WP:1E but that event was one of the largest thefts in history, equal to USD 40 billion. This is the largest discovered theft since India became independent and the media frequently uses her name because of her intimate role. In comparison, India lost about 2 billion USD to corruption in putting together the 2010 Commonwealth Games and the corruption around that relatively small issue resulted in action on many Knowledge (XXG) articles. As time goes on and the trials proceed more information will appear about this person; major newspapers worldwide are commenting about her almost daily every time she takes an action in court. Even so, she merits her own article now just because Knowledge (XXG) needs to report her biographical information and it would not be appropriate to merge her personal background into any article about either the 2G spectrum scam or the media reaction to the scam being called the Nira Radia tapes controversy. Keep this BLP and do not merge it. Blue Rasberry 05:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This person is notable not only for the tapes and 2G scam, but also her role in other events such as moving Nano factory to Gujrat, Ambani brothers feud, Tata Singapore airlines, etc. Keep this and do not merge Dmy49 (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)— Dmy49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorta Like A Rock Star (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:BK jsfouche ☽☾ talk 16:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. One quote: "rourmered". Several policies: WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SPAM, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete No sign of significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:51, 2 December 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) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Elder Scrolls V (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 game has not been confirmed and this article contains nothing but wild speculation. The Elder Scrolls V may not even be the next game that Bethesda Softworks are working on. The claim that an editor overheard someone talking about the game on a plane is not confirmation that the game exists. Please discuss deleting this article or redirecting it to The Elder Scrolls. Klock101 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • • Keep The game has been confirmed to be in existence. And who said anything about talking about the game on a plane? On a website I initially added on the "External Links" page, it says:

"The same source confirmed, with official game documents in hand, that this will be the chronological sequel to what happened in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which is the latest game in the now 16-years-old Elder Scrolls saga and by itself one of the better RPGs for PC and consoles." Pay particular attention to the "with official game documents in hand" clause. Please discuss keeping this article and deleting the redirection to The Elder Scrolls when one searches "Elder Scrolls 5" or "Elder Scrolls V" or any variation of those two.Musicarticles (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not confirmation of the game. The site gives an unnamed "source" and absolutely no evidence of the games existence. This article should not exist until the game has been officially confirmed.Klock101 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to The Elder Scrolls or Development history of The Elder Scrolls series per Knowledge (XXG):TenPoundHammer's Law: "If you don't even know the name of an upcoming , you probably don't know enough about it to write an article." This is pretty evidently the case here. Nifboy (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The game is indeed confirmed by many sources including gamespot http://www.gamespot.com/news/6284431.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B0 .it deserves an independent article subject to futuristic updates. thanks Grandia01 (talk)

Merge to The Elder Scrolls: That's not a confirmation. Thats basically what the link above says as well and both are from the same "source." The only people that can confirm this games existence are Bethesda. I agree with Nifboy: Knowledge (XXG):TenPoundHammer's Law: "If you don't even know the name of an upcoming , you probably don't know enough about it to write an article."Klock101 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• this IS a confirmation from gamespot mr genius, read the "bogus or not bogus" line at the end of the article pleaseGrandia01 (talk)

Unless Bethesda say that the game is coming out, it's not confirmation. The "bogus or not bogus" means absolutely nothing as the entire article relies upon one "source" from a different website. It's purely the authors interpretation of what he/she has heard. If you can find word from Bethesda Microsoft that the game is coming out, then it's confirmation. Otherwise, it's pure speculation, no matter how many unnamed sources give "evidence" or how many "bogus or not bogus" you can find. Gamespot can not confirm the game because they are not the developers or creators. Klock101 (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete The game has not been confirmed by the developers. Any "evidence" is based on unsubstantiated rumors found in this article from Eurogamer Denmark. TennysonXII (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I personally prefer to wait until Bethesda Softworks makes an official announcement before starting the article. Even though Knowledge (XXG) identifies GameSpot as a reliable source, the GameSpot article isn't "strong". But Knowledge (XXG) also identifies Eurogamer as a reliable source. The article could be kept, however, it needs to be cut down (maybe maximum 50 words). I dislike the wording in the Knowledge (XXG) article; it is saying the game is being developed, but there is no statement by Bethesda Softworks to support this? I am leaning towards Delete.  Davtra  08:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete When the game is announced, it certainly will then warrant a page, but following with how the pages for the other Elder Scrolls games are named, perhaps we should wait until the game is officially announced so that the full title can become the name of this page - i.e. instead of Elder Scrolls V, it is Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (For example, going on recent speculation, that may not be the name) 174.55.2.138 (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Speculation from reliable sources is still speculation, when official confirmation occurs maybe with a game name the article should be restarted. --Matthewdavies (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Elder Scrolls. --Dorsal Axe 12:34, 1 December 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) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Abdul Haq (Taliban leader, 2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

WP:BLP1E. Searches are made difficult by the numerous people caleld Abdul Haq, including one executed by the Taliban. However, it looks as if apart from the few reports on his capture, where he gets little attention anyway, theer are no reliable indepeth sources about him, making him a clear WP:BLP1E. Fram (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable per WP:MILMOS/N, lacks 'significant independent coverage' to esablish notability. Anotherclown (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom and AC. When the article itself says "alleged" in the infobox, that says something important. No notability established and vague details about this person's life makes most of it speculative anyway. bahamut0013_deeds 19:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: the article has almost no biographical information, which for me highlights the lack of coverage of this subject in reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Churchill (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 British radio presenter that lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I have searched for sourcing and can find only blogs and forum posts. Whpq (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, I can't find anything. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Infoplexia (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)

Blatant neologism. No attempt made to show that anybody uses the word. Dicdef at best. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MADEUP. This term exists only on Knowledge (XXG). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• delete. I can't find any evidence that this term exists outside the mind of the editor who created this page, borderline CSD G3. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

List of cars available in India (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)

Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Last AFDed in 2005, kept solely on the strength of WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. --Divebomb is not British 14:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Its useful, doing no harm, and much better done than the companion "Cars in Pakistan" article. Rocco Lampone 75 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment You do realize "It's useful" and "It's harmless" arguments are practically worthless here on Knowledge (XXG), right? ----Divebomb is not British 17:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, the article is also not "indiscriminate" information. The information contained is very discriminate. It's a detailed, coherent, and has rational standards for inclusion. Besides that, I find your supercilious tone to be a bit off-putting, sir. Rocco Lampone 75 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I dont know what sentence/word say that we should not have this kind of list in WP:INDISCRIMINATE? If we can have list of malls, what issue here? please elaborate more to understand why this has been nominated here. KuwarOnline 06:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 07:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:IINFO ("long and sprawling lists of statistics"), almost completely lacking in sourcing. No formal definition of "available". Emphasis on current vehicles is both unencyclopaedic, and would make maintenance a nightmare. Hrafn_Stalk 08:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - This kinda list would possibly be even harder to maintain than List of cars available in pakistan. NotARealWord (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, previous AfD is Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of car models available in India. NotARealWord (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced triva, and unverifiable - what makes a car "available"? And it's not even of sufficient quality to keep as a stub. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm having a hard time reconciling this with your !votes at the shopping mall AFDs. What exactly makes them different from this? ----Divebomb is not British 14:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You know what? I got mixed up here and was looking at List of cars available in pakistan when I wrote that comment, so I'm not surprised you found my !vote somewhat confusing - I've struck it now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. An unsourced list with an unencyclopedicly broad scope. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:30, 1 December 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. Nom indeffed as a sock. T. Canens (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mendeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Delete: This so called metalcore band from Scotland are not notable, all of their releases do not need articles and are merely just an advertisement by the band to prove that they meant something to people in their seven year career. I'm Scottish and i know music, but have never heard of this band. Telling from the lack of coverage the band have had, it would be the right thing to delete them, otherwise this defunct group of metal heads will have their names on Knowledge (XXG) forever.LunaChangue (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Google search shows significant notability. Article could use some better independent sourcing though. Wknight94 12:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 12:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Wknight94. The nominator has not made a convincing argument for non-notability. It's true that the article could use some improvement but just because the nominator has never heard of them and doesn't think they had a reason to exist, that's not what everyone thinks. AllMusic for example. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Law of identity and Torah (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 an essay on religion, intended to promote the author's own views (the creation summary states:"This world-view is based on the ideas of Hofman Stern..."). Violates WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:COI, WP:RS. andy (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE. The article has been edited, and is still being edited, and the author is no longer using himself as a reference. The author's name is no longer mentioned. Simply because you and your friends are unfamiliar with the subject in this article does not mean that it is non-existent or worthless of study. Many who oppose this article do so because of their own religious views and biases and are showing great bias on a subject simply because they know nothing about it. And where is it in the policies that by simply mentioning the Torah an article automatically becomes "religious?" Where is it written that the Bible cannot be mentioned or linked together with scientific articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.180.19 (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC) — 70.115.180.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• There has been a long struggle throughout history between the principles of science and those of religion. This article is intended to show how some people can consolidate both. This essay is not on religion but on the law of identity as it is mentioned in biblical texts. This article is still being worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofman stern (talk • contribs) 2010-11-24T12:13:13
• Delete. This is an essay, not an article. There are lots of blogs that will host ideas. Knowledge (XXG) is not for original research, spam, or free webspace. If you want to advertise your ideas for free, there are many social networking websites for that purpose, including MySpace, LinkedIn, FaceBook, etc. Knowledge (XXG) is not a webhost; it is a IRC 501 (c) (3) corporation, and you must abide by its tax-exempt, charitable status. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is not orginal research, and it's not based on religion but on biblical text that imply logical axioms. There has been an attempt since ancient times to merge religion and science. This article addresses these efforts. It is being edited and is still under construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.180.19 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — 70.115.180.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - personal essays ipso facto violate WP:NOR Avi (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Snowball Delete per nom. Clear-cut, beyond obvious personal essay, exactly the sort of thing the personal essay policy was meant to prevent. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Clear violation of WP:OR Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• 'WTF is this article trying to say? Joe407 (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"A=A", I think. Clever, huh? (I take it that WTF = Delete) andy (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Snow delete wikipedia is not the place for theological essays. Nergaal (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as per above - Knowledge (XXG) is not a free web host and is not the place for essays in general. julianmh (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not the place for theological essays agreedTucsonDavid (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOTMYSPACE, and please also read: Knowledge (XXG):An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. IZAK (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep - not a strong consensus, but I see one growing towards that. This nom has been out long enough. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualty ratio (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 topic. (Later note: Dubiously notable as a separate topic in scholarly literature when comparing conflicts). Also, Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox. Hopelessly POV topic, especially concerning Casualties of the Iraq War, Second Intifada (see section on combatant versus noncombatant deaths), etc.. Most of the article is currently about Israel, and has already been covered much better, and in a much more WP:NPOV way, in the relevant articles. Most of the material currently in this article is a selective, biased, inaccurate content fork from those pages. There is no way this page can be made encyclopedic and NPOV. Casualty information is some of the most contentious material in Knowledge (XXG), and should remain in the specific pages for each conflict. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. This is one of the oddest AfD nominations I've ever seen. There is no such thing as a "POV topic", and if there were, it's hard to see how a ratio between two values could constitute one. The unsourced statement that most of the content here has been covered better in mysterious "relevant articles" is simply untrue. The assertion that this topic is "non-notable" is a WP:VAGUEWAVE with no attempt at substantiation. And how is the world WP:SOAPBOX relevant? I see no argument in this nomination that is well formed enough to serve as a starting point for a reasonable discussion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete. (Later note: Merge with Civilian casualties per CarolMooreDC and The Land.) There is little that is odd or mysterious in what I said. If you really don't understand most of what I said, then that goes a long way to explaining this problematic article you created and wrote. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this deletion discussion has been posted to the Israel and Palestine lists is clear indication of the emphasis of this article in its current form on Israel's conflicts. This article is an obvious puff piece for Israel salted with selective info on casualty ratios. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Then edit it to include more information on other conflicts. Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page.. - The Bushranger _{Return fire} 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles are frequently deleted for being unsalvageable content forks and puff pieces. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Why is this a "Non-notable topic". This is the most citied ratio mentioned by nearly all people invovled with conflicts, not to mention media reports on both TV, radio and in newspapers. Chesdovi (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A ratio is not necessarily an encyclopedia article. Especially when that ratio varies so widely depending on the conflict. For example; civilians killed during ethnic cleansing as in the death march imposed on the Cherokees, concentration camps as in the 2nd Boer War, occupations, colonialism, traditional wars, non-traditional wars, asymmetric warfare, guerrilla wars, Operation Condor, Dirty wars, etc.. See also the Misarxist comment farther down ("very dubious soapboxing"). If the topic is notable it is usually notable for individual conflicts. It is only dubiously notable in the scholarly literature when comparing conflicts, because it has frequently been difficult to get reliable civilian casualty numbers. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, notable topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, very dubious soapboxing. There probably is a notable topic in the subject but it would have to be written from specialist sources treating the overall topic, not cobbled together from sources about individual conflicts as this puff-piece is.--Misarxist 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. And NPOV specialist sources are hard to find for many conflicts. Especially for Israel's conflicts as this article currently focuses on. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Merge back to Civilian casualties removing any WP:Undue info in sections; add more on Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, WWII, or whatever; important concept within that notable topic. Plus both concepts need better refs for their own definition. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please get your facts straight. This is not a WP:SPINOUT of Civilian casualties, so it can't be "merged back". I created this article independently, and then seeing what bad shape Civilian casualties was in, added a summary of this article to it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos do exist. Please get your facts straight. This meets the definition of a WP:Content fork of Civilian casualties, Casualties of the Iraq War, Second Intifada, Casualties of the Gaza War, etc.. All those articles did a much better job than this article. Those longer articles had the space to explain the highly disputed casualty numbers in a WP:NPOV way from many points of view. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong too. This article is not about casualty numbers but about a specifc ratio of casualty numbers. And if you're really arguing that this article is a content fork of more than four other articles, you should rethink your premises. That's not what a content fork is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:Content fork more carefully. Pulling out selective casualty numbers, and cobbling them together in a civilian casualty ratio, all in order to focus mainly on Israel's conflicts in a puff piece way, is the epitome of a WP:Content fork. The article in its current form is biased, and unnecessary, since the casualty numbers and ratios are covered in the NPOV way in the necessary length needed, in the Knowledge (XXG) articles for each conflict. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The civilian casualty ratio is not the same as casualty numbers. I used all the information I coud find online that refers to the ratio, and noted their numbers while pointing out that numbers can be contested. The large amount of content on Israel in the article reflects the amount of such content online. You would be in a better position to contribute to this discussion (such as it is) if you did the basic research first. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have edited casualty articles on Knowledge (XXG) for years. You would be in a better position to contribute to this discussion (such as it is) if you did the basic research first. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: Well-sourced notable topic and extremely relevant in the era of asymmetrical warfare.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete As per Misarxist. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any soap, and wonder where other people are finding it. Intriguing article. As for your concerns that "the article is mostly about Israel", I'd like to point out that Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. The other sections do need expanding by comparison, but that means they need to be expanded, not that the article needs to be deleted. - The Bushranger _{Return fire} 20:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Multiple media and scholarly sources discuss this topic, as attested from the references within the article. Strange nomination. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See Misarxist comment. Poor sources overall so far. Especially in comparison to the more detailed info in the Knowledge (XXG) articles on the individual conflicts. See, for example; Casualties of the Iraq War. The casualty info for the Iraq War can't be easily or fairly summarized in a short space. This article is original research. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep A good topic for an encyclopedia and an impartial treatment is possible. Anyone unhappy with the current content may improve the article or raise their concerns at Talk:Civilian casualty ratio. Thincat (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep per the arguments given by the supporters and the nominator. If editors feel that there is too much emphasis on Israel, they can always expand the article. The subject is interesting and informative. As long as we have wars, we need tools to minimize civilian casualties. No one gains from not having statistics on such matters available. A good article start for an important subject. KantElope (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - I have to agree with the nominator. It appears to be a content fork specifically designed to discuss a particular POV about the civlian casualty ratio in a specific conflict. Otherwise why elso does the article only focus on recent conflicts in the Middle East? To truely cover the topic the article would need to include a more comphrensive examination of warfare throughout history. IMO there is no serious attempt to do this, so any salvagable content should be merged into the parent articles and the rest deleted. Anotherclown (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep There would be a sad The Emperor's New Clothes effect, in connection with the history of wars, I think, if articles such as this are unavailable. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Keep or Incubate, Fix — This is a well discussed topic, and one of the most notable features in the changing history of war. That said, the article suffers from appalling recentism, lack of worldwide scope, and poor organization; which is to say that the critiques of Anotherclown are true, just not grounds for deletion (if these problems were more serious, then the Article Incubator could be an option). For some places to start on an overall view see:

• The work of Mary Kaldor, reviewed here
• War and public health by Barry S. Levy, Victor W. Sidel, p. 32ff
• Innocent women and children: gender, norms and the protection of civilians by R. Charli Carpenter
• 'Century of War by Gabriel Kolko

Have fun making this encyclopedic.--Carwil (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources and the comments. I accept all of the criticisms, except that of poor organization. The problems you highlighted result from the fact that so far I have only used online sources. I intend to use library sources, starting with the ones you mentioned, when I have the time, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify on organization. A chronological structure, war by war, is probably not the best structure for this article as a whole. I would suggest making those sections into subsections of a Civilian casualty ratios by war and including these issues at the top level:

• Historical evolution of CCR
• Effect of types of warfare on CCR
• Changing legal obligations to protect civilians
• Civilian casualty ratios by war

Again, no offense intended to the work so far, just trying to help.--Carwil (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your idea, Carwil, about putting this in the article incubator, is where this article might go. After it is deleted. In any case it should be deleted. The article incubator may not be the right place for this article to go according to WP:Article incubator. See also WP:Userfication, WP:Articles for Creation, and Knowledge (XXG):Article Rescue Squadron. After years of editing of casualty articles I do not believe it is possible for NPOV summaries of civilian casualty ratios for many conflicts, especially of recent conflicts. Most of the Israel-related info would have to be removed from the article too, since it is some of the most contested info, and this article shouldn't focus on Israel. Especially in the puff piece way of the current article. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It does have some major POV issues (I skimmed the first time, really). However it's set up for expansion into a very noteworthy article. A quick check demolished the 1:30 is the best ratio ever argument presented in the lead (Al-Qaeda attacks on the US in 2000 and Japanese attacks on the US in 1941 both have better ratios). A broader assessment of wars, not drone/helicopter strikes, such as the 2006 Lebanon War would give a more balanced perspective on the IDF, which shouldn't be the focus of the article anyway. Further, dispassionate research, where available, should displace polemicists like Dershowitz (I know he's tenured, but we can move up the reliable source chain where possible).--Carwil (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Israeli war info is almost always going to be problematic in compilation articles. See Israeli wars. It avoided the issue of non-Israeli civilian casualties altogether. By only including losses on the Israeli side in the chart. The first comment on the talk page (from July 2008) is "It is incredibly POV not to include the deaths of the other side." It looks like no one even bothered to reply to that point for almost 2 years. See Talk:Israeli wars. I bet no one wanted to try to include non-Israeli casualties because the numbers vary greatly, and are hotly contested. The ranges would have to be regularly updated. It is so difficult to share all the estimates in a WP:NPOV way in a long article for each war or conflict. The whole area of Arab-Israeli articles is under 1RR arbitration enforcement due to these longterm difficulties. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We get it; your opinion is it's a pro-Israel puff piece. Frankly, and no offence meant, but your constant focusing on this and the phrasing of same is giving this editor, at least, the distinct impression that you have a NPOV issue against Israel. - The Bushranger _{Return fire} 20:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See my user page for my biases. The article is pro-Israel. Articles in Knowledge (XXG) are WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have. And I don't see how this article is pro-Israel, unless an intial bias is taken that the figures cited are Israeli propaganda. - The Bushranger _{Return fire} 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think its a great article. I had no idea there was such an extreme variation between USA drone civilian kills and attacks by IDF. Timeshifter is right that its a little bit puffy, but, trust me, there are some(like the one I'm bogged down with) that make this 1 look as flat as a crepe. At least with this one, I don't think there will be any resistance to neutralizing it nor expanding it to cover more conflicts. Also, since its basically just statistics, making it npov is achievable. I also don't think anybody here is so judgmental as to extrapolate wanting to shut down a pro-X article into automatically having an anti-X mentality, its just "busting balls" I imagine:) Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As Misarxist said about the article, and others have agreed, it is "very dubious soapboxing". --Timeshifter (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking more at its potential rather than its present state of being. Its a hugely important issue,especially now that we are into "neverending" wars, and I think its a real good resource for Readers, especially younger ones, to as I say, yank the elephant out of the closet when it comes to the actual,real effects to innocent children when politicians fuck up (and/or fuck the rest of us up on purpose). Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is going to be difficult in a short article to summarize conflicting civilian casualty ratios for Israel's recent conflicts: Casualties of the Gaza War, Second Intifada#Combatant versus noncombatant deaths, and 2006 Lebanon War#Lebanese civilians. And to do it in an encyclopedic WP:NPOV way that is not WP:Content forking, nor POV-pushing. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Renaming/moving this article to Civilian casualty ratio for conflicts with Israel might be the only way to salvage this article. Even then it is problematic to do such an article in a WP:NPOV way when the civilian casualty numbers are so hotly disputed. Here are some additional articles beyond my previous list: 1948 Arab–Israeli War#Casualties, 1982 Lebanon War#Casualties, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That such a thing has to be proposed does illustrate what a POV fork this article is. Some supporters of keeping it doubtless want to have an article about disputes in the Israel-Palestine issue, not a review for all wars, which still would be more appropriate under Civilian casualties. Such an article should stand or fall on its own merits, and not be snuck in under the guise of a general article on the topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete This article seems to be POV fork from the articles on the various wars. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: some of the nominator's concerns are valid, but they can be addressed without deletion. Even if it was intended as a fork, that can be cleaned up, because the subject concept is independantly worthy of an article. The POV and undue weight does need some work, but cleanup can fix that, as can the bias towards recentivism. bahamut0013_deeds 19:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete it seems to me that the academic research presented in the article is very weak, for example one researcher talks about turn of the 20th century, does not explain what that is, (does it include or exclude WWI? is it only for wars between "civilised" nations or does it include colonial wars as well? etc) None of the academic papers present a statistical analysis of how they arrive at their figures. There are no definitions for many terms what is an armed conflict (eg were the troubles in NI an armed conflict)? What is the definition for a civilian -- for example does it include unlawful combatants who are not part of a recognised military structure or does it mean in that quaint Israeli definition just "innocent" civilians? That is just the academic papers, its use by commentators with a political bias. Take for example the killing of four South Koreans, two civilians and two marines in the shell fire this week. Was that a kill ration of 2:2 caused by a aggressive and reckless Northern regime, or was it caused by the South using civilians a human shields ("North Korea accuses South of using 'human shields'". BBC. 27 November 2010.)? If the former then it is a legitimate ratio if the latter then it is a misleading ratio (which may be the product of political manipulation). So I say delete the article and only recreate it if there can be found detailed academic studies with definitions for things like "armed conflict" and a detailed breakdown of the statistics (such as by war by year etc) rather than vague terms like "start of the 20th century") For example to say that the ratio was xyz at the start of the 20th century and include World War One which was a war with relatively few civilian casualties (particularly if only the Western front is used) is to present a bias as is the use of just only using the Herero Wars would present a bias the other way. On World War One was the killing of Armenians part of a war or a genocide that happened at the same time but was not part of the war? Inclusion or exclusion will affect the ratio. An article such as the current one with the current stricture is not encyclopaedic and will remain that way unless much better academic sources can be found. So delete and recreate only if those papers can be found. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a problem that occurred to me too, metrics don't work unless all of the variables are defined. Since the Supreme Court of Israel defines what they regard as terrorists as civilians from a legal perspective, albeit unprotected civilians under certain conditions they have defined based on their interpretation of international law, it demonstrates that it's quite problematic to make comparisons between the metrics from different conflicts and periods. The subject of the article is interesting and notable but at the moment it resembles a vehicle for promoting the Israeli MFA narrative on casuality statistics. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a section on the Chechen conflict. I tried to include what definition for civilians was used, but the numbers are so unreliable that distinguishing between nuances of who is civilian and who is not would be a moot point anyway. -- Heptor _talk 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Supreme and Thincat.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. Certainly a notable topic and I don't know what made Timeshifter think otherwise. However, the article does have a certain scent of original research to it, as per PBS. -- Heptor _talk 23:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator's claim that this is not a notable topic has been dealt with above. That someone whose user page compares Israel to Nazis finds this article to be POV is not surprising. Whatever POV there might be can be dealt with by adding opposing views, such as there are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy. My user page does not compare Israel to Nazis. Please strike out your comments, or I will seek to get you blocked. Many people have been blocked long-term for such incivility. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's avoid ad hominem and stick to the validity of policy-based arguments. Questioning another editor insted of the issue at hand is poor form, especially since you seem to be embroiled in the Arab-Irsaeli articles as well. bahamut0013_deeds 13:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Merge back to Civilian casualties is probably the best option here. If that section then develops in a manner avoiding undue weight & recentism problems, it can be split out again. the material about Israel-Palestine can be merged into the relevant conflict articles, if it isn't already there. The Land (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Intriguing article, worth keeping, though presently too heavy on Israel-related stuff. IronDuke 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The nomination was based on notability, but notability is easily established by the high quality sources in the article, including numerous academic publications. I am puzzled by suggestions to rename the article Civilian casualty ratio for conflicts with Israel when most of the conflicts discussed have nothing to do with Israel. Second-guessing the reliable sources in the articles, and providing our personal opinion of their methodology, as Philippe is doing, is not the way things are done on Knowledge (XXG). Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:53, 2 December 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) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

MiniFrame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Delete The article was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD A7 (No indication of importance or significance), but I have declined the speedy deletion because I think there is just enough claim of importance to justify putting it to a discussion. However, I see no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The sources cited in the article are largely links to the company's own site, articles on industry promotional web sites, blogs, press releases, etc, and what little there is that could possibly be considered independent consists of passing mentions, and falls far short of satisfying Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. The article was written by a single purpose account with no edits at all apart from this article and links to MiniFrame in other articles, and the account appears to belong to an editor with a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established through independent third party sources. Most of the sources, as stated above, are variations of press releases, and those few that are not don't meet the threshold for notability. Seaphoto 18:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, although that shouldn't come as a surprise since I nominated the article for speedy deletion. As mentioned above, almost all of the sources are press releases or other promotional material. The only (remotely) verifiable or reliable sources mention the company in passing. (Funny, one of those "reliable" blogs actually acknowledges that they only wrote about the company after the company's public relations team asked them to do so. I guess that's one point for journalistic transparency, eh?) I just don't think the company is notable based on any of the (very few) available sources. jæs (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: spamming the web with press releases and linking to such press releases doesn't make a product notable. Quest09 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Not sure why this Companies entry should be considered for deletion. They produce cutting edge Virtual Desktop technology and even have been recognised with an award from Frost & Sullivan (as cited in their Wiki Page)- http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/press-release.pag?docid=202643462 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.32.165 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Marshal D. Carper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Delete The article was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD A7 (No indication of importance or significance), but I have declined the speedy deletion because I think there is just enough claim of importance to justify putting it to a discussion. However, I see no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. His performance as a sportsman does not come anywhere near satisfying WP:ATHLETE, and there is no evidence that his writing has received the sort of independent coverage to establish notability either. The sources cited are mostly not independent of the subject, and about the best there is is a link to Amazon which shows three books, one of which said to be written by Carper, and two of which give him as a co-author. I can find no evidence that there has been any significant coverage about him (as opposed to by him) anywhere. A Google search for "Marshal D. Carper" produces first a couple of pages on his own web site, then Knowledge (XXG), then sites selling his book and web pages with content written by him, and so on... JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete He's clearly non-notable as a martial artist since he meets none of the criteria in WP:MANOTE or WP:MMANOT. I was also unable to find any sources that show he meets WP:Author. The article's claim of 600 articles was another claim I was unable to independently verify. He does have a book out, but that's not sufficient for notability and I found nothing to show that the book is notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I found nothing to indicate he passes any of the notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Handminton (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 notable sport. A search for handminton on Google reveals an Urban Dictionary definition, Facebook groups and YouTube videos, but no reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• An investigation of relevant YouTube, facebook, and urbandictionary posts clearly reveal that the sport discussed in the Wiki page for Handminton is entirely distinct and new. Being a new sport, which coincidentally shares a name, it is notable purely from the fact that it exists. Deleting this article would be akin to deleting an article discussing a new scientific phenomenon that has never been theorized before. I believe we should keep this article--Goeagles520 (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, we would delete a 'new scientific phenomenon' 'never theorised before' - if there were no reliable references for it. Scientific phenomena, however, do attract more attention than made-up 'new sport'. "it is notable purely from the fact that it exists" - rubbish. My compost bin exists. Very definitely it exists. (I just fed it...) Does it deserve an article? Possibly less than does handminton, because until now no-one at all outside my household had heard of my compost bin. (Will it go viral, I wonder?) Less, but not by much. You say that the YouTube, facebook, and urbandictionary posts are about something totally different. That means there's even less evidence than the nominator thought. (Not that those are reliable sources anyway, as is pointed out.) Peridon (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, unreferenced nonsense. WP:NFT. Nakon 04:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - as a made up game with no reliable sources (or unreliable sources for that matter). -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix Group (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 demonstration of notability, written like an advertisement, other issues detailed in the article itself. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: It appears that the article creator was indef banned in 2005. I don't know if this is relivant, but it bears mentioning. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Notability has not been established; one of the two linked references is no longer available. Seaphoto 18:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

International paleopsychology project (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)

From the first 10 seconds of the Big Bang to the present? Say what? This sounds like a hoax. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment if this is about psychology, it requires a mind, meaning atleast one neuron in an animal life form so the time period covered seems senseless. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/International Paleopsychology Project.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It does at least appear to be notable, there are a number of results yielded by a Google Books search.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - This project was founded by Howard Bloom whose article got deleted due to nonexistent sources. I searched for 25 scientific databases via University of Helsinki metasearch and found only one book "Bailey, Kent G., Human paleopsychology : applications to aggression and pathological processes, 1987" which has no references to Bloom. I found no publications by Bloom in the academic databases. The claim "Those members have included physicists, microbiologists, neurobiologists, evolutionary psychologists, paleobiologists, entomologists, invertebrate biologists, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, and mycologists." seems like a blatant lie. If it would be a credible field of study there would be publications available, not just some self published spiritual and conspiracy books. --piksi (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this article's content is just too poor for it to be of any value. However, it is also clear that an article on this topic likely could be written; it's just that the existing article doesn't look anything like what a proper one would. Thus, this delete implies no prejudice towards creating a completely different article on this topic. Jayjg 07:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

London art scene (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 reasonably encyclopedic article--too vast a topic for one article. Redundant: there are already hundreds of articles on this subject. Content is vague. Artiquities (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can demonstrate that this is the established consensus amongst third-party sources. Far too many subjective opinions and original research to work in an encyclopaedia. I wouldn't completely rule out an article with this title, but it should have to be a properly-researched piece with all subjective material backed up in third-party sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose on the whole. The article is indeed somewhat vague & full of common knowledge aka original research, but the UK art scene, in strong contrast to US ones, where every minor city seems to have an article like this but much longer, is very poorly covered except in biographies, gallery articles etc. Where are the hundreds of articles on this subject? Not easily found unless you already know what to look for. Hoxton art scene etc. Thematic articles like this can be very useful as link farms to other articles. Ideally would be expanded and given a more specific title - something that the nominator would be well qualified to do. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So which outcome do you want, keep or delete? "oppose" is meaningless. Uncle G (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it's a proposed deletion, which I oppose. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It could equally well be that you oppose the article. See Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes for how to express onesself unambiguously at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Merge with Young British Artists is a good suggestion by nom...Modernist (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem with this article is that the title conflicts with its content. The first two of the Google Books search results for the title are a book about the London art scene in the 1950s and another about the previous 65 years, but our article is about the "contemporary" (defined as 1988 onwards) scene. There is certainly much scope for coverage in Knowledge (XXG) of the London art scene, but those writing the articles need to define what should be covered in which article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As I implied above, the title is indeed much broader than the current content, but an article with wider coverage, or failing that a more restricted title, would deal with that. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll be happy to consider changing my !vote if the scope of this article is changed to something more manageable (preferably if some attempt is made to separate the fact from the opinion). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Proposed name change: London art scene: late 1980s- mid-1990s...Modernist (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Is that how it is broken up by the world at large? Or is that some arbitrary Knowledge (XXG)-only invention? How do the people who have actually documented the London art scene break it up into historical periods? Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Back in 2006 User:Tyrenius suggested Contemporary radical London art scene or, The London Britart scene...Modernist (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Any name change that will help get this article into an encyclopaedic form will help, but the article contents will need to match what's in the title. Simply picking a title that vaguely describes what happens to be in the article won't be enough here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I'm working on a (currently slightly patchy) article on the Art of Birmingham at the moment, I don't see why this couldn't grow into an equivalent article on the Art of London. The argument that the subject is "too vast a topic for one article" is a facile one - the subject is by definition smaller than the Art of the United Kingdom which seems to manage to have an article quite successfully. Expanding the scope rather than retitling to reflect a reduced scope seems the way forward though - there's already an article on the Young British Artists, with Britart as a redirect. There's an article on Glasgow Art as well, that is also currently a bit rubbish, but a topic that is intrinsically worthy of an article JimmyGuano (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. With all due respect to the scholarly nominator, this could be a good article. AfD is used not to get rid of bad articles. Rescue and fix, possibly incubate. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong  04:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of this article, which I would be able to consider passes Verifiability and Noteworthy test? What is the rational?BLUE_DOG 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. The article cites zero sources for any of its assertions. We have no way to tell whether the content is an accourate portrayal of the contemporary London art scene or merely the personal opinion of its author.  Sandstein  08:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is the London art scene, construed as the contemporary one. The time frame is not precisely defined. The Contemporary art article places contemporary as beginning at approximately 1950. More recent events and more important events can understandably be given more emphasis. I think it represents a good area for exploration in an article, but obviously it needs a lot of tightening up concerning sourcing. I think its potential for expansion is good—there is probably much more material out there on the subject of the recent art scene in London. Bus stop (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - while an article on the London art scene could conceivably be written, a hypothetical good version of the article would bear absolutely no resemblance to this one. It's rambling, full of opinion, and cites no sources - it is therefore pure original research and should be deleted. I'm all for keeping improvable articles while they're sourced, but the current state of this article is such that it's better we have no article on this topic until someone writes a sourceable one. ~ mazca 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:OR essay. Hrafn_Stalk 15:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per mazca. When an article is so profoundly non-compliant with policy and so far away from a state of compliance that it would have to be blanked and re-written to become compliant, that blanking should come in the form of deletion.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Stubify and restart Compromise between deleting and keeping. Valid topic, yes; completely OR, yes. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:14, 4 December 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) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert P. McCulloch (attorney) (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)

Prosecuting attorney. No further claim to notability. Coverage limited to the normal local coverage of criminal cases. Gigs (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless further sources can be found (I can't find any), it fails WP:BIO. Leo 04:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There's stuff out there, but it doesn't look to me to indicate anything particularly notable to justify an article. Gigs (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I should clarify; I meant sources that established notability. Leo 09:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of notability, and wouldn't qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. Although I'm sure that creation of the article was intended as a compliment to the subject, the lack of content is actually more of an insult. Sometimes a prosecutor attains widespread notability in the role of a prosecutor, although its usually in connection with a notable trial. There's no sign that this person is any more notable than thousands of similar officeholders. Mandsford 14:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete A non-notable public official at this point. Seaphoto 18:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all except List of offshore wind farms in Denmark. There is a firm consensus to delete the decade-based articles, with only two editors arguing to retain them. The argument that these lists fail WP:NOTDIR by listing extensive entries of non-notable turbines is strong and compels deletion in the face of the lack of any particularly strong arguments to the contrary. Mkativerata (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Lists of wind turbines in Denmark (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)

Nomination includes List of wind turbines in Denmark (1978-1989), List of wind turbines in Denmark (1990-1999), List of wind turbines in Denmark (2000-2009), List of offshore wind farms in Denmark and List of wind turbines in Denmark (2010-2019).

All of the above articles contain little more than tables of all of the wind farm locations in Denmark. It hardly seems encyclopaedic, the individual turbines are not notable and it seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Handschuh- 03:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

List of offshore wind farms in Denmark is certainly not a subject for deletion, as it conforms with Knowledge (XXG):Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Common_selection_criteria : Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group TGCP (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Stand-alone lists of windmills are a suitable topic for Knowledge (XXG). How are these lists different from List of windmills in Denmark or any other List of windmills? The keeping of modern wind turbines and traditional windmills apart is a valid separation. There may be scope to merge the onshore lists into one list, but that issue should be dealt with elsewhere. WP:MILLS and WP:DENMARK notified. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Many of those historic windmills are notable in their own right. None of these seem to be individually notable, and listing them off serves no encyclopaedic purpose as far as I can see. Handschuh- 07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep List of offshore wind farms in Denmark. It's encyclopaedic, easy to maintain, and provides valuable information. Disclosure - I have contributed to this page's content myself. I don't feel any ownership towards it, but ISTM that it meets all the criteria for being an appropriate article for Knowledge (XXG) Ernestfax 08:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep While I was tempted to AFD this long list myself initially, there is structure to the list and simply splitting it by farm would make it more obviously interesting (while making other parts of the information less obvious). It would be nice to see someone clever making little wind-farm maps automatically from the co-ords. Rich Farmbrough, 09:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC).
  

• Keep -- List of offshore wind farms in Denmark -- aligns with all manner of WP criteria -- shouldn't be lumped with the other articles
• Delete -- the lists of individual turbines.

  I can see a point in listing wind farms, even (for completeness) where such 'farms' contain just one turbine, but I don't think the lists of turbines are appropriate on WP. Isn't this information available elsewhere online? (We would not tolerate lists of signals on railway systems, or lists of electrical substations, any more than we tolerate articles on individual bus stops.)

  EdJogg (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the Danish Energy Agency stores such a register of individual turbines, online. I have no view as to whether or not these wikipedia lists of individual turbines should be kept or not. Ernestfax 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, looking at the articles again, I think you're right about the List of offshore wind farms in Denmark. That list is concise, and the wind farms actually are notable in their own right. Handschuh- 10:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. It takes a big spirit to admit to being wrong, so kudos to you for doing so Ernestfax 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• And also, List of wind turbines in Denmark (2010-2019) probably needs to be considered separately, since would violate WP:CRYSTAL if it had any content. Handschuh- 10:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• AIUI, several turbines have been inaugurated this year (at Rødsand II aka Nysted II), and this year is within that page's timeframe of 2010-2019. So I don't think WP:CRYSTAL does apply (unless anyone adds turbines this year, that they claim will be inaugurated next year, say Ernestfax 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• If it is generally agreed that the offshore list is valid, then surely there is also scope for an onshore list too. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, if they are of the same form. A list of (notable) on-shore wind farms must be acceptable if the off-shore list is OK. The lists under review are NOT of the same form. 99.9999% of individual wind turbines will not be sufficiently notable to have their own article, but the farms where they gather probably could be notable. The lists don't even provide a wikilink to the nearest settlement, the name of the windfarm, or the type/manufacturer of the turbine, they are just lists of things at coordinates: for example, the first twenty rows of List of wind turbines in Denmark (2000-2009) are identical, apart from the coordinates. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have withdrawn List of offshore wind farms in Denmark as nominator and since those snowflakes started falling. Handschuh- 13:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - For comparison, see List of wind turbines. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not using it as an argument for keeping.LadyofShalott 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This is slightly different in that each row entry indicates a different type of turbine. The article name is hence probably inaccurate, by-the-way! -- EdJogg (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. LadyofShalott 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - This is not the best way to present the data. It may be the easiest (dumping a spreadsheet into wikipedia) but it results in articles which are impossible to use or understand. For example, the coordinates give no indication of location (no map or link to map sources), are they offshore/onshore? are they in a wind farm/on their own? how many in a given wind farm? are they still in use? The spreadsheet linked does is a much better format for this sort of data, and we don't have to worry about updating it!

List of offshore wind farms in Denmark is great, understandable, and is an excellent entry point to the topic. It also references the spreadsheets, so the information is there if people are interested. Additionally almost all the offshore windfarms have their own article, which again is great and understandable - the relevant information from the spreadsheets should be added to these articles in an understandable way (for example we could use the data to make graphs of the power output for each wind farm). Again the spreadsheets can be linked in a prominant way, heck even mention them and link them in the introduction if you want. The next step would be to create List of onshore wind farms in Denmark - which can be the sister article of List of offshore wind farms in Denmark. That way every wind farm in Denmark can be listed and therefore every wind turbine in Denmark is in effect included in wikipedia. Schematically:

Wind power in Denmark -> List of offshore wind farms in Denmark or List of onshore wind farms in Denmark -> Article for individual wind farm -> Listing of information about the wind turbines on the articles for each wind farm.

With List of offshore wind farms in Denmark and List of onshore wind farms in Denmark, the data would be used in an understandable way, in articles people will be reading, surrounded by text to help explain the information. Is this more work? Probably, yes. But would it result in far more interesting information? Undoubtably, yes. Suicidalhamster (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete all except List of offshore wind farms in Denmark. These lists are borderline copyvios of the spreadsheets they were copied out of. Also, per WP:NOTDIR, Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory of everything that exists. These lists consist entirely of non-notable elements. Wind turbines are extremely ubiquitous, and they are not notable structures by default. This has equivalent notability to List of cell phone towers in Denmark. SnottyWong  23:14, 3 December 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) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Havana Heat (film) (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:NOTFILM. Prod removed by Anon IP. ttonyb (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFF. Although the film is real and in pre-production, this article seems to be a hoax created by newly created account Tony Horden (talk · contribs). The only external link provided in the article is Valentina Reshetnikova's IMDb entry; Valentina Reshetnikova has no relation to this film at all. The correct IMDb entry for Havana Heat shows that principal photography is not scheduled to commence until January 2011. Per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." The reason I call the article a hoax is that the vast majority of the information contained in the article is incorrect, such as the actors and crew; none of the major actors listed in the article are scheduled to appear in a film of that title. Further, Tony Horden created a hoax article yesterday on Peter Maloney. Maloney is indeed a real actor who has made a career of minor roles, roles sometimes so minor that at times he was uncredited. However, his article as of this version shows many credits that Maloney has no relation to and goes so far as to claim that Maloney has won several Academy and Emmy awards. Tony Horden created the Maloney article but a lot of the expansion came from IP 86.170.237.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's worth noting that the same IP made this edit on Havana Heat making it likely that the IP and Tony Horden are related. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Incubate the now improved and sourced article for a few weeks until actual filming is confirmed. Despite perceived problems with its author elsewhere, THIS topic is NOT a hoax, and IS receiving (slowly)growing (related)coverage. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, the external link was easily corrected, and sources added. Schmidt, 20:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Would you mind expanding on what you mean by "growing coverage"? Tayrona Entertainment Group released a press statement/promo kit around August 18 and all of the other sources seem to be from August 18 or 19. That would constitute "coverage" but has there been anything recently to justify calling it "growing"? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  No press release was used to source the article... only available articles in such as Variety (magazine), Entertainment Weekly, Canmag, Broadway World, etc. That the release "may" have inspired them to do their editorial duty and then research an article before publication is fine... as we have long judged them as WP:RS without having to demand full disclosure of their editorial and fact-checking processes every time they print a bylined article. RS is RS. And some very recent articles about Wesley Snipes and his tax problems also speak toward his contracted role in the film. Yes, it fails NFF... but I feel due to the individuals involved and its past and current coverage, it is worth incubation fr a short time. Incubation is a win-win for the project and its readers. Schmidt, 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  I'll grant you that RS is RS and the source of the coverage is not too relevant. The crux of my question above is in regards to what "growing coverage" means or at least implies. The article is sourced with articles dating from August 18 and 19. Has there been any coverage since then to suggest that this is not all there is to the coverage of this film and that the coverage is actually growing? The reason I ask that is that, without more recent coverage that addresses the film directly and in detail, the statement of "growing coverage" is incorrect. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  So, you would thus deny the reasonableness of an incubation of a sourced article on a film that is to begin filming sometime in the next few weeks? If there was a wealth of recent coverage I might have opined a keep per coverage of production allowing it as an exception to NFF, but as recent coverage is more toward Snipes and his tax problems perhaps impeding his participation, I opined for an incubation. Schmidt, 21:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  It's pretty unfair to call me unreasonable simply for disagreeing with you on the best course of action. I see no growing coverage, only initial coverage from three months ago. Per that initial coverage, I believe the article should be deleted per NFF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Please... I have not called you unreasonable, specially as your discourse here proves you are not unreasonable. Its just that due to the film not currently meriting being an exception to NFF, I am referring to my own opinion toward incubation as being a reasonable and guideline-encourged alternative to flat deletion in this case... specially as userfication to this problematic author is definitely not a viable option, and because WP:INCUBATION was specifically created as an option for such articles. What I am asking rather, is whether or not you agree that incubation is a reasonable consideration, and if not, then why not? Schmidt, 22:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 03:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:NFF, and is doubly problematic due to its edit history, with no prejudice for its recreation when appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Monk And The Billionaire Mugger (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 an episode of a TV series that is memorable only to the strongest fans of the series. It fails to meet WP:Notability. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete based on the current content of this article. However, I don't see any reason that this article couldn't be improved sufficiently to justify keeping it. There are some other television series which have articles about every episode. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:IINFO#1 as would any other plot-only article failing to address GNG outside of the fictional universe. Fæ (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable TV episode. The content is more appropriate for "Mr. Monk and the Entertainment Wiki". Mandsford 14:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to show or season. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to LoE. Currently only consists plot in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, no indication of WP:NOTABILITY. – sgeureka 08:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This episode isn't really notable. If it were to be kept, it would have to be rewritten completely. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomnation withdrawn. Thank you for finding the foreign sources; I didn't search the Hungarian Google thoroughly for sources. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fort Monostor (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 stub for years, can't find significant coverage to establish notability. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: I did some quick work on it and added some sources and the Hungarian name for it. It does seem to be a quite notable location. E.g.,, "Perhaps the best preserved modern-age military complex in Central Europe, it is an architectural and military masterpiece. The largest part of a system of fortifications at Komárom has been called the 'Gibraltar of the Danube'." The Hungarian wikipedia covers this fort as part of a more comprehensive article on the forts in this area of which Monostori is the biggest and most notable. (hu:Komáromi erődrendszer).--Milowent • 05:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep because of Milowent's research and improvements to the article. Perhaps some of the information quoted above could be rewritten and included in the article, or included as an attributed quotation? Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to see if that tourism-related source I cited is reliable enough to be cited in the article, or look for something else.--Milowent • 14:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The potential for expansion is there, and this is a notable historic location. Nice work Milowent! Seaphoto 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - now that it is referenced it appears to pass the notability threshold. A fascinating image too I might (well done whoever added that). Anotherclown (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fluori-Methane (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 did support keeping this article in its first AfD, but after looking over it again, I think that the coverage is inadequate to warrant an article on this spray. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems to fail general notability guidelines. What it does isn't notable, nor is the company who makes it. Leo 04:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Content is limited to "Dichlorodifluoromethane 15%, Trichloromonofluoromethane 85%". It was kept last time only because there was a belief that it would be made into an encyclopedic article, although most of the suggested-but-not-taken sources seemed to be about the class that this falls under. So far as I can see, we have no article about vapocoolant sprays (and I'm not volunteering to write one), but there's enough information for one. . Mandsford 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete No indication that this is a notable item. No sources to show or support notability. WP is not a product directory. Geozapf (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Snow delete Nergaal (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of age regulations in sports (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 appears to be almost completely OR, sourced to blogs, forums and other sources which discuss a tiny proportion of the subject each. Nothing suggests a single notable topic to be the overall subject of this article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The article was originally written as an essay meant to be specifically about tennis, gymnastics, and swimming. When I found it I moved it to the present title because I thought that might be an encyclopedic topic (the original author's various objections to that move, and descriptions of what he wanted the article to be, can be read at the talk page). I have no opinion on whether the topic is actually encyclopedic or not because I haven't read the article or looked at the sources; I just moved it to the present title because it seemed like the general topic of age regulations may have encyclopedic potential. If this particular article is no good, a solution might be for someone to create a new article on age regulations on sports in general, and make this into a "criticism" section of that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Cobbling together the opinions of other people doesn't instantly make the article not an essay or opinion piece, it just makes it lots of opinion pieces cobbled together. This isn't really appropriate as an encyclopedia article; in general I find most of the "Criticism of..." articles to be problematic violations of WP:NPOV from the get-go, and this one is no exception. Like all "Criticism of..." articles, this is nothing more than "a collection of people who share my opinion on this topic". --Jayron32 06:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• delete the encyclopaedic content of the article is perhaps the age limits, but these can be stated in a single sentence in an article on the sport or athletic activity. All the rest of it is a very one sided essay challenging the current age limits, both in its arguments and in its narrow focus on a handful of female athletes in three types of 'sport'.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of conventional agriculture (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 contains a lot of speculative information, reads like an essay and any useful information would fit much better under Agriculture or Intensive/Industrial farming. Had previously been proposed for deletion under the heading Traditional Farming before being moved AIRcorn (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Merge with Agriculture. It's a nice article with very good references, so I think merging it would be good. Endofskull (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete They are very nice thoughts, but nowhere near an encyclopedia article. A section in agriculture on the topic is a good idea. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge with the article about agriculture. If the information from this article is meant to be either relocated to another article or be deleted, I rather see another article inherit this kind of information than to see it vanish off the face of the encyclopedia.GVnayR (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• No, I'm afraid we can't merge it. What we have here is a novel synthesis. The sources are good but they support the individual facts in the article. They do not support its thesis or conclusions. In other words, it's a form of well-sourced original research, and it can't appear in the mainspace in its current form.

  Equally we shouldn't ask the closer to delete this material out of hand, because it does contain a number of sourced facts and policy enjoins us not to remove them. Our choices seem to be: (1) either to suggest that the closer userfies this material to an experienced editor who is willing to use the sources, but not its thesis or conclusion, to support the agriculture article (and the experienced editor may need to be an administrator, because our content licences might require a history merge that only an administrator could perform); or (2) if no such helpful administrator is forthcoming during the seven days of this AfD, to copy/paste the sources to the talk page of agriculture, where interested editors could selectively incorporate the sources into the article and then request that an administrator considers a history merge at that point.

  Of course, it would be a great deal simpler to delete it and start again, but the guidelines require us to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before doing so, and there is an alternative.—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular  01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:ESSAY, WP:CFORK. Sole creator of the essay needs to work to achieve consensus to add material to the main agriculture articles. Abductive (reasoning) 01:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. If, by some chance, this is kept, then the title certainly needs to be changed. Agriculural conventions vary enormously over time and place, so no one type can be called "conventional". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have decided to change my vote to rename. Maybe this article should be renamed as Criticism of modern agriculture. GVnayR (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding "votes" to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sacred Oath (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 have not been able to find anything to source anything in the article with, Googling for the band and "Bethel", "metal", or "world on fire". There is no record on a notable label, no hits, nothing. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few citations. Also, according to their website the new album peaked at #8 on the itunes metal chart. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Canvassing notice: I've asked User:Blackmetalbaz and User:Cannibaloki, both certified metalheads, to have a look at the article and the AfD; they know much better than I do how to evaluate the sources added by Markvs88 (BTW, thanks for those). Drmies (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

\,,,/ (><) \,,,/ Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The article is now appropriately sourced. Markvs88 (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete None of the references provided are independent coverage from independent reliable sources as asked for in wp:music. I found none either. iTunes charts are not WP:GOODCHARTS. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn due to below sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Disputed. The article has 12 right now, which is more than 2 (the minimum). However, now that I'm aware of the WP:MUSIC, I've added some of their "good" sources (which to me look useless, but whatever). Would you now reconsider your vote? Markvs88 (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • and which do you think is "good" sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article already passed the bar for Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music) with www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net & www.thrashmag.com. IMO the www.freedb.org & bmi references are window dressing -- virtually no one will get anything out of them by clicking on them. Now up to 14 citations. Markvs88 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

blabbermouth might be good so taht might be one good source. www.thrashmag.com is "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" so doesn't count www.freedb.org and bmi are not non trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. The count of citations means nothing, it's their content. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Which I have no arguement with, but this AfD was started when there were zero sources. Do you still consider the article somehow lacking, and if so, why? This isn't "my" article, and I really don't have much affinity for the group other than it's a CT article and that they are notable. Markvs88 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Markvs, but none of the references you added pass the bar at WP:RS. Duff is correct. And Blabbermouth, those are somewhat trustworthy notifications at best, but it's really just a noticeboard for press releases. Now, Loki, below, has added some more relevant stuff. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Canvassing notice 2: As there has been little activity, I've added a link to this discussion on WikiProject Connecticut . Markvs88 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular  01:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral, please consider reading "Sacred Oath: Not Bon Jovi" (The Ridgefield Press) and "Sacred Oath plays Heirloom Arts Theatre in Danbury" (The News-Times).--Cannibaloki 02:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Loki--those are the most reliable sources the article has seen. I personally don't think it's enough right now (two articles in twenty-three years), but it's definitely more than there was before. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I found reviews of Sacred Oath, A Crystal Vision, Darkness Visible, and Till Death Do Us Part on Allmusic.--Cannibaloki 02:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Loki, you think it passes now? (And can you stick your sources in the article, please, and rewrite it, and give me credit for GA status?) Drmies (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Keep, I'll see what I can do.--Cannibaloki 00:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• I accept Loki's verdict: nomination withdrawn. Thanks Loki--but this is hardly a GA yet. Get back to work! Drmies (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AZImage (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 non-notable image converter, downloaded less than 3,000 times through it's entry at Cnet. Nothing in the article explains why this image converter is significantly different from it's competitors. The article was fully written by a primarily single-purpose account, that has made no edits since except to update this article, once. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I am the article's primary author. Few things stated above are not correct and also some rules & recommendations regarding the AfD were not followed. There was no message sent to me as the creator of the article - I was lucky to discover it by chance. The stated "no edits since except to update this article, once" is not true - please look at the history page. If you look at my talk page and follow the discussions in the past, you will see that this article was already checked by another supervisor after a speedy deletion and a reinsertion. I am not sure why the download count on a single site can be used as a notability guideline for an article, please explain it. Looking at the history I can see some interest in the article / see the two updates following my edits. There is another article Comparison_of_image_viewers indirectly linked through Graphics_software which covers your question. I do not consider that comparing a product to others in the associated article can be an objective matter on the subject and improve the article (at least not when coming from the article's author). With the hope that I have answered your questions, based on the argumentation above and the fact that the article meets in my opinion the general notability guideline I recommend this article to be kept. rac 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not having notified you, but it is optional, and you did find the discussion. Further, since my primary concern is that no-one other than you is concerned for the article, it would have been a point in favor of keeping the article if an otherwise un-affiliated editor had spoken up first.

Now, regarding your specific claims: There have been 7 edits to the article made by accounts other than you. The first was a bot, the second was bot-assisted category change, followed by a reversion of the initial bot edit. Next there is a non-logged-in edit, updating the note about the most-recent version and making two tiny changes to the description. Then there's another bot-assisted minor cleanup, followed by a non-logged-in user adding a single, un-explained See Also link, followed by a non-logged-in user adding a three word phrase. That's all the editing this has been done from other than the original author. Pretty minimal; and the only content-edits were from non-logged-in users, who may be the original author, for all we know.

I looked at your talk page -- there is no discussion there, just standardized messages. There is nothing that justifies or illuminates the case for the article.

The download count on a rather well-known site such as Cnet is a useful guide to determine if a piece of software is widely known. Certainly it is not definitive, but you have not provided anything else.

The Comparison page, which also had the entry added by you, says nothing different than what is already on the article page. I appreciate your response, but what we need are sources. To quote WP:N: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please explain how this satisfies that. Also note: WP:SPIP. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have started writing the article I have looked and referenced 3 independent sources, they are still all online and valid WP:N. I am not sure what significant coverage quantitatively means, do you mean to find other reviews and references?

I will add some information to the article to address your other concern - what is differentiating AZImage from other image converters. Please review it, as I am not sure if such an information will not change the neutral point of view of the article.

I agree with you that the article has not received a lot of attention from the wiki community, but seems to be improving. Anonymous edits are not coming from me, I remain logged it. You have to consider that the product is relatively new. I discovered it in 2009 and used since then. rac 13:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotarucalin (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. So far the "independent" sources are a review on cnet, which is fair enough, and that page on freedownloadscenter.com where the "editor's review" is suspiciously similar to the "publisher's review" (I doubt that they were written by an independent party), and a third website which apparently only offers downloads of SoftEx software. However, to be kind to a new user: I'd happily switch to "keep" if there were more evidence that other people had found the application significant enough to discuss it. Normally 3 sources would make me happy, but I'm skeptical about the independence of 2 out of them 3. (Also, IMHO, a review in specialist media would carry more weight than "filler" on a download page). bobrayner (talk) 18:24, 23 November 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) 00:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Coverage in reliable sources is lacking. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with the opinions above, still I do not think that the article isn't relevant. I realized that there are two strong arguments against keeping this article: partially missing coverage from reliable independent sources and lack of contribution from the wiki community. I contacted the software publisher and hope they will also express their opinion on this / add some references. Regarding the reliable sources, I have done what was possible by researching the internet. I believe that wiki is a great way to share knowledge, even if it is sometimes a new subject that has not got a lot of attention. Rotarucalin (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I don't find that the small number of sources is negatively affecting this article. I use this tool from time to time. I discovered it over its link from the dcraw article, so I think that its entry is notable. Dan.lupu22 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete No disrespect to the software, but there's not much indication of notability. I'm afraid that "a new subject that has not got a lot of attention" is not really what an encyclopaedia is for. Show us coverage that's independent of both the company and the download sites and we'll reconsider. (Not guaranteeing anyone's !vote - but these things can reverse with a few good references. Peridon (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion, but it just does not apply to software related articles on Knowledge (XXG). Take for example Adobe Photoshop Album or most of the entries listed under . With few notable exceptions like Irfanview they are all having only links to the publisher's site and to download sites. I agree that the publisher site is not an independent source, but is most of the time a good reference even if not the most objective one. Should we delete the entry to iPhoto because it only has links to the publishers site? (rhetorical question) A download site as CNet is in my opinion a fair independent reviewer site, widely accepted in our industry. Rotarucalin (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The rules for referencing are tighter these days. The Adobe article dates from 2005, when things were more relaxed. Feel free to tag it if you're not happy with it. What's accepted in your industry isn't necessarily what's accepted here. (It's definitely not the case in politics or religion either...) Perhaps we should tag iPhoto to spur someone into referencing it. Once again, feel free. You are entitled to if you think it doesn't fit the bill. But... We're here to discuss this article and what another article's got away with (so far) isn't relevant to this. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Douglas N. Graham (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 heavily promotional in tone. Douglas Graham seems to have very little biographical coverage in secondary sources. Google Books turns up a couple mentions, but they seem to be mostly in passing. News archive search turns up nothing. The current links in the article are to blog or forum sites. Gigs (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Very little coverage of the subject per se, failing WP:GNG. I conclude that WP:AUTH has failed as well, mainly b/c of difficulty finding reviews of his most prominent book, the 80/10/10 Diet. (held in approximately 60 Worldcat libraries). I did find this article detailing a cult-like group of 1700 people or so who follow his diet, which is certainly suggestive, but does not constitute significant in-depth coverage of his work. Ray 03:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - article needs improving not deleting. He is a notable vegan/raw food/healthy living author with a top selling book The 80/10/10 Diet. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:32, 21 November 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) 00:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - weak, but agree with nomination and comments by User:RayAYang. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 18:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Irish Moutarde (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 local cover band; although they are successful in their particular region, I don't think it meets the requirements of WP:BAND. ... discospinster _talk 04:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to the maximum of three modifications within 24 hours, several media references and other informations will be added in the next 24 hours, so that it complies with the point #1 for 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' and point 5 of 'Others' of WP:BAND maudet 11:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 17 November 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) 00:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - They've had some coverage in the Quebece Chronicle Telegraph, but aside from that, there's no significant coverage. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. treated as a prod so this can be contested in the usual way Spartaz 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Broomstones Curling Club (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. gets passing mentions in gnews but no indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• This article passes Verifiability test, but is it Noteworthy to have this article included on Knowledge (XXG)?BLUE_DOG 04:57, 3 December 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) 00:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

List of number-one new age albums of 2010 (U.S.) (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 simply a reprint of the Billboard list, no potential for real encyclopedic content, may have some copyright issues, and is exactly why wikipedia is not an almanac. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't matter since Enya's album was #1 for all but 3 weeks of this year anyway. Also, the chart in question is incredibly niche and unlikely to have its own article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 03:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes this chart is incredibly niche, but so is the Dance/Electronic albums chart, yet that has been permitted. So, what is the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D bovair1988 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why that argument fails. Hasteur (talk) 19:47, 24 November 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) 00:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The nominator Shadowjams states that "Knowledge (XXG) is not an almanac" and links to a policy that doesn't mention almanacs. On the other hand, the first of our fundamental principles, described in WP:FIVEPILLARS says "Knowledge (XXG) is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (Emphasis added). It would be more correct to say that Knowledge (XXG) is, at least in part an almanac, as well as an encyclopedia and a gazetteer. I take no position on this specific article, but Shadowjams' argument here is somewhat flawed. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Cullen here. While I disagree with most of what the nomination says, I have really serious issues with our right here in copyright law. This is little more than cut-and-paste with citations, to avoid actual plagiarism. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 3 December 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) 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tax compliance solutions (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)

Promotional article for various software programs —KuyaBriBri 19:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Removed prev opinion Keep sourcing issues but no promotional problems. OSborn_{contributionatoration} 03:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have renamed this page to "Tax compliance software", I believe this is closer to what the article describes. OSborn_{contributionatoration} 18:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. While I haven't read the entire history, the current version is an overview article on an entire category of software. Which is how most software topics ought to be handled, rather than dozens of promotional stubs about individual packages and firms. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:59, 23 November 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) 00:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is currently non-promotional, and although it could use more references and some expansion appears to be an OK article. julianmh (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Article does need further reliable references and a copy edit. Doesn't appear promotional and does appears to be of encyclopedic value.Pol430 (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Meghdad Mostafaei (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 page:

MEGHDAD Discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)