Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 22 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus, after careful review. There are several suggestions that the article might be renamed or merged and these issues can be taken up at the talk page. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine Revolution in China (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 thrust behind my AfD is that this is a wildly "recentist" and as of now a non-notable event. Much of it is built from speculation by foreign media, and nothing materialized in the country at all. No one even shouted a single slogan. The number of people who actually confronted police might be counted on a single hand. More journalists appeared at the protest location in Beijing than protestors. Even if one argues that Hu has held a conference for "social stability" and dissidents are getting arrested "more than usual" - there is nothing verifiable - only pure speculation - that these incidents are related to the ongoing protests in the Middle East. Even if we accept that all the recent government posturing is the reaction to the Middle East protests, it does not constitute a significant event in and of itself and is already being covered sufficiently in the main article. If it does develop into a significant event and large-scale protests do materialize, then we can start an article. But at this stage, this topic is much too immature to be an article in its own right - day-to-day coverage should be left to Wikinews. Colipon+(Talk) 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep and Rename There are 40 sources here, how can there be "nothing verifiable"? I suggest renaming it from a "revolution" to an "incident". A mass incident may cover 1 city. This event covered 13 cities, so how can it not count. Is unfortunate enough that this happened at all. What you guys are doing is promoting violence by saying something like this doesn't count until there are mass casualties. Listen to yourself here. Benjwong (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Further comment This is the saddest deletion proposal. From now on if less than 1000 Chinese people die in an event, we'll ask user Colipon whether the event actually counts. No wonder there is never any peaceful protests. Benjwong (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • You might be interested, if you can read Chinese: From independent U.S.-based site Duowei. Certainly more journalists showed up than protestors. It even suggests that the whole thing was merely a "practical joke" by some young internet users looking to "have fun". Colipon+(Talk) 03:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't going to say anything. Maybe I'll fill you in from what I believe is the original case. This so called "revolution" already appeared on the 19th on HK media long ago. The original revolution was to call for a protest EVERY SUNDAY. I believe the western media already did you a favor by making it seem like it was a one time event. This dwnews also played it down a second time, by saying it is to "play". And this may also not be anonymous, as a name was already floating around the web earlier. Benjwong (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If it builds, with some actual protests on Sundays, fine, but it is not up to us to "spread the word". User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If you created this article on the saturday before it happened, you are spreading the word. Otherwise you are just editing a publicly known article. Benjwong (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Fred Bauer is absolutely right. Even if we accept that this was a weekly protest to be held on Sundays, it still does not warrant enough notability at this point in time, and won't until something significant happens. Police and journalists congregating around a group of people at a McDonald's does not constitute this 'significance'. Colipon+(Talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Far more arrests happened in this event than the Li Gang incident. How come nobody is flagging that for deletion. Colipon are you going to zh:wiki afterward and mark 中国茉莉花革命 for deletion? They got alot more editors going there. Benjwong (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Who has died from this?.... NOBODY. There is a time when an article is needed yes, this is not one of those times, it does not mean it is not on wikipedia though just because it does not have its own article yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • First off, the fact that people are dying has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Second off, who has died from this single protest? I see nothing in the article about people dying. Silverseren 04:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Rename from 2011 Chinese protests to something more specific. "2011 Chinese protests" would indicate falsely that these protests were the most important protests in China in 2011, which they are probably not. But there are a sufficient number of media reports right now, many indicating that the number of journalists was greater than the number of protesters, only to be surpassed by the number of police (the number of plain clothes officers remains unknown).  Cs32en Talk to me  23:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Rename to the 2011 Chinese protests -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Rename - it's very clear that something significant and notable is happening in China, and that there is significant coverage of it. I agree that the name is perhaps not the most appropiate however.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, Rename and Improve - Please refer to the chinese version's artiel of the event(中國茉莉花革命), it doesn't have a level of influence same to those protest of Middle East, but it's raising a confront of people in China to the China government. The event should be in Knowledge (XXG) as a great progress of the govertment revolution. Notice that China government now is still prohibiting people from joining the event, and the planner of the event is going have one more protest on the next Sunday, to save their innocent friends who shouldn't be put into jail.Ivantalk (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As the article has now been renamed '2011 Chinese protests' from earlier 'jasmine revolution in China' so there should be no issue with this article. Those supporting the Chinese govt. would like to complete remove the article altogether to avoid any future political unrest and protests in the country.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has already been renamed to 2011 Chinese protests. There are 60k-80k protests per year in the PRC according to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Whether or not the protests so far documented in the article are linked to the Arab world and Wisconsin-Ohio protests or not, the recentism/non-notable/not-news arguments are irrelevant: 60 to 80 thousand protests per year in the world's most populous country are a notable social phenomenon. Remember that this is not the USA.wikipedia.org, it's the English-language wikipedia about world knowledge. The article itself clearly still needs work: 60-80k protests per year means that about 5000 or so "mass incidents" have already occurred during Jan-Feb 2011 in the PRC and have not yet been RS'd. This is a massive social protest movement. Bilingual en-zh people over at the zhongguohua wikipedia article zh:中國茉莉花革命 could help us to improve the quality of this article. There are also other places to ask for translation help. Boud (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There are 10s of thousands of mass incidents (protests) in China every year, but they are largely about isolated, local incidents. They are not part of any "social protest movement", as you claim. Putting that in this article and linking it to the Middle East unrest is just original research and speculation.--Danaman5 (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Absolutely nothing has happened. If I were to spam twitter with "OMG ROSE REVOLUTION" in Canada, grab a couple of buds to go to parliament hill, should that be an article? The only difference is that the media, which is dying for stuff to happne in China/Iran/North Korea/whatever is making a big deal out of this. Considering China's 1.3 billion population, there are clearly going to be trouble. Are we really going to document every single case of people complaining on twitter? This would be different if 100k people took to the street of Beijing, police cracked down and killed 20. Until that happens, strong delete. 140.180.14.79 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please read my comment just before yours, and look at the article. Chen Jiping, deputy secretary general of the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Communist Party of China, stated, "Mass incidents continue at a high rate. Our country is in a period of magnified conflicts within the populace, high crime rates and complex struggle against foes, and these features are most unlikely to change any time soon." (ref in article) The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences says there are about 60 to 80 thousand "mass incidents" in PRC per year. This article now is named 2011 Chinese protests. Isn't the RS case for 2011 Chinese protests strong enough? The details of inspiration/triggering by the Tunisian/Egyptian revolutions (or lack thereof) don't need to go into the title. Boud (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment I think that it should be renamed Chinese Protests and merge with other Chinese protests. This protest really isn't large enough to stand on its own (even if it actually happened, which I doubt), and 2011 Chinese protests make it sound like there are major protests in China in 2011, which there isn't.
  • Keep. Notable enough for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.158.123 (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Several comments above argue for non-notability on the grounds that "nobody died". i cannot really believe that this is being proposed seriously as a requirement for a protest article to be notable. Knowledge (XXG) is not a tabloid journal. Boud (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep without prejudice against a merge/move; a move may be in order, but the content is sourced. No reason to delete it. Johnleemk | Talk 02:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
sources dont denote notability.

delete nothign happened. pov-pushing to suggest every non-democracy is failliny..bear ind mind, there was ONE protest only, per the page.(Lihaas (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)).

  • Strong delete or edit and merge
Firstly,I am in China right now. In fact, I am in Wuhan, one of the cities which 'had a protest', there wasn't one. I know that I am not exactly a reliable source and I could be making this up. But it is just to let you know where I am coming from.
From the Chinese wiki page, apparently, nothing had happened. For more details on this see |the talk page. Out of the thirteen cities planned, only two responded. There was no violence, not many people went and there was nothing notable. However, I understand that people might think that it should be mentioned due to the media coverage, which, bringing some POV, I don't believe in. So edit it and merge it with something else. For example, create a page called Protest in China and put all the minor protests like this one in there and links to major ones like Tibet 08. It just isn't big enough to have its own page. Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. The incident discussed in the article was so small that it can't even be considered a protest on its own. The large number of isolated protests in China, usually concerning local issues, is a notable occurrence, but that should be covered in a general article about Chinese society and social stability. Comments of the type that Chen Jiping recently made are not particularly unique, and the rate of mass incidents in China has been high for many years. This article is just improper synthesis of speculative sources, and should be deleted.--Danaman5 (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - those arguing that nothing notable is happening should look at the front page of the Financial Times today, right at the top: . If this article is deleted then it is an example of censorship in action, nothing less. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

    • The articles that I see mention a call for protests that was not answered, and the Chinese government getting nervous, arresting dissidents, and blocking internet keywords. I just feel like those types of things happen all the time in China. I mean, come on, the Chinese word for "carrot" is blocked because it is similar to President Hu's name. It can be covered by a section in one of the other articles if need be. Also, please assume good faith; no one is trying to censor anyone else. I certainly would not be inclined to do so. We will just have to agree to disagree on the notability of events as they currently stand.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Strong Keep - Seeing the tight control over internet and press in China, the local media is not able to print and fully cover such events, so its possible that persons it in a different cities in China might not be able to get the whole information and would undermine the importance of the article. Thought the amount of protests might not be that big but the response of Chinese government by blocking the 'jasmine' word and moderating billions of mobile phones and internet searches and content makes the article itself more important, as its not commonly seen elsewhere. So the contents or name of article can be improved, but the incidence, events and topic is worth and very important to be listed in this separate article --Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article dealing with censorship in the PRC , if you think that this is more about the censorship than the actual protest, then maybe it should be moved there. And also, it IS 'commonly' seen, as China always blocks something or another.Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • delete currently appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS as a minor passing event with no lasting signifigance. Active Banana ( 20:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Not notable? people got arrested. words get blocked. There are articles on Wiki about much smaller scale events and they're not flagged for deletion for not being "notable." Does Colipon flag every article on wiki for deletion if he find them non-notable? If not perhaps his movement for deletion have alternative motives. Ssh83 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
People getting arrested doesn't mean it deserves an article. Quite a lot of people are getting arrested everyday throughout the world, do they all deserve their own article. That would turn Knowledge (XXG) into WikiLaw.Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Something happening and being discussed doesn't mean it should be an article. There has been some media coverage, yes, but as you pointed out, it was a small incident. So maybe it should be merged into another article such as censorship in China.Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand your logic. Knowledge (XXG) has lots of articles about things that aren't important. It was a small incident that has received a disproportionate amount of attention. Why not have an article about it?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Protests made Time magazine - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2053522,00.html looks like it's a keeper

no, this is not time.com, its wikipedia. that can be cited but tus not the authority to "keep"Lihaas (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • @(whoever the original unsigned commenter was): First of all, why are so many people ruining the page syntax like that; try not to sandbox on this page. Also, sign your posts. Now on to my main point: Does being mentioned in a Time Magazine article mean anything significant at all? Do you really think that being in an article is a silver bullet that warrants for an instantaneous "keep" in Knowledge (XXG)? Things don't work like that. I've been mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald before - does that mean that I can have my own biographical article on Knowledge (XXG)? Don't come to quick conclusions like that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just did a Google News search for 'china demonstrations' and got 2,016 results: . This is one of the most bizarre deletion discussions that I have ever seen on Knowledge (XXG). Rangoon11 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Google hits have never been used as a determinant of notability. It can be used as a tool or a rough guide, however it can not guarantee that a certain topic is indeed notable. I've additionally noticed that from the google search you have provided, many pages are dated 2006, 1989, 1998, etc, and hence are irrelevant. Your search terms are very vague in the first place. Also,
>This is one of the most bizarre deletion discussions that I have ever seen on Knowledge (XXG)
You obviously haven't been here for very long. Be prepared to see many similar discussions in the future during your time here on Knowledge (XXG). Since you're new here, you might not have seen other discussions like this one. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the WP:GOOGLETEST page, where it helpfully states 'Google News can help assess whether something is newsworthy.'Rangoon11 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you're reading only what you want to be reading. The page does mention that general number-crunching, like what you have done, has little meaning. I can search for "jews did 911" and get 517,000 results; this doesn't mean that Jews did 911, right? You've missed my original point here. Many of the results from your search were irrelevant from the topic at hand, and hence your "number-crunching" had very little meaning, and little weight in supporting your argument. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
With respect you are conflating two separate things - a simple Google search, and a Google News search. They are very different things. It is also clear from looking at the results to the search which I posted above that huge numbers of results are from very well established news outlets and are about precisely the topic of this article.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Your original quote:
>Google News can help assess whether something is newsworthy
>help assess
FYI, "help assess" =/= "dictate". Like I said, google is only a helpful tool, and not a silver bullet. Also, are you denying that your search absolutely does not have irrelevant entries? I suggest you have a look over it again. Finally, from WP:GOOGLETEST:
>Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability. (#Notability)
>A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. (#Interpreting results)
Pretty much what I said earlier. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just want to note that I feel that this topic is edging closer to notability, because US Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman was apparently spotted at one of the failed protest sites, and there has been some consternation about it. I'm not ready to change my view of the article yet (depends on whether the Huntsman incident really blows up or not), but we should be aware of this event for our discussion here.--Danaman5 (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Some people have the misconception that there was a small "incident" to speak of, but that it did not lead to any change in the government. The current title, "2011 Chinese protests", is extremely misleading in that regard. From outside China came an anonymous online call to revolution that was inaccessible to Chinese, some ignorant media hype in the about that, and nothing materialized in meatspace. This does not merit its own article, and can instead have a terse mention in the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests article. Quigley (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Something materialised in meatspace: there was a heavy police presence and 15 people were arrested. Not large by Chinese standards, but not nothing.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
But does 15 arrests warrant an article? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
No. 15 arrests establishes that an event occurred. The interest shown in the event by some people warrants an article.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with that assumption. If arrests establish that an event occurred and that the event is notable for Knowledge (XXG), then we would have May 2010 Derpville High School, California drug ring arrests, November 2010 Graham High School, Illinois drug ring arrests, July 1998 Moscow sexual assault cases, August 2006 pedophile arrests in Adelaide, South Australia, etc etc. Yet, we clearly don't. As for "interest in the topic", media hype can easily generate unwarranted interest. If the media reported on the May 2010 Derpville High School, California drug ring arrests and made a huge deal of it (e.g. "oh noes bad people are filling our kids with drugs"), then there would be interest in it. In our case, "oh noes the reds are abusing their own people again, revolution yay" is sucking people in using a similar manner. Although it would be harsh to claim that the general population of laypeople are sheep being fed with prolefeed, it isn't entirely a false idea either. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It isn't our job to decide whether the attention the issue is receiving is warranted or not. I worry that that is the subtext of this entire deletion discussion: the sense that the topic is does not deserve the attention it has received, and that wrong should be righted on Knowledge (XXG).—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
However, don't you think that any notability from this topic is being puffed by Knowledge (XXG) contributors? Notability shouldn't be something that can be written out of nothing by someone. See Knowledge (XXG):Bombardment, Knowledge (XXG):Masking the lack of notability, Knowledge (XXG):Wikipuffery, WP:NEWSBRIEF. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I am skeptical of the argument that those who would keep the article from deletion are puffing its notability because they want it to be notable. Without any specific evidence, it seems to be as much an ad-hominem as my accusing those who are pro-deletion of being part of the 五毛黨 would be. The article, as it stands, has many valid references in reputable news outlets: it is not for us to say that these sources are sensationalistic and should be discarded (that would be WP:OR). Notability shouldn't be something that can be erased into nothing by a Wikipedian. --Thezeus18 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Though the main focus of the article is actually on how foreign media reported almost religiously on the protests, which they themselves admits, are small and is receiving unproportionate attention. Keeping the article at its current status is, IMO, definitely unacceptable. So delete it, on the grounds that it's just a media hype (deliberate or not), or merge it with MENA articles since that's where it orginated, or rename it into (better worded) 'media hype on tiny chinese protests, with an over-reacting government, started by activists (i.e. Boxun)'. Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
That's one particular interpretation of the events and coverage, yes, but that's so far from NPOV that you'd have to catch a plane to get back. Knowledge (XXG) has articles on many things that I think it could survive without having articles on, many phenomena created entirely by the media. These are kept because Wikipedians are not here to decide what is and isn't a stupid use of the media's time, they are here to summarize and provide references to the work of others. We have no control over what the news decides to report, and when it does so in such a volume as it has on this topic, we cannot ignore it solely because we have the better judgment to deem it frivolous. If you have references to sources that show these events to be less important than the "foreign media" attests, by all means present them and that opposing perspective can be fused into the article, or the article can be deleted when it is obvious that that view is the consensus. Otherwise, all you've got is a lot of WP:OR opinions about what should and shouldn't have been reported by the media, and a few Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Crystal ball predictions of future unimportance thrown in to sweeten the broth. --Thezeus18 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Huh? All I said was that this is actually more about the media reports than the actual protests, so focus on that. I didn't say ignore whatever the media says and act with our own views. That's why one of my suggestions is to rename the article to reflect that this is more about the media reports than the actual protest. Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
And the merge suggestion is based on the fact that most media reports actually relate this to the MENA events, not as a standalone event. How's that WP:OR? Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge somewhere, probably the 2011 Middle East protest article or 2011 Tunisian revolution article, since this is an effect of that. It definitely should not be named "2011 China protests", since there have been other protests, some of them notable (as they have even been reported in the Chinese press!) in 2011 in China, with nothing to do with these. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete The only "protesters" that took to the squares of Beijing and Shanghai were just bystanders who were wondering what the hell all of those foreign cameramen and Chinese police were doing. There are currently no anti-government protests in China. --Tocino 06:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please read the article again. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences says there are about 60 to 80 thousand "mass incidents" per year, or at least, there were in 2006 and 2007. This is RS'd. This is not direct proof that there have been thousands of protests in January and February 2011 in the PRC, but it makes the claim that "there are currently no anti-government protests in China" rather difficult to believe. Do you think that the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences overestimates the true level of dissent in the PRC? Boud (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • As was explained above, those 60 to 80 thousand are largely unconnected events concerning local economic issues, not political rights. See e.g. this interview with Yu Jianrong. (I know that this is state controlled media, but Yu is a well known scholar from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, whose statistics you just cited for the number of mass incidents, so it makes sense that he would know what they are) Connecting these unrelated local protests to the middle east instability in an article is an improper synthesis.--Danaman5 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The main argument in favour of deletion seems to be that the 20 February protest was more or less just a frivolous use of the internet, rather than a serious revolutionary movement. However, Xu Zhiyong and Teng Biao, two of the main organisers of the Open Constitution Initiative, have both been arrested. Have a look what the Knowledge (XXG) knows about the Open Constitution Initiative - it sounds like a long term democracy project by lawyers and academics. The seriousness of these activists has already been WP:RS'd - e.g. the ABC report (presently ref 12) presently used, which calls them "high-profile Chinese activists and human rights lawyers". Boud (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It was definitely not a serious revolutionary movement. The 'activists' may want it to be so, but it didn't come close to it. Numerous RS show that the actual protest itself was small, there might have been a few arrests but nothing more. These kind of things happen all the time, and many activists in China get arrested and released after a while, then arrested again sometime later for something else. It's no big deal. Zlqq2144 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
i don't understand why you seem to dismiss the Open Constitution Initiative organisers as "not serious", and i don't understand why you use the past tense. The organisers have clearly said the plan is to have a sustained movement with weekly gatherings. Boud (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they said they plan to have a sustained weekly gathering, but that doesn't mean it should get its own article. They planned this 13-city major protest as well, but it didn't work because few people turned up. The weekly gathering is still a plan. So maybe this should be put under the Open Consititution Initiative article or something? I used past tense because i was refering to the 20th Feb protest, which is in the past. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe i didn't explain clearly enough: the 20 Feb actions are (presumably) the first step in the "sustained weekly gathering" plan. These are not two separate plans (based on my understanding of the RS's and common sense). So "as well" in your sentence seems to be wrong, and so the second half of the sentence is also wrong. It is impossible to say that the sustained weekly gathering plan has failed without waiting for a few weeks. It is also impossible to say that it has been a success. If you are talking only about the 20 Feb protest, then that's not the main topic of discussion in the deletion debate. Boud (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no RS to prove that they planned weekly gatherings before the 20th Feb incident. It came from your 'understanding' of the RS and your 'common sense'. My common sense tells me that they planned the 20th Feb first, then realise that it is not working, and turned to 'weekly gatherings'. Even if you can find an RS about it, then this should be catrgorised under 'news that is still happening which may become notable but isnt yet' (im sure theres a wiki policy about it, but i don't know which one. Im a newbie.) So restore the article when it becomes big news. Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Inappropriate edits being made to the article are irrelevant to a discussion about the notability of the topic in question.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Which is why this is obviously a good-faith FYI comment, and not a !vote. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out the premise of this discussion. Actually, scratch that. Such things are perfectly relevant. Might I remind you that notability is not the only factor in an AfD. Policy violations such as WP:ADVOCACY also have their weight in a deletion discussion. Articles that are not up to standard with any policy, not just WP:N, face the potential for deletion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Not true, I suggest that you read WP:DEL#REASON.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Also irrelevant as you have already voted. Concerns about inappropriate content in the article should be discussed on the Talk page of the article, not on this page. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
So, then people who are interested in this event in China should read about it in an article about the Middle East and North Africa?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I think yes. With your reasoning, every subsection of every wikipedia article should be made an article, since people might want to read about that section only?Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There are probably a lot of subsections in Knowledge (XXG) that could be made into interesting articles if there were editors interested in doing so and sources available. This subsection doesn't need to be made into an article: the article already exists, with plenty of sources, and you are trying to delete it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am trying to get it deleted. I am sure that lots of subsections can be made into articles if someone is interested. However, many of them remain 'sections' because they are not notable enough to get an article on its own. IMO, such as this one. As many people said above in the discussion, not many people were involved, there wasn't anything big happening (e.g.violence, deaths). There were a few arrests, but arrests doesn't make it notable. If every protest that is the same as or bigger than this one qualifies for an article, then Knowledge (XXG) is going to filled with these things. How many protests have there been in the world? The only thing that makes this slightly different is that some claim that it is related to the MENA events. At most, this should be merged into an article about the influence of the MENA events. Even this have some questions attached to it such as are the protests ACUTUALLY related to the MENA? Not all protests the same. Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
>...should read about it in an article about the Middle East and North Africa?
Well, yes. The events that occurred in the ME and N.Africa are notable. The failed protest that happened in China is not. It would make sense for, if any "xyz news suggests that A has a relation to B" is included, for it to be in the ME/NA article, as a minor mention in a minor subsection of a larger, more notable topic article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment What makes this protest different from thousands if not millions of protests around the world (most of which are larger than this one and are not articles) happening every year is that it is vaguely related to the MENA events, as claimed by the organisers of this. So put it under some article about the influence of the MENA events. Or, in my opinion, delete it since it is not notable.Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's the only thing or the main thing that makes this protest more notable than the typical protest. What makes it notable is that people are very interested in talking about it, there was a surprisingly heavy police presence, there was linked activity in multiple cities, a number of dissidents, writers, and lawyers as well as putative organisers have been arrested or harassed apparently in response, and Hu Jintao suggested tighter controls on the internet possibly in response. Its notability is attested by the large number of sources available about it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedians are very interested to talk about it here, since, you know, we are discussing whether to delete this article or not. But not in the 'everybody talks about it on street and it appears on the 6 o'clock news' type of discussion. Heavy police presence, yes, but not surprising, happens often, its not like as if a whole district was shut off. There were a few more police standing on the street. Linked activities in 2 cities out of the 13 proposed on 20 Feb, and not much happened. People get arrested doesn't make it notable, a LOT of people get arrested everyday for various things. Also, there were only 15 recorded in the article, you get more on a drug arrest. Even with these people, some of them were arrested and released and arrested again later, so put it under their own article if they have one. Hu Jintao says a lot of things, not all are notable, I mean, he gives talks to government officials on a daily basis, should we include them all in an article?Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean that Wikipedians are interested in talking about it here. I was thinking of the media coverage of this story, for example, in the examples below by Arilang, as well as many others. Do you have a source that says that the police presence in response to the call for protests is typical? I've read that it has been quite disproportionate to the number of actual protestors. As for the linkage, even at only 2 cities, you still had coordinated protests in different parts of China, which is very unusual. As for the arrests, my point was that they were arrests of particularly noteworthy people. Another notable thing about the Wangfujing protest, which I forgot to mention above, is the whole John Huntsman broohaha. My point is not necessarily that any one of these characteristics by itself makes the story notable, but together they do.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see my comments below about other Chinese protests on Wiki (such as Tibet 2008) and this ebing a 'spin-off' of the MENA events. Now to respond directly to your comments, the use of police in stopping protests (though most protests in China are non-political and regional) is usual. I will look for sources. 2 cities, IMO, doesn't count as linkage, 5+ or something does. 2 people out of the 15 arrested on the first occasion have their own (very short) Knowledge (XXG) articles, no that noteworthy. The seven arrested on the second occasion don't even have names. There are many Chinese anti-government activists, most based in foregn countries. Those who are still in China get arrested very often but then get released when things cool down a bit, then they get arrested for something else, next time, so the arrests cannot support the notability. Also note, 15+7=23 were arrested, they get more on a medium-sized drug surprise arrest. John Huntsman thing is notable within this event, not notable out of this. Also, he claimed that he was just passing by, I don't believe it, but you know, that kind of puts the full stop on this. Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge or Rename A protest gathering of a few people is not notable enough to be worth an article. In fact, there are hundreds of peasant protests in China every year with more participation. It should be merged. I would also vote for a rename, since it was mentioned in the Western media. --Voidvector (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep or Rename, Chinese Jasmine Revolution was, and is a hot topic being discussed in Twitter accounts , , , , , ,, , as well as Chinese Google Buzz, Bloomberg , RFI , FccChina.org , Reuters , The Globe and Mail , CNN , Forbes , WSJ BBC Chinese CBS News video McClatchy.com . Saying that it is not notable is just unbelievable. Arilang 09:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Since when are social networking sites RS for notability? Should we give every group/status on facebook that has thousands or even millions of followers/replies/likes an article? See WP:N and WP:RS (Quote WP:N :"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..." and WP:RS :"...personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.") Also, few Chinese people use Twitter (blocked) and Google buzz (few have actually heard of it anyway. Zlqq2144 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment And with Bloomberg and RFI, they are just more news articles. Not discussions. Bloomberg have numerous comments made by people who don't want to mention their names. Suspicious. RFI is just a news update on what happened today, not that different from 20th Feb, really.Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Reuters kind of supports my opinion: police still stepped up security (but they did that last week), 7 were arrested (15 last week) and few people turned up. Out of the 27 proposed, only 2 actually had anything going on (2/13 last week, with 2 extra ones, making 4) It says in the article that it was impossible to tell who were shoppers and who were protesters. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Note I am separating these comments because Arilang is adding to them as I comment.Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment The Globe and Mail article was from 26th Feb, predicting (wrongly) what would happen today.Zlqq2144 (talk)
    • Seriously, these are just more sources, whose reliability I have doubts for and have not checked. There are many more in the reference section of the article. Why bother? Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It was impossible to tell who were simply shoppers and who had shown up to support silently the call to demonstrate(Reuters). This looks like a joke to me, it seems they are not even sure were there any protesters or not there. Atoms78errt (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • CommentYes, I could just say that everybody at the Times square today are just answering to my call from some secret place online to protest against the US government. It was a massive success! On a more serious side, they chose crowded places, no wonder many people appeared at the sites. Zlqq2144 (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The only articles on Knowledge (XXG) that are dedicated to a single protest concerning China are :Olympics 08 relay protest (not even in China), 2008 Tibetan unrest, Urumuqi 2009, XinJiang 2009 (related to Urumuqi)and the 2008 Uyghur unrest. I came to this result by searching various terms such as 'China unrest', 'China protest', etc on Knowledge (XXG). Note that these are all huge incidents, involving violence and deaths. They involve a lot of people and have attracted way more attention than this one. So why should this one, much smaller than any of those mentioned above, have its own article? Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Also note that many incidents like this happen in China, and other countries for that matter, some of them gets recorded on Knowledge (XXG), and even less have its own article. Just look at the actual protest, it is SMALL. Sure, the Chinese police were controlling it, but if this is anything near what MENA incidents were like, then they need the army, not just some police, dogs and cars. Therefore, this is not big enough to have its own article. Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I know this is the wrong place, but I just wonder, is user Zlqq2144 a sockpuppet account? There is no record of his wiki contribution at all in other articles, and a newbie(he called himself) just could not learn so many things in a couple of days, and the talkpage is empty. Can Zlqq2144 explain a bit? Arilang 12:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet. Though I can understand where you came from. I edited virtually nothing before this (apart from a few typo-correcting minor edits). I registered in Nov 2008, though that's not really a solid proof as I understand. I take the learning fast thing as a compliment, thank you. Though I don't know what I have learnt that is too fast. Policies? Yeah, I read Wiki policies for fun when Im bored and have no access to other websites and Im still inexperienced. Uploading images? I went to WP:Images. Uhm, references, I went to WP:reference. What else? Reverting edits? Basically, I have been using and interested in Knowledge (XXG) since 2008, but until recently, have not made a move to edit. Strange, I understand, but I am not a sockpuppet. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
My apology to Zlqq for asking this unnecessary question. I am sorry. Still, it is very rare to see a newbie fighting every opponents in a AfD debate like he does. Arilang 13:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It's alright. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
In response to 'Still, it is very rare to see a newbie fighting every opponents in a AfD debate like he does'. I have a history of 'fighting', or debating opponents on other forums and websites. I just used experiences from those. In the end, Wiki's talk/delete/discussion pages, in my opinion, are just a more civilised and upgraded version of a forum debate. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Ch'eesus guys, this is an AfD discussion, not a talkpage. Don't start section headers on your own now. I've started a new dotpoint for you, you can continue on from there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Benlisquare, I started another section header is because the page is getting too long. Also I like to leave a comment with Zlqq, in my opinion, AfD debate is about "Notability", yet he is pushing his own POV here, it only gives him negative marks. I may be wrong. Arilang 13:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Please give examples of POV pushing. I admit that there might have been some POV, but most have been supported with evidence. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, this is becoming meta-talk. I suggest you both take it to one of your user talkpages. We're straying from the main AfD discussion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. Let's go to mine, since its less crowded. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. Preferably into democracy movement in China pages rather than middle eastern protests, to which this is only tangentially related. When and if this becomes more noteworthy it can be spun off into its own article. --Quadalpha (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

CommentThe fact that CNN, Bloomberg, Reuters, Forbes, Jordan Pouill, China correspondent for LaVie and other publications, Adrienne Moog of NBC, Mark Mackinnon of The Globe and Mail, Tom Lasseter, Beijing Bureau Chief for McClatchy Newspapers, Melissa Chan, Al Jazeera English's correspondent in China, all these people were there to report this one single event, and this incident alone, is worth a wikipedia article, by whatever name, revolution or not. Arilang 14:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To return to a comment I made above, the only Knowledge (XXG) articles involving Chinese protests are ones like Tibet 2008, with lots of violence and some deaths. Those are reported way more than this. Also, most of these reports actually suggest that it was just the nervous government sending out a bit too much police even though few people turned up. Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I feel that this just means that this event happened, and was not exexaggerated, so it can be used in article. It doesn't, IMO, mean that it can have its own sources. As I have said on numerous occasions before, there are many protests in China (out of the 60-80k a year) which are bigger than this. They are not articles, the shouldn't be, since that would mean like 20k more articles about small protests in China on Knowledge (XXG). Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There may be millions of unknown and unreported incidents in China, none of them is like this incident, which enjoyed the attention, and focus of the media of the whole world. This one is a "Notable" incident. Arilang 14:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Then our opinions differ on if those sources of yours make this event notable. We'll have to see what other people think. Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete the foreign media are trying to whip up another spectre of Egyptian, Libyan and Tunisian revolutions, when there isn't even a mild tremour in China smacks of the foreign media trying to manufacture news or forment a revolution. In reality, this is much ado about nothing. Firm delete. Ohconfucius 15:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

After the new protest today, i would say keep. I wonder why English media hardly report about it. Here, in Germany every newspaper report about it () --one-eyed pirate 18:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

'Jasmine Revolution' is not a revolution but the name of some online forum getting people to stroll outside MacDonalds - that bastion of American imperialism- amongst other places. The state apparatus is in a heightened state of alert to prevent a rerun of 4 June 1989. Most people who habitually go to Wangfujing or Dongmen in this densely populated country will know the feeling of overcrowding, whilst most foreigners need to experience it to believe it. --Ohconfucius 03:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Whether an event deserves an Knowledge (XXG) article is based on its notability, not whether the protests materialise in actual political pressure. As the original AfD nominator said, there is a lot of foreign media speculation. The amount of foreign media coverage on the event is clear evidence that the protests constitute a notable event discussed by reliable sources. --Deryck C. 22:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep name has been changed. Very useful article. --Ashershow1talk•contribs 22:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no revolution and the protests aren't more notable than others reported in recent year. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems like content forking since most media sources comment on how the MENA events was what gave the activists the idea to start this, whereas the actual protest is small. It is, at most, a 'spin-off' event of the middle east events, so it should be placed in an article related to that, or articles related to the Chinese activists since they started this. Look at the section related to this in the MENA article (the current version has that section deleted, for unexplained reason), the only other one with a separate article is the Albanian one, and 20,000 people attended that one. Note the Gabon one, with 5,000 protestors, nobody (as far as I know) is trying to have an article on that. This Chinese protest is probably closer to the Cameroon protest, but they actually have a significant number of protestor, and was outnumbered by the police (where in China, the number of protestors can almost be counted on a single hand?). Also look at the Vietnam one, I think that is probably closer to this one, with 'rare protests' in the city. And with Zimbabwe, dozens of activists were arrested, sound familiar? Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
In the past 10 years mainland never had more than 10,000 participants in any protest at one time. At most, it is a couple thousand spread across many days. On top of that, most CPC organizations play down headcounts. Pro-CPC organizations typically reduce the protester count by 20-50%. See HK protests for example. And I am sure you don't have this many fingers to count it all in one hand. Benjwong (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
VOA as a RS in this situation is debatable, see talk page. Also, as said in other RS, the 200 people at the protest site was mainly onlookers, normal shoppers and an unusual number of foreign reporters. The actual number of protestors was low. Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not complaining about any one source. I am complaining about the over-emphasis on headcount. Benjwong (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we emphasise on headcount? It is a protest, more supporters means larger impact, more notability, etc. What should we, in your opinion, put an emphasis on? Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not say avoid headcount. It just seems like 15 of your last comments is to point out there are low participants. When obviously this government has never been protest-friendly. If you are going to say people are afraid to show up. You need to say the security forces are armed with AK47 to "balance" the reasoning. I'll continue the chit-chat some other time. Benjwong (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
If the discontent of the people is really at the notable level, then people will not be afraid of the AK-47s (need source to prove it, since in other protests and unrests, Chinese police usually use riot shields and occasionally tear gas and rarely kill people), like the people of the MENA countries. Zlqq2144 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, you need sources for the 20-50% reduced headcount. Zlqq2144 (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
See various figures quoted on Hong Kong 1 July marches. (I understand that using that to argue 20-50% is synthesis ie. probably original research, so I'm only using it in this debate, not on the article itself.) --Deryck C. 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It's quite irrelevent to the topic here so I won't discuss further apart from saying that Hong Kong is quite different from mainland China due to historical, political and cultural reasons. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a reference picture to a security group armed with some guns. Ok so is a different model. Benjwong (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what the content says, but note two things. First, the date, this was from 2009. Second, scroll down to a gallery of pictures, one of them is the picture you gave me. Wow, the ability to see into the future. Scratch that. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
If your source is more accurate (and it looks to be), then according to google translate that picture is from the 2009 Urumqi riots. And that blog site I found earlier actually misused the picture either purposely or accidentally. In that case that blog site is misleading and no good. I will agree with you there 100%. However, there is still one problem. This image basically give citizens the impression that guns can be used against them since 2009. And if they are not intimiated by guns this time, they maybe intimidated by large number of security force. Instead of me looking for sources. It is actually best that you find us sources to suggest your reason for deletion. Such as the citizens are happy, and this whole jasmine thing was a false alarm etc. Benjwong (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Sources that say citizens are happy? Just watch CCTV news reports. The thing is, most sources that say citizens are happy are, rightly or wrongly, often accused of being CN propaganda, therefore people always argue that they do not meet the NPOV thing. (Whilst the people who say that the citizens are unhappy, e.g. the activists who started this, are rarely accused, rightly or wrongly, of justing trying to bring down the CPC, instead of actually concerning about the public) However, if you look at the external evidences, such as the UN HDI, Transparency International's Corruption index, GDP per capita and proportion of people in porverty etc, you will see that the life of a normal chinese citizen has being improving dramatically over the years, arguably, faster than any other country in the world (of similar size). That also eliminates the factor of one-party system, since they are doing a good job, why would normal people, who don't care about politics, be unhappy? The only other thing you can critisise is the freedom of speech issue, and China is becoming freer (sp?) too, you see tons of media critising the government, e.g. 南方周刊, and they are legal. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh and regarding that picture, the Urumuqi thing was a riot, it had more participants from the start and the police was only involved when things got violent and there were deaths. Per the wikipedia article on this. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. I think you need to NOT track GDP, corruption index etc. While I don't doubt those people's lives are improving. The missing statistics (and doesn't even belong in this article) is the legal and illegal emigration. Happy countries don't lose massive amounts of its citizens to other countries every year. Benjwong (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is straying off topic. Though i've never said that China has the best standard of living, only that it is improving at an incredible speed. There are lots of people who don't want to stay and help but choose to go to another country where life is better. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As in, the people are happy that the government is doing good things (generally speaking) and life is improving, not that they have the best life in the world. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to get back to the topic. The point is that there are people in PRC with "reasonable" complaints. And this jasmine thing/protest is a legit event and article. Benjwong (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Every country has that. This protest is small, if you want to concentrate on the complains, then create a general article focused on that, something like 'cricism/complaints/etc of PRC'. If you just base the reasoning on the complains, then any protest of any scale should be an article since most of them are based on reasonable complaints.Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete-you can not call this protests if there were no signs of actual protests.Atoms78errt (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    Participating in these protests exposes one to persecution by government authorities. They would claim to be "just looking" to media reports even if they were part of the protests. In a country where protesting against the government is strictly suppressed in practice, you can't use the same standards to judge what counts as a protest like you do in democratic countries where such rights are protected by law. --Deryck C. 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If the discontent of the people is actually notable, then they will start some kind of a protest. e.g. if a lot of people are discontent, they could just change the location on the day, maybe not everyone will receive the message, but there will be some kind of protest. Saying that the government is suppressing the protest so even if there isn't one we should keep the article is a bit POV-ish? How do you know that there really isn't one? Very few sources actually suggest that there were lots of discontented people, they just emphysise on the heavy police presence and the organisers. Zlqq2144 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Before the protesters get a chance to speak, they have already been intimidated by their own government. They never got a chance to express their discontent. So logically you are not going to have any sources about it. Benjwong (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, how do you know that people are too scared to speak, instead of don't have a problem. It is a bit POV saying that its because the Chinese government suppressed the public. Another point I made earlier, if the discontent of the people is notable, then the police will not stop them from expressing their views one way or another. e.g. change the location on the day? Anyhow, IMO, it's a bit POV there. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I've misread or something, but aren't they all comments left by netizens? and the BBC hasn't reported anything. So these are just comments, from un-indentifiable (sp?) sources. How does that count? Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoever said that just because the government supposedly suppresses its own people would logically mean the people are protesting is laughable. By your logic, the entirety of North Korea is protesting as it is being suppressed by its government. However, you ABSOLUTELY FAIL to realise the flaw in your logic. Why? Because the Middle Eastern protests have demonstrated to us that even a government holding a gun to our heads would still be able to facilitate not just protests, but whole revolutions. So what are you going to do now? Say that the Chinese are cowards and so they want to protest but just don't have the guts to? Absurd. Absolutely absurd. This article deserves a strong delete, as NOTHING has happened at all. You're furthermore alluding to how the protestors would protest by 'strolling' by. I also hereby declare that all Americans protest at Times Square by strolling by too. By that logic, I'd have lots of protestors 'strolling by'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.6.72 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you my sockpuppet? This is like a more radical version of what I said here . On a more seious side, i agree.Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm being alluded to by 220.245.6.72? I'd like to point out that I didn't conjure a brand new logical argument in this section of the discussion. I'm merely reusing an argument that's also used by multiple news media around the world. I would also like to point out that drawing parallels to the Middle Eastern protests and North Korea in determining whether these count as protests and whether these are notable is an Other stuff exists argument, which is unhelpful in this discussion. --Deryck C. 00:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Whilst the original title of the article was misguided, I think the recent events are worthy of a stand-alone article. Whilst there many protests in China every year, it is very rare for there to be coordinated campaigning in different cities outside of areas like Tibet and Hong Kong (obviously there's only one city in HK but you get my point) and in consecutive weeks. At the very least the deletion of the article is premature. What has been going on has been widely reported. At the very least I think that we should wait a month or two to see if anything further happens. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment It's not actually very coordinated, since only 2 cities responded out of the 13 the first time, and 2 on the second time. The organisers propose 10+, 20+ cities but nothing happens in most of them. The existence of this article, as I see it, can be considered premature, since it is not major news yet. We can always restore it once it becomes major news. Zlqq2144 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Yet the plans are themselves significant. Most protests in China aren't planned and happen over what might be considered minor disputes in other countries. The fact that protests haven't been happened across China doesn't matter. Whether this is major news is subjective. I would say that it would be premature to delete the article at this early stage. Also, doesn't HK fall under "China"? I was under the impression that they were one country. John Smith's (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes they are, did I say/imply that they are not? I meant:"Yes HK is part of China." The original one was unclear.Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, most protests are planned, by the same/similar activists who planned this one. Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In China, most protests are not planned in as far as they're usually a quick reaction to something that has happened in a local area. The planning of these protests is more considered. John Smith's (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Most protests are non-political and they aren't planned. The protests I was talking about, which perhaps I didn't make clear, refers to political, especially pro-democracy protests planned by activists. Such as this one. Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The plans are somewhat interesting because it contrasted the Chinese response to the Middle Eastern response. Whereas there were widespread unrest and revolutions in numerous countries, the impact on China was minimal. With that said, this is still not eventful enough to deserve a standalone page for now. One can simply write a paragraph or three about this in a subsection of Jasmine Revolution/Protest describing how this thing was overhyped by Western media. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Stripe down the cruft or rename When strip away all the cruft, one cannot help but wonder the question: where is the actual protest? 30% content is the protest plans, 10% content is on protests in Taiwan, 20% content is on government arresting dissents before the protest even happened, and the rest is on police assaulting journalists/pedestrians who are not really participants. This entire article seems more like describing an anonymous internet prank played on government paranoia, and a massive "Strike Hard" Campaign was launched against nothing as response. Either rename the article to 2011 dissident crackdowns in China or refocus the article on the actual protest in China. Jim101 (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jim101, the whole ordeal looking more and more like a Year 2000 problem scale internet prank, with the PRC police staging a nation wide show of force over some invisible protesters. The plot runs much better than many Hollywood blockbuster movies. How about "Chinese Jasmine Internet Prank" as a name? Arilang 05:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Nah, too sensational. Let's stick to what is actually notable, which is a massive crackdown on dissidents in China. Jim101 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"Chinese Jasmine non-protest" sounds good too. Arilang 06:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not our job to make up catchy names. Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (events) states just stick to When, Where and What happened. When is 2011, Where is China, and What actually happened is a massive crackdown on dissidents, while Jasmine Revolution and protests did not happen. This is why I proposed the name 2011 dissident crackdowns in China. Jim101 (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - The article began as a subset of the events in Tunisia. Don't think the article could stand on its own feet in feb e.g. recentism and WP:crystal. Looking at the article just now, seems to be whole lot better in neutrality, cohesion and facts based information. Article has taken a life of its own through snowball media coverage. As mentioned above, very little physical protest but more about scuffles, protest plans --Visik (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Some people are discussing on the talkpage what the name should be. Many already agreed the article names are only temporary. Benjwong (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
And what conditions are you talking about?Zlqq2144 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The portion of protests that occurred in Taiwan with Chen Yunlin is enough of an event and condition. Benjwong (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Most people who protested, i.e. the 绿营 people who supports Taiwan being an individual country, always protest and try to stop Beijing-Taiwan relationship. This is just an excuse, they would have done it even without the jasmine thing. It's not the first time and it's not even a big one. If you require sources, I'll find you one but this is really common knowledge for anyone interested in those affairs. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter which camp they belong to, an event is an event. Just based on that, we should be closing the deletion request. Enough has already happened. Benjwong (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
They've done it many times before, none of them are articles. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of individual articles of taiwan protests. Just go up and down the year articles like 2008 in the Republic of China. Benjwong (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
By all means put this article into that category, if you feel that Taiwan bit is the main thing. Note that Taiwan is not a de facto part of PRC. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This event is not notable enough as of now. There is no evidence that anything has actually happened. The amount of people who protested is very low if any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.1.125 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User Zlqq2144 is busy arguing for the deletion of this article, at the same time he is busy doing it's editing and engaging in talkpage discussion. I can't help to speculate that there are more than one person using the account. Arilang 04:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh come on, take off your tin foil hat and WP:AGF. Next you're going to argue that all the IPs voting for deletion are socks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I...I...I have nothing to say to that. As of now. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Zlqq2144 could be a wiki-Mr. Hyde. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's just stop it there. -_-!Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Time to close the debate, any admin here? Arilang 23:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It still seems pretty active. Have we reached any conclusions yet? My feeling is that there isn't a clear majority in terms of opinion though I didn't do any exact counting. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
What Arilang means is probably for this to end on a no consensus. Though I do wonder, if it does end on no consensus, what happens to the article? I assume that it's kept, but that kinds of is a keep, which isn't the result of a no consensus discussion. Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The consensus seems to me that the article will be kept and its relevance will be reviewed later (I suggest in a month), since the protests are a weekly institution and might either fizzle or really change something in China. In case they will have changed anything, it is good to have documented the starting of this historical change on WP. Zhangjiandong (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:Crystalball and WP:POV and we are not the ones to decide the result of this.Zlqq2144 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
section of copypasta
“ ”

Talk:2011 Chinese protests#Deletion Debate Arilang 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

    • Arilang, it's not your job to be moving talk for other people. Also, given that most have already taken part in the discussion here, doing so counts as double voting. In other words, what the blueberry muffins are you doing? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone close this debate please, everything need to be said had already been spoken. Arilang 10:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
And why, Arilang? Are you paramount leader of Knowledge (XXG)? The discussion is clearly still active, as there are edits on this page every few hours. When an admin feels that a discussion has gone on enough, they will close the debate. For now, we wait for someone to make that decision; neither you, nor me, calls the shots. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, an admin will come and close the discussion when it's time. There are a few admins around in this discussion, although it'd be inappropriate for any of them to close the discussion because of conflict of interest. --Deryck C. 15:05, 4 March 2011 (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 on Shenzhen list, keep Istanbul and Athens lists. I am also standardizing the names, as suggested below by UShick. lifebaka++ 18:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Shenzhen Stock Exchange/List of listed companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Companies listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of companies listed on the Athens Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. This article fulfills a function already performed by an external website. 2. WP:NOTDIRECTORY USchick (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because the current list can be found on the stock exchange.

Rationale for deletion There's no way of keeping these lists current because companies listed on any stock exchange have to meet ongoing requirements. Only the stock exchanges can verify what companies qualify to be listed at any given time, which makes our lists useless. A similar and much more useful list already exists for each country in question.

List of companies of the People's Republic of China
List of companies of Turkey
List of companies of Greece

USchick (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep all. Given that a stock exchange is for public trading of stocks, I don't think this is difficult information to verify, nor does listing status change by the minute. The exchange a company's stock is listed on is obviously a highly significant fact of that company, and we have quite a lot of content on this matter, as evidenced by the large category structure Category:Companies by stock exchange. There are also a lot of lists and categories specific to individual stock exchanges such as Category:Lists of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange or Category:Companies delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. Unless there is a good reason to treat the Shenzen, Istanbul, or Athens stock exchanges differently, deleting these would only seem to be an instance of systemic bias. The Shenzhen Stock Exchange is purportedly the 14th largest in the world, and it seems unlikely that there are no notable companies trading on it, so I am hopeful that list can be improved (though I suppose there's no harm in redirecting it to the exchange article until that happens). postdlf (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for making this point so eloquently. The categories already exist, which is where this information belongs. USchick (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Companies listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange
Category:Companies listed on the Athens Stock Exchange
Category:Companies listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange
That's not a valid deletion rationale; see WP:CLN. Also, how is it that the categories are verifiable but not the lists? postdlf (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2011 (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 Terminator_(franchise)#Future. redirect Seddon | 12:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Terminator 5 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Movie not yet even in pre-production, merely in development. E. Fokker (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2011 (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 List of The Venture Bros. characters#The Revenge Society. Consensus to delete; a redirect to the programme's character page seems reasonable enough. (see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Doctor Girlfriend) The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Only one source. I doubt that the character is notable, this article does not have any more sources or real world coverage to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 23:29, 22 February 2011 (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. Tone 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable music group lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2011 (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 per WP:CSD#A7 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

J.D B.G and K.D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable group of some kind. The article itself is so vague that it does not specify what they do. There is also little to no coverage on reliable sources (WP:RS) - Google search. In addition, the people who are subjects cannot be reasonable identified. Delete. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under at least two rationales: No indication of notability (A7) and it does not even identify the subject (A1). Also, appears to be about living people but unreferenced, plus the author is called Jack and so is they alleged interviewee. I fear he may have been "interviewing" himself. Will tag it for speedy again. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sorry Lulecimhikmet. I know you worked hard on this article but the consensus here is clear. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Creator removed it saying that "this article is being tried to be improved by various sources," but if among the long list of minor awards and compositions already listed nothing has yet established notability, I doubt more work will. Just isn't notable - no significant coverage in reliable sources. (I'll note for the purpose of this AfD that "Rebecca Oswald performed/will perform at this event" is generally routine coverage that does not establish notability.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree with your opinion, I think your objection itself does not represent a credible objectivity in itself. The artist I was working on to describe in this world's free knowledge has been so notable figure in the circles of American classical music for years. In addition, she was commissioned by the Bowerman family, which is the co-founder of NIKE. Consequently, I regard her commentary on my entry as completely biased and ungrounded in terms of her objections. In any part of this article you can not find self-serving statements. The entire category list with regard to the artist's creative works was carefully organised in line with her official records. In that manner, any part of the article cannot be labelled as routine coverage as such. This article requires better editors who can judge the exact universality of such important figures in the world and especially for this resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulecimhikmet (talk • contribs) 00:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Lulecimhikmet: Did you join Knowledge (XXG) with the sole purpose of writing the Rebecca Oswald article? --Kleinzach 02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I can certainly clarify that I had not registered to Knowledge (XXG) as the sole purpose of writing this article. I am a post graduate political philosophy student in Europe. I have many projects on Knowledge (XXG) especially for Turkish articles in my academic field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulecimhikmet (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I will try to find them, please give me enough time space...--M. Hikmet Luleci 11:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This discussion will remain open for at least seven days, so you should have time to identify reliable references to verify notability. --Deskford (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't exist in any of the other languages. I'll remove those now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I have a subscription to this press archive, and couldn't find anything but very local coverage, and none of it substantial. There are other ways the subject could pass the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO in the absence of substantial print coverage. But I'm afraid this still doesn't pass. Music played by highly notable ensembles or soloists in major venues? No evidence of this. Two recordings with a notable record label? One recording, October wind, self-published. Winner of a notable and prestigious award for composition e.g. Guggenheim Fellowship, Rome Prize, Charles Ives Prize? No evidence of this. Multiple scores published by well-known music publishing houses and widely held in libraries? Her WorldCat identies One and Two show a total of 3 scores in 3 library holdings, one of which is her Master's thesis and the remaining two are self-published. The scores for the pieces on the October wind recording are self-published at lulu.com and do not appear to be held in any libraries yet. By the way, the article has several chunks copy-pasted from her website and here without attribution. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: You maybe right about the big, generic, and mainstream publications. However, I just want you to look at the variety of her creative works and also the wide range of her productions. In such a case how can you define someone as not a notable person? I invite you to look at many other musical composers in Knowledge (XXG), this page I have created from many aspects is more compact, tidy and well-presented. If in Knowledge (XXG) you are going to judge people's exact artistic worth with respect to their so-called fame then what is the point of creating such an independent world knowledge source? As you are an academician and as I am an academic person can you explain this to me? Creative works, compositions and educational insight must represent the real artistic stance of such people. Again I just invite you to comprehend the exact artistic value which the artist presents to the world, and I mainly ask you to recognise it as the world knowledge. If we are really going to prove every knowledge as truth based assumptions on the generic newspaper news then why do we need such a source at all? You are claiming that this artist has not any record label as such, please look at the same page again. Her newest album is coming from Navona Records, if you are in classical music industry you may have heard Parma Recordings and its branch of Navona ones. By the way, can you say that being an independent artist and also producing your own compositions on your own can be enough reason as an obstacle to your universality? Lulecimhikmet (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is based on the criteria for notability as defined by Knowledge (XXG), which have been explained in depth above. It has nothing to do with artistic worth or accomplishment, and deletion discussions are not about a panel independently assessing someone's artistic talents, a mistake that many new editors make. Knowledge (XXG) does not publish original research, it publishes articles based on what has already been published. It is not the place to raise the profile of an unknown but no doubt worthy artist. It is the place to record those whose career has already made a significant impact, an impact which can be documented. Re the Navona Records cd. It hasn't come out yet. And even if it had already come out, it would be only one cd, and on a compilation with works by other people. It is simply not enough. Again, I emphasise that this is not a reflection on Ms. Oswald's talent or potential, it is simply the framework within which all Knowledge (XXG) editors have to work, whether or not we are academics in real life. Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have added several more review and article references, in light of the editor's concerns about notability. I believe this should satisfy at least one of the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Lulecimhikmet (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2011 (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. Overtaken by events - subject has been elected to Irish parliament and now qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary Mitchell O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Exiledone (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't disagree more. I created this article, and I keep updating it adding sources. She is a prominent politician who stands in the General Election. She's a member of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. She campaigns for women's rights; she is often cited in national newspapers. I think this "most of the Irish politicians are not notable because Ireland is only a small country" attitude is very regrettable. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

*'Delete'She is not a notable WP:POLITICIAN and I am not seeing any tangible other notability. The fact that she might get elected is by the by, if she does she will be notable until then she isn't. Off2riorob (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • This is the sort of keep that we do not do, we don't keep and wait to see if she is going to be notable and then delete, its always the case that we delete and recreate if and when they become notable. Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment It is worth noting out that Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown has a population of just under 200,000 with 28 councillors, with six for Dun Laoghaire itself. She is not the sole councillor for Dun Laoghaire. AJHingston (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
She surely isn't the sole councillor. So what? She's often quoted in the media, as the article shows, so she's notable as per WP:POLITICIAN.--Badvibes101 (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
She may make it, see this.Red Hurley (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2011 (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. Tone 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced neologism, supposedly four days old, sourced to Urban Dictionary. No evidence of widespread use (how could there be?) No reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete as failing verifiability. Absurd and unsourced; nonsensical in the extreme. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:03, 22 February 2011 (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 deleted per G11 by Deb (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

non notable enough (IMHO) see the only reference present in the article Melaen (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not necessary - easily meets the criteria for speedy deletion (which I've done). Deb (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2011 (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. UBLP. The Bushranger One ping only 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I tried PROD, but it was disrupted by more blankings (full and partial) from the likely article subject. The deadline for the PROD passed in a partially blanked state, so it did not get deleted. Trying AFD this time, as it is less subject to disruption.

My original PROD reasoning: Notability appears marginal, at best. And a user that is quite likely the article's subject wants it gone. Given this combination, I'm generally inclined to say we can do without the article. TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - I agree that notability is marginal at best, and for me, given the lack of sources, I would say he does not meet the inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2011 (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 per WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I suspect a hoax, no relevant references in the article... the creators of this article did also write the suspect Chrystophos_Rymannos and Nestor Cheninus articles, that i just nominated for afd Melaen (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a sophomore in my college math program, and we definitely talk about the diagon, though I am not sure about this "Nestor Cheninus". Also, is it possible that the sources are the hoax? Either way, I recommend editing though not deletion. - PabloGanon

  • Speedy delete as hoax. Google search finds nothing except Harry Potter references. Nothing on encyclopedia britanica. Google "define:" search reveals a German reference that translates to a part on a tank.--v/r - TP 02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am the creator of this article and I am a junior studying math in college. I recently learned about this idea of a diagon from my proffesor, and thought it was interesting. When I tried to find out more, I found that it wasn't on wikipedia, so I decided to create the article. As for the google searches: the diagon is often known as a biangle, these are two names for the same thing, as the definitions of both prove. A search on biangle yields more mathematical results. Sorry for the confusion, if after this you still feel the need to delete, feel free. -- Infobiac1(talk) 6:12, 23 February 2011 (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 deleted per G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri 22:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

suspected hoax: no reference found, for him or the diagon... Melaen (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (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 per WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

suspect hoax article, no reference found... also Chrystophos is a unusual name for someone born before Christ Melaen (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 (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. Tone 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Insignificant coverage of novelty story about Portuguese pilot, does not meet more than trivial coverage per Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people) Sadads (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Robofish, reliable sources and significant coverage, passes WP:GNG. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Independent reliable sources with significant coverage were in the article before it was nominated, including a 2000-word article about the subject in Germany's leading news magazine. I find it very difficult to understand how five editors managed to come to the conclusion that this coverage is trivial. Or is there something about maritime pilots that makes them inherently unnotable whatever the sources say? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2011 (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. It is not up to Wikipedians to judge whether something is particularly remarkable; what we need are reliable sources. So far, the "keep" side has explicitly named only one source by a "Bloomburg journalist" that treats the entity as a whole, and that is not sufficient. For comparison, the Revolutions of 1989 are naturally coherent because of their common, specific theme (abolishing communism), which of course led to widespread coverage on the topic as a whole. The Revolutions of 1848 are not as related as those of 1989, but scores of historians have discussed this as a lump sum that it is worthy of an article. If future historians do the same for this event, of course the article may be recreated. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

2010-2011 Worldwide protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable source is referring to the protests as "Worldwide protests".   Cs32en Talk to me  19:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The protests have reached china, which is part of other continent, thus the protests can be considered worldwide, otherwise geographically how will you include china with other African and middle east countries.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Strongly needed There is no other article to include the protests happening all over the world. The articles Tunisia Effect, 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution, 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests does not justify the content there as the phenomenon have affected big nations like China where population and economic role is much larger than other nations, so there is strong need for this article. The article needs new fresh content, please help it improve.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would you do that if currently there is a clear consensus to delete this article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I notice that The Americas are also added these protests have Nothing to do with any of the other protests but are lumped together in this article, as I have pointed out too worldwide protests take place every year just because it is not covered in the media does not mean they do not occur we cant have 2008-2009 Worldwide protests next now can we? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    I've already reverted that Wisconsin junk out for the article. It is a clear example that this article is just a cobbled-together dumping ground for every protest, two-bit or revolutionary, that has happened in the past year. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete- Why this article? We already have the 2010-2011 Arab world protest. All other protest around the world not in the middles east/Iran are not related with each other. If this article is allowed to stay, then we would need a "world protest" page for every year since the beginning of man-kind.Loro-rojo (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is probably not the best way to go about lisitng the current instability sweeping the globe. But I will say that the currently used "Arab World" article needs to be expanded to include Islamic countries outside of "MENA", because in it's current form we are conventionally delimiting the scope of these protests. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep for the moment - an astonishing and historically unusual amount of public protest and instability has happened in the first two months of this year. Only time will tell whether it's ultimately proper to speak of this as a revolutionary wave around the world or merely a regional one, but until we find out, we might as well chronicle it as it happens. Wisconsin has a constant Tahrir-square style vigil and signs referencing Egypt, Greece has a general strike, and while it may be too soon to draw parallels, it is also too soon to ignore them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.164.8 (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
delete pov-puishing here. its synthesis to sayu some of these are more than a mere gathering or calls (as most are) the other articles duly covers the starting and mentions of related stuff.Lihaas (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2011 (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. Seddon | 12:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Article on a mathematical concept that does not demonstrate independent notability. The one reference is a dead link now, but when it worked it linked to a French language text that (at least from what I could tell) verified this content. A search on "damping matrix" yielded related concepts but not the specific content on this article.

If anyone can find a suitable article to merge this content into, I am willing to withdraw this nomination and recommend a merge. I tried but this content would have been too detailed for most of the articles I came across. —KuyaBriBri 18:20, 22 February 2011 (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. Seddon | 12:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

List of world's most expensive single objects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:LISTN, I haven't been able to find reliable sources which discuss the topic of this list as a group or set. The only such lists I've been able to find via Google searches are obviously based off of this Knowledge (XXG) article. The sources listed within the article only discuss individual items in the list; none of them appear to discuss the group of most expensive objects. Mlm42 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This does not make sense... We have countless of lists whose entries in their entirety are certainly not presented "as is" in a secondary source. After all it would be impossible to create meaningful lists, otherwise. Or maybe I don't understand the guideline? Nageh (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the point is that nobody else appears to have ever really talked about "the world's most expensive single objects" before. So we shouldn't have an article/list on it. Mlm42 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. I suspect that there are, as has been pointed out below, secondary sources which deal with lists of things like "most expensive satellites", "most expensive bridges", "most expensive airports", "most expensive bridges" etc... and those would be perfectly appropriate stand-alone list articles, sourced to those secondary sources. But there is not, insofar as anyone has discovered, any reliable secondary sources that try to lump or aggregate all those things together as has been done here, in an article that is using its own internal logic and criteria to create a list out of sources that do not treat all these things as a group or set. That is the criteria for notability under LISTN, and it is not satisfied in this case.Fladrif (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2011 (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.   -- Lear's Fool 14:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

essay WuhWuzDat 17:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how to make it less of an essay or what specifically to re-work? Is it not footnoted enough? The tone too conversational? Thanks, Seththomasjordan (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2011 (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. Seddon | 13:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Article is strongly biased and inaccurate. Does not discuss alternate viewpoints. References are missing or invalid. Inappropriate tone and does not follow Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Kona Earth (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep This seems like a reasonable and notable topic. The article could be improved, as you mentioned. Borock (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't determine whether this topic is notable or not based on the current state of article. It's highly biased with biased references. If a new version emerges that demonstrates this is actually a notable and important topic, I might support it. But I can't support this article or what it may someday become. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I have given my opinion on the talk page at an earlier occasion. The core sentence (emphasis added): "I suggest that the article be either renamed to match the contents (with additional work on e.g. POV issues), be re-written to match the title, or be deleted out-right." The last seems to be the most realistic solution at the moment. (I have no objections, however, should someone manage one of the other alternatives.)Michael Eriksson (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. & others. If the article can be massively improved, as previously suggested, to the point of establishing notability, and adequately addressing concerns regarding tone, style, neutrality, sourcing, etc., I'd happily reconsider. If these improvements cannot be made promptly, however, it would be best to scrap it altogether without prejudice towards a re-creation that meets basic encyclopedic standards.--JayJasper (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per POV issues and arguments from nom and others--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. & others. Johnfos (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2011 (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. Tone 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

PROD contested by article creator. An eBook that does not meet WP:NBOOK criteria, appears WP:SELFPUBLISHED, and article is somewhat promotional in tone with no references to reliable sources of any kind. Zachlipton (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, although when I searched for sources I found that the author of the book has been very busy putting out press releases everywhere he could. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2011 (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. Seddon | 13:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I don't think this article about a former village that is now just a suburb of a larger town, and which has very poor references, is notable enough as a place to standalone as a separate article. I propose that it be deleted and any relevant content merged into the main article of Newton Abbot. Simple Bob (Talk) 15:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Err on the side of keep - it is OK to have articles about suburbs of larger towns, and also about former villages that have now been swallowed up by the towns that surround them - see for example Walton, Aylesbury, a place near my home. It has only just been created and I think some work needs to be done on finding references for it before the decision is made on whether it is kept or not. I'm going to list it as needing rescue therefore. -- role 15:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep. By well established precedent, villages with established names are notable even after they've been engulfed by larger towns. This precedent may well be subject to change: but a fairly well referenced article about an English village with a Saxon etymology, a fifteenth century church, and a pub would seem to be a less than ideal test case to challenge it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is not temporary. If it was notable as a village, it stays notable whether it remains a village, gets abandoned, or gets absorbed into a larger town. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've helped tidy it up a bit, removed most of the unencyclopedic stuff and added some refs to show the notability. Merging this much content into Newton Abbot would unbalance that article, so this could be considered to be a WP:SPLIT. What about a speedy keep?  —SMALLJIM  19:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. User:Wikwiltz Thank you to those that have spent time improving the Highweek page. Highweek Village is a destinct part of the town of Newton Abbot, but equally it is acknowledged that is part of the Town administratively. There is a lot of history that can be added such as an old orphanage and demographic data in due course. I think it would be a real shame to delete just because I am learning to use the Wiki format. Thank you again for those helping and I ask doubters to reconsider as it is being improved. —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC).
  • Keep. User: Wikwiltz The original 'Highweek Village' page I created recently may need deleting to avoid confusion. It still contains the unformatted coding errors and is a less obvious title for searchers. The village and surrounding Parish are more commonly known as just - Highweek. However I did try and redirect people to the 'Highweek' page that many of you have kindly and impressively updated. This redirect seems to work, if you concur? Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 23 February 2011 (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. Tone 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Page seems to be a hoax/non notable band hijacking Knowledge (XXG) for some publicity. I'm amazed it has been around so long. The history bears a striking similarity to that of The Matches, clearly because the article was originally created as a cut and paste of the Matches article . Article fails WP:GNG. Band fails WP:MUSIC. Google turns up nothing of note. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - A google news search turned up event announcements with their name mentioned so this probably not a hoax. On the other hand, there is no coverage about them, so they fail to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are a few mentions of them in local papers on Google News, but nothing that appears to constitute significant coverage in reliable sources.--Cúchullain /c 15:42, 1 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Americans Against Hate (Stephen Marks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. Founded solely for one-time political purposes in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, not the focus of substantial media coverage, despite a fleeting a mention in Time magazine. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2011 (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. Tone 21:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard A. Baddour, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a judge with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Being a judge on a state trial court does not, by itself, establish encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 20:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually, WP:JUDGE states that judges on the top level in common law, which a state supreme court is (see WP:COURTS are inherently notable as long as they are permanent sitting members. However, according to the supreme court official website he is not actually on the Supreme Court (and must be on a lower court or on an ad hoc committee) he is not notable. Ravendrop 21:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I read supreme, when I should have read Superior. Ravendrop 21:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG):Notability (law) is not policy. We have a draft underway at Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability to deal with judges in the United States. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:57, 22 February 2011 (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Order pour le Mérite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Secret order of doubtful notability. The article offers no sources other than the order's website, and Google searches do not produce anything resembling independent sources. There are lots of hits asserting that Alexander von Humboldt received the civil version of the Prussian order Pour le Mérite, but that's an entirely different thing. It is rather surprising that an order so old and with such illustrious members has attracted so little attention from scholars and media.

Incidentally, the corresponding article at the German Knowledge (XXG) was deleted following this discussion. The rationale was similar to the one presented here. Favonian (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete If this is a case of a notable secret order that has only recently become public and therefore has not yet amassed enough mentions, an article can always be written when enough is available to show notability. It seems to be real enough. The German discussion did turn up one mention in a local paper: (Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger) and I note that there was a previous article on de.wikipedia under Alexander-Orden (discussion leading to deletion of that in 2007), but I still get only self-published hits when I search on that shorter name, plus hits on the Bulgarian military order of Alexander and the Alexander Nevsky order. Schloss Nörvenich is not in our List of Castles in North Rhine-Westphalia, but probably should be; it has a de.wikipedia article and is mentioned in the Arno Breker article and the site of the museum of his works. But I don't see the sources to establish notability, although if anyone can find several more local paper mentions and one or two in biographies, I'm prepared to change my mind. Sometimes these things are international but only have adequate coverage locally.--Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks independent reliable sources needed to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Speedy was declined, and prod removed by IP editor (possibly the author). No real indication of notability - as references, youtube and the text of a speech. While I feel that there is possible notability, I don't feel that the article as it stands shows it. I would be quite happy for a rescue to take place. Peridon (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete No useful sources - therefore - it's rendered useless. And the Google search doesn't come up with anything considered reliable. Dokter Zombieman /the infected 12:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. I will point the author towards Wikibooks and offer help if he needs it restoring oor userfying in order to transwiki. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Usage of Variable block and Variable slider block in GNURadio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We are not a place for How To manuals. Dokter Zombieman /the infected 11:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Or transwiki to Wikibooks (same for Need for using Throttle block in Simulation Experiments) duh, forgot about that. OSborncontribs. 15:21, 23 February 2011 (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. No prejustice against recreation if and when more information is published scientifically. The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The Gigante de Rio Negro (or Rio Negro giant; each gets about 150 Ghits) is a rough dinosaurian equivalent to a BLP1E. It was mentioned in press releases in early 2000 as a new undescribed giant dinosaur and has more or less evaporated. It was never scientifically described and is unlikely to receive further attention; Rodolfo Coria, a prominent Argentine paleontologist, reported (in the section below the "show more text" tab) that the bones were too damaged to be scientifically useful and its great size was exaggerated. Without further research, all the subject has is a short period of time when it was thought to a contender for a giant dinosaur, which appears to have been too short of a period to turn it into a notable error. I propose that this article be deleted because of the subject's lack of notability. J. Spencer (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Repeat AfD, after some months of no improvement; reason from last time stands; I proposed deletion of this back in March, and the prod was removed with the article is virtually unsourced; but the entity is most certainly notable. I do understand the logic, but sadly, it was not improved. It has a single source, and I am unable to find others - of course, it is possible/likely that there are sources in another language, and per Knowledge (XXG):Systemic bias, it would be great if others could add such. However, as it stands, I do not feel we can accurately present information on the company, without references to show notability, per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:ONESOURCE. I also note that it is a holding company, and according to the only source we have, it is intended to incorporate others in the future - so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL here, too. NOTE: This is a relisting, the same as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Rosgeologiya. That was closed 'No consensus', but should almost certainly have been closed 'delete' and the closing admin agrees here, but we felt relisting made sense due to age of that, and the changes in AFD rules.  Chzz  ►  03:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2011 (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 Doom metal. Tone 21:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Procedurally completing AfD (was missing steps 2 & 3). I would assume the reasoning would be the lack of independent sources to prove the notability of this genre. I am neutral. Ravendrop 07:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2011 (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. Tone 21:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD (though contestor in no way addressed concerns). Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE. Not a well-known or influential figure in the video game industry, despite claims. The only reference that even looks legit is actually to the bio page of his writing partner on a blog site. No independent google hits outside of comprehensive databases like IMDB and Giant Bomb and a single book listed on Amazon, none of which confers notability. Writing for some low-budget movies and games does not confer notability. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2011 (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Promotional article about an unreleased animated comedy. No evidence of notability per WP:NOTFILM or even WP:GNG. andy (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2011 (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. Tone 21:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

NN private film, only source is facebook Travelbird (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Not yet a notable sportsman. Has only won regional competitions which do not seem to have articles or confer notability. No Google News hits. Minimal Google hits. Also autobiographical and mostly unreferenced and unverifiable. Prod contested by author/subject. DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Lectonar (talk · contribs); rationale was "this is a fringiesh rant, see WP:NOT things made up one day, WP:ESSAY at best, but not even worth having in user-space". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Now since the article creator removed spam link (and therefore the G11 tag) then I present this Afd.

Non-notable neologism; original research; personal views/opinions. E Wing (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2011 (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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Jarkeld (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I stumbled across this article via this CCI because this article is in suspect of a copyright violation. Other than that, I am not sure how this article meets the notability criteria. As far as I know this person seems to have won only one award, the The Distinguished Service Award of the International Association of Endocrine Surgeons which is a non-notable award, and is therefore contrary to the guideline on WP:ANYBIO. Minimac (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep I think he qualifies as notable under WP:ACADEMIC. The publications are non-trivial and holding both a professorial chair and being Chairman of the Department of Surgery at the Royal Postgrduate Medical School are highly prestigious. They are far from being routine or honorary appointments AJHingston (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for this vote. I took a look at WP:ACADEMIC and he probably fits criterion #5, which says "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.". As the article says, "He was Professor and Chairman of the Department of Surgery" so I think this explains why he is notable. Minimac (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable, of course. As per the nominator, User:Minimac: As the article says, "He was Professor and Chairman of the Department of Surgery" so I think this explains why he is notable. Nominator has apparently changed his/her mind and needs to withdraw this nomination. (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    OK, I'll withdraw this deletion nomination and have asked for someone to close it down for me, as I don't know how to close it myself. Anyway, I thought the author wasn't allowed to vote during a deletion discussion. Minimac (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2011 (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 Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a non-notable Rabbi. Is also a Rosh HaYeshiva (principle/dean) for an "average" yeshiva high school. Authored one book, Haggadah for Passover with Commentary Based on the Shiurim of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. It is not the only book on the subject of Haggadah based from Rabbi Soloveitchik. Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

10–0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was just previously deleted as an expired PROD under the rational that it seemed to be a neologism along with WP:OR. It fails WP:GNG and WP:N. The only source in the article a a Google search, which is not a good one. Before I prodded it last week, I searched and could not find any significant coverage of this.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:55, 22 February 2011 (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, with the hope that the improvement spurred by the threat of deletion will continue after the threat is lifted. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

As it stands, this unreferenced article seems to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Although there is a supposed criteria for inclusion, teen film, as is indicated on the article's talk page, the article is messy and most of the films in the article don't seem to fulfil the criteria for inclusion. In practice the criteria that is being used to justify addition seems to be "any film that remotely involves teens or the mention of the word "teen", or a bikini". This is one of those films that really needs {{Cleanup}} attached. I'd like to suggest that anyone considering voting "keep" on this one tries to clean up the article first. It's very likely to change your opinion. AussieLegend (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It failed deletion twice already. Unfortunately it didn't seem to receive much activity on these occasions. I was reluctant to nominate it again. As AussieLegend said anyone who opposes the deletion seriously needs to clarify the purpose of the list, and to set limites on what should be there and more importantly what should not be there. I hate to see good faith efforts deleted but the list is mess. I would support giving an active editor a few days to move a few good bits to more appropriate places or to create lists with a more clearly defined scope but the list seems beyond saving.
The list itself is unmaintained, unverified and poorly defined. The idea of "teen films" really needs better academic references, and to stick to the classics or well identified subsets such as John Hughes films. A category and a short article, possibly the existing Teen film article seems like a far better way to do things. -- Horkana (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I referenced a number of films. Obviously I cannot do it all at once, but I'm certainly trying! :) This is what you can do if you want to help. In Google News Archive Search, search for a string like the following query: "just one of the guys" "teen movie"|"teen film"|teenpic. You can also open a new tab to use the same query in Google Books Search. (I think that Google Books Search is more useful, though.) If you find a film mentioned on a book's page, check for other titles that could be covered, too. The article uses a couple of books as references, so check the article to see how to make footnotes based on them if you find pages in these books. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a very good start. If the article was clearly limited and we had a consensus on the Talk page that no further films were allowed without a supporting citation then at least I'd be assured the article would not get any worse. I could withdraw my call to delete the article with clearly defined limitations on the article. -- Horkana (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep It is remarkably easy to find sources for this topic such as Teen Film: A Critical Introduction and Teen dreams: reading teen film from Heathers to Veronica Mars. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep As since it was nominated, the nominator's concerns are being addressed and article is no longer unsourced. While AFD is not to intended to force cleanup, it seems to have done just that. Use of a little research to address the earlier lack of effort shows that the article and the project will beneift from regular editing. Schmidt, 01:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • AfDs often generate a flurry of cleanup activity. Unfortunately, all too often the activity stops after the AfD ends with a keep or the nominator, in good faith, withdraws the nomination because cleanup seems to be progressing. Last May I nominated the articles of 18 non-notable weekend netball players and it generated a similar flurry. Since I withdrew the nomination, the vast majority of articles have seen no direct attempt at improvement. It's nice to see that this article is being improved but the major concern that I had when nominating was the lack of a clear criteria for inclusion. The potential for this article to turn into a mess again still exists and despite the good intentions of those who attacked it for 3 hours or so, there are still many films that shouldn't be in the article. This and the lack of a clear inclusion criteria mean the article is a long way from being out of the woods. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • So many sports that use a ball and a net... basketball, tennis, badmitten, ping-pong, socker.... so pardon, but I do not know of your earlier AFD and I'm sorry that netball improvements encouraged by that earlier nomination elsewhere did not continue, but such happens. A concern that inexperienced editors might mess up ANY article is a valid worry, but it happens. This is why we keep a watch. And in this case, your concerns seem more now a matter for editing, a discussion of criteria, keeping a watch for improper edits, and a protection from vandalism... but not for deletion of the entire article. Schmidt, 02:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Regardless of how many edits are made, without a clear criteria for inclusion, the article still fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is justification for deletion of the entire article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
          • As the defined topic of what constitutes a teen film is itself covered in multiple sources (as well as the few offered above by others), and that the list is not a "Plot-only description of fictional works", I do not see a call of "indescriminate" as being applicable. And so long as this list does not contain something that is not a teen film, we'll be fine. Thanks. Schmidt, 06:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Have you had a look at the history of this article? Clearly, from the range of films that have been added over the years, the present criteria is insufficient. The article contains lots of "something that is not a teen film", which is why it ended up here. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Being a topic mis-understood by those making good faith edits in the past is a reason to keep on eye on it and to clarify what merits inclusion or not, certainly... but that same diligence applies to any article on Knowledge (XXG). But again, and as the defined topic of what constitutes a teen film is itself covered in multiple sources, allowing those willing and able to improve it and source (myself included), will improve the article and the project... no matter what may have happened in the past or what might happen in the future or how long it might take. Schmidt, 10:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
                • If you go all the way back to when the article was created you can see that a lot of the mess was there from start, it was a big long unverified, poorly defined list that only got worse with time. -- Horkana (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
              • AussieLegend, can you take a look at the talk page? I added a notice listing criteria for the list. I will try to reference some more today if I am not too busy. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem of vague criteria for inclusion here is similar to the problem at List of fictional antiheroes. That article has been kept in some degree of order by User:Edward321, who has been very diligent in reverting any addition that is unsourced. Thus the criterion for inclusion in that list became simply that a character had to have been explicitly called an anti-hero in a reliable source. I think if this list is to stay the same kind of thing needs to happen here – take out any original research and keep only films that have been described as teen films by a reliable source. An edit notice might be invaluable for giving new users a nutshell-version of the relevant parts WP:V / WP:OR / WP:RS and stating upfront that unsourced additions will be removed. Adrian J. Hunter 11:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep as an appropriate list of films in a given genre. The list is not indiscriminate any more than other genres, though there should be a higher expectation of verifiability due to the genre having different elements like beach parties, musicals, horror, melodrama, etc. I referenced all the films listed in the 1950s and 1960s and made it through most of the 1970s. On the talk page, I added criteria to use to add a film to the list, such as having multiple sources. For example, if a minor newspaper calls a film a "teen movie" but the label is not reiterated, it likely does not qualify. The best sources are the literature that study the genre and provide numerous examples. One discussion to be had is how to treat horror films, of which there are a lot in this list. I've run into limitations of previewing books due to searching so much, so if you can, please help reference the other films. Use "teen movie"|"teen film"|"teenpic" plus the title in Google Books Search and Google News Archive Search to find results. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Erik. And agree that afd should not be used for clean-up.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why people are raising the cleanup issue, the article wasn't nominated to generate a cleanup. It was nominated for deletion because it was a massive, messy list of 818 movies, many of which don't belong in it, showing that the inclusion criteria wasn't sufficient. That has been demonstrated well by the fact that more than 150 movies have been removed since it was nominated. It contains no encyclopaedic analysis of any of the movies and serves only as a directory of possibly teen related movie articles at Knowledge (XXG). Even now, with 101 of the 668 movies referenced, that's still the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
When an editor says that an article was nominated for deletion "because it was ... messy", it suggests that the problem that the editor had was the mess. We don't delete articles at AfD because they are messy.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say it was nominated because it was messy. The reason for nomination was in the first sentence of the nomination. The second and subsequent sentences are for clarification purposes and explain some of the issues that prevent this article being brought to a standard that justifies its retention. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You wrote, directly above: "It was nominated for deletion because it was a massive, messy list of 818 movies, many of which don't belong in it, showing that the inclusion criteria wasn't sufficient." That's good reason for a cleanup tag to be applied. Or -- better yet, IMHO -- for a discussion to be started on the article talkpage, and/or on the talkpages of any relevant wikiprojects. It is not a reason, however, to bring an article to AfD, or to delete it. As the guideline makes quite clear, in bold letters: "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."--Epeefleche (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you were confused by what I wrote, but I suggest you read everything I wrote and not just pick on a few points. As I also said above, "It contains no encyclopaedic analysis of any of the movies and serves only as a directory of possibly teen related movie articles at Knowledge (XXG). Even now, with 101 of the 668 movies referenced, that's still the case." The very first thing I wrote, which was the reason for nomination itself, was "As it stands, this unreferenced article seems to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE". Together these explain the reason for nomination and explain the reasoning behind the nomination, ie the justification for it being a hopeless case. I hope that clears it up for you. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if I remain somewhat flummoxed. But "It contains no encyclopaedic analysis" begs the question of whether through normal editing, what you view as a reason for deletion (I don't--we have all manner of such lists, and they are clearly acceptable if such text could be written) could be "fixed through normal editing. The same with your second point -- which begs the same question quite candidly, when it starts with "As it stands". If those two "deficiencies", if they are such, can be fixed through normal editing, per the AfD guidelines you are suggested to not bring the article to AfD, but rather to seek to fix it, either through normal editing or through the tagging/discussion process I described above. Neither of your points suggest that it is a hopeless case -- only that in your view, as the article stands now and without those efforts having been made, you view it as deficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Anything can be fixed through normal editing. That part of the guideline has to taken with a grain of salt. If we take that on face value then no article should be deleted, ever. The fact is this article is just a list with very little value and nobody has shown any ongoing interest in maintaining it. I'd argue that it fails both WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's only value seems to be that it is a directory and that's no value at all according to Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not. That we may have other such articles is really right in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory. History shows that there is very little interest in fixing this article through normal editing. It's only been since it was nominated that any interest has been shown and, like most AfDs, that's likely to stop the instant the discussion is closed. Could it be fixed through normal editing? Yes. Will the article be fixed through normal editing? That's the real question that needs to be answered and the likelihood, based on the 3.7 year history of this article, is a resounding NO which makes it a hopeless case and worthy only of deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Not everything can be fixed through normal editing, especially when it comes to verifiability, which is the key policy here. If we cannot verify a topic or a passage about that topic, we should not have it. I'm not sure why you argue that the list is indiscriminate; there are several references I've used in the list so far that would be great for the genre article as they talk about the evolution of the genre across the decades. The films are not just loosely associated with each other; as we can see, Tropiano references many films across decades as part of his genre study. I understand that lists can become unmaintainable, but the situation is much better here than it was before. We could actually go as far as deleting all the unreferenced entries and still have a pretty good list to share with readers, referencing new entries as they come in. It is unlikely that this article will be deleted, and it is just as unlikely that the list's new references will be blanked. I hope you can at least provide a reference or two; the later decades are ripe for weeding. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Claims that the article is "messy" is not a valid reason for deletion. The topic clearly notable. The only problem I can see is that some of the items aren't sourced. That can easily be fixed through normal editing of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2011 (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable book. Unreferenced violation of WP:CRYSTAL as well, since it has not been published yet. VQuakr (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2011 (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. Notability concerns by delete commenters are not refuted by those in favor of keep. Sources provided are generally trivial, tangential, or otherwise not substantial enough to grant notability. lifebaka++ 19:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Speedy renomination, since previous AFD was closed as if it were a PROD and then challenged. Article appears to fail WP:WEB. Current sourcing consists of no reliable sources, and a whole bunch of primary sources, forum threads, and people's forum profiles. A search online and on Highbeam Research yielded nothing in the way of non-trivial reliable sources to demonstrate sufficient notability to retain the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:WEB for lack of significant (or pretty much any) coverage in reliable third-party sites. Of the nine references provided in the article, five are to Old Man Murray itself, and the others are to blogs (and even they do not provide "significant" coverage, just mentions). Google News Archive finds a few passing mentions in Wired Magazine, otherwise nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Bottom line, yes. It's the standard we have here, for lack of a better. It doesn't have to be the news archive, it can be Google Books or other search engines. Or it can be reliable sources not found in any of those places, but cited in the article. Currently there aren't any. I did my best to find what Knowledge (XXG) requires, which is significant coverage by independent reliable sources, before I !voted "delete". Your numerous comments here have done nothing so far to change my mind; in fact you would change more minds if you would keep your comments less hostile. You obviously feel very strongly about this site, but if you want to keep its page on Knowledge (XXG) you simply have to come up with reliable sources to support your insistence that it is notable by Knowledge (XXG)'s definition. If there are no such sources, then the article can't stay here, no matter how strongly you and your friends feel about it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Honestly I don't even feel strongly about the site, it just kind of amazes me to see people do a few no effort web searches and declare that they could find no references to the website, then to see those people ignore references when presented with them. The only complaint presented with anything anyone not from wikipedia has said is that they're not from wikipedia. Worm4Real (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Obvious grudge-delete by SchuminWeb, who has a long history with the administrator of the site. The site is *clearly* notable, and it's laughable to say it fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb is just butthurt because the administrator ran another site that made fun of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouffleofPain (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC) {NOTE: User:SouffleofPain has made no other edits except this comment, plus a series of non-edit actions whose only intent was to "cleverly" insult another editor in a way that can only be seen by looking at SouffleofPain's contribution history.) — souffleofpain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • How does it matter who the nominator is? Knowledge (XXG) operates based on policies that require reliable sources, and does not operate based on personalities. You claim that the site is "clearly notable", but provide no evidence via reliable sources to back up your claim. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • If the nominator didn't matter then wikipedia would be a great place for people with axes to grind to snipe at people or sites they hate and protect themselves in a bubble of insular language ... oh wait Worm4Real (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Worm4Real (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • The Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest guidelines are quite clear regarding editors with a COI participating in deletion discussions. That applies for all the SPA votes here, as well as to the nominator if there's evidence pointing to a COI. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Amatulic. Your information is much appreciated. According to this , the (quite understandable; many of the Portal of Evil posters were animals) WP:COI on the part of the nominator would come into play with this: "If your edits violate neutral point of view, they can be reverted. Although other editors are not allowed to reveal your identity, they may come to understand who you are, and may realize that you are gaming the system." (The third point regarding companies is not appropriate to the discussion here.) IceCreamJonsey (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I'd like to point out explicitly that SchuminWeb deleted the Portal of Evil article a few days before coming here and deleting this one. Both are sites that were run by Chet Faliszek, and both are COIs. Schumin is lashing out the only way he knows how...via wiki! Here is the COI I speak of Entropy Stew (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Entropy Stew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
          • Let the record show that the two articles were initially nominated for deletion within twelve minutes of each other, and that I did not delete either page. See timestamps on Portal of Evil's nomination and Old Man Murray's first nomination (which ended in a soft delete). Additionally, considering you all have expended a lot of effort on character assassination and rounding up the meatpuppets to comment on this AFD while the article remains unchanged, I am left to conclude that you all have nothing of actual substance to bring to the table. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Deleting a notable site due to lack of notability: constructive. Addressing the source of that deletion by providing evidence to the contrary and pointing out what I feel to be a very strong COI: not actual substance. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. I expect the references cited here will be folded into the article when the threat of deletion has passed. Entropy Stew (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin: This AFD is being discussed here, which appears to be the source of all the single-purpose-account !votes. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Why does it matter that it's being discussed on a site other than Knowledge (XXG)? These are people who obviously have a big interest in the Old Man Murray website, so they are in fact very suitable voices of support. — 173.0.2.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep In Half-Life 2: Raising The Bar, a making-of documentary, Gabe Newell mentions that there was such a worry about the crate cliché (in reference to Old Man Murray's famous "start-to-crate" game rating system) that eventually the team gave up and made a crate one of the first things the player sees and manipulates, figuring that this "was the Old Man Murray equivalent of throwing yourself to the mercy of the court". Gabe Newell is arguably the biggest figure in video game development today. — 173.0.2.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep ~PONCY FONT ON~ Portal 2 is about three weeks away from being the best-selling game of 2011, BOY would it be nice if there were a page on some kind of electric encyclopedia that discussed the designers' other work, seeing how playing the original is like playing a game of OMM. (Portal and its design team currently have hundreds of thousands of hits on Google and Bing, but admittedly just 52 on Highbeam Research.) References to OMM are also included in games as per the original article, and it is completely impossible to discuss games journalism in the 90s without mentioning the site. I would also submit that the page would have lived forever in time if this particular nominator didn't target it, as evidenced by the fact that the page lived forever up until this particular nominator nominated it. I know I just turned into Doctor Who there, which is not my intent, because his edits are unverifiable. >:(

I don't know how to turn poncy font off. Sorry. But in my defense, you guys probably deleted that page, too. IceCreamJonsey (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

    • All pages that are deleted would have lived forever if a particular nominator didn't target it, and all pages live forever until the nominator nominates them for deletion. So your personal attack falls flat. Otherwise, no one has produced any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources, and so bloviate about it all you want, but you have no evidence, and notability is not inherited, as the game Portal's notability does not somehow automatically confer notability on this subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with the jerks and single-purpose accounts. OMM was truly notable and influential in its day - didn't they host Seanbaby for a while, for one thing? - and this is a definite keep. DS (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Where is the sourcing to back up this notability claim? As it stands, I did all of my research in determining whether reliable sources exist, and they simply do not exist. One should also not forget that notability is not inherited, i.e. just because one once hosted a notable site does not make said former host automatically notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
God, no wonder you got a baccalaureate in public administration. You're as banal and thick headed as any government bureaucrat I've ever come across. Kade (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • So are you saying that you agree that ES and 173's keep votes ARE grounded in policy? If they abide with policy and prove notability in a manner that you can't contest or diminish then aren't any delete votes saying this article is WP:Not_notable sort of invalid? Worm4Real (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment How many renominations is Schumin allowed before he isn't allowed to touch this article anymore? Obviously if there is no limit he is going to renominate it until it gets deleted again. Eventually the people interested in defending the article will be tired out since we don't spend all day on wikipedia. Worm4Real (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Worm4Real (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Sorry I just noticed I didn't vote. It's pretty obvious that Entropy Stew and 173.0.2.204 have given well established and more importantly non-contested examples of the notability. SchuminWeb has made no effort dispute these posts beyond putting the little SPA tag on the users who made them. If he doesn't have an interest in disputing these claims maybe he should leave the conversation, since they are obviously the strongest ones. He doesn't literally need to state he doesn't like it for WP:IDONTLIKEIT to apply here.Worm4Real (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Worm4Real (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment To all the newcomers: If you find some better sources than the current ones, having looked at WP:RS to see what is reliable, and add them to the article, then you might stand a better chance than if you go in for mudslinging and ranting. Please note that the marking of single purpose accounts here at AfD is standard practice. I realise that in the gaming world it isn't always easy to find reliable sources, as blogs and forums don't count for much - even though that's the backbone of the info transfer. Do what you can, and I'll look in again. You might be able to shift me from this uncomfortable fence that I'm sitting on... Peridon (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Is marking people as SPA as a substitute for your inability to dispute facts a common practice? How much work do we have to do so you don't side with someone who has an obvious WP:COI? The issue isn't the writing of the article, if it was he wouldn't be asking for a deletion based on a lack of notability. Look at the posts by EntropyStew and 173.0.2.204 if they do not meet your reliability standards please reply to those posts. If they meet your reliability standards we would be happy to add them to the article once it's no longer on the edge of oblivion. The TOPIC is either notable or not, the state of the article is irrelevant. I don't need to be a wikiholic to know the difference between where you'd want a WP:CLEANUP and WP:DELETE. Thank you for your time. Worm4Real (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Attacking everyone won't win you keeps. I don't know the nominator, but I do know MelanieN to be one of the fairest minded editors I've come across. SPAs - most forums have edit counters displayed and marking SPAs is our equivalent. For the record, I've made more than 14,000 edits and work here in Afd a lot. Credit me with knowing something, and with trying to advise you. I do know the difference between cleanup and delete - it's too late for a cleanup tag, but if you want to do a cleanup, go ahead. It's the referencing that seems the main issue. No, those refs above don't do much for me. They are articles about people, and they only mention OMM in passing. "Oh yes, didn't you have something to do with..." - that sort of mention. You need to find an article (or two) ABOUT OMM. You don't have to wait for the end of this discussion to improve the article. I've known total rewrites take place, and a whole slew of !votes to be changed. (In the course of one AfD, I changed my position three times.) If the discussion - note that it is a discussion and not a head count - goes against you, carry on trying to find those refs. Then come back - but contact me or someone like MelanieN, JamesBWatson or Boing! said Zebedee to explain before you put it in mainspace. This could avoid a speedy as re-creation of deleted article. Can I be fairer than to give you this advice? I'm not going to say keep while the referencing is as it is. There are considerable claims. Prove something. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Who writes article about a video game review site? I don't see Gamepro writing articles about Game Informer! The links I provided to the Edge magazine preview and RPS interview both refer to Chet and Erik as being even more noteworthy for their involvement in OMM than for the games they are being interviewed about. If those references aren't smoking guns, if quoting the mainstream video game media about the notability of a video game media site is not enough, then your notability criteria are broken and you should delete the article. Don't stop there, though! Keep going! Entropy Stew (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, here's is an interview about Old Man Murray which comes from the links section of Erik's wikipedia page. I doubt it's usable as a reference since ripping quotes from popular videogame magazines doesn't seem to count for anything. Entropy Stew (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Is this a direct response to me? Essentially you're saying any references posted here are invalid because they are not direct articles about the website? Oddly looking at similar articles about similar websites I cannot find what you're asking for provided for them, does OMM require special proof? We both know it's something that simply doesn't happen but it's being propped up because Schumin wants the article deleted because of a personal quarrel with Portal of Evil. He has an obvious and documented WP:COI, if needed I can get any relevant information in regard to that reposted to another site.
I really see nothing but Schumin quoting a piece of policy at anyone he can and simply ignoring anyone with a valid point. I personally had to extract a complaint about the references posted from you, were they simply going to be ignored until deletion? Don't you have a duty to inform people if the proof they're offering up isn't good enough? Why do I have to directly engage you to get constructive responses to information posted where Schumin floats around the discussion only replying to whatever he can flat out disregard? Worm4Real (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Why do I have to put up with crap when I'm trying to help you? Look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and feel free to tag anything that doesn't fit the standards of Knowledge (XXG). Deletion is done by a closing admin, who will wade through all of this and make an decision based on the arguments and comments by all parties and persuasions. I wasn't ignoring the references - I'm on my way to bed. I've given you my advice. Now it's up to you. You can take it, or not. But I will add this. The more unproductive noise that comes from one side at AfD, the less there is to back their case. Not a policy - an observation based on experience. Over to you - prove me wrong in this case. Peridon (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    COMMENT! First of all am I responding wrong or something here? It's like you put COMMENT in front of all your replies so they're more noticeable, Schumin wasn't doing that, can't we have a simple threaded reply string? Secondly, it really doesn't help me to suggest I go find something we both know doesn't exist for this type of site. Finally, re:otherstuffexists, I'm not using that as a defense against deletion, I am saying that your criteria for references are above and beyond other similar sites and what generally exists for these type of sites. It seems like a special burden of proof has been established for OMM, something which you're admitting is very unlikely for this type of website in your other posts. Additionally for some reason I had the impression you were the deciding admin, just to clear up any confusion in my posts. Worm4Real (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Let me try one more time to explain about Knowledge (XXG)'s need for reliable, published sources. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." None of the provided links meet those criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
What is unclear about the word "published"? From the same Knowledge (XXG) link you just quoted, "Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." I did note, in my original comment here, two items from Wired magazine which is a Reliable Source, but the items did not provide significant coverage about the website itself. --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's time to delete the Kotaku Knowledge (XXG) article too.
  • Here's a gamasutra feature referencing and expanding upon OMM's crate-as-bad-game-design article. This, too, is obviously not a reliable third party, considering it is only the most popular game development site on the internet. The author is obviously not a reliable or notable source, either. Entropy Stew (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see why this article went straight into deletion request. Should there have been a cleanup or expert subject request as per WP:FAILN first? Or possibly a merger into the Erik Wolpaw biography page.
Here are some sources. Considering the subject matter, there is not going to be any academic journals or wire articles.
Category One, material from Old Man Murray contributing to video game design. First, the creation of the Start-to-Crate metric (first published on Old Man Murray) and used by others in the popular press:
I believe that Wired's reliability is reasonable. It currently has over 8000 citations on wikipedia.
  • 2 references from tvtropes.org
    • CrateExpectations, which directly links the Start-to-Crate measurement on Old Man Murray, listing the site as the originator.
    • OldManMurray, a tertiary source documenting the website's other contributions.
  • 1 review from yougamers, referencing Old Man Murray's Start-to-Crate metric. Seven years after initial publication.
  • 1 retrospective of the Doom franchise, using the Start-to-Crate metric.
  • 1 overview of 31 different games using the Start-to-Crate metric. Nine years after initial publication.
  • 1 reference in joystiq discussing Old Man Murray's contributions to video game design theory
  • 1 review of Dead Space, mentioning the Start-to-Crate metric. Ten years after initial publication.
and altogether, 18 links from external websites to the Old Man Murray 'Start-to-Crate' article (WP:SOURCESEARCH), including a 2008 article in French.
  • 1 irrelevent article about meta-blogging, yet to root the premise of the piece with a description of the Start-to-Crate metric. Six years after initial publication.
  • An unreferenced website devoted entirely to documenting crates (and barrels) found in video games.
  • An animation student referencing the Start-to-Crate metric for a thesis project.
What else is Old Man Murray notable for?
  • 1 retrospective from escapist, citing an older Old Man Murray work on the same topic.
  • 1 article on adventuregamers discussing the dearth of adventure games coming to market, citing the same Old Man Murray source.
  • 1 rebuttal to the Old Man Murray article on the decline of adventure games.
  • 1 interview with the fictional persona of Old Man Murray.
  • 1 review of the Old Man Murray site itself, from back when people still wrote reviews of websites on other websites.
Category Two, documenting the Old Man Murray phase of award-winning video game professionals. Would there be an entry for Walden if not for Thoreau? Auvers-sur-Oise without the painters who lived there? (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
  • 15 additional trivial references from Wired, which consistently identify Chet Faliszek and/or Erik Wolpaw with Old Man Murray.
  • 1 interview at rockpapershotgun, rating Wolpaw's contributions to Old Man Murray as more memorable than his award-winning work in video games.
  • Erik Wolpaw's own biography had a cross-link to this article. There are only seven facts listed in the biography; his association with Old Man Murray included.
Category Ugh, material from Old Man Murray contributing to misogyny.
  • 1 reference on encyclopediadramatica which is disgusting. I recommend not looking at it.

Iglotl (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Iglotl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment Putting Comment (or occasionally something else like Response or Sigh...) is standard practice at AfD. OK. This is my personal interpretation of the refs - I'm not the closing admin (and a closing admin is someone who has taken no part in the debate) and not even an admin (although I have closed a discussion at AfD which can be done under certain circumstances by a non-admin). Gamasutra looks OK to me - a bit minimal but as good as can be expected. Alice seems to be a comment by a forum member. Red Steel is a mention which links to OMM's site for the Crate article - I don't know how that rates. Joystiq is like gamasutra. I like the zdnet piece - puts OMM into good company. (Perhaps that's an insult...) I'm still reserving my judgement - I'd like to see what others think now. (I'm only one voice in the discussion, don't forget.) Besides which, I've seen rather too many crates... Peridon (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • WikiProject Video games' guide to sources may help in determining which of the websites are considered reliable.
  • Wired.com, owned by Conde Nast has 15 editors.
  • tvtropes.org is a moderated wiki project.
  • yougamers, owned by Futuremark Productions has two editors.
  • doomworld, part of 1up.com, currently owned by UGO Entertainment (employs only 39 people; I found three editoral staff listed on LinkedIn). At the time of article publication was owned by Ziff Davis Media, which currently has 8 editors on staff.
  • the Escapist, owned by Themis Group has at least three editors.
  • flak magazine (now defunct), independently operated had 8 editors.
  • Kotaku, owned by Gawker Media, has 5 editors

Iglotl (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Iglotl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Yeah arguments count and your arguments are kind of diminished when you go putting strike out tags on votes you don't like, doesn't really seem like something someone would do in good faith. If you are officially annulling a vote by a blocked account you might want to put that in your edit reason rather than "striking keep by 'new' account". Worm4Real (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Given that your edits show you to be nothing more than a single-purpose account/meatpuppet, I feel no compelling urge to explain myself to you. HalfShadow 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's funny in WP:GD it says it's up to the closing admin to decide whether a vote should be ignored or not, nothing about putting strike-through tags around it. Though I guess because you're not a SPA you must be right. Worm4Real (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • KEEP: Imagine a world where a young girl reads some history about her favourite old game, Half-Life 2. She sees video game developer Hall of Famer Gabe Newell reference Old Man Murray with reverence and thinks "I'd like to learn more about this curious Old Man Murray that spawned irreverent game criticism at the turn of the 21st century. I'll research this dead website on Knowledge (XXG) using my telecomp." (Remember, it's the future). But when she calls up the page there's nothing there! Then it turns out she was actually a ghost all along! Is that the future we want to create with this wonderful community my fellow Wikipedaphiles? Fussbett (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: Old Man Murray is a website fondly remembered by many in the games industry and among its customers. By its very nature small sites like this tend not to acquire a whole lot of mentions in printed media. I could enlarge upon the whiff of COI hanging about the nomination - but I won't. QuipQuotch (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Fondly remembered ≠ notability. And still no significant coverage in reliable sources for the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Fondly remembered...by many. The "by many" that you ignored is notability. Further refining the "many" to be members of industry confers additional notability, because they then mention OMM in their articles or games. Did you hear that Serious Sam 3 is coming out soon? There very well might not have been a Serious Sam 2 without OMM's notability selling the original. Entropy Stew (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Fondly remembered by many ≠ notability as well. I'm sure many people fondly remember Miss Kirk's 1986-1987 kindergarten class in Rogers, Arkansas as well, but since no one has given it substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, there is no coverage of it here. Such is the case with Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. Notability follows from substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep provided the best of the stuff above gets added to the article as refs or links. There seems to be quite widespread mention of the site. Even though it is not 'in depth' coverage, the mentions are indicative to me of an importance in the gaming world. I am not a gamer myself, and other than Free Cell, Plebs and Jacaranda Jim I have never played a game. I did once sit watching a young girl playing a couple of games and trying to explain them to me. (She was electric wheelchair bound and never going to escape to a 'normal' life - severe brittle bone disease.) I'd just finished devirusing and protecting her computer, which meant she could get back to her games. They were her life. For most gamers, the games are not so vital. Sort of.... If a current project of mine reaches fruition, a game spin-off is possible - and I will keep a close watch for crates as a result of this discussion... Peridon (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I know that I am an SPA. I was never involved with OMM. I do, however, know about Ben Schumin's decade old grudge against the owner of OMM. His other site, www.portalofevil.com made fun of Schumin. His egoistic response shows that he is not impartial to the deletion of this article. The fact that he nominated both portalofevil and OMM for speedy deletion is equally telling. Some of the OMM defenders have certainly been antagonistic to say the least. Nevertheless, Schumin's agenda is clear. His ears are closed to arguments beyond his own. 128.123.212.69 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — 128.123.212.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • And apparently, since all you have done is commented on the nominator rather than the article, you have nothing to add to this discussion, do you? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Strange that someone would do that. It's almost as if he or she perceived the nominator to be the problem rather than the article and chose to carry on the discussion in that direction. I guess my question is - assuming that is indeed the case - how can we be certain that 128.123.212.69 isn't correct? User:Shecky Fragbaum (Talk) 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Shecky Fragbaum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Unfortunately, your investment in taking this article down IS part of the discussion. In fact, it SHOULD be enough to invalidate your AfD, because your COI gives you no right or authority to nominate the article. I have nothing against you; I don't know who you are and never saw your interactions with portal of evil. I've looked at your info on wikipedia and it seems like you've done many great services to the website in the name of free and open information. You've created many articles and heavily edited many others. This is a great service to wikipedia and the general public. Your history with Chet Faliszek, however, and your grudge against his websites (OMM which you have here nominated for speedy deletion and portalofevil.com which you successfully nominated for speedy deletion ) makes you a biased editor. If somebody else had nominated OMM for deletion, the discussion would probably be much more civil. It might have even been deleted without controversy. YOU are the controversy here. 128.123.212.69 (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — 128.123.212.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        • Let the record show, once again, that both articles were deleted via full deletion discussions (see Portal of Evil's nomination and Old Man Murray's first nomination) in the AFD process. Whether only one other person or fifty people participated is immaterial. Speedy deletion did not factor into either article's deletion. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Therefore, you must get your facts right, and only then may you opine about the situation. Additionally, once again, since you have no comment about the article's lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources or even about the content of the article as it stands, and focused entirely on editor personalities, I would suggest that you have no argument to bring to the table. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
          • "Whether only one other person or fifty people participated is immaterial" -- spoken like a true fan of "protests and other political demonstrations", Schumin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.227.123 (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Those aren't discussions. Discussions require more than one voice. The issue is that YOU nominated OMM and POE for deletion when you are unfit to do so. This AfD should have never come up (by your hands) in the first place. Should a holocaust denier be allowed to delete an article on the holocaust because he or she denies the validity of all citations? Should a man who has feuded with the owner of OMM and POE since 2002 be allowed to nominate those sites for deletion? The answer to both questions is "No." I repeat: you have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. While nowhere near as extreme as the holocaust denier, it makes my point. Lauritz Melchior (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect - I've done my best to look through all the links above; can anyone tell me if I've missed any significant coverage of the site in a reliable publication? I see material which can support related articles (RPS interview with Wolpaw, for example) but the total verifiable information about the site itself can fit in two sentences. This is not enough for an article. Marasmusine (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Interogative - Would you please share that two sentence summary with the class? 76.67.98.250 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — 76.67.98.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Something like "Old Man Murray is a gaming humour website established by Chet Faliszek and Erik Wolpaw. The start-to-crate metric for reviewing games originated from one of Wolpaw's Old Man Murray articles." - again, I might be missing a key piece of significant coverage from a reliable source that can expand on this and will be happy to be corrected. Marasmusine (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
      • It's been established that UGO is a reliable source, and that OMM was a UGO partner, and their content reviewed by UGO staff. I am happy to re-do the citations of the entire article to be that of OMM itself. But we both know that would be a bit silly. Similarly, reading everything discussed on this page, all the exchanges that have taken place and awkwardly trying to distill it to the two sentences you provided is also very silly. 67.247.167.15 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I must say I was puzzled by that one, too... Peridon (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I phrased that poorly. As a total outsider, the bickering in this Afd combined with the poor quality of references in the article gives the impression of a small group of fans claiming notability of "their" website while being ignored by any larger community. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment To put this in perspective, everyone who's voted "keep" (the legitimate votes, anyway), is voting not to delete an article about a site that (and let's face facts here) has been dead for nine years. I have no idea why the site even still exists. HalfShadow 17:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment To put this in perspective, you were run off of Portal Of Evil (a site created and hosted by the same people who created Old Man Murray) for being a creepy waterheaded pervert. Oh but let's not mention your history with the site because you're trying to be impartial. Much like Schumin, you are establishing Knowledge (XXG) as an environment where stunted manchildren can finally get revenge on those who bullied them without consequence. You two belong together. 98.125.244.185 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Never heard of the place. What little I saw of it, it involved "people" (and I use the term loosely) making fun of sites and calling each other fags. It's deletion was one of the best things to happen to the internet. HalfShadow 18:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ORLY You never heard of it... but you saw a little of it? And it's good it was deleted? Even though you never heard of it? You do realize that you're contradicting yourself in the space of three sentences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.244.185 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Except for the fact that it's been up for deletion at least twice, which is how I saw it. I'm happy the second one sticked. Y'know, you get your foot any further down your throat, gag reflex is likely to kick in. HalfShadow 18:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleting something based upon its existence in that bygone era called "the past" is flat out stupid to begin with. That said, OMM is still being referred to as "legendary" in print 9 years after it stopped updating, and still has a pagerank of 5 because it's referenced by prominent game media and game dev sites. Entropy Stew (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • HalfShadow raises a good point. The Roman Empire fell over 1000 years ago. Why are we still talking about it? There's a lot of clutter we can delete on Knowledge (XXG). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.20.108 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (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. Deletion vote WP:CRYSTAL clear. The Bushranger One ping only 09:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. The book isn't due for release until July, and accordingly there seems to be a lack of coverage - there is something in Publisher's Lunch Deluxe which I can't access, but everything else I could find was insufficient. I expect that there will be sufficient coverage after July, but at this stage I'm inclined to delete with no concerns about recreating it once the sources emerge. Bilby (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2011 (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. It wasn't mentioned in the nom, but this organisation doesn't even *exist* yet. WP:CRYSTAL The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Salem District Schools Cricket Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod. Not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. Parent organization doesn't have an article so there is no where obvious to merge it. RadioFan (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2011 (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 Houses restored, article deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Traditional houses restoration in indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Opinion piece. Original research. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 04:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Article reads like a non-neutral advertisement and is routinely edited by those associated with the company. Rxguy (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep because the company is notable, as shown by extensive coverage in reliable sources. Correct shortcomings due to conflict of interest content through normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove Anytime that criticism is added with reliable citations it is removed by TheLadders, a biased user attempting to keep any negatives about the company off of the page. It cannot be kept impartial when it is constantly managed by the company itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxguy (talk • contribs) 05:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Rxguy is arguing that the Knowledge (XXG) community is incapable of maintaining a neutral and reliably sourced article in the case of TheLadders.com. We ought to reject that argument. Uninvolved editors should place this article on their watch lists, and act to ensure that the article reflects the neutral point of view. Deletion of an article on a notable topic is most certainly not the answer. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2011 (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 List of The Venture Bros. characters#Members. The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

This article has no sources and no real world coverage, and it currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 03:13, 22 February 2011 (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. Actually there's a consensus to merge this article but the suggested target does not yet exist. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Written asif he is a real person with no out universe content. 2007 it's been tagged since, it's going no where.. plus editors are creating some more character articles. RAIN*the*ONE 02:54, 22 February 2011 (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. Actually there's a consensus to merge this article but the suggested target does not yet exist. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Written asif he is a real person with no out universe content. 2007 it's been tagged since, it's going no where.. plus editors are creating some more character articles. RAIN*the*ONE 02:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm not sure how you can say it's a popular series so it should have unreferenced character articles, then merge them into a list without any references either. If there are sources, why don't you cite them? It's a popular series with it's core audience, you need to prove it's notability for the rest who have never seen the series that might want factual information.RAIN*the*ONE 04:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to a list of characters. LoCs are generally accepted for TV/comic/video-game series (like here), so let's not worry about notability but stop the creation of more unsourced plot-only character articles. Any cleanup efforts like trimming or sourcing can then take place in one article-list and isn't spread across a dozen articles. – sgeureka 08:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to LOC Chaosdruid (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2011 (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. Actually there's a consensus to merge this article but the suggested target does not yet exist. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Written asif he is a real person with no out universe content. 2007 it's been tagged since, it's going no where.. plus editors are creating some more character articles. Plus the character is non notable, only recurring and not a regular. RAIN*the*ONE 02:52, 22 February 2011 (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. Actually there's a consensus to merge this article but the suggested target does not yet exist. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Written asif he is a real person with no out universe content. 2007 it's been tagged since, it's going no where.. plus editors are creating some more character articles. RAIN*the*ONE 02:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that is what MLA was saying...a single page for the characters, not a single page for each character :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2011 (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

He is an MMA fighter who has never fought for a top tier organization. He fails WP:MMANOT. PROD was removed because "His record and history is important to the MMA project." The article lacks any sources to support that claim.

Besides being a primary source, mere results are not considered significant coverage. As far as other fighters go, I would suggest you look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All I'm seeing from your comment is the fact that others need to be deleted too, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Papaursa (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2011 (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 Bushranger One ping only 01:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

no claim to any form of notability, nor can I find sufficient sourcing. Ironholds (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2011 (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 Black flagged (Delete). The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Driver is not notable enough to deserve inclusion. Will only graduate from karting to single-seaters this year, but has no significant record from karting to justify notability. Judging by talk page of the author (User talk:Austria-Racing) the page was successfully nominated for speedy deletion, but subsequently re-created by the same user later on the same day. mspete93 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BLP1E WP:NOT#NEWS Ironholds (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete as unsourced and non notable per WP:BIO, although I should point out to Ironholds that it is not a BLP, and thus, cannot fail BLP1E. ] 07:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
But I think a consensus has to be established on this Afd. And I will await that consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ookay. So, "keep, I've found lots of sources. I'm not willing to show you these sources, even though that'd address the deletion concerns to some degree - I'll wait for consensus first". Just FYI, if I was the closing admin that'd be worth very, very little. If you provide the sources, it's easier. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This article is not "unsourced": several sources are already included in the article, albeit not in the preferred format. One of those sources, a 1995 New York Times article, does present a case for the notability of the crime:

"Fear swept across New Jersey following Mrs. Shollar's murder. Residents packed self-defense classes, task forces were set up statewide to study the carjacking dilemma and the Legislature stiffened penalties for the crime."

Like BabbaQ, I also find quite a few other sources that could be used to bolster this article. Among other things, it's a chapter in a Rutgers University Press book entitled Murdered in Jersey. Having said all of this, it's not the subject who is notable, it's the crime. So we could consider renaming this article to Carjacking of Gail Shollar. Or alternatively we might consider condensing and merging the content to Carjacking#United States, where it might fit comfortably right after the paragraph about another early carjacking victim, Ruth Wahl. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Fails notability criteria for musicians. DonaldDuck (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable fan wikisite Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

↑