Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 8 - 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 Speedy close Page is a redirect, listing at Redirects for Discussion. --Danger (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

"Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma" article already exists... This is misspelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homiesiman (talk • contribs) 02:30, 8 February 2011

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Diagnosis... DON'T! reCoRdings (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:GNG. nothing in gnews. . too minor to merit an article. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 8 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 Dalonte Hill, delete the others.. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dalonte Hill (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:NSPORTS. Assistant coaches who have never been head coaches are rarely notable, and there doesn't seem to be an exception for him. Please note that being a head coach at a community college doesn't count. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I am also nominating the following related pages for the same rationale used above:
Matt Figger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brad Underwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. arguments made to keep were adequately countered, article creator agrees to delete J04n(talk page) 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Yet another non-notable person, a former president of a notable football club. IMHO that doesn't really provide notability by extension. There isn't a single non-primary source in the article, so it's doubtful under WP:BLP rules, too. Joy (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep - His appointment was noted. There is other coverage of his actions. Its not in English, so going through google news results is tough relying on machine translation. I suspect there is more sources out there. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; however, if you can find some sources (I don't speak Croation unfortunately...) and add them, then I'm more than happy to change my mind. GiantSnowman 18:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - What do you feel is wrong with the two sources I provided above? -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • IMHO the coverage isn't really significant. The two mentions in the press testify that he was appointed without any opposition, and that someone thought he made a silly statement after an incident (that didn't involve his position directly); the first event is formal and the other is transient. I pay some attention to the local press and I've heard this person's name mentioned in context at the time, but that's about it. I can't remember hearing about anything particularly notable that they've done. --Joy (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources linked by Whpq are only the tip of the iceberg, as can be seen by simply clicking on the word "news" in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-primary sources are required to establish notability, and the article does not provide any. News coverage of him is transient and limited to his role with the club, so whatever is salvageable here might be merged into Hajduk FC article. GregorB (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I created the article about two years ago (mistakenly) hoping it would get expanded. The reasoning was that he might merit an article as he was in charge during Hajduk's landmark transformation into a public limited company (they were the first Croatian sports club which decided to offer its shares to supporters which seemed noteworthy at the time and even Reuters found it interesting enough to report). In the meantime, his otherwise uneventful tenure came to an end in August 2009, after which he slipped back into obscurity. His only other notable move while at the club was agreeing the 7M euros transfer of Nikola Kalinic to Blackburn in 2009 (the "largest amount ever paid for a Hajduk player"), just four days before handing in his resignation. Yes, I'm sure a Google search might yield a number of hits for Mate Peroš, but virtually all of these are related to his role at the club and none of them address the subject directly in detail. Timbouctou 15:12, 14 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unreferenced BLP J04n(talk page) 22:22, 8 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. J04n(talk page) 18:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Nintendo 3DS games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a speculative list. Well over 98% of the titles here don't even have release dates. In point of fact, the handheld gaming console itself has yet to be released, but will be soon. Shouldn't we delete this until it can be something more than a list chock full of speculation and "TBA"s? Sriramachandran V. (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Sriramachandran V. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep - There is plenty useful/sourced information in there. I think it just needs to be protected to some degree, there's a lot of anonymous or ill-informed users who tend to cover that up with a lot of junk. Clean-up? Definitely. Deletion? No. There's too many confirmed titles, with only more coming. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, there are over 130 titles listed here, most without definitive release dates, most with speculative "working titles". The number of confirmed titles with actual legitimate sourced release dates? Eight. Out of 130+. I believe that those would be best covered in the parent article for now, and maintain that this list should be deleted (AND protected). Sriramachandran V. (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Is a concrete date necessarily needed though? I know it'd be part of the criteria for these games to have their own articles, but just to be part of the list? Many of games can be confirmed as being worked on/existing with sources. (They're not sourced now because...no one has contested that they exist, so no one's provided them.) Any that can't be confirmed, should be deleted off. I just feel like if you're so unhappy with the article, a "clean up" or "needs additional references" type tag should have been up on the article first. Deleting outright seems premature. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The console is being released this month, at which time a handful of the titles here will be released, and then more will be week on week. The 3DS is a major release and the games are constantly being covered in magazines and on websites, if there are dubious entries then they should be removed, the others should be cited, but to delete the list now seems counterproductive. Someoneanother 01:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Over 95% of the titles on this list will indeed come out, and the list is helpful for readers to see what the lineup is. While their specific names or dates may not be known, the games themselves have actually been announced to be in development. The other 5% is what could be incorrect information introduced by vandals or hit and run IPs. Blake 02:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - The list shouldn't contain unsourced information, but if it is sourced it should stay (yes, even without specific release dates). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I do feel that the list is deeply flawed; please see my comment on the talk page. This does not change my vote. We should still have the list, just increase the criteria for inclusion. We should not print rumors. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I just added sources for 4 games in a number of minutes. Like I said earlier, the information is out there, it's just no one's bothered to add the refs. I'll keep plugging away, and with some help this'll all be easily fixed. Once fixed, it'll be easier to maintain. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Micah Schnurstein (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 retired minor league baseball player. He last played in 2008 and did not put up any numbers that in themselves would merit an article. Alex (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The number of Internet hits a person receives are becoming less and less meaningful in terms of article worthiness. Alex (talk) 05:27, 9 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) 02:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Questionable notability, insufficient material to demonstrate WP:NOTE. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I added additional information, citations, and categories. She seems to pass WP:GNG easily. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
as an admin, you should know that WP:GOOGLEHITS is an invalid argument. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As my students would say, "My bad." How about the sources and links that I've added? How about the listing in Who's Who in France? Bearian (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and you see 73 results. The first is from the New York Times who quotes her, having interviewed her in the headquarters of the organization she runs. Dream Focus 22:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Dubious notability, only claim is CEO of company which doesn't seem particularly notable itself. This is how an article gets rescued. There's some cleanup needed in terms of reading too much like an ad, but this is what a good cleanup and rescue looks like. Keep.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I read what I could of some of the French language articles, such as at Le nouvel Economiste, and they contain extensive interviews of her, including her astrological sign, education, experience, and likes and dislikes. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I also added an English language article from Ad Age, a top marketing publication. Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For your first point, mind WP:WAX. In regards to your second, Knowledge (XXG) can't be changing it's standards to appeal to other groups. That's a misguided effort that would be a detriment to the encyclopedia as a whole.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Standards also include not keeping a lot of poorly sourced articles that some large group of people like while trying to delete even better sourced ones that a smaller group of people might like. The fact that an article was willing to improve the article is important, especially since just following search links show there's lots more info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think Yaksar's point is that we shouldn't base our standards of inclusion on such things like "Group XYZ would be upset if this article were deleted" or "Editor XYZ spent a lot of time trying to improve the article" (i.e. WP:MERCY). The primary standard of inclusion is WP:GNG, all other external considerations are largely immaterial. SnottyWong  14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There are always unconscious assumptions and prejudices that some subjects of bios are NOT notable even if have 5-6 major WP:RS and others ARE even if only have one WP:RS. So occasionally making sure people are looking at their own assumptions help. Believe me, I've got a lot of conscious assumptions I'd love to act on and delete a bunch of bios much more poorly sourced than this, but I've got self control. (In fact there are three vanity ones with little or no WP:RS I'd like deleted now, but I've criticized the people in past off wiki so I feel I have a conflict of interest. Contact me and we'll talk if your looking to do some deleting.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 12 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. If anybody can find anything else on these guys let me know. I'll be glad to userfy or incubate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Time Spent Driving (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:BAND, no reliable sources to establish notability. Google search turns up no significant coverage, the fact they 'shared a stage' with other more notable acts does not make them inherently notable. Acather96 (talk) 19:52, 8 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 WITHDRAWN. Nom's issues will be addressed through normal article editing and talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Contested prod, non-notable neologism. Eldamorie (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment I guess this warrants clarification - I'm not trying to assert that the concept is not notable - just that it doesn't warrant a standalone article, at least not now. The concept of a green wedding is not any different from a normal wedding, and it really doesn't warrant more than a paragraph in the main wedding article.Eldamorie (talk) 14:16, 9 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

You've got to be kidding me. This article has existed since 2004, and in all that time has not had one single reference?

OK, there are two references in this long article - one is to an internet forum post (O paragon of scholarly erudition!) and the other is for a quote from H. P. Lovecraft, whose views on matters of human sexuality carry as much weight as those of my next-door neighbor.

It's not just that the article consists entirely of a collection of rank speculation, flat-out invention, and random woolgathering. If there was such a thing as "Antisexualism", we could burn it down to a stub and start over. And if the article isn't deleted I propose to remove all the unsourced material (==all the material) and burn it down to a one-sentence stub. But what would the stub say? "Antisexualism refers to the ideology of opposing sex and the social movement encompassing this ideology" I guess - but there isn't even a WP:RS reference for that.

There is no such thing as "Antisexualism" in any notable, organized (or even unorganized) form. If there were, there would be reliable sources showing that. But there aren't. The article has existed for seven years. That's long enough to find a reference, I think. (I mean, is anyone against sex? Sure there are groups of celibates - monks, Manichaen elect, Shakers, asexuals etc. - but they aren't against sex. They just don't have sex themselves, which is entirely different thing altogether. The only description in the article of an organization which is actually against sex is from 1984, which is... fiction.

As alternative to deletion, the article could be moved someplace where it could serve as a "what not to do" example of Knowledge (XXG):Original Research. But there is no place for this in article space. Herostratus (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's are websites which have attracted a fair number of users expressing similar views, and a certain strain of thought along such lines has existed for thousands of years, from ancient Gnosticism to Orwell's "Junior Anti-Sex League" in 1984. So it's not a hoax or joke, and it doesn't deserve to be treated like a hoax or a joke... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"Websites that have attracted a fair number of users" includes birther sites, truther sites, Aryan Brotherhood sites, you name it. That means, precisely, nothing. We want reliable scholarly or journalistic sources here. I don't know about the ancient Gnostics and I'm perfectly willing to believe that they were celibate, but I'm not willing to take anyone's word for it that they were "Antisexualists", which would be something entirely and completely different. And Orwell was writing fiction, I already mentioned that. Look, don't you think it's pretty remarkable that a "certain strain of thought along such lines has existed for thousands of years" without leaving a trace in any reliable source? I find that quite remarkable. Herostratus (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
What the heck is that supposed to mean?? I object strongly to your pointlessly sneering and jeering tone throughout (which contributes absolutely nothing to constructive or productive discussion of the subject), while your hasty and ill-informed assumption that anti-sexualism has never existed in any form is simply ridiculous and absurd, and really does nothing to build mutual confidence (and in fact ends up presenting yourself in more of a negative light than what you are attempting to sneer and jeer at). There are plenty of available sources on ultra-ascetic Gnosticism, on Origen and St. Jerome strongly preferring perpetual virginity over marriage, on the Skoptzys etc. etc., and I presume that such sources are cited in the specific articles on those movements and persons. However, this particular article is about anti-sexualism in itself (not as an embedded part of any one particular historic religious doctrine, and in modern times often not connected with religion at all), and acceptable sources which take an overall survey of anti-sexualism (as opposed to focusing on technical details of Origen's philosophy or whatever) have been hard to come by, despite the fact that a significant number of people are interested in the subject. You throwing around a bunch of derogatory epithets purely at random really does nothing to clarify any issues or problems that exist with the article. AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The concept that humans, or at least those trying to gain a higher spiritual level, should reject sexuality is found in Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Christianity (although not as the official stance of the established church), and in various new religious movements and New Age thinkers (Leo Tolstoy for one). Is it one thing that should be the topic of a WP article, or unrelated aspects of different topics.? I don't know the answer to that. Borock (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator. Perhaps I should have have just made this point and left it at that: it's not a real word. It's not in Wiktionary. It's not in Merriam-Webster. It's not in dictionary.com. It's not even in Urban Dictionary. My Google search finds: the first hit is this article. The rest of the top hits are blogs, forums, wikis, that sort of thing, and Knowledge (XXG) mirrors, then it gets thick with the internal links to this article from within Knowledge (XXG). I'm not saying that no one has ever said or written the word - it's properly constructed (anti + sex + ism) and expresses a thought. But so does anti + fool + ism or any other number of like constructs. But that doesn't make it real word. Only real-world notability as shown by reliable sources can do that. And we're not supposed to have articles with titles that are made-up words. Right? This seems basic. Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - before making that particular argument, perhaps you ought to try clicking the Books and Scholar links at the top of the page. You'll find you do get some hits. (How exactly they relate to the subject of this article, I've yet to look at in detail, but you will find that the word is apparently used by academics.) LadyofShalott 04:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It would have been nice if you had not made abrasively dogmatic assertions on a subject which you appear to know almost nothing about, and had refrained from implying that anyone is the Orly Taitz of Knowledge (XXG). P.S. It's simply a fact that there are some long-established articles which have titles which barely occur outside of Knowledge (XXG) (e.g. "Nontrinitarianism", "Oxford spelling" etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
That is hyperbolic, and I am not implying anything of the sort. (If it somehow seemed I did, that was certainly not my intent.) However, you said antisexualism is not a word, and it clearly is. LadyofShalott 05:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Also, you'll note that I have chosen not yet to remark on whether or not the article should be kept. I restricted my comments to what was clear until I have further examined the available possible references. LadyofShalott 05:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Huh? I was replying solely to Herostratus, not to you at all... My comment had two indentation prefix thingies (the same as your comment), and not one extra, which is the signal that my comment was not inteded to be a reply to yours. AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
My apologies! LadyofShalott 05:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, keep; definitely. Per LadyOS. ( You don't want to make a sorceress mad, you know. ) Also, the word is in the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives two quotations for its use. The first of these, from William James' 1890 Principles of Psychology, appears to use the term in a slightly different sense than the article in question: "...what might be called the anti-sexual instinct, the instinct of personal isolation, the actual repulsiveness to us of the idea of intimate contact with most of the persons we meet, especially those of our own sex." The second quotation is from Bertrand Russell's ubiquitous 1929 essay, On Marriage and Morals: "So far we have been considering pro-sexual elements in religion; anti-sexual elements, however, existed side by side." Besides this point, researching the term led me to this faq, which asserts, "Sex is similar to drugs, both in physical and social effects. It places primitive instincts higher than intellect, a human being - a sentient being - turns into a primitive animal... Finally, copulation is aesthetically disgusting." I'm personally very much in favor of turning into a primitive animal from time to time, and I dare say the aesthetic judgment is very different depending on whether one is a participant or an observer, too. But it was nice to have a reason to grin. ;-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The idea that sex is wicked and wrong seems remarkably commonplace and is expressed in numerous laws and moral codes. I have rewritten the lead, providing a better reference to support the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ohiostandard's sources. I'm inclined to say that it's a notable topic since James and Russell have discussed the issue. It might be a good idea to trim it down to a stub though since it looks like it's mostly unreferenced. (BTW, I have a userbox that relates to this topic--it is solely for humor purposes and shouldn't be taken as a COI). Qrsdogg (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The issue discussed by the article in question is notable, although the article still is a stub. If sex is not a destructive thing, why being naked in public at most spaces is regarded an attempt against modesty? Why does sex have to be performed in private? Why are children told they came from 'storks'? I could add several more questions. Antisexualism has a great point. Besides, the official position of some religions is antisexual. The Roman Catholic Church and the Gaudiya Vaishnavism, for instance, say that sex should be performed, if at all, only for procreation. I.e, antinatalism is a subject apart from antisexualism. Algorithme (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient references have been found; perhaps the nom would have done better to look for them than to complain about their absence. Many articles from the earlier period of Knowledge (XXG) need considerable work and sourcing, and the solution is to work on them and source them. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 16 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) 02:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Miracle at Donna (2012 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)

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - I have no connection with stephen. I don't know who stephen is. In fact, the producer asked me to edit the bias out of the article, and sent it to me in its entirety. It had a lot of adjectives, and talked too much about the producer (director-writer) and none about any of the rest of the production crew, which I will amend, if I can figure out what wikipedia wants done. So I have cleaned up the text somewhat, but that bot is still floating around on the verge of deleting this. Please advise.
Frank tells me they are filming. I am not a publicist. Also, this film has no connection whatsoever with the iraq movie other than that I know both of the producers. I tried to post the Iraq movie as practice before I posted this one, just as a favor to Nancy Fulton (whose political views I do not agree with anyway, not that that matters.) It would be appreciated if you do not discuss these in the same breath. There is apparently plenty of documentation for both of these movies, (Miracle at donna is filming.) Mike, why so hostile? Freelance-writer-editor (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelance-writer-editor (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
reply - the version I saw was created and nurtured by User:Stevenpublicist, whose specialty seems to be advertising 1211 Entertainment and its products. I'm hostile to shameless publicists, not to my fellow freelance writer-editors! --Orange Mike | Talk 04:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. I saw that draft. It made my English teacher synapses shrivel. Look, I also cut his bio down to the minimum if you want to look at that. I'm going to sleep. Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment – What is your relation to Frank Aragon and the film Miracle at Donna. I ask because within minutes of pointing out that the film's website indicated the film was in pre-production. (see }, the website was changed to reflect completely sometime different. ttonyb (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I edit for a third party, (and ghostwrite.) Frank contacted this third party and asked me if I would edit the article because he had been told it was biased. (It was.) Does this really matter? I have no connection with the movie, the production company, or any one involved with the movie. I have done some writing and editing for a friend of the producer. Apparently bias is not the only issue. Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

reply - the fact that a movie is in production does not in any way make it notable. Where is the requisite substantial coverage in impartial reliable third-party sources? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: moving to a user space until it is done...Freelance-writer says SHE would definitely agree with that. Much better than having to save it elsewhere and repost it and start from scratch again. Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Can this please go to a page where I can work on it until it is released or has had adequate press? There are other individuals involved with the film who could be researched as well as the Donna background story, which actually may be a disambiguation. Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Trust me... The closer of this discussion will have read through the discussion and will note your request for userfication... but usually these discussions run about a week, so be patient. And remember, you can always ask for help and advice from other editors. Schmidt, 08:40, 11 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Completely non-notable neologism, in addition to being original research. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Article is sourced, and thus no longer original research. Also, sufficient sources have been added to pass WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Unsourced and OR. Potentially could be merged or redirected to people watching or as a section of porch. --Yaksar (let's chat) 13:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The Google Scholar results show a number of relevant hits, though without access to the articles it's unclear how much information there is. But those hits do verify that this is a term in use, and a recognized cultural practice in the U.S.; the first hit states (in the results view): "Porch sitting is also a social act which influences the functioning of a larger social system. This porch sitting forms a "porch society'." There are also a few Scholar results discussing the "culture" of porch sitting as it relates to elderly care and well being. Google Books search also shows some hits, which at a minimum show that the term is not a neologism and that there is recognition of it as culturally significant, and it gives me hope that there is more out there. See also Urban stoop#Urban Stoops as a Social Device. So I'm going to say keep and mark for cleanup, expansion, references, etc. I'm thinking merging to porch would not be appropriate, given the scope of that article and the specificity of porch sitting as an (apparently) American cultural thing judging from the sources. postdlf (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No one's arguing that sitting on a porch is a real thing, just that it has such notability that it needs more than a reference in an article on porches. There is only one cited statement in this article, and it simply says that porch sitting is seen as a status symbol.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Many sources have sense been added. Many news sources state how important porch sitting was and still is, for community security, etc. Many news sources state that air conditioning and television have caused its decline. Dream Focus 14:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep I personally hate sitting around on the porch doing nothing, but WP:IDL aside, it does looks like enough sources have been provided to demonstrate notability:. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge the sourced content of the "article" (a single sentence) into Porch. This is another terrible junkyard-style article where the bulk of the content is unsourced original research and trivial observations, supposedly justified by one sourcable morsel tacked onto the end. There is not enough here for a real article. Reyk YO! 00:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not much porch sitting in the UK, what with it peeing down most of the time. But when I'm on hols its great! Nothing wrong with those sources, what do the deleters want, a film about porch sitting or a full page spread in the NY Times? For a topic of this nature they are actually very good references. Szzuk (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep There seem to be abundant sources for notability, and the article is probably expandable to a ery considerable extent. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, OR/SYN; while a lot of articles write about it, the coverage is tangential and insubstantial. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, this is an old custom where houses have porches, and in many eastern cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Boston, where many row houses have stoops (i.e. front steps, often of marble) used for sitting and relaxing. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Article is now nothing like what it was. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:39, 16 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced dictionary definition. Perhaps someone can identify a merger target, but I can't see why this should be a standalone article. Biker Biker (talk) 17:24, 8 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. Default is therefore keep; due to the poor structure at the debate there is liberty to relist in a month or two if there is no improvement. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia (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:ORG. there is nothing in gnews. and gbooks only has 3 hits 1 of which merely confirms this is an arts organisation. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 0

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

* Keep. Can User:LibStar please point me to the actual Wiki guidelines that state that a subject is not 'notable' because there are no, or only a few, 'hits' about it on Google? Is finding 'hits' on Google the only criteria for 'notability'? The article lists independent, secondary sources, published by reputable organizations,and the publications have ISBN numbers — so are easily 'verifiable' by someone who is diligent. In other words, can you provide evidence for you categoric claim that the article "fails WP:ORG". Also, why didn't you bother to notify me of your deletion tag? It is generally considered (WP:AFD) courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. --Pkravchenko (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
as per WP:GNG, multiple sources in third party coverage is required. google news is a good way of finding these. the article lacks inline citations so it is difficult to verify if the supplied sources actually relate to the subject indepth. See Knowledge (XXG):Inline citation. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I require more information on cited sources, at the minimum there should be inline citations and page references. gnews covers most major newspapers from 1900 so this organisation should pick up some online coverage even passing mentions.. These are my grounds for deletion. have you found any sources? LibStar (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
as per WP:OFFLINE "Special care should be taken when using offline sources. Make sure to provide full bibliographic information". I would expect page numbers as a minimum. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
this organisation was not active in 1860 (when online sources would be difficult to find) but even as late as 2008 it was active when the internet was well established, there is also reference to organisation activity post 1990 and in the 2000s surely this would be covered or even touched somewhere online? LibStar (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I cite WP:PROVEIT and would question every statement in the article in the absence of inline citations even page numbers of offline sources. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • SpeedyKeep I think that the post at 06:09 1 February 2011 (UTC) by the nominator should be considered as withdrawing the nomination in lieu of WP:PROVEIT.  Also, I suggest that the nominator review Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion. "...invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion."  To editors that want to keep this article, I'm also noting WP:NONENG by which I'd suggest that they add some translations into English of citations. Unscintillating (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to find sources, this is an organisation has that existed in Australia for 43 years (therefore should get some English language coverage) and has been active as late as 2008. I am an experienced editor and don't see how this is notable. where is the coverage? have you attempted to find any sources? LibStar (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
AfDs exist to dispute and discuss notability of the subject. I have applied the {{notability}} template in the past on over 100 articles and only in 2 cases has someone ever bothered to improve the article. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
To be frank, LibStar, if you yourself aren't willing to fix the article before tagging it (or sending it to AfD), you shouldn't be criticising others for not doing so.  -- Lear's Fool 07:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found evidence of notability hence the nomination, simple. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment can the 2 keep voters please indicate how the sources refer to the article text to establish notability. neither has attempted to find other sources to establish notability. This nomination does not qualify for speedy keep in the absence of a lack of verification of inline text or other sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • further searches for sources I have searched 2 three major Australian news websites and found nothing. and . LibStar (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
and this. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The article is referenced to 5 reliable, independant sources, and we assume that the content in the article (at least the bulk of it) is sourced by these. This would certainly constitute significant coverage. It is incumbent on you to demonstrate why we shouldn't trust the author's use of these sources, and you have failed to do so. As for searching for sources, this is obviously going to be complicated by foreign language issues, but a simple Trove search returns five sources, some of which are cited here.  -- Lear's Fool 07:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
the 5 sources don't look like indepth coverage to me but merely confirm the organisation's existence. just because it exists doesn't mean it's notable. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

as per WP:BURDEN it's incumbent on those wanting to keep any statement/article. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

this is an organisation has that existed in Australia for 43 years (therefore should get some English language coverage) and has been active as late as 2008. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec) See WP:SOURCE, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources."  I.e., you go to the library and read the book.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
that is unreasonable to expect everyone in WP to simply go to a bookshop. to me this is simply a very small specialised organisation that has lacked any coverage in any Australian news outlet and gets 5 mentions in some books despite being active for 43 years. surely in this time it would garner some mention in the Australian press. none whatsoever. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
as per WP:OFFLINE "Special care should be taken when using offline sources. Make sure to provide full bibliographic information". I would expect page numbers as a minimum. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The fact that it is preferable for offline sources to be so used does not mean that a lack of inline sources or page numbers is grounds for deletion.  -- Lear's Fool 07:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Further comment on applicable criterion as a non commercial organisation I don't see this meeting the criteria of WP:CLUB there is no widespread attention or influence of this organisation. It has held numerous exhibitions in its 43 year history but can't even get a mention in the Australian press. none whatsoever. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the article, there are many mentions in the Australia press:
  • Individual articles in The Free Thought, a Ukrainian-language weekly newspaper issued in Sydney.
See also WP:NNC. Unscintillating (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
could you please supply me the dates and page of these individual articles. Thanks in advance. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Unscintillating, :: could you please supply me the dates and page of these individual articles. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Free Thought is not mainstream press but seems to serve a small market of Ukrainian expats. the quality of sources helps establish notability. you would expect an Australian based 43 year old organisation to get some coverage even a passing mention in the Australian mainstream press. It would be a reasonable expectation that Australian organisations in WP get coverage in Australian mainstream press. especially organisations that have existed for over 40 years and have been as recently active as 2008. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

  • Keep. Although User:LibStar claims he is "an experienced editor", it seems that he/she is ignorant of the real extent of media "coverage", that he/she so determinedly relies upon. You quote 'Google News' by saying: "gnews covers most major newspapers from 1900". Wrong - actually, the archive of newspapers is very limited and selective, please read this yourself, according to the Knowledge (XXG) article Google_news#Sources_for_news "The actual list of sources is not known outside of Google.". The "Trove", or National Archives of Australia online newspapers site has only made accessible newspapers up to the year 1954. Most of the comments you make relate to improving the article, which has nothing to do with your justification for 'deleting' the article. You still have not answered my question/criticism of why didn't you notify me of your Afd tag? I would not claim that I am as experienced as you, but I do think that your actions are irresponsible and dangerous. How many other articles have you caused to be deleted, without notifying the authors, in line with your beliefs? --Pkravchenko (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
article creator has now changed his vote to delete. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, the above vote for 'keep' was written within the context of the original debate about online sources. I may have changed my mind later, but this was after you relisted the AfD, and after you tried to expand the original reasons to include COI, lack of inline reference etc. --Pkravchenko (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
there is no compulsory rule to notify editors and it is not dangerous not to notify editor. you do not WP:OWN the article so don't take it personally, specifically Knowledge (XXG):Ownership_of_articles#Comments. all AfDs last for 7 days and don't automatically get deleted they need consensus to delete, you should know that as an experienced editor. you have swayed me in no way. my nomination stands for failing WP:ORG, WP:GNG. it should be deleted in my opinion. no keep vote has addressed my concern that as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. could you please address the lack of inline citations, it may address the lack of verified statements in the article. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment (1) Nominator has now made 39 posts on this AfD page and zero posts on Talk:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia.  (2) Nominator has called WP:SOURCEACCESS policy "unreasonable".  (3) Nominator has posted, without notice here or on the article talk page, to Knowledge (XXG):RS/N#Reliability_of_an_expat_community_newspaper.  Nominator there opines that is a volunteer organization; although, the newspaper has a circulation of 1500 and annual subscription rate of AU$100.  (4) Nominator disputes as "no compulsory rule", notification that is "generally considered courteous" under WP:AFD.  (5) Nominator chooses to ignore "community consensus" in Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion since "I have applied the {{notability}} template in the past over 100 articles and only in 2 cases has someone ever bothered to improve the article."  (6) WP:BURDEN is part of content policy, not notability policy, but nominator feels that WP:BURDEN puts the burden on "those wanting to keep any...article."  I again recommend Speedykeep, that the pattern of posts by nominator should be construed as voluntary withdrawal of the nomination, policy that applies for this interpretation is WP:IAR as the Speedykeep is for the good of the encyclopedia and sends a polite message to the nominator.  This should not be left solely up to the closing administrator, I propose that other editors support a Speedykeep. Unscintillating (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
nice try but my nomination still stands. Do not put words in my mouth, I did not say WP:SOURCEACCESS is unreasonable I said expecting someone to visit a bookshop for the purpose of clarifying sources in WP is unreasonable. The article creator presumably has access to these sources but no attempt has been made to improve citation during the AfD process. That is a reasonable expectation when one wants to verify statements and sources during AfD. Again unscintillating fails to address my primary concern that as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. This is despite holding various public exhibitions. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. Other arts organisations in Australia on WP would be held to a similar standard. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
If WP:SOURCEACCESS policy says, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources...some print sources may be available only in university libraries" and you say, "that is unreasonable to expect everyone in WP to simply go to a bookshop", how is that anything other than calling the policy "unreasonable"?  If you don't like this policy and want to change it, then the place for your opinion is at WT:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
you said " I.e., you go to the library and read the book" that is not possible for many WP editors. Again unscintillating fails to address my primary concern that as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. This is despite holding various public exhibitions. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. Any other organisation in Australia on WP would be held to a similar standard. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
"(1) Nominator has now made 39 posts on this AfD page and zero posts on Talk:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia" the number of posts here or on the talk page is totally irrelevant to your case for arguing keep. this is an active AfD so if anything it is best comments are here. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Lear's Fool has told you, "while inline citations are desirable, a lack thereof is not even close to being grounds for deletion."
Pkravchenko has told you, "the publications have ISBN numbers — so are easily 'verifiable' by someone who is diligent."
I started that article in response to your request for help with locating the newspaper articles in The Free Thought.  You now have easy access to a list of libraries with The Free Thought using the OCLC number; the phone number of the newspaper in the banner; and their email address, also in the banner.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


I'm not sure of User:LibStar's point. I have, with a positive intention, tried to improve an article whose quality of content was not part of this discussion, and especially after User:LibStar sneakily tried to get support from other editors by posting a question elsewhere, and also after he placed tags on that article as well — seemingly with the motive to discredit that newspaper's "reliability". The article is now archived, so there is no opportunity of posting a response. I'm not sure of the WP guideline on this, but to me this is sneaky, especially as he did not disclose his motivation for posting the question. In User:LibStar's question he falsely stated that the The Free Though is a 'volunteer' newspaper -- wrong, it is a fully commercial newspaper -- see here. He denounces others for not having credible sources, yet uses ill-considered opinions and false evidence as 'facts' to elicit support. At this posting he irresponsibly and slanderously formed the tone of his question by suggesting that both the newspaper and the article were "unreliable", by using emotive, or at least suggestive terms, like "volunteers", "small Ukrainian expat community", "amateur nature", and then stated there are no mainstream press references, thereby implying 'unreliability'. It is OK to say that no independent referenced source for assessing the 'reliability' of the newspaper exist, but I do think it is irresponsible and faulty logic to imply "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", and that the only 'reliable' way of assessing 'reliability' is to have hits via "mainstream media".
To answer User:LibStar's apparent criticism — the majority of my work on WP is based on improving articles, and occasionally writing new articles. I do not try to delete other people's works, leaving this work to people, hopefully, who are rational, objective, and have no agenda (and hopefully, who as a starting point, apply etiquette and WP guidelines fairly and not according to their own interpretations). I must say, that as someone who has so far enjoyed contributing to WP, that your views seem extremist and not friendly — certainly they do not indicate that you have the motivation to contribute to WP in a positive way. All I have seen so far is sneaky attacks, and an inability to accept other user's experienced and carefully considered views. I have deliberately not modified/improved the article we are discussing, as the real issue is your allegation that the article should be deleted due to "failing WP:N". I have not done any editing to be fair to you, and to allow anyone joining this discussion to clearly see the main thrust of your justification for nomination. So far, it seems, no one else agrees with your justifications for deleting the topic. As you have taken the step of nominating it for deletion, your original stated justification should stand alone. According to your own testimony you did not nominate the article for deletion because it had to be "improved". You have already drawn the line in the sand by saying that the article should be deleted because "there is nothing in gnews. and gbooks only has 3 hits". As an afterthought, and during the ongoing discussion, you introduced additional tags which relate to the improvement of the article, things which do not give any more weight to your original justification for deletion. I do not disagree with these points for improvement, however these points do not provide any or additional justification for deletion — as has already been stated by others above. Although you accuse me of improving, and at the same time, not improving articles, you have actively tried to further discredit the article (while the discussion was still ongoing) by adding the {{unreferencedsect}} tag. I can only interpret your action as not in good faith, especially in view of your lack of positive actions to improve the article yourself, and with you also being aware that no one else so far has agreed with you, especially your point about the references. I would suggest that there is a basic incongruity in your demand for me to 'fix up' the inline references, while really your bottom line (and insistent demand) is that the article should be deleted because it doesn't have any information in the "mainstream media". --Pkravchenko (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
you are so keen to keep why don't you contact the newspaper. I am currently in Kuala Lumpur please indicate which local libraries would have free thought. Pkravchenko started this article and added those references with no inline citations, yet he/she has made no effort to add citations. I am questioning the veracity of statements in the article. If they cannot be verified then notability is also shaky. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry User:LibStar — the onus is on you to prove justifiable grounds for deletion. Wherever you are, it is irrelevent -- you have taken the drastic step of nominating an article for deletion, without using alternate and more friendly approaches outlined in the WP deletions policy -- you are free to express your opinion, but do not place the burden of proof of rebutting your own opinions (which are not based on WP guidelines) on others. It is clear that you are sore about being questioned about your justifications, but you have to accept that so far there is no evidence that you have done something positive to improve the article. --Pkravchenko (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I also searched 3 major Australians new sites. Please add inline citations, you obviously have access to the sources, I don't understand the reluctance. Also do you have a connection to this society are you a member? LibStar (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
my grounds for deletion are: as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. This is despite holding various public exhibitions. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. Any other organisation in Australia on WP would be held to a similar standard. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but robotically repeating your previous demands and allegations does not provide any new or useful justification to help your nomination. In your responses, you have ignored some substantial points mentioned earlier by myself and others questioning the logical basis of you allegation. For a start you have persistently ignored statements and WP guidelines that sole reliance on current "news websites" is a) not a criteria for claiming a basis for deletion, and b) you have not responded to the fact that you are wrong about your belief that current online media covers every 'notable' event or person. You still have not corrected your false and unsubstantiated claim that "gnews covers most major newspapers from 1900". I'm sorry for repeating this, but "actually, the archive of newspapers is very limited and selective, please read this yourself, according to the Knowledge (XXG) article Google_news#Sources_for_news. 'The actual list of sources is not known outside of Google.'. The "Trove", or National Archives of Australia online newspapers site has only made accessible newspapers up to the year 1954." Are you aware of the years and extent of coverage of the "news websites" you rely on as a the basis for deletion? Unless you are prepared to acknowledge the limitation of the basis for your rationale, then I would submit, that we are not 'speaking the same language, and that it is not feasible to answer any of your demands. As WP:N states: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". You have tried to discredit The Free Though, making false allegations, (which you still have not admitted to, or corrected), and now you are, as a last resort, "questioning the veracity of statements in the article", based on your own methodology of ignoring WP guidelines and asserting without any evidence that the provided sources are now, not only not "verifiable", but "questionable"! Wow! --Pkravchenko (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"questioning the veracity of statements in the article" is permitted under WP:BURDEN given that there are no inline citations, Pkravchenko, why the reluctance to add inline citations despite requests? also you avoided my other question, are you a member of this society or have a connection to it? LibStar (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: (1) "Questioning the veracity" is good, as long as it is relevant and appropriate in this discussion concerning the one specific issue, ie. the basis for your nomination. Otherwise it sounds like you are making wild accusations, without any solid basis. I suggest that you have failed your burden of proof, which is to provide "valid arguments citing appropriate guidelines", as stated in the information box at the top of this page. So far you have have failed to cite appropriate guidelines which say that lack of online media 'hits' automatically equals 'lack of reliability'. In fact, there are a number of WP guidelines which clearly state the opposite (See for eg. WP:GHITS). You have have failed to cite appropriate guidelines which say that a lack of inline citations is a basis for deletion. You have persisted in re-interpreting WP guidelines in an 'original' way, and have tried to use the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" trick to improperly draw conclusions.
(2) Please see detailed responses to the same question regarding inline citations above.
(3) Regarding the third part of your demand — why do you need to know?, and how do you intend to use this personal information in the context of your reasons for nomination? I would suggest that as a starting basis for trust, there needs to be a certain history of behavior based on respect for other peoples' opinion and an agreed standard of etiquette, which in our case is available to us in the form of WP guidelines. Sorry, but you have not demonstrated anything that would lead me to divulge any personal information to you. You have ignored specific comments by others pointing out WP guidelines opposite to what your are arguing. You unashamedly deny that WP etiquette regarding notifying authors of articles is important, and have not corrected obvious errors which impute that the article, and The Free Thought are not reliable. Are you now trying to make some imputation about me, using the same approach? --Pkravchenko (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Pkravchenko, why the continual reluctance to add inline citations despite repeated requests? is it because much of the text cannot be cited? the time spent arguing here could easily be spent adding inline citations. are you a member of this society or have a connection to it, your user page seems to indicate so. do you know the society's president? if you are a member you have sources to assist. I did not say Free Thought is not reliable. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

  • Comment for the record, I have repeated requested for inline citations to be added to this article. sources are only provided as a bibliography and inline citations would greatly assist in establishing veracity of statements and hence notability. the continual refusal to add inline citations is of concern. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I am also concerned the article contains original research. "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material.'. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
as per WP:ORG, emphasis added: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." LibStar (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin I have logged a COI report at Knowledge (XXG):Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ukrainian_Artists_Society_of_Australia.E2.80.8E regarding this AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I've come here from COIN after seeing LibStar's note. As I've noted there Pkravchenko has effectively outed themselves and indicated that they have a conflict of interest. This raises a few issues, but to start with, as we are at AfD, they have access to sources that others, including LibStar, are unable to access. I agree that it is difficult to determine notability without seeing these sources as there are no online sources available (the gbooks hits are infact mirrors of wikipedia - see Books LLC). I'd suggest that this AfD is relisted, and so that the notability can be assessed, Pkravchenko provides copies of sources (scans or digital photographs) via email to myself or LibStar so that it is possible to see whether they constitute "multiple, significant, independent sources" to satisfy WP:GNG. Does this sound reasonable? SmartSE (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
SmartSE, Since the nature of your offer implies that you are fluent in Ukrainian, I'd suggest that the English-speaking volunteers here would be more interested in WP:NONENG English footnotes of citations than your personal opinions regarding notability.  IMO the consensus here is that between WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:AGF that this article is notable, that further AfD discussion is not constructive, and that AfD is not a vehicle for content disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, no I don't speak Ukranian, but it would still be relatively clear if I could look at some of the references whether or not they are directly addressing the society as we require to have an article on the society. These aren't "my personal opinions" but those of the community - and I've come here to try and mediate the disagreement above by offering to look over references and let others know whether they are suffficient to meet the requirements for inclusion. Respectfully, "IMO the consensus here is that between WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:AGF that this article is notable" makes no sense - you are quoting part of WP:V when we're here to discuss WP:N, which is not the same thing at all. Whilst we should AGF (and I am) that doesn't mean that we shouldn't question whether a subject is notable, when it has been written by someone with a COI - it naturally (and should) attract extra scrutiny to ensure that the article is compliant with our policies and guidelines. What's more further discussion is clearly required, since there is no clear consensus apparent in this discussion either way. SmartSE (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:N says, "content must be ]."  So I don't agree that WP:SOURCEACCESS is not relevant to WP:N.  Please make sure that you have read the entire AfD discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
the content has not been verified despite repeated requests to the article creator who is in fact the President of the Society. if the content can't be verified i don't see how it can be notable. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it is not WP:N but Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(organizations_and_companies) that says "content must be ]."  WP:N says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation"  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

given the lack of other sources that i cannot find, it would be reasonable to expect at least some citation to establish veracity of information in article. the continual refusal of the article creator/Society President to provide any citations says it all. this article is full of original research as far as I'm concerned. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment I would support relisting as a new AfD. Smartse's suggestion of actual evidence supplied of coverage of this topic is fully supported. Continually refusing to provide evidence of coverage and inline citation is not in the spirit of WP. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 8 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, Atmoz (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment my primary concern that as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. This is despite holding various public exhibitions. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. Any other organisation in Australia on WP would be held to a similar standard. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
whilst this isn't a reliable source as a self published source, this website states that a New South Wales Government minister attended one of the society's events. how come it still can't get any coverage in the Australian mainstream press? LibStar (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Free Thought which Unscintillating argues is press coverage is definitely media of limited interest and circulation. This does not mean it's not a valid publication just that it goes less to establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete Enough frothing at the mouth and hysteria, hyenas! As the 99.99% author of the article, and as the anonymous User talk:LibStar and others claims my work is my own 'original' work, fraudulent, not notable, COI, etc, etc.), I hereby revoke any rights to the text by Knowledge (XXG). I ask that the topic and page be immediately deleted from the Knowledge (XXG) site. --Pkravchenko (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC) --> (last post by --Pkravchenko (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC))
    If you mean to revoke Knowledge (XXG)'s right to use the content, then I'm afraid this is impossible. Every time you contribute, there is a section just below the editing window that says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." This article has been permanently released under the CC-BY-SA licence, and you are unable to revoke this.  -- Lear's Fool 13:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for explaining that. In that case, then, I'll revert my vote to keep, and will provide some inline sources, as requested. --Pkravchenko (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Article needs better sourcing, not deletion. I really don't like the piling of close to 10 flags onto this piece, by the way, whoever did that needs to knock that stuff off... Carrite (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
you haven't explained how this article meets WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep There are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. I give more limited weight to the GNG than some of us do, but it remains useful and even essential to settle matters about notability that cannot be settled otherwise, & this is an appropriate place to use it. The objects about access by Libstar are contradicted firmly by WP:RS guidelines, that sources need not be online, and WP:CITE, that inline citations are not necessary, except for disputed points. I suggest, though, that the article is disproportionate to the importance of the organization, to the extent that it comes acrossas somewhat promotional; in particular, the general background section is out of place here. After it's kept, I'll do some editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
i do not object to sources not being online. my grounds for deletion are: as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. This is despite holding various public exhibitions. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. Any other organisation in Australia on WP would be held to a similar standard. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 16 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Modern Day Escape (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 criteria listed in WP:BAND. tedder (talk) 16:05, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Scotland Windstorm (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 storm event appears to be the creation of a facebook group. Whilst there has been bad weather in the United Kingdom in the period covered, there is no indication that official meteorological agencies or other reliable sources have treated this as a single named storm. Delete. Jeremy (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, note that none of the events described in the article took place in Scotland.—Jeremy (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Why doesn't anyone listen? If you looked at the page when it was created, it said the GBMA was an official (but small) meteorological agency.GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify that with a citation on the article as requested, please. Tim PF (talk)

Keep I don't see a reason why this page should be deleted. If people look at Google Earth (With Weather settings on) you'll see that the storm was real. Also, a tiny space such as that on the European Windstorm page could not cover what can be covered in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpxpress (talk • contribs) 8 February 2011

  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. "NOTWEATHER" is a consequence of NOTNEWS. A truckload of peas spilled on the carriageway, and a few other random weather related events happened when the wind blew. "The storm was real" is not a meaningful "keep" argument. Edison (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a Facebook group surrently, and it's the GBMA

Plus there might be no coverage as European Windstorms are not recognised as real by many people, hence the Keep in my previous post Tpxpress (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

*Comment This is laughable. Saying this storm - WITH 131MPH WINDS AND CAUSING MORE THAN 10 MILLION POUNDS OF DAMAGE - is not notable is like saying Cyclone Yasi is not notable. In fact, if this is being called not notable, Yasi can't be, either. So I'll go delete that, hmmm? It'll mean there's one less unneeded trashy article on Knowledge (XXG). GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you sourced 131 mph winds and over £10 million of damage, other than some wild speculation in the article. Oh, and I've just removed the £10m from the article, as no-one seems to have a reliable figure. The speed is still there with its {{citation needed}} tag. Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi has citations to substantiate over USD 2 billion. Tim PF (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. Andrew Fraser (5 February 2011). "Damages from Yasi to dwarf Larry's costs". The Australian. Retrieved 5 February 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The above {{reflist}} added to illustrate what a damages citation looks like. Tim PF (talk)

  • Keep if citable - all this article really needs is citations. The event is seemingly notable enough (given that the information in it is true) and just needs citations to be fine. Should no sources back up the event or to a significantly lesser degree, the article should be deleted. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral - revising (again...) previous statement after a more in-depth look through news articles. I have found mention of one fatality; evacuations (also mentioned as strongest storm thus far); 9,000 without power. There appears to be enough to support it but is it necessary to have the article? As a side note in regards to the "name"; the storm wasn't named Gustav; that name is not even on the list for windstorm names. The article also claims that it passed over the UK on February 2, also false. At the time, the tail of Windstorm Klaus was in the region. The only system that moved over the area was a weak low named Nicolas. Basically...the storm listed in the article doesn't exist as far as I can tell. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
That means there were at least 2 confirmed deaths, as there is one cited death in the article (no-one has yet produced a citation for the canoeist). Tim PF (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Note however that assembling a death toll in this manner is an example of an original synthesis of published material. In order to give a death toll for this storm we would need a reliable source that gave the death toll. In fact, the whole article is really an example of WP:SYNTHESIS—even if reliable sources were found for every individual event described, the tying of them all together as the results of a single storm event is something that I am yet to see in any reliable source.—Jeremy (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, was I not being sufficiently ironic? I hadn't actually done that in the article (although I did revise the speculative "(At least) 2 dead" to just "2 dead"). I'd agree that the article itself is an example of unpublished synthesis, but doesn't adding up numbers of fatalities merely a routine mathematical calculation (WP:CALC)? No, it probably isn't, as we have 2 or 3 isolated news articles, and we haven't a clue how many we missed (or not). Anyway, 'tis irrelevant in this case, as the whole article is pretty much unsourced and certainly falls down on Knowledge (XXG):No original research. Tim PF (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment The name 'Gustav' was given by the GBMA (Small Facebook Group) however it has not been recognised as Gustav anywhere else Tpxpress (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Just found that WP:COI is being violated. The "GMBA" doesn't exist, I could find it nowhere through a Google search besides in this article and on Facebook. The Facebook group is also primarily written by George Griffiths. Not only is he "citing" the article with information from an apparently fake agency, he is citing himself. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - several actually:
  1. I think you got the acronym confused, but I cannot find anything under "GBMA" either.
  2. George Griffiths is a fairly common name; are you sure it's the same one?
  3. I have not noticed this GeorgeGriffiths citing anything; only removing several {{citation needed}} tags without justification - (see User talk:GeorgeGriffiths).
I also moved the reflist to just below my example citation. Tim PF (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
There was no landfall of this system in the British Isles, the centre of the storm was well to the north when it brought the intense winds to the area. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. So this storm made whatever the name is, for when anything from the edge to just outside the center of the storm hits land, in Scotland. Perhaps this article could enlighten us on that point. Anarchangel (talk) 05:11, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

An article on a functionary of the Punjab Bar Council, no independent sources. Sherry334 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rajput334 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have created a series of articles on functionaries within the Punjab Bar Council, suggesting WP:COI, but the main issue here is lack of reliable independent sources or any objective claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

An article on a functionary of the Punjab Bar Council, no independent sources. Sherry334 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rajput334 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have created a series of articles on functionaries within the Punjab Bar Council, suggesting WP:COI, but the main issue here is lack of reliable independent sources or any objective claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rene Kaas (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 about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully professional league. He has apparently been called to the Estonian national team, but never actually played (as required by WP:NSPORT). Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Siksten Kasimir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 but move somewhere. Discussion of exactly where can and should continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Jay Chou's Golden Melody Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uh, what should we do with this article? It doesn't seem to be notable or encyclopedic enough to stand on its own as an article, and yet the material is substantially important that it should probably be somewhere — but the Jay Chou article is already a bit too long to accommodate a merger back there. I want some opinions here on whether it should be deleted or not. As for my own opinion, mild delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Rename per Metropolitan90 and Michaela den and expand, as his article makes clear that he has received many other awards, including World Music Awards and awards for his acting. All of which makes this substantial enough to merit a standalone list. There's no reason why this list should have been limited to just one kind of award, and other such lists for actor/musicians include both musical and acting awards (e.g., Jennifer Lopez, Madonna, Judy Garland). postdlf (talk) 14:49, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Unable to confirm details on this writer online, although someone with access to resources about Bengali literature may be able to help. Other people have the same name. http://southasianlitfest.com/Artists/siddhartha-bose/ appears to be about a different writer. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Franjo Topic (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 that was recreated twice after two speedies. delete. UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Kris Nair (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 too marginal for speedy, so going for a wider audience. (I subscribe to the AfDiscussion theory...) UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 8 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. Due to lack of contribution. There is therefore no prejudice against immediate renomination. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Soku-no-Kumi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:RS and is probably original research. Links to page hint that an article with the same name was deleted in 2006 through proposed deletion, proposed on or near February 24th 2006 (see What Links Here for Soku-no-Kumi --avjn (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 07:59, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Previously redirected after Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Amran Baqur Mohammed Hawsawi, which didn't really focus on the article but just on the duplication of contents. However, there are no independent sources for this article (the two sources given don't mention Hawsawi at all!). So it fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Looking for other sources, I found nothing through Google Books or Google News Archives. Fram (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment No offence but looking at your editing history i ask myself if you are a sockpuppet. I suggest your !vote should be discounted unless you provide us with the necessary references that could establish notability. IQinn (talk) 03:49, 10 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Previously kept in 2007 after Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab. On reviewing, it becomes clear that there is at most one independent (i.e. not US Govt. or other party in the judicial process) source for this person which gives more than a passing mention or than a simple reprint of government documents. This document gives a few statements by Wahab as examples of experiences of Guantanamo detainees. No real information about who he is, no real attention to him presonally, is given here though. The article in the Yemen Observer is a passing mention only. Looking through Google, Google News Archives, and Google Books (with different variations of the name) didn't return other significant hits. E.g. the actual title of the article returns 45 distinct Google hits, 4 Google News hits, and 6 Google Books hits of which five are republished Knowledge (XXG) content. Fram (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment No offence but looking at your editing history i ask myself if you are a sockpuppet. I suggest your !vote should be discounted unless you provide us with the necessary references that could establish notability. IQinn (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The source you give already was in the article, and is the one source I mention in my nomination. I have no idea where you get the impression that I don't know that "Abd al" can also be "Abdul", I have given no indication of this for you to base this on. Please provide policy- or guideline-based reasons for your keep, coupled with new information, not the one thing already in the article. Fram (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • So you say there are no notable sources, he points to what he believes is a notable source, and you say, don't point to that source? If I were Papermoney, I believe I would decline that invitation. Votes mean nothing in an AfD. Arguments count. Do you propose discounting Papermoney's arguments as well? These subjects are behind a curtain of high security; primary sources are to be expected. Primary sources are counterindicated but not excluded, under PRIMARY; are you casting doubt on the accuracy of the primary sources? Anarchangel (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
        • We don't have the concept of "notable" sources, we have reliable independent sources. I have stated that the article has one such source, and Papermoneyis wanted a strong keep, because of that one same source, claiming that there are sources but failing to provide aby other ones. You as well don't present any other ones. WP:N requires multiple reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Primary sources are acceptable, no one denied that, but don't count towards notability, and the kind of sources used here shouldn't be the bulk of articles. Fram (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I misspoke. However, you objected to Papermoney presenting aspects of the article in support of its conclusion that are already in the article. This is in error; the article as it stands is in fact more relevant than propositions here. This objection, and the pursuit of all arguments in this AfD, together are heading in the direction of WP:BLUDGEON; no matter, should this happen, I have time and firmness enough to respond. I assert that N is a content ruling. See WP:DEL for a ruling on deletion. I also assert that neither of your claims: "Primary sources...don't count towards notability" and "...shouldn't be the bulk of articles" are supported by WP rules. In addition, the second assertion is vague, due to "the bulk". Anarchangel (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
              • You claim that WP:N and WP:GNG are not relevant and that they are about content only, however the opposite is in fact the case. To quote WP:N "On Knowledge (XXG), notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." and "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." Anotherclown (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
              • My claim that primary sources shouldn't be the bulk of WP articles is reflected in e.g.the core policy WP:V: "Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources." Specifically for the articles up at AfD, this is joined by WP:BLP: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." As for primary sources not counting towards notability: WP:BIO starts with "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and continues a bit below, in the basic criteria, with "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Anarchangel, you may assert whatever you like, but it is better to get thoroughly acquainted with the policies and guidelines which are essential for these AfD discussions. Fram (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I see what the problem is. You misunderstand this sentence: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, TO SUPPORT ASSERTIONS about a living person" (my capitalization). We can report what the Combatant Status Review Tribunal said, just as we do in its own article; making assertions about their statements are not a requirement of these articles. The only requirement in PRIMARY is that the sources are not interpreted in a POV manner (we must report what sources say, without bias). Independence of sources is only, and imo wrongly, required in GNG (Declaring sources independent or not is itself a subjective judgement. We should be reporting what sources say in an unbiased, not adding our bias by choosing which sources to report on and which not to). Independence is not a requirement in PRIMARY. And over and over it is stated that primary sources can be used; you have so far failed to see the narrow focus of what is actually excluded. Anarchangel (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, from core policy WP:V: "Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources." Please indicate how this article is largely based on secondary sources? The CSTR is a primary source. Fram (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if, as you say, WP:GNG is the guideline for inclusion, surely if the subject fails its criterion it should never have been included in the first palce, and therefore should be deleted. Also how has the author "used caution" in using primary sources? The article relies on them. There may well be passing mentions in secondary sources as you claim, but that does not constitute "significant independent coverage" and hence the subject is not notable. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for not stating my argument clearly. To clarify inclusion vs deletion, and in answer to "significant independent coverage": You have asserted that GNG, and therefore "significant independent coverage" is applicable here; I assert that GNG is a content guideline, governing the body of articles and therefore not applicable as a guideline for deleting entire articles; that is why we have DEL. Re: "used caution": You have made a quote of PRIMARY out of context. Please see my note below for the full context. Anarchangel (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:GNG clearly is relevant here. To quote the policy: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Conversly if the topic hasn't recieved such coverage it isn't, and should be deleted. Hence my argument. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
"Secondary sources also exist, as shown by the nomination itself and Papermoney." Again, one secondary source exists, which is included in the articlen the nomination, and Papermoneyisjustpaper's statement. No one has shown any evidence that there are secondary sourceS. Fram (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You yourself have shown there were secondary sources, in your nomination. The article passes WP:DEL, section WP:DEL#Reasons for deletion, using reliable sources, as defined in section Primary, secondary and tertiary sources "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Primary sources are reliable. Link to Knowledge (XXG):No original research provided.
Secondary sources are also available on this subject, as Fram's own nomination shows. New ones: New York Times, Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas, Justia Dockets and Filings, Associated Press, 2005, to go with the Observer one: Yemeni Observer. Anarchangel (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
To me these appear to be only passing mentions, which does not constitute "significant independent coverage". As such it still does not meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The NYT is one of a list of reprints of governemnt documents on all Guantanamo detainees, not a newspaper article. The AP is a list of namese, not "significant coverage" buy any standard. Justia is a reprint of court documents. The Center for the Study of HRA is a reprint of two lines from court documents (unclassified attorney notes), reprinted from a CCR document. The CCR is the organisation that defends the Guantanamo detainees, so again not an independent source. As for your statement on primary sources; you equate "primary sources can be reliable" (which our policy says, and which no one denies) with "primary sources are reliable" which is what you say, but is a completely different thing. Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY to find what is wrong with this and many other similar articles. Fram (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: while I can see that a lot of work has gone into this, it doesn't appear to me that there is enough coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG. I think that it would be fair enough to make mention of the subject in an overarching parent article, but I think it is excessive to create a biography on an individual in this case. A biography should be balanced and focus on all areas of a subject's life. If the sources don't provide the information to achieve this (to a reasonable level), then in my opinion it indicates that not enough is known for an individual article to be written. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - subject by himself does not meet WP:GNG. Majority of references are from secondary sources relating to the event surrounding the individual. Perhaps the article can be redirected and merged to a related article, but the individual itself appears to fall under WP:BIO1E. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom, AustralianRupert and RightCowLeftCoast. Note: Papermoneyisjustpaper is almost certainly a sock puppet. IQinn (talk) 05:50, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Illegal logging in the Philippines (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 fork. UtherSRG (talk) 09:54, 8 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

HacDC (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 cannot find any significant third-party coverage to establish the notability of this building. The sources in the article are all self-published, and so it fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:N, and WP:V.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/HacDC_In_The_Press and note that HacDC is a hackerspace, not a building. MissionControl 17:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissionControl (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

When I did a Google search, I could not find any significant third-party coverage to establish the notability of this event, so it appears that it is not notable outside of the hacker community. If reliable sources (those outside of the community, and not linked to it) are found and added to the article, then I will withdraw the nomination.

As it stands now, of the three links in the article, one is a mailing list, the other is the Shmoo website, and the one story link only briefly mentions the convention in passing.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. The Google book search turns out a reasonable number of hits providing not entirely trivial (although also not very deep) coverage. Examples: . The Google news search also has several hits, such as this. IMO enough to establish at least a marginal level of notability.  --Lambiam 23:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Focusing on news articles regarding the conference itself will be no good, just as there are few articles on conferences like DEFCON and BlackHat. The articles are going to be based around content presented at such gatherings. If news articles are generated from the presentations given at Shmoocon then that lends to its credibility. For example: , , , , and . It is an established conference with years in running. Had this been its first year in operation, I would agree to remove the page, but after over five years of sold-out conferences its notability is shown. Rurik (talk) 14:47, 14 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. A copy of the page history is available at User:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox if needed for attribution of the merge - see WP:MAD. T. Canens (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

2006 rugby union handbag controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hardly ranks highly in terms of sporting scandals. Have already merged the relevant information into Tana Umaga and Chris Masoe after no responses to a merge suggestion. Was going to redirect, but think it is unlikely to be used as a search term. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Keep. The incident had significant press coverage at the time. The various spin-offs from the incident are mentioned in the article, and do not really fit into Knowledge (XXG) biographies of the players.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment I thought this would be a no brainer and did not put in enough information about why I think it should be deleted. My bad. Basically I am questioning the enduring notability of the event. Tana Umaga is more likely to be remembered for his tackle on Brian O'Driscol than this incident, which the article even states was blown out of proportion. The Aussies making fun of the All Blacks in a video clip and a third place on a sports broadcasters nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment don't make it particularly notable to my mind. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You clearly agree that it was notable at the time. We disagree about its enduring notability. I cannot see any harm in keeping this article; and there is clear benefit in keeping it. The page view statistics over the last year are respectable.
  • 2011 Jan - 376
  • 2010 Dec - 355
  • 2010 Nov - 835
  • 2010 Oct - 687
  • 2010 Sep - 705
  • 2010 Aug - 796
  • 2010 Jul - 437
  • 2010 Jun - 351
  • 2010 May - 470
  • 2010 Apr - 449
  • 2010 Mar - 796
  • 2010 Feb - 417
  • 2010 Jan - 441
--Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Opinion of nominator, "Hardly ranks highly in terms of sporting scandals."
Opinion of WP:RS based in London, "one of the most celebrated, at least in Australia, moments in New Zealand rugby history."
Note: it is not considered a scandal, but an "incident".
Opinion of nominator, "I am questioning the ] of the event.  Tana Umaga is more likely to be remembered for his tackle on Brian O'Driscol"
The opinion of a book, which is not a newspaper, and is opinion published more than a year after the incident documents an "infamous" handbag auction, and a "notorious handbag".
Note: It seems that the auction is as famous as the incident.  New Zealand only lists a population of 4 million, yet this one New Zealand auction site received 1 million pageviews in a two-day auction.  So this is as much an IT story and a cultural phenomenon as a sports story.  IMO, putting an IT story and a cultural phenomenon under Tana Umaga is pointless just to remove an article title from Knowledge (XXG).
Nominator states, "...this incident, which the article even states was blown out of proportion...".  I have not yet found a reliable source to verify the press distortion aspect.  The source for this idea seems to be a credible blog.  Another unreliable source claims that all of the TV News reports led off with the story of the handbag auction and had video of the incident.  At the same time, the 1 million pageviews on the auction site is indirect evidence of a strong press involvement.  More research is needed to get the whole story, meanwhile, the basic idea that media distortion makes the incident less notable is to me counter-intuitive.  I think it is just the opposite, an example of clearly-proven media distortion would make this incident textbook material for university classes in journalism.  Has anyone here seen the CCTV footage?
An undeveloped aspect of this story is a connection to the Queen of England, who may have talked about this incident with Umaga.  A potentially verifiable part of the story is that there is a cartoon in a Wellington newspaper with both the queen and handbags.
Nominator states, "the Aussies making fun of the All Blacks in a video clip and a third place on a sports broadcasters nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment don't make it particularly notable to my mind." Being in the US, I know that Keith Olbermann is not a "sports broadcaster", he has name-recognition status (meaning he is famous) in the US for political opinion.  Personal opinions of Wikipedians are just that, MSNBC is generally a WP:RS, and recognition by Keith Olbermann is substantial recognition.
I placed this article on the rescue list because this nomination is a perfect candidate for the challenge there to take an AfD to "featured article" status in six months. Since no one there has shown interest, I'm proceeding to post here.
I do have a problem with the name of this article, the reliable references that I have seen are calling this an "incident", it is the "credible blog" I mentioned earlier that calls it a "controversy".
As for the theory that this is a "minor news story", I think that "media circus" is a better short description.
As for the positions that this fails "What Knowledge (XXG) is not" (WP:NOTNEWS), the publication of the book, which is not a news source, and is an enduring media, calling the auction "infamous" and the handbag "notorious", displaces those arguments; in addition, this was never just one news event.
In summary, this is not just a sports story, it is a story of enduring human interest.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tana Umaga. The delete opinions above are correct in saying WP:NOTNEWS, but since some of the content was already merged into other articles it should not be deleted outright since we need to retain attribution for the merged content. Reyk YO! 00:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The Tana Umaga article already mentioned the incident so I didn't add that much (a ref and some slight elaboration). I added a section to Chris Masoe however as there was no mention of the incident. It may also be worth a sentence or two at Haka (sports), (Trade Me already has it). AIRcorn (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I added two more books to the "Policy issues" section.  Each of these books, one from September 2007, and one from March 2009, is looking at the cultural insensitivity of the Handbag Haka.  Reyk, thank you for your opinion about other people's delete opinions, but how does this improve the encyclopedia?  We don't know your opinion, nor do we know your opinion about the relationship between non-news sources (books) and what Knowledge (XXG) is not (WP:NOTNEWS).  Is a book written three years after these events news?  How do you explain multiple reliable sources calling various of these events "famous" or "infamous"?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the underarm incident is a great example of a minor incident being blown out of proportion, but having enduring notability. Rules were changed, leaders made public statements about it, whole sections in books were devoted to the incident and articles are still written about it 30 years later. Despite Unscintillatings excellent work on this article the only mentions beyond 2006 are little more than a footnote in a book about Trade Me and a sentence in another book (which talks about a second advertisement at the same time). I can't access the third book so can not comment on its contents (but its encyclopaedic value looks questionable). AIRcorn (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a blockquote of Amazon's description of the book, Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep: PC Tales from the Unhinged Kingdom:

Product Description
Presenting wonderful examples of the political correctness gone absurd, this collection reflects on cases of authority who take themselves too seriously. From the army to city councils, this title features true and amusing blunders in political correctness.

Regarding the 'handbag haka', I found internet chatter from 2010, 25 messages long, trading insults about the 'handbag haka' (I searched for .  Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment  I found a 2010 book that is partially named after the incident and added it to the article tonight, Handbags and hovercrafts.  I've also found two political cartoons stored at the NZ National Library, one coupling the queen and the incident, and one coupling the queen and the auction, and added them to the article. Here are the shortcuts to the full-size cartoons, here and here.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Unscintillating (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS What next, an article about the time the Wallabies ignored the Haka? The underarm bowling incident had huge repercussions including a change in the laws of the game. The 20th anniversary of the underarm earlier this month saw feature articles in all Australian dailies. By contrast, "Handbag-gate" has already been forgotten on this side of the ditch. IMO, the whole thing was a beat up to begin with. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Here are three recent posts to show that the 2006 incident is part of the current rugby culture.
  1. "or when Tana Umaga used a handbag as a weapon", 10-February-2011
  2. Rugby - Designated spot for Aussies and Kiwis to handbag each other Jan 12, 2011.
  3. "I guess thats why Handbag and Cry Baby were still All Blacks after their night out !!!! If they were Wallabies the would be band." 18th December 2010 (Masoe reportedly cried or at least was upset after being swatted with the handbag.)
In addition, someone that knows the rugby culture might look at this and interpret. This Google search returns five results. It appears that the word "handbag" has taken on a new meaning in describing a rugby game: site:http://www.rugby.com.au handbag  Unscintillating (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment  (1) WP:NOTNEWS only applies to single events.  (2) Books trump WP:NOTNEWS because they are not news.  The policy that applies is WP:Notability (events), "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else."

What we have here is six events, where events (2) through (6) were triggered by the first:

  1. May 28 the incident at the Jolly Poacher. (current iconic image in 2011 between NZ and AU)
  2. May 28 to Jun 5 possible media distortion (not verified) (blog article written in October 2010)
  3. Jun 2-3 the handbag auction (major cultural event, auction reported in two books about the auction house, featured in title of the second book written in 2010)
  4. Jun 5 the Queens' Birthday Honour to Umaga with handbag images (only two cartoons verified)
  5. Jun 5 the attempted auction of the CCTV footage, privacy issues (last known reference in Sep 2006)
  6. Jul 6 the 'handbag haka' advert, cultural sensitivity issues (survives in two books as an example of a policy issue)

Each of these six has claim to enduring notability.  But (1), (3), and (6) have stood the test of time.  Given that the handbag auction received prominent placement in the 2010 book, and the apparent impact on NZ society as it transpired, it is probably the most notable.  Note that only the first of these six events is a sports event.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep Having read through the article I'd say have to say keep. It isn't just one news event. Many other things happened as a result, getting news coverage themselves. Part of the article reads: "Time Newspapers Ltd. based in London has stated that this incident was "one of the most celebrated, at least in Australia, moments in New Zealand rugby history." So a major newspaper says its notable. The number of page hits is never a reason to delete something. Many pages for kings and presidents in countries few English speaking people know exist, get low views, as do many other things. Dream Focus 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. User Unscintillating has demonstrated unwittingly this event had no lasting notability. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep notable fan idiocy. I really wanted to say delete on this one, but we have to go by the sources, especially the Time article cited by Dream Focus., DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, standard NOTNEWS case. All relevant information has already been merged into the articles about the players. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, not news, and covered in player articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:00, 16 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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Southern Mountain Range (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 completely made up term to describe a collection of unrelated mountain ranges in southern Albania (Gramos, Nemercke, etc...). Term has never been used by anyone in English except article creator, and is not in use in any of the literature. Athenean (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep: It is a very well defined geographical term used in Albania to study that part of Albania. Every pupil in Albania from fourth grade up knows this term. And it is properly sourced. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: This is an English-language encyclopedia, not a 4th grade Albanian textbook. The term is never used in reliable, English-language sources. And this isn't proper sourcing. Athenean (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment reply: I said from fourth grade up, meaning up to the university level textbooks and also doctorate and post-doc books. The geographical definitions in the study of the physical geography of Albania have already been translated in German Sudliche Bergland, and I am sure that the English sources will pick it up too in google. For now this is the study of the Geography of Albania as done in Albania, and I believe that the world might be interested in knowing how the geographical regions of modern day Albania are divided and studied. You have brought this article to AfD, saying that the term is not in use in any of the literature, and I am proving you wrong: the Albanian geographical literature has vastly used the division of the geography of Albania in four main parts, this one being the southern side of it. Btw This is a map of the geographical region--Brunswick Dude (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree and moved to something similar: Southern Albanian Highlands, as user:ZjarriRrethues kindly found this source in English. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let's cut to the chase here and get to the real reason why this was nominated for deletion, which is pretty obviously, from looking at her or his contributions, that the nominator is one of a group of extremist Greek nationalists who try to eradicate any content that we have about southern Albania because of a belief that that region should belong to Greece, even when the content is about geographical features that existed way before Greeks or Albanians did. The same problems are evident in articles relating to the country that nearly everyone in the world calls Macedonia, Northern Cyprus and many other such targets of hatred. Why do we pussyfoot around such issues rather than dealing with such disruption by POV-pushers? Wasn't there an arbcom case that was supposed to stop this happening with articles about the Balkan region? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Make another personal attack like that, and it's you who will find yourself subject to an arbcom remedy. Athenean (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
oooohhhh i'm sure phil is pissing his pants now. whatever. the nom stands or falls on its merits.--Milowent • 03:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've seen people get sanctioned for less. And you're right, the nom should be judged on its own merits, so bridger's shrill ad-hominems (and uninformed too - I've never edited Northern Cyprus) are all the more uncalled for and unacceptable. Athenean (talk) 07:49, 13 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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Company of EXTREMELY questionable notability, references are either "not found" pages, self references, or do not mention the article subject in any way, shape or form. WuhWuzDat 06:50, 8 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. J04n(talk page) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

St. Francis Xavier's Church (Bronx, New York) (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 requirements as a company or organization Yaksar (let's chat) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reliable references alone are not enough if they do not demonstrate why the subject has notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Except that is the very definition of Knowledge (XXG) notability, what you are thinking of is exceptionability, not notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Nope, I'm thinking of notability. I could find you tons of notable sources on a car crash that happened near me last week, or on the construction going on for the bridge in my town. That wouldn't make these notable, however; there are other requirements. The fact that the articles on this church only concern it's establishment, it's dedication (which I'd remind you is not a spectacular or unique event for a Catholic church, in fact I think it may always happen) and an obituary point to a lack of notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Now you are deliberatly confusing WP:Oneevent with WP:Notability. A car crash is notable but excluded as a single event. The notability of the church runs from 1928 to 1950 and beyond based on the coverage. Coverage of a standard car accident doesn't extend beyond the single reporting in the paper. As the guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone articl" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I chose car crash because it was something non-notable that could get coverage. The same would apply if I was talking about, say, a local park or deli. If we go based on organizations of companies that have ever had news written about their construction or dedication, every single person would feel justified in adding their local church, local group, or whatever.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If your deli got coverage in The New York Times from 1928 to 1950 it should have an article like Zabars. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Not if the only coverage was "so and so is planning on opening a deli" and "Congressman Whatever said they made his favorite sandwich, and held a meeting outside." Plenty of things get coverage that don't deserve articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Now you are pretending to not know the difference between significant coverage and the word appearing in an article. Do you always play this silly game? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm just saying that, in my book, "A church is being opened," and "The church has been blessed" don't make it notable. But this part of the discussion clearly isn't going anywhere.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." There's a reason we have all these notability guidelines for songs, companies, athletes, etc.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Once again you have it backwards. The GNG trumps all other guidelines. The guidelines for athletes and porn stars and songs, loosen the eligibility requirements, not tighten them for those categories. They allow entry of people and objects neglected by mainstream reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The article quality with references has been improved. The notable first pastor who went on to become bishop in SLC and Rochester not only founded the parish but also founded the school. Architecturally, the parish church is significant in itself (despite the fact that the architect's name is missing), but it was also designed in harmony with the parish school and convent. The parish school has been added to the article.---James R (talk)
You've added a lot of good info, none of which unfortunately establishes notability. You've expanded on the bios of the heads of the church, and while that's useful, the important things they seem to have done outside of the church do not make the church itself notable. The description of the buildings is well written, but is only sourced from some blog. There are countless buildings in NYC, but this one doesn't demonstrate any particular architectural significance. The architect is not known, it is not notable for its architectural features, and we'd need a better source for it anyway. As for the school, the only sources seem to be it's official site and a blog. While it's relevant to the article, it doesn't add any sense of notability either.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As said by Orlady above: "Not notable; the strongest claim to notability that I can find is that a priest of this parish later became a bishop. The existence of multiple news articles in the New York Times does not indicate notability, since this is a local New York City church and the articles are about commonplace events in the life of any local church (i.e., new parish established, local parish priest gets promoted and leaves, local church dedicates new building, and local priest dies)."--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You are still arguing the Guinness World Record definition of exceptionability and not the Knowledge (XXG) definition of notability. As the guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" It doesn't mention anything about being the tallest, or oldest or first or last. If the media deem it notable to write about, it is notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:00, 11 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 merge all to List of Oz characters. T. Canens (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

WP:GNG. We're not Oz Wikia, we don't need articles on every Oz character who was in one chapter of one book, especially if they're stubs and are only referenced by Oz compendia

I am also nominating the following other articles:

Ugu the shoemaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unc Nunkie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wise Donkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belfaygor of Bourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Phonograph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mrs. Yoop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bell-snickle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barrel Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Johnny Dooit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sir Hokus of Pokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gayelette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chiss (Oz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lonesome Duck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frogman (Oz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Queen Coo-ee-oh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nimmie Amee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ku-Klip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ervic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evoldo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Woozy (Oz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gayelette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Princess Langwidere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kalidah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Gump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note that I am only nominating ones that I feel to be very definitely non-notable; you may want to consider others as well Purplebackpack89 05:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • If you think Sir Hokus of Pokes, one of Ruth Plumly Thompson's most significant contributions to Oz, is non-notable, I'm not sure you're qualified to determine if any of the others are, either. Unc Nunkie is a major character in two books, one of which has been made into a film twice, and Cayke is a major character in one book, and a much more significant, if ordinary character than the Frogman, who also appears significantly only in that same book. Ugu the Shoemaker is a major villain for one book, as are Bell-snickle and Mrs. Yoop, and Belfaygor is a major hero for for one book. Many of these characters had more written about them by Baum than any wicked witch (except Mombi). The Barrel Bird is significant for cross-series implications, having debuted in a non-Oz book, and ditto for the Wise Donkey.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm definitely inclined to agree with Scottandrewhutchins on this. Most of these characters have had major roles throughout the series. It seems like this list was chosen at random with no regard to the content or information in the articles. I nominate they stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarperofOz (talk • contribs) 06:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm just following GNG, which states that if a subject isn't talked about in reliable third-party publication (and Oz fan compendia aren't that), it should be deleted. Being a character in a book or two doesn't automatically qualify you for inclusion in this Knowledge (XXG), you have to appear in reliable publications. Also, compare with minor characters in Harry Potter (Bellatrix Lestrange) and The Simpsons (Rainier Wolfcastle)...often, minor characters like these are merged into articles devoted to a list of characters (yes, I know that's an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). There might also be possible COPYVIO problems. And the two wicked witches are notable due to their presence in the book and musical Wicked, plus West's portrayal in the movie. You seem to also be arguing that the Thompson books and later Baum books should be placed on an equal footing with the earlier Baum books; which doesn't quite jab with GNG as the earlier Baum books are much more well-known, well-read, and well-written about. Saying that no regard to content was paid is untrue; I looked at the amount of third-party information in the article, and if it's insufficient...BAM! AFD! If you want me to add Frogman to the list, that can be arranged. Purplebackpack89 07:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of POV pushing? As several editors have stated, those are not reliable enough sources (see Jfgslo, above). Any of the articles that are likely to have the development and reception sections necessary for a proper character article have been left out of the purview of this discussion. Most of these characters in this are minor characters; similar characters in other universes have been merged into "List of ... characters in the ..." Purplebackpack89 01:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Your selection does seem to be based upon objective evidence and so is, instead, a matter of personal opinion. When I test your claims of non-notability against the sources available, I find that they are false. And your proposed remedy does not address the supposed problem. How would merger into a list make something that is not notable more notable? It seems that you do want this material covered rather than deleted and have a preferred format or style. This is not what AFD is for. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Really? This selection is not made from personal opinion, but is a collection of articles that violate policy by not demonstrating notability and being mere plot summaries, something that we are defined as not being. The last source given at least, Oz and Beyond, appears reliable by nature of its University publisher, but, since we can't see inside of them, how do you determine that they demonstrate the notability of the characters? How do we know that they are not just passing mentions, and just as importantly, do we know that these sources give ANY information other than what the character does in the novels? Because if a character article is only summary of role in plot, no matter how many sources, it still violates site policy by running afoul of WP:NOTPLOT. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, putting them in a list wouldn't make them more notable. The list is notable. The characters, as simple plot summaries here, are better presented with other minor characters. Why do so many users have a hard time graspoing the benefits of a merger? Not every topic must be explained on its own page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 13:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
So you mean merge? Purplebackpack89 05:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete- all these articles are poorly sourced plot summary. There is no attempt to describe the real-world significance and I can't find any either, Colonel Warden's usual tactic of pointing at books he hasn't read notwithstanding. What little sourced material exists could be merged, if not for the fact that all that stuff is already in the obvious merge targets so there's nothing to do; those articles are pretty well full of plot summary already and would not benefit from more. Reyk YO! 09:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to a list article along the lines of List of Oz characters or List of characters in Oz or List of recurring minor characters in Oz. Each character is so minor that creating a full article on them would be impossible. Information about these minor characters is useful and encyclopedic, but spreading that information over 30 permastub articles is not useful. SnottyWong  14:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Oz characters. No prejudice against recreation if enough reliable sources are added. Edward321 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep as a list and spam RFC until they are fixed. There is no need to consider whether notability is inherited, or whether some of them are more major characters; they have all been covered extensively as per Col. Warden. Redirecting them to a list? Hmm. And the content of that list is to be a bunch of subjects with no articles? You are being played. Stubs are underrated, and the only practical solution for this subject matter. Note that WP:PERMASTUB is itself a stub sized essay with two WP:RECENTISM Rule Clones as rationales and a giant template. Delete that, not this. Anarchangel (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    This is very much a backwards, more labour intensive, and annoying way of doing things. Basically poke someone else until they come make these worthy of inclusion? No, you merge the exact content of these articles into a single article where each character has their own heading. As each character is improved, and when they become noteworthy of a new article, you fork them out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 19:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
But surely poking other editors is what deletors do, in opposition to the intention of RFC, by making AfDs for no other reason than improvement being needed on articles. I am merely proposing doing it the way WP intended. Your proposal is not practical; content in list articles is quite rightly restricted to sub-stub length, as befits summary articles. WP content that actually gets spun off into new articles is usually modern events. For example, Falklands_War#Sinking_of_ARA_General_Belgrano. This is as much information as will ever be available, should they be merged. Anarchangel (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep the major ones from Baum's books, & combine the others, retaining all content. The key thing is to retain the content, not where to put it. What has to be avoided is putting this into a mere list. List of Oz characters is an clear example of what not to do: it provides the reader with no information at all, except that this is a character in one or more of the Oz books, without any knowledge of which or the relative importance. Such coverage is below that of a proper encyclopedia. Even if we do have a one line list of this sort, it needs to show the work (and in this case also identify the author), and say ,something like " the protagonist ", or " a minor figure "
The rationale for keeping the major one is that this is a series that is not only notable, but is internationally famous; and among the famous ones, it would be among the most famous. For such a series we need comprehensive articles on the main characters, and as least a paragraph (either as a list or separate article) about every minor character who has a role in the plot, and a list of every named character, giving in one line the role and the books. (Dissension about whether a character is major or minor is easily compromise d by using either a longer section in a combined article, or a shorter separate one. I limit this to Baum's books: the most famous works of a famous author. I consider that the continuations in the canon should get one level lower treatment: Short articles or long sections on the main characters, and a paragraph in a list fro the minor ones, but still a list of all the characters. In most series, as here, not just some of the major but some of the minor characters repeat in different books, which makes it much harder to discuss them as sections in the book article. This fulfills NOT INDISCRIMINATE. A truly indiscriminate work, like an Oz Wiki, would have articles as comprehensive as possible for every single one of the characters--we should not do that, even for the most famous works.
I am only slightly familiar with some of the series--I did not even know about the existence of all the continuations until I started working on this AfD . I am probably in this field the type of ignorant but interested reader a general encyclopedia is aimed at, and I know if I intend to read the books or talk about them with someone who has, a mere listing is not helpful.
An AfD to merge all the medium and low important characters together for multiple books, is not a good idea. The provision for multiple listing is that they must be of the same degree of importance, and it seems from reading the articles that this is not the case . I suggest that an try at merging the minor characters only, going as closely related group at a time, might work better. I wouldn't attempt to do this with first reading the book(s) involved--I don't like to speculate. AndI have a question: how many of the people !voting to delete or make a minimal list have actually read all the articles they are proposing to dismiss, or are they !voting to delete articles about whose contents they are ignorant? (btw, I think the nominator has made it clear he has read all the articles, just as he should.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
(edit conflict)Re:DGG...I agree with you that the major characters should be kept. There are articles on over forty Oz characters, and of these probably only 10 or 15 have enough content and reception to stand on their own (Dorothy, Ozma, the Tin Man, etc.). Though the articles nominated are of varying length and importance, most have in common that they are not a titular or major character in any one book. Most characters that have had a titular role, or a major role in multiple books have been left out of this discussion. There may be some not mentioned in this AFD that may need to be merged as well (for example, the Shaggy Man, Polychrome, and Belinda).
Re:Anac...permastubs are not useful in this Knowledge (XXG), and permastub is a perfectly acceptable policy, especially for articles of questionable notability. I also fail to see that Colonel added a citation to any article. I agree that, as with second-tier Simpsons characters, if somebody's going to go to the effort to add dev/reception sections and lots of references, the articles can be saved. But if they're not, they gotta be merged or deleted. Purplebackpack89 19:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge all as a compromise. Most of these probably aren't notable. But it will be possible to expand and split out the major characters if/when the sourcing improves. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - The policy Knowledge (XXG):No original research - plot permits a Wikipedian editor to describe a fictional character's plot role by citing passages from the fictional material. Thus, unlike non-fiction material, the fictional material itself is a source material that passes WP:OR and contributes to worthy of notice analysis for WP:GNG. WP:PLOT requires that more than just the primary source be available as material for the article. In each of the listed articles, material from the Oz compendia is available to provide secondary source material to meet WP:NOT. In regards to WP:GNG, the collective of (i) the fictional material itself (due to the policy Knowledge (XXG):No original research - plot) plus (ii) the likelihood of other available reliable source material need only be more than a trivial mention to meet WP:N. Here, many of the articles have yet to include material from the Oz compendia and, unlike what is asserted in the nomination, others cite secondary source material that is not the Oz compendia. In addition, many of the listed articles have yet to fully make use of the fictional material series itself as a source material or the secondary sources cited above by Colonel Warden. Further, the likelihood of additional source material for each of the listed articles is very strong in view of the fact that the series "is not only notable, but is internationally famous; and among the famous ones, it would be among the most famous" per DGG above. Even if it now is not in the articles, this presently existing source material clearly is sufficient to meet WP:N and will provide plenty of material for these articles to grow over time. Not only are the stand-alone article sufficient to meet WP:GNG with a prospect for expansion, they are appropriate for the reasons listed above. The delete/merge position has multiple flaws. First, it judges notability based on the state of the article itself rather than a likelihood of source material available for the article. In addition, there is no requirement that each fictional character be the main topic of the Baum series. Further, WP:OR has long provided a fictional material exception to the source material that may be used in determining GNG for topics on fiction. The secondary source Oz compendia, those listed above by Colonel Warden, and the DGG famous among the famous observation means that all of the listed articles can be well more than primary source plot-only descriptions of fictional works. (I didn't find any plot-only description articles and no one in this AfD has listed any). The nomination itself is fatally flawed because the listed articles are not similarly situated when it comes to the reasons given for the nomination. This has cause confusion among those trying to give a reason to merge or delete. In regards to merge, each article needs to be individually evaluated to determine whether List of Oz characters or some other target article would be a more appropriate article. No one has presented any reasonable analysis as to why List of Oz characters or some other target article would be a more appropriate article. The merge and delete positions are weak. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
If the merge and delete arguments are weak, the keep argument is weaker. Almost all the articles nominated are plot-only permastubs; none of them pass the stringent requirements for character notability (we're talking minor characters here; some of these are mentioned for only one or two chapters). Having read each of the articles, I can assure you that most of them deal mostly with plot, often in an in-universe manner. I doubt the validity of Colonel's sources a) being reliable third-party and b) having the kind of information on dev/reception needed to save these articles. And as we've said all along, if somebody digs up a lot of sources and expands the articles beyond permastub, they can be kept; otherwise they should be deleted Purplebackpack89 16:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge Almost all plot summary, very little info outside of that if any at all. If, and only if, a greater notability is found they can be made into their own article, but as of now I see no reason they should not be combined.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to the list of characters article. No individual notability so that's the best place for this. Eusebeus (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge all to the list of characters, with generous levels of reduction. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect/whatever. Most of these, like previously stated, are plot-only permastubs. For a character to be notable for an article, there must be some real world content. Somebody shouldn't be able to just read a book, and then write an article about the character. There must be interviews on development, reception of their role, or overall insight from reliable sources. Blake 00:54, 17 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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mage: The Ascension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Technocracy (Mage: The Ascension)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Iteration X
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Traditions (Mage: The Ascension)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Marauders (World of Darkness)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire topic should be moved to a role-playing wiki and removed from here (with the possible exception of a short summary) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:57, 8 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 consensus is to keep this article but the nominator is right. Currently this article is nothing more then a dicdef. If it isn't expanded I suspect we will be back here very soon. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Per WP:NOTDICDEF Yaksar (let's chat) 02:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep The article is a stub and the dicdef policy goes to some trouble to explain the validity of such stubs in our work. The source provided to support the topic is a book of 232 pages which documents the history of the concept in a detailed and scholarly way, being published by a university press. The notability of the topic is thus established. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment From DICDEF: "Knowledge (XXG) articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." (emphasis mine) This article is literally just one sentence that is (an incomplete) definition.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Provision of other information besides the definition is obviously not achieved by deletion. The policy goes on to say ,"The full articles that Knowledge (XXG)'s stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.". This indicates that stubs are allowed to grow. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There's not a single word that couldn't "potentially" possibly have substance on it somewhere out there. When an entry has nothing that wouldn't belong in a dictionary, that's a bad sign.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Obviously with a word like this there will be thousands, if not millions of uses. But a word often being used does not necessarily make this notable, nor does it make this article any more than a piece of a definition.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per DreamFocus. I don't have time to rescue this one, as I have done more than my share this month, but it does have great potential, based on possible reliable sources. Bearian (talk)
  • Keep. I originally prodded this article but it was challenged by the author (Colonel Warden). The article as it is now actually resembles a dictionary article, but I believe that I was wrong because "Sophistication" itself could definitely be expanded upon. It's a piece of culture, if you think about it; it could be encyclopedic. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong  02:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is a clear WP:DICDEF. The single sentence lead is the dictionary definition of the word, and the 2-sentence "history" section is a partial etymology of the word. These are all elements of a dictionary definition. It has been claimed that this article is only a stub and is capable of being expanded beyond a dictionary definition, but this has not been shown to be true and I have my doubts that it is possible. SnottyWong  02:39, 16 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.   -- Lear's Fool 06:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fremantle Chocolate Factory (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:CORP. the awards lack national recognition. still lacks third party coverage. . LibStar (talk) 02:52, 8 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. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Doron Ofir (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 indication this person meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • nymag.com: fake reference, subject is not mentioned at all.
  • IMBB: practiclly blank.
  • perezhilton.com: fleeting mention in an article that is not about the subject. Does not assert notability.
  • newsweek.com: Does not assert notability.Very fleeting mention in a very long and rambling blog-style article that is not about the subject - Ofir is not one of New York's new icons.
  • NY Post: fleeting mention in an article that is not about the subject. Does not assert notability.
  • blackbookmag.com: website, possibly not WP:RS, article about the subject. This ref alone does not assert notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 04:20, February 8, 2011
  • There is a difference between articles that are not about the subject, and articles where the subject just has a parethetical reference or at best, an extremely fleeting mention. Worse is serving up sources that don't mention the subject at all. This is a collection of simply any or all web sites that have the subject's name in them. A list of links to newspaper home pages and to Knowledge (XXG) articles about magazines appears to have little do do with what is being discussed here. --Kudpung 13:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The significant coverage you disparage in Blackbook Magazine is quite telliing. And that he IS mentioned and quoted (not trivially, even if brief or fleeting) in literally dozens of reliable sources that have chosen to quote him, is equally so... specially as he is a notable casting director and not some PR flack whose job it is to deal with the press. Not wishing to disparage sources as unreliable without foundation, I instead offered wikinks to the articles about those publications for editors to themselves check, and not links to RS homepages as you allude, but rather links to the articles in which this individual is either writen about or quoted or spoken of in context. So let's not misrepresent sources or guideline or others's comments as if folks might not check for themselves. Thank you. Schmidt, 20:02, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Heartbeat (Heidi Montag song) (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 was contested by IP. Still not a notable song. Fixer23 (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing inherently notable about this song. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a track on that album and I see no mention of the song even in the Heidi Montag article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Not sure why I thought that. Never mind. postdlf (talk) 17:34, 13 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Ryan has shot down the rumor that the album will be released exclusively by Tesco at all and that there is no deal to release his album at the moment. Therefore, currently there is only one ref that confirmed an inital October 2010 release date. No tracklisting or production information just some unsourced information about a fan petition. In any case, an article can be created when there is actually real information available. There are next to no relaible sources on this album online. Fixer23 (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Delete, per nomination, this is too much of a crystal ball. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 00:31, 2 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 DHT (band). Stifle (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edmée Daenen (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 notable solo activity outside of their group. Fixer23 (talk) 03:21, 2 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sanctum (FPS-TD) (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. Online game. No evidence of notability. The only references are blogs, one of which advertizes itself as being a reference for PC online gaming since, get this, 1873. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 01:52, 8 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. Continued discussion will not change the fact that adequate sources to meet WP:GNG have not been found. lifebaka++ 16:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Prolific yet otherwise unremarkable author. Fails WP:GNG. A Google news search turned up a few mentions as owner of restored hall in Suffolk, but certainly no mention of their "grand unified theory" of history. Almost all sources used are the author's own works. From the history of the article, and related articles on author's poems, a number of "single purpose accounts" seem to be associated with this BLP. In particular User:Sanrac1959 has self-identified as Hagger's personal assistant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment It is also worth pointing out that among Hagger's books are self-published works and works published by O Books, who seem to be only a step above a vanity publisher. O Books explicitly notes that some books are "subsidized by the author" including particular mention of "poetry". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep DC’s opening statement is the same as a month ago and just as misleading, and the same refutations apply. Hagger’s “grand unified theory” of world history and religion is the subtitle of his book The Fire and the Stones, as the article makes clear. The 51 sources are not “almost all the author’s own works”, they are all third-party. At least two of the spas were vandals. The reason I had to self-identify to WP was to get the vandal tag unjustifiably applied to me lifted. For the last month DC seems to have been on a one-man mission to delete Hagger. Is this how WP administrators normally conduct themselves? I was led to believe that WP was a fair-minded forum. In his first comment DC says that the references were not seen by Spartaz before closure, but this is not true, they were. They were posted at 11.44 on 13 January and the new article uploaded at the same time, and Spartaz closed at 18.38, having seen them, as he can confirm. (He wrote “Yes, that looks good enough for me”, i.e. he had seen the new references.) DC’s next comment untruly describes some of Hagger’s works as “self-published” and denigrates O Books, one of Hagger’s publishers since 2004, which has hundreds of authors and sells books worldwide, particularly in the US. O Books have been notified of DC’s comment and I understand will be making a statement, which should be posted on this page. Bduke is surely right that the issue is not a continuous unfounded personal attack on Hagger but whether the sources are decent. Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I do not intend to get into a debate here with the subject of this article (or someone claiming to be their proxy), but for the record:
      - I am not an administrator;
      - The additional sources mentioned by Sanrac1959 were not added to the article itself until 14 January, after the closing admin reversed their close of the original AfD, but that is not relevant to this discussion or the current state of the article;
      - With regard to single purpose accounts aside from Sanrac1959, there is a history of single-purpose accounts associated with Hagger's BLP and related articles on his poems (i.e, User:GardinerNeDay, User:George199329, and, from the first AfD User:Pink dog with cigar);
      - Some of Hagger's books are self-published, and editors can follow this link to confirm what I said above about O Books;
    • Sanrac1959 is right about the sources no longer being so heavily self-sourced and I have struck that bit of cut-and-paste from the first AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, a lifelong, wealthy self-promoter has managed to get himself a fair amount of attention. But this article greatly overstates his accomplishments, and misrepresents minor publishers as major ones and fringe academic theories as mainstream. His assistant just above acknowledges that he is organizing a concerted effort to keep this promotion on Knowledge (XXG). We are being astroturfed, folks. Chick Bowen 16:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Steady Keep - Per references which shows this persons clear notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • KeepThere are a few things which are unprofessional about this article. Despite pruning, there is still evidence of peacock flattery, and more thoroughness is needed with the references. However, I do not think it is worthy of deletion. The size of his acomplishments and fame seem to be in debate, but weather he is mainstream or niche it does not matter. If there are people buying and reading his books (which I assume there must be if an independent publisher is involved) then they should be able to look him up on wikipedia to find out more about him. More attention should be on correcting the article rather than deleting it. I would suggest the following alterations:
    • - "...the only Angry hero to turn away from the outer world and undergo an inner transformation." The use of the word 'only' makes this sound like a ridiculous assumption backed up by no research. There are many figures from mythology and history who can be described in the same way.
      - "Hagger wrote a short story in 1966, and during the next 40 years wrote a thousand more." The use of the word 'thousand' communicates an over exaggeration. A wikipedia fact needs to be far more precise, please count the stories properly instead of using an estimated figure in an attempt to sound impressive.
      - "It remains to be seen whether Universalism has the potential to be the most important movement in thought and art since Existentialism, as has been claimed." This is undeniably cringey. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to make bold prophetic statements about what a person might achieve, it is an encyclopedia of facts. Hector chorda (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)— Hector chorda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • On the above three points: “Angry hero” means “Angry Young Man hero” (i.e. of the 1950s movement), will correct the article to make clear. There are 1,001 stories in the Collected Stories, so one in 1966 plus a thousand more is mathematically accurate and not an exaggeration. Will make this clear in the article. Will remove the final sentence from the article. Thanks for such a thoughtful response. Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Statement by O Books

“At O Books we do not claim to be a major publisher. The imprint only started in 2004. But the idea that we are only a step above a vanity publisher is absurd, and potentially damaging to us. Go to ‘About us’ on the website for comments from the trade, and reputable sources like The Bookseller, the main trade magazine in the UK.

We have published some poetry titles that we do not see as commercial, where the author or a university or an organization might make a contribution to the production costs. Three years ago (when that section of the website was written) that might have amounted to 1% or so of our list. Now it amounts to a small fraction of that, in terms of numbers of titles and income. Probably far less than most independent publishers, particularly in the area of academic publishing and poetry. We just happen to be open about it.

It’s not my place to comment on the tone of the entry, but I can assure the administrators that we publish Nicholas Hagger on his merit and his sales. He has also been published by other independent publishers like Watkins. His titles get excellent endorsements and reviews, from serious people, prominent in the fields of art and philosophy. A sample review from one of the latest works of his we’ve published, The New Philosophy of Universalism:

In this magisterial work Nicholas Hagger unites the rational and intuitive strands of Western philosophy in the light of the latest findings from physics, cosmology, biology, ecology and psychology. His in-depth exposition of these sciences and their philosophical implications is breathtaking in scope and detail and fully justifies his declaration of a Metaphysical Revolution, which also has profound consequences for our understanding of world affairs. This is one of the most important philosophical books to appear since Whitehead’s ‘Process and Reality’ eighty years ago and deserves the widest possible readership. A stupendous achievement. David Lorimer, Programme Director, Scientific and Medical Network

Of course others will disagree. But I can’t see this factor as reason for deleting the entry (rather than revising it if necessary). The comment that Nicholas Hagger is a ‘wealthy self promoter’ is irrelevant. I have no idea how wealthy he is. But when did having money mean you weren’t able to write? How many other authors would that now exclude? And few authors today are not engaged in promotion of some kind. Nicholas Hagger has no financial stake or connection with, or ownership of, or shares in, O Books (one of several imprints in John Hunt Publishing Ltd, to which the same applies), and O Books has no connection with Oak-Tree Books. He is one of 700 or so authors we currently have on the website, and treated on the same basis as all the others.

John Hunt, Owner, John Hunt Publishing Ltd, O Books and other imprints.

O-Books www.o-books.net, Zero Books www.zero-books.net, Circle Books www.circle-books.net.”

Posted at the request of John Hunt/O Books by Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanrac1959, can you ask John Hunt if David Lorimer's review of Hagger's book was published somewhere, or is it a book jacket blurb? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of sources. The policies of "I don't like it" and "WP is not censored" might be relevant. Borock (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are few, if any reliable, independent secondary sources on this person. The article does indeed contain over 50 footnotes, but there is considerable duplication, a number of them appear to be citations to unpublished correspondence or lectures, others don't identify the articles, authors or page numbers supposedly being cited, others are on their face not reliable sources. A check through Google shows that, other than a handful of articles about the estate where he lives, there is virtually no coverage whatsoever of his career, writings or philosophy which is the bulk of the focus of the article. A prolific author whose work is ignored is simply not notable. Absent that this BLP does not meet the standards of WP:AUTHOR, and none of his works meet the standard of WP:BK. The initial decision to delete this BLP was undoubtedly correct. Fladrif (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment The references fulfil Admin Spartaz’s requirement of two decent sources, with which he concurred. As he found, there are a number of reliable independent secondary sources that are non-trivial in newspaper articles, other books, reviews and radio broadcasts that serve a general audience. WP:ABOUTSELF applies to some of the citations: self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves so long as they do not involve claims about third parties. In such cases the subject is Hagger, not a third party. Some of the newspaper articles about the historic house Hagger once ran (please note yet again, not since 2004) are primarily about the books, for example one of the several two-page spreads ‘Overlord of the Manor’ has pictures of two early volumes of Overlord and three columns about the work. Hagger can sell 10,000 in US hardback and give 25 live radio interviews to the US, and his books are in translation in Russian, Portuguese, Spanish and other languages. The Polish version of The Syndicate was received last week. Hundreds of copies of The Secret Founding of America are in libraries. Hagger is not ignored. The sources include reviews of his writings. His main philosophy work did not come out until 2009 and now people have had a chance to read it requests are coming in for talks. Fladrif gives a sweeping and misleading impression of Hagger on the strength of one trawl and does not mention the million internet results for less than a quarter of his books, more than 106,000 results for The Syndicate and 323,000 results for the Secret Founding of America – totals that hardly suggest being ignored. Spartaz reinstated this article, and the facts suggest that it is not all as cut and dried as Fladrif implies. Sanrac1959 (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Two sources doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, regardless of what Spartaz may say. A close examination of such sources as one can examine for this article- most of them are unverifiable for lack of proper citation form - shows that they do not constitute multiple, significant, non-trivial coverage of the subject by independent secondary sources. The subject talking about himself does not constitute notability. Private correspondence does not constitute notability. Dust jacket blurb does not establish notability. Unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims by his publicist on talk pages at Knowledge (XXG) - even if every word is true - does not constitute notability. Fladrif (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't see evidence of notability as a writer; reports on Otley Hall perhaps document the potential notability of the building, and might justify the subject's mention in any article on it, but there is not enough to justify a standalone BLP. Note that a number of the sources lack titles (e.g. " The Times, 3 October 1970, p12, three columns"). --JN466 06:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete at present I can't see any evidence to indicate that the GNG is met for this author. In short - as far as I can tell, this is the first place where anyone has written about Hagger's life and work, which is not the purpose of wikipedia, since we are a tertiary source which should report on what others have written. A major problem is that the article has been heavily edited by his publicist - while never a reason to delete in itself, it makes it very hard for us to determine the significance of the sources that are referenced, particularly when they do not even provide a title for the reference. If evidence could be provided via email, to demonstrate that articles have been written specifically about this author, rather than his house, then I would be willing to reconsider, but until then, I'm not happy to !vote to keep this article, which is a poorly sourced BLP. SmartSE (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability hasn't been demonstrated, suggest userfy while author finds atleast one reliable source that demonstrates notability without question. Szzuk (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • delete - Articles with a smoke screen of plausible looking references can be difficult cases. There are an awful lot of claims here which are just not substantiated. I don't think they are outright false, just exaggerated; I suppose, for instance, there is some queer tortured sense in which he was "the first Westerner to discover the cultural revolution", but it hardly matters. These claims are not, as far as we can tell, verifiable, and should be rooted out. Once removed, there's not much left. One of his works might have gotten independent coverage and might be notable in itself, but this doesn't make enough to base an author bio on. (And whether that work really is notable is another open AfD.) --WTFITS (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This AfD was supposed to end at 22.06 on Friday February 4 when by my count there were 4 keeps and 2 deletes. The time was extended to allow the nominator, DC, to bring in Fladrif (see DC’s appeal for a third opinion on WP:ABOUTSELF in relation to the Overlord (epic poem) page). After 22.06 (at 23.37) Fladrif posted his delete regarding this article. Later he stated that Admin Spartaz had been wrong and deleted 21 of the 51 sources in this article, including notability ones to do with writings about the books, prompting deletes from new editors who understandably believed that these sources do not exist. In a court of law the evidence is laid before the court, two-fifths is not deleted before the jury can assess it. It is odd that one of the deletes is by a user (JN466) who was the first to vote for DC in the first AfD, and asked SmartSE to “have a look”. Five weeks of one-man continuous personal attack ended on February 4, and the turn of events on February 5 and 6 is disquieting and may have resulted in no consensus.
The issue is whether five-fifths (not three-fifths) of the sources indicate notability and can be improved. I have to say, I do not understand why more attention is not paid to the translations of Hagger’s books into several languages. Perhaps it is a shortcoming in WP guidelines that more is not made of translations. I do want to do further work on the sources, and there is more work to be done on Hagger’s appointment as tutor of Prince Hitachi, which falls within notability. Some of the points that have been made are easily addressed. The Times article on 3 October 1970 was entitled ‘The war against racialism’, p.12. It appeared 29 years before the internet and a way needs to be found to make such pre- or extra-internet material readable online, including the account in Encounter of how Hagger was told by a student at Peking University in March 1966 that all the students had been sent out to the countryside for socialist re-education, the first whiff of the Cultural Revolution which broke in August. (Detail not appropriate in the article.) It is particularly surprising that the deleted sources include a six-page published letter by Ted Hughes about Hagger’s early works.
In my experience, there are WP users who are constructive and genuinely want to evolve a better article. There are also users who seem to want to delete at all costs, regardless of the article. There have been procedural irregularities regarding the Overlord (Epic Poem) site where the nominator, DC, deleted two of the four sources (on Ted Hughes and Ezra Pound) three times between Feb 1 and 3 and when I reinstated them between Feb 2 and 4 so that the jury could consider all the evidence, posted a warning on my talk page saying that I had been engaged in an edit-war and might be blocked. As a result I could not log in for a while. Meanwhile Fladrif conceded that the Pound source was allowable but denied that the Hughes source qualified under WP:ABOUTSELF, still a moot point. Given the circumstances, this procedure from another editor was unfair. Procedure aside, the main issue is the 51 sources (see history page 11:34, 3 February 2011 for deleted sources) and how they can be improved. It is hard to discuss improvement if they are no longer at the end of the article because one person feels they should not be there. Sanrac1959 (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sanrac1959, it likely would not be helpful for me to address your misunderstandings, but let me suggest that your accusations are not helping your case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I only deleted sources that clearly do not qualify as reliable sources, most particularly unpublished or self-published ones which cannot be verified. There are others that I have left alone for now, such as the various newspaper articles which are only identified by date. Title, page and author are the bare minimums required for proper citation. I have been unable to turn up any of them though at least the Times articles should turn up on Lexis/Nexis (must be doing something wrong). Fully a third of the citations remaining are to various articles in a small local newspaper, which according to WorldCat is only archived at the British Library - making it pretty much impossible for anyone to verify. Such papers are generally considered as inadequate to establish notability of a subject.Fladrif (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that. As I noted above, the lack of proper citation makes it impossible to even locate what article is supposedly being referenced, even for those papers like the Times which has archives accessible through Lexis/Nexis. EADT is only archived at the British Library, so there is no way for anyone to confirm, absent going there in person. Fladrif (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I am particularly curious because, searching the Times archive, I found only one article with Hagger's byline (not one of the ones cited), and no hits corresponding to the various Times articles which are cited as having been written by him. I know that the Times only started adding bylines to articles gradually during the 1970's, and so it would not suprise me if he wrote or contributed to some articles for which he was not credited. If that's the case, however, we have no reliable source to verify that he actually did no. We shall see. Fladrif (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Will email these to SmartSE tomorrow. Sanrac1959 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - minor conspiracy theorist, self-promoter, poet and fictionist who fails WP:AUTHOR. The more closely you look at the "substantive" sources he and his press agent and fan(s) keep pointing to, the less substantive they appear. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 8 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, T. Canens (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG itself. If you look at the sources, none of them are actually sources regarding him. It's just a list of pages that have no way to be verified and some paywall sites. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. If we can't check it, it's not verified, and this, this person fails the GNG. The East Anglican Daily Times, which has 6 different articles cited, only has two references to him on their website, one of which is about him selling his house. The Telegraph, which has 5 different articles listed as sources, only has one mention of him on their website, once again about the house. The Times, listed with three articles, has no mentions whatsoever. Delete for failing GNG.--Fbifriday (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, Orange Mike, and Fbifriday. We're also still waiting for the promised e-mails from Sanrac1959 and a comment on the authenticity of David Lomer's apparent book acket-only review. Attempts by Sanrac to discredit Delicious Carbuncle (who BTW is not an admin, but a regular Wikipedian) are unfounded and misplaced. There has to be a limit on the time we can keep this AfD open waiting for Sanrac. Kudpung (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Sanrac has emailed me copies of 56 (!) documents. I'll try to digest what they are: some articles for newspapers he wrote (no use for establishing notability), photographs and notes etc. (again no help as it'd be OR to do anything with these), a lot of articles about a book he wrote which collected the quotes of Arthur Scargill, but nothing about him - only passing mentions in articles about the quotes contained, a fair few of articles about Otley Hall, which as I think we've determined is notable, but again no use for determining his notability. Again, as we had aleady pretty much determined, there are a couple of articles in the EADT, that are specifically about him, all written by the same journalist, but I'm fairly sure that we don't consider every person covered in local press to be notable as there are so many people we could potentially include. All in all, I'm afraid that the references I've seen, are not sufficient to establish notability so I'm not able to change my original !vote of delete. It's a closer call than I thought it might be, but I still think that deletion is the best route. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Did SmartSE have a look, as suggested, at the WP article on Elizabeth Gray Vining, which is almost exclusively about her appointment as tutor by the Japanese Imperial Household for three years, and assess the degree of notability conferred by Hagger’s appointment by the Japanese Imperial Household as tutor to Prince Hitachi for a similar length of time? The book on Scargill was in two parts: sayings and analysis. There are review articles about this book, but I was responding to the inability of many to find articles by Hagger or about Hagger’s pre-internet work on the internet, and establishing that it exists. The images have verified the sources.

WP:BASIC holds that multiple independent sources may be combined, and a combination of the articles about Hagger’s books through interviews at Otley Hall and about his role in the miners’ strike, added to his tutoring of Prince Hitachi, the deleted in-depth studies by Sebastian Barker and Bennett Freeman, and the deleted letter by Ted Hughes, which constitutes a valid secondary source now it has been published in The Letters of Ted Hughes, collectively make a case for a degree of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanrac1959 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Strangely enough I haven't looked at every of the 3.5 million articles we have to see that other stuff exists and quite frankly it is irrelevant. I think you're confusing what notability means - it means that someone has taken note of his activities. This obituary shows the NYT did take note of Vining so we can have an article on her. That you can provide photos of Hagger with a Japanese prince doesn't mean anything at all, unless other people have taken note of it. As we've now established, the only sources which have addressed him are local newspapers which are not sufficient. SmartSE (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sanrac1959 makes reference to Hagger's book about Scargill ("Scargill the Stalinist?: The Communist Role in the 1984 Miners' Strike"). It should be noted that this was a self-published work. Delicious carbuncle 14:07, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut) (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 notability established or asserted. No inline citations; no independent source attesting to notability by wp:GNG. Article was prodded before. Article was included in multi-article AFD Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) which was closed without deletion of any, but with no judgement on individual article's merits. (Note: article was since moved from St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish, Middletown to current "St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut)" name.) doncram 06:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This is an ongoing, new AFD on one article that was specifically discussed in a larger AFD. Editor WlaKom has once removed the new AFD tag, which is not acceptable by Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, and I restored it. --doncram 13:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion: Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability. --WlaKom (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Lack of criteria to establish notability of parishes.
There is not more an ongoing discussion in a larger AFD" - reference to above "a larger AFD". See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut). This AfG is example of WP:POV.--WlaKom (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: It is correct that English Knowledge (XXG) does not have a special notability guideline specific to Roman Catholic parishes, but we do have general notability guidelines and a special guideline for organizations that are applied to many page. These guidelines can be applied here. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England, Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich), and Middletown, Connecticut, and redirect to one of these. I can't find much of anything to suggest that this church is individually notable. Based on the reference list in the article and the results of Google searching, I've concluded that whatever notability is possessed by this church/parish is largely historical and in connection with Polish immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Polish-American parishes article is currently a list, but its text components could (and should) be expanded to include more information on the context and history of the establishment of these churches/parishes. This page about the history of Middletown (this is the one relevant page from a larger website that is listed on the articles reference list) indicates that the establishment of this church was a significant event in connection with the growth of Middletown's Polish population. There probably is a similar story to be told about Polish churches throughout the Diocese of Norwich, and the stub about the diocese could be expanded to include that history. Discussion of this church/parish in those three other articles would be an effective way to present the little information that exists about it -- and more valuable to the encyclopedia than attempting to make a stand-alone article about a topic that is not independently notable. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Added: There is a book by Romuald K. Byczkiewicz entitled The Poles of Middletown, that apparently focuses on the history of this church in the context of Polish immigration (see this GNews hit). If someone obtains that book, it may turn this church into a notable topic, in which case this article could be expanded. However, it appears that the book was published by the church , so it's not exactly an independent source. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To Doncram. Do you really understand what does the Parish mean? See again Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability. So far you didn't provide any substantive arguments. This article has sources, is about historical organization (100 year old parish in U.S. is very historical) and the article doesn't have to be long. Tell me. What do you want to achieve? The discussion about the AFD related to parish/church has been closed until we find criteria. How long do you want to continue this unproductive discussion? --WlaKom (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that in Catholicism a parish refers to the people and geographical area, while a church refers more specifically to a building. In other religions church may refer to both. Usually there would be no need to have two articles. Here and in many other cases, there is no need for an article about either. For an article, there needs to be substantial coverage in reliable sources that establishes notability, not achieved here.
About the other discussion, i have now commented over there. I predict that discussion will not create a new standard for notability of churches and/or parishes. What governs now in this AFD is the current standards, which is the existing wp:GNG, and perhaps specifically Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies). The latter reads: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it." Here, there is no need for an article established. I agree with Orlady that the information could be merged and this article replaced by a redirect. --doncram 02:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It appears that your additions were of information about the Knights of Columbus group affiliated with the church, the church's relationship to the local unit of the Polish Lancers, and the fact that the church was the site of a memorial mass related to the nearby industrial explosion. In my book, all of that is good information, but it does not create a claim for notability. Many Catholic parishes/churches have KofC units and holding a mass for the victims of an industrial explosion is merely what one would expect a nearby church to do. I don't know anything about the Polish Lancers, which don't have an article, but a lack of other information about the organization doesn't exactly confer notability on this church. Nice work, but it doesn't change my assessment. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but please consider: The Polish Lancers don't have an article because they merged with the Polish Falcons as stated in the citation. The fact that many churches have a KoC chapter really doesn't change that it is a third party, does it? Also, there are at least 3 print sources (not cited in the article). Likewise, two sources are from the Hartford Courant, which is a newspaper of record and so passes the requirements (for 2 sources) for notability. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reminder again and again. "the Knights of Columbus group affiliated with the church" - wrong. affiliated with the parish. Orlady, how many times I have to remind you about it. This discussion is about Roman Catholic Parish in Middletown, CT. They could have a meeting in the church but the group includes parishioners not bells or windows. Look like you try to discuss about the issue you don't have a clue what are you taking about. If I don't know too much about the football, I never write the word on the football forum. Sorry for this comment.--WlaKom (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WlaKom, no one except for you is making this distinction between the brick-and-mortar building and the parish. If the article was/is to be exclusively about brick-and-mortar, I would call for it to be deleted too, along with most structures because they don't mean anything without the people. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:40, 3 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, Logan Talk 00:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has been modified to now include several inline citations addressing one complaint in my deletion nomination statement, but I believe the article still does not at all meet wp:GNG, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." So far, no significant coverage of this as a topic in any source has been provided. Documentation that the building is the location of meetings of a Knights of Columbus club, and other mentions, are not about the church building or parish in a general way. We do not deem every meetingplace of a club to be notable. Several passing references to the church do not add up to it being covered in reliable sources. I think that mention of the parish having been founded in 1902 or whenever could be included in the Middletown, Connecticut article and that other info could be merged to a diocese article. --doncram 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Further to the above: There is nothing unusual about a parish sponsoring a KofC council, nor about a church being the meeting place for a local council. According to the KofC website: "Local councils are the basic unit of the Knights. Most are based in parishes, though some have their own council hall within a community." Accordingly, being the site of a KofC council is about as notable as hosting a Cub Scout pack -- that is, it is neither notable nor encyclopedic. --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Strongly disagree The citations provided are all of record and meet the minimum requirements. If you really want information about the parish in general, I suggest stoppping in and attending a service. You know full well that what you're asking for is impossible, akin to asking for a colonial site's original blueprints. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That I "know full well" what i am asking for is impossible? If there is no significant coverage of this church, then it doesn't get a Knowledge (XXG) article, that is the policy. There easily could be information about a church building, say an entry in an architectural guidebook, or a historic site nomination form for one listed on a historic register. There could be info about a parish that is important in some way. About asking for a colonial-era historic site's blueprints, I don't see the connection, except i guess the point is those may not be available. For notability, there is no specific requirement of having one particular document as a source; there has to be one or more reliable sources that attest to the importance of the topic. Here, in this article, there is no assertion of importance at all. --doncram 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Reminder. You still confused, maybe you're gettin too emotional. This article is about the Parish, not the church. So all your comments are not related to the subject and should be ignored.--WlaKom (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Reminder. You are still the only one making such a differentiation, WlaKom. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Not me. The Roman Catholic Church Canon Law. This is the law which obliges us. --WlaKom (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Please cite it then, so we can all be enlightened. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
CODE OF CANON LAW. --WlaKom (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
...great page. What are you specifically referring to? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Doncram: Yes, there is... there need to be two sources, this article has four online and three written (though unattibuted) sources. When I say impossible, you know full well that the Hartford Courant is a newspaper of record and that those citations are valid. You also know that nothing in the world is written up in newspapers unless something happens there -- you can't just pick up the NYT and find an article on the Canton Bridge Company, for example. Ergo, you're placing a higher bar on this article than on others. And that's what I disgree with. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
PS: Apparently the school is a local historic landmark, the citation for which was reprinted by the State of Connecticut. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't happen to understand your mention here and elsewhere of 2 citations. Are you referring to some policy statement or guideline section? I am supposing you are referring to having coverage in multiple (being more than one) reliable sources, but don't recall seeing "2 citations" discussed as rule of thumb or otherwise in other AFDs. I don't happen to think including more than one source is really required, if one source is reliable and substantial and clearly establishes notability (in the normal English language meaning of the word). The Hartford Courant is a fine paper, but calendar-type mention of a meeting being located at the church does not constitute substantial coverage of the church, and counts for nothing in terms of establishing notability. And usually should not be part of an encyclopedic article, anyhow.
If you have found local historic landmark information, that could indeed help. --doncram 20:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems the school is listed in the 1979 Greater Middletown survey/list of buildings, which was preliminary to many historic districts being created and to various buildings being individually listed on the NRHP. But it also seems this building was not itself designated a local historic site. And its address puts it just outside the boundary of the South Green Historic District, suggesting that historic preservationists deemed the building not historic or notable enough to draw the boundary differently. A list of properties in that district is here (with further note that to check on a property not listed, you can call a given phone number). If you can find that this was actually a contributing building in a NRHP-listed historic district, that would help a lot, would probably suffice for notability for me. But i think it was just listed along with other buildings in a big inventory of all buildings possibly worth preservation (and they decided in effect this one is not worth preservation). I'll look at the NRHP doc for that nearby district, though. --doncram 21:05, 9 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Down for Life (film) is the only notable film he's had a major role in, as a unit producer (not executive producer). The Golden Eagle award link goes to a Russian award, which is not what the article says he won; that award and the associated organizatino are not notable either. Appear to be multiple WP:SPA account involved with promotional aspects of this and other articles (e.g. , ,). OhNoitsJamie 00:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - Down for Life is Aragons latest notable work, there is no such thing as a unit producer, he is a credited producer, Nosotros has been an organization around for over 25 years and is notable. Ohnoitsjamie has been deleting any postings we have tried to put up and contribute as Wikpedia a a great lack of latino content that should be included. 76.175.235.232 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"We have" meaning a group of people who are editing here strictly for promotion (see WP:COI). OhNoitsJamie 02:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment He doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER or any other aspect of WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie 21:14, 12 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. J04n(talk page) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Unsourced self-advertisement for a non-notable organization. Damiens.rf 17:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk 00:25, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Guido Pella (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:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk 00:23, 8 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. The 2 participants in this discussion have convinced me that the subject is nost likely notable but for a BLP there's not enough participation for a "keep" close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Hargitai (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 writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. No fewer than six of his claimed books are from notorious vanity press iUniverse--that means that he has opened his checkbook six times in order to pay money to pose as a published author. Obviously, per WP:SPS, those titles cannot be used as WP:RS to support WP:N or WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 23:31, 25 January 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) 00:00, 1 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) 00:19, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced BLP since April 2010. Although there are assertions of notability in the article, it completely fails WP:V All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep - A search on Google has provided news coverage in italian newspaper, mention of his works in several italian and international sites and many entries in Google/Amazon books both as author and in books from other authors. This article deserves a chance to be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpaa (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 January 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) 00:00, 1 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) 00:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak keep – The lack of citations is problematic in a BLP, but the article appears to be salvageable: there are many examples of coverage like this, but my poor Italian skills prevent me from doing a good assessment of the reliability of the sources. I also found a brief mention of him in an article in The Musical Times (Vol. 139, Iss. 1864; pg. 72, 2 pgs; autumn 1998). Paul Erik 05:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The published works are sufficient to show notability. i am inclined to defer to the consensus of national language WP editors on topics like this, especially when confirmed by the de and fr WPs, whose standards for notability are in general considerably higher than ours. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 16 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 per onsensus here that "Yale Series of Younger Poets" award confers notability. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Concerns over WP:N Levinge (talk) 17:47, 25 January 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, 1 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) 00:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Agreed that publication in Yale Younger Poets is notability. This is the most prestigious possible publication possible for the field. I'm not about to second-guess their editors. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 16 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. J04n(talk page) 18:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Koosha Toofan (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 person Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:37, 25 January 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, 1 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) 00:15, 8 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. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Boroka (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:PORNBIO, and no significant independent coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 11:57, 25 January 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, 1 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) 00:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Where is there any evidence of notability? The article is sourced from a single promotional press release! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wolfotwitz has disingenously conflated me (former Magpie1892) with the fixed IP above. A summary checkuser would show no connection but that wouldn't make for such acompelling case for our friend HW. Further, I had issues with HW looooooooong before the SPI (which, again, was not initiated by HW) so it's not accurate to base my problems with HW's erratic and arrogant editing with the aforementioned. Again, it's a nice distraction, but has no basis in truth. People are constantly complaining about Woloftwitz and the reasons why are all too evident - he's a liar and a boor. --85.237.211.209 (talk) 10:45, 14 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 question of whether someone meets WP:BIO is a matter of fact, to be determined by consensus in each case. The contributors are convinced that Mr. Kenny meets these requirements, and it is not for me to differ. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • After discussion and a DRV, which endorsed the closure, I have agreed to revise it to "no consensus, defaults to keep", in so far as it makes a difference. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
David Kenny (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 subject MoyrossLADY (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This article appears to be written by the subject.

The subject appears to be a journalist and author. He writes a weekly column for an Irish sunday newspaper and has written three humorous Irish books (all ranking past the 1 millionth bestseller mark on Amazon).

Comment - His 3 books were all bestsellers in Ireland. Snappy (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

He does not qualify for notability per WP:AUTHOR

He does not fulfil any of the following:

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I don't mean to hurt the feelings of the subject but he appears to be just an average guy doing a job and non-notable. MoyrossLADY (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Published author, journalist for national newspaper, panelist on RTE, lots of ghits, make him notable. His books: The Little Buke of Dublin (Or How To Be A Real Dub), Erindipity - The Irish Miscellany and Erindipity Rides Again were all Bestsellers in Ireland. He meets Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people) guidelines, which states:- "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." What the nominator has quoted from WP:Author are additional criteria, which also states that: "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Knowledge (XXG):Notability." He may fail to met the Author criteria but still meets general notability guidelines. No evidence that the article is self authored. Snappy (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I accept your point that the WP:AUTHOR criteria I listed above are additional and not required. However, I'm still not seeing notability. Is there a source indicating that the books were bestsellers? Can you link to some ghits? When I search for David Kenny I find results for others of the same name. I don't think he has had more than one TV appearance and that was as a commentator not as the subject of a programme. Journalist for national newspaper doesn't make him notable unless he was award winning or the subject of commentary by others. We need sources that have David Kenny as their subject matter - not articles written by him. Yes there are a couple of reviews of his Xmas miscellany books : are any of these from outside his own insolvent newspaper or its sister titles? MoyrossLADY (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Snappy, I don't see the point you've just tried to make, could you clarify? You mentioned the two published works of the author and then you quoted "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources ". The published works are primary sources of the author and the author is not the subject of the works either. WP:N also states notabiltiy is not inherited. Simply because the books are notable doesn't make the author notable. What exactly were you trying to say?--v/r - TP 13:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is a bestselling author not considered notable? Link here. In addition he is a newspaper columnist of a national Sunday newspaper (its current status being irrelevant) and a Dublin evening paper (Herald). Snappy (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and because WP:AUTHOR doesn't include "Best Selling" as a criteria. Neither does WP:GNG or WP:BIO.--v/r - TP 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're there yet. For two weeks, one of his books reached number 5 bestselling paperback non-fiction book in Ireland 10 years ago. . Is there any evidence that either of his two other books is bestselling (I have looked and can't find evidence other than assertion by the author)? Is being a columnist on a national newspaper notable? Maybe it is. I've just had a look at this: which has a lot of entries for what I would have thought were non-notables. MoyrossLADY (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if notability could be inherited, his book is non-notable per WP:NBOOK MoyrossLADY (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
He meets WP:GNG guidelines. Snappy (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
How? You haven't demonstrated it. "His 3 books were all bestsellers in Ireland."? Where in the criteria is "best seller"? I already pointed you to WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the books are best sellers doesn't mean he is notable. Where is the multiple significant independent coverage? How does he pass WP:GNG?--v/r - TP 18:24, 4 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) 00:03, 8 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 but probably merge. Discussion on how and where to merge should continue on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Conservation Area covers two marine reserves. This article is about only one of them. I don't think this article is being very useful at the moment. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep I agree with the nominator's reasoning. It is better to have one article when the second only repeats the same information. However I don't think there is anything in WP policy, or WP tradition, that says that this kind of logic and common sense should prevail over an editor's right to write an article on a notable topic. And both conservation areas are certainly notable. Borock (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep The fact that the information is duplicated elsewhere is not a reason to delete it. However, the area may fail the notability test, for lack of coverage by independent reliable sources. As the article originally stood, every single one of its references were self-referential. I added one outside reference but I couldn't find much else. However, I think it's possible that a state reserve like this may have some kind of inherent notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - The largest issue I have with this article is that it takes mainly from primary sources, with very few (except for two), secondary or tertiary sources. Otherwise, I don't see a large reason for it to be deleted, but wouldn't see a large reason to keep it either per the reasoning of the nominator. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:00, 2 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, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. There's very little information available, merge two pages with sparse sources together. tedder (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Geographic areas are inherently notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect While geographic areas may be inherently notable, this protection zone is more like the mapping of the planning and zoning commission of a city and has little inherent notability, and the lede itself discusses 4 adjacent MPAs.  The material about the Monterey Aquarium I feel shows that the current topic lacks focus.  Meanwhile, one of the few facts that we know about this SMCA, the depth-range, is omitted.  Merging all of the SMCA material into a table I think would make it encyclopedic, as well as more interesting.  My thought is to suggest the lowest level above the local SMCA, which would be to put such a table in an article about SMCAs.  As mentioned above, there are still more merge options.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:38, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Unremarkable musician (fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO). This is a renomination based on poor voter turnout at previous, recently closed AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - As mentioned in the 1st discussion, nominator removed a few claims from the article
    • ReverbNation.com chart listings - I am unable to find any consensus to support the nominators claim that ReverbNation charts are not usable. There is no reference to ReverbNation on the Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, ReverbNation charts are used on other music-related articles, and there is a write-up here on Knowledge (XXG) about how ReverbNation measures, see: Music_popularity_index#ReverbNation.27s_Band_Equity
    • Appearances on Cyprus Radio and TV programs (Better verification required)
    • Radio Airplay in USA, UK, and many other countries. (Better verification required)

Also of note:

Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     06:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste of my reply from the first AfD: Reverbnation.com is a promotional website for musicians and is clearly not appropriate as a source. "Chart listings" in this case does not reflect any real-world interest or sales, but it is a moot point since there is not even a way to confirm Derin's placement. Cut and paste snippets of press quotes on a promotional website are not primary sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:29, 6 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, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NBA Scoreboard (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 Firefox browser extension. No non-trivial coverage. Small user base. WP:SPA. Damiens.rf 17:52, 1 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, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Seems to be a useful article but the coverage in reliable sources is limited to this CNET article which is only borderline substantial. Browser plugins are fleeting and should probably have multiple sources to establish notability. --Pnm (talk) 03:24, 13 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 merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

A non notable marial art organisation without sources to back up notabilty Dwanyewest (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

comment Have you considered notifying User:JJL that you have started an AFD on an article he created? He could have references. jmcw (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Request to Dwanyewest The original author JJL is a reputable author in the Wikipeida MA group and appears to be in a wiki pause. 1) Could this AFD be deferred until he responses to this lack of source/notability issues? 2) If not, could the closing admin please move the article to JJL's name space? Thank you both! jmcw (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep Merge into Remy Presas, may need some additional sourcing, but this is definitely a notable organization.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:50, 3 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) 00:00, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ITM Meerut (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 institution, lacks significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to assert notability. Prod was contested. — ξ 21:01, 1 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) 00:00, 8 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Young minor league hockey player, and good luck to him, but little to point to notability. Does not make the current notability standard per WP:NHOCKEY of 100 games in a fully professional minor league. Geofth (talk) 22:50, 1 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) 00:00, 8 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Interactive Digital Technology (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 been tagged flagging notability issues since 2009. Joker264 (talk) 08:23, 8 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.

↑