Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 14 - 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 merge to London Borough of Newham. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Nonnotable primary school. Edison (talk) 23:50, 14 January 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. Courcelles 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

SetupBuilder (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 does not mention any reliable sources hence notability cannot be established. Also note that competitive product's page (InstallAware) has been deleted so for consistency this one should also be removed. Grobelny (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied from article talk page:

If this article is deleted, then articles on InstallShield, Wise Installer, Innosetup, InstallAnywhere etc. must also be deleted for consistency. All the articles are similar in presentation and content. Daan.Marais (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

While this article does seem to need more information, Daan.Marais is quite correct. One cannot delete this product without also deleting its competitors. Shparker (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he's wrong. All articles on Knowledge (XXG) are independent of each other and the fact that one exists doesn't mean that another should. We might not have caught up with the other one, or it might really be different - by our rules. Peridon (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think what he means to say is that, if we delete this page, then the other pages can/should be deleted by the same arguments. ManishEarth 07:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

End of copy

I very much agree with this logic: if InstallAware article was deleted and SetupBuilder article is deleted then further proposals for deletion should follow and be decided on case by case basis. Note that this argument may be used both ways: "InstallAware was deleted so we should delete SetupBuilder" or "InstallShield exists so we should keep SetupBuilder". Therefore as pointed out by others it is not an argument on its own. Grobelny (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can file a patent for a few thousand dollars. A patent does not indicate the subject is notable. OSborncontributionatoration 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC) (Same goes for anything else filed with the USPTO. OSborncontributionatoration 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
It seems to me that it is a trademark, not a patent. Grobelny (talk) 20:15, 20 January 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 overwhelming consensus and WP:SNOW - there is agreement that this should be kept. With regards to the proposed move mid-discussion, the argument does not seem to be gaining traction, so I suggest a requested moves procedure to debate that facet, and make no claim either way to the current consensus on such a move. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Recentism. WP:BLP#1E. Damiens.rf 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

merge per the fellow who shot the pakistani governow recently. These pages are WP:ONEEVENT and serve no function as independent pages where all content can be mergesd into 1 page with redirect.s(Lihaas (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC));
  • Oppose. One commentator has written "In due course, every city of consequence in Tunisia will have a street or square named after Mohamed Bouazizi, the unemployed fruit-seller whose humiliation at the hands of the authorities led to a revolution." That exact prediction may or may not turn out to be true, but I think Bouazizi as the catalyst for the fall of a long-standing dictator has much greater significance than a guy who shot a provincial official in Pakistan. —Sesel (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose due to the belief that Knowledge (XXG):ONEVENT does not apply here. To quote the guideline: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."
It seems that Mohamed Bouazizi has played a significant role in the downfall of a "major political leader", arguably a more significant role than Neda Agha-Soltan did in her event which did not have the same consequences. "Arabs everywhere identified with Mohamed Bouazizi" and he is described as "a symbol" and "a martyr" by sites such as the BBC. He brought down a president ("one of the region's longest-serving autocrats") and his actions are still having an impact on Tunisia and other countries (including Algeria, Jordan). He set himself on fire four weeks ago, hardly the best example of Knowledge (XXG):RECENTISM, i.e. "writing or editing without a long-term, historical view."
There are numerous articles from a period of several weeks which discuss Mohamed Bouazizi's role and which refer to him in their headlines. Perhaps these can be used to expand the article and bring it closer to the standard set by Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. The National - "Bouazizi has become a Tunisian protest 'symbol'" and again "With the strike of a match, Mohamed Bouazizi did more than take his own life - he ignited the dormant anger of a generation", Toronto Star - "Suicide protest helped topple Tunisian regime", International Business Times - "The Story of Mohamed Bouazizi, the man who toppled Tunisia", The Guardian - "How a man setting fire to himself sparked an uprising in Tunisia".
Neda Agha-Soltan did none of that. --candle•wicke 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I've just signed on only for the sake of commenting on this, so please forgive me if I don't format this correctly (and kindly advise me). I was surprised to see that this entry is being considered for deletion. Bouazizi's name came up twice in this BBC article so my first move was to look him up in Knowledge (XXG). This man did not just commit suicide in private, this was a public act of protest against police harassment and a government, on a par with the Buddhist monk who self-immolated in Vietnam . This triggered nation-wide protests which four weeks later led to the fall of a government that had held power for 23 years. This is no small thing so I believe this gentleman deserves a separate entry. Sunny112358 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny11235813 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Deleting the entry about a person who has contributed as an important catalyst to the events currently happening in Tunisia would be a subjective minimization of his role in the current revolution. By this standard, the Knowledge (XXG) article on another self-immolating protester, Vietnam's Thích Quảng Đức, should be merged with the articles concerning the persecution of Buddhists by South Vietnam's Ngô Đình Diệm administration. As someone else stated above, Bouazizi is the catalyst for the fall of a long-standing dictatorship and this will have great significance in the future for the entire Arab world, and not solely Tunisia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.34.25 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Everyone please stop saying "oppose" in these AfDs; it's confusing. Say either "keep" or "delete". Erpert 07:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • keep This person literary changed history. If you are watching al-Jazeera now (the most widely watched Arab TV channel), you would know what I mean. His name is on every tongue in the Arab World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taleb3elm (talk • contribs) 07:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a significant individual by virtue of his actions and their consequences and also one who's anonymity would benefit only repressive elements in the region and the world generally.Paddy.carroll (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You must be kidding. If there was such a thing as speedy deletion of requests for deletion, I think it would apply here. This will become an important article about an individual who made history. Joriki (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep he played a significant role in a significant event. KeptSouth (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This man's actions have played a huge part in shaping a country. He is more worthy than a huge percentage of people who have articles here. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be a world-wide resource and on that scale he is very important, even if Americans think pages on Star trek are more important. Maybe the article needs improvement, but that is a horrible reason for deleting or merging. As we move more than a few weeks before the world had heard of him, obviously the page will improve. Nmpls (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12198039 - mentioned by name in a major news source 129.11.77.198 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • keep- indeed recent, but on the other hand, this guy's suicide is universally acknowledged to have literally started a revolution. He merits an encyclopedia article without a doubt. I started the article, but only after the revolt was successful and Ben Ali was toppled, making the chain of events started by Bouazizi historically significant. jackbrown (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - He is Notable. Kaaveh (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - I specifically searched for Mohamed Bouazizi in order to find out more about him as I'm sure many others have done, his notability is undeniable. Furthermore, search for his name and you get 220,000 results on Google, he deserves an entry is his own right. His death may have triggered the protests in Tunisia but it was a separate event entirely and deserves to be treated as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.109.146 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - He is notable, his suicide triggered the Jasmine Revolution. Look also at the number of media organizations mentioning him and detailing his story. He can be also seen as the symbol of frustration of many Arab youth. In addition, it is most likely that many streets and other public places will be named after him as mentioned above. Bestofmed™⟨msg↵⟩ 17:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Based simply on the lack of arguments for deletion. --Halfhaggis (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The nomination makes no sense and the subject's notability is significant. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - This death has clearly been highly significant to those who've struggled against that government. Whether he'll be seen to be as notable as Thích Quảng Đức remains to be clarified; for the moment this article remains a logical, timely point of reference for a potentially large audience. Twang (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.8.150 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - You would only have to create the article again as a generation asks 'who is this Mohamed Bouazizi who triggered a revolution?'. Like many I came here to learn more about him, his family and background.
  • Keep - True, this person is notable for a single event. But this single event is a really big deal. Bouazizi's only 'crime' is not being an American, and thus less access to information about him is available (compare for example to Jared Lee Loughner). --Fjmustak (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, as Neda Soltani, this is a key event within a political process (a revolution). Yug (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I propose to close this discussion and remove the notice as per WP:SNOW. (Note that this is different from WP:SK, which I think doesn't apply.) There's hasn't been a single comment favouring deletion, but dozens for keep (all except one for merge); there's obviously a strong consensus; none of the keep arguments have been countered; no delete arguments have been brought forward, so I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of the deletion proposal being accepted. We should take into account that this article is probably getting large numbers of views, and the first thing people see is a large notice saying the article is being considered for deletion, and a lot of them are probably going "WTF?!"; they're getting a wrong impression since in fact there's a strong consensus against deletion. Joriki (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    For a further argument for closing this ASAP, take a look at the talk page, where people are worried/incredulous about the deletion notice. Joriki (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
although thats not a reason to keep.Lihaas (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed there is even a picture going around that the airport was renamed after him (although it could be photoshopped so I will wait to see the picture in a news article or someone can verify if the image is real before we add this to the wikipedia article).Calaka (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have seen the picture, it is clearly a photoshop :) Moreover, it is materially impossible to change the airport name while the rumbles of the revolution have not settled Moez 20:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah thanks for the info! I was a bit unsure about it hehe. Would be interesting to see what they do later down the track.Calaka (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)A
I'd argue that Bouazizi, due to his lower-class background, motivation and legacy needing some explanation, requires an article separate from his act. Quærens 11:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
seems like a perfect accomodagtion to move the page as reccomended.(Lihaas (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).
  • Keep I found the article provided useful background information not available in the "protests" article, although it needs professional editing. Dtaw2001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
  • Keep The article is well-referenced and extremely notable.--Obsidi♠n 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:candlewicke. Really, these AfD noms on every page about something that has happened recently does damage to Knowledge (XXG)'s reputation. The nom should have waited a couple of weeks for reliable info before nominating this article for merging. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Keep, but move to Death of Mohamed Bouazizi, based on past precedent. Let us be perfectly clear, BLP does not apply, as the man is most sincerely dead. Such "Death of NN" articles have been kept in the past, when the death of person involved has historical impact. This has been true even if, or in some cases because, the person was non-notable during life. There is a category for "Death of NN" articles, Category:Deaths by person, and such have even gotten top billing as FAs or GAs. There is no question that his death has set off the revolution in Tunisa, see Financial Times. In this particular case, these is no shadow of a doubt that this one man's death has resonated throughout the Arab world, see two stories on PBS. The act of self-immolation has already spread through North Africa, see CNN. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Titoxd 08:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion. Damiens.rf 21:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you see the footnotes at the bottom of the page? How is this "unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion"User:AnthonyArger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Arger (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, understand that Knowledge (XXG) may not be the most appropriate place for you to promote your stuffs. --Damiens.rf 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to answer the question and demonstrate how exactly the article is an "unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion"? Or are you going to continue to make ad hominem attacks and waste my time? Very important lifechanging information is being conveyed to the world here - who are you, and why do you have such an interest in stopping it from being conveyed? User:AnthonyArger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.155.43 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment "Now, now, children!" is what I once said to a CEO and a school teacher at a committee meeting I was chairing. Not that I am going to say it here.... (It was effective, though. They stopped hating each other and hated me instead - and we got a lot of work done.) As to the article, as it stands it is somewhat unencyclopaedic in Knowledge (XXG) terms. I am also worried about the as yet unwritten bits, whose headings give distinct impressions of Original Research or possible promotion of something (which need not be commercial - ideas can be promoted too, but not here) yet to emerge. (Don't think that sentence would translate well by machine. Don't care, either.) "How To Stop Sugar Cravings: Key Lessons" (my quotes - although there are plenty to spare in the article) is a little bit in contravention of WP:NOTHOWTO before it even gets written. I get the feeling that sugar cravings do exist - or is it low sugar levels? I've had to deal with those and mostly in non-diabetics to boot. However, the PubMed references do indicate that there are researches going on into this area. It cannot totally be dismissed as OR - well, in Knowledge (XXG) terms. It is original research by the researchers, but it is published research by the definition here. The article does look as though it is a flier promoting some sort of fruitloopery. (Fruitloopery is used here in the sense found in the 'Feedback' column in 'New Scientist' et al.) It probably isn't, but surface impressions are important. Sorry to ramble a bit - had a hard day and not feeling organised. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The author blanked the page, so that might qualify the article for speedy deletion. Titoxd 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, there's some confusing reverts going on in the article. First, the author (and only substantial editor) blanked it. Then, another user rightfully G7ed it, but then s/he suddenly reverted back to a version before the blanking, after which the author blanked it again. It seems to make the most sense to go to that version and then G7 it again, which is what I did. Erpert 07:59, 15 January 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) CTJF83 chat 17:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Maria Amelie (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 bio for non-notable person. Damiens.rf 21:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a very notable person in Scandinavia. The political debate is currently ongoing, and the case has received an enormous amount of attention in Norwegian media. The article contains several references that verify the information, and references to printed material covering the case will be added to the article later. At any rate, the person is a published writer of a best-selling book in Norway and the later developments in her deportation case should fall under the label of "significant events where the individual's role is substantial and well-documented." --Daofeishi (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Daofeishi - Maria Amelie has made a massive impact on the Norwegian public debate on the rights of undocumented immigrants, with her best-selling book (published last September) and opinion pieces and essays, and the fact that she managed to get a Master's degree while she was not in the country legally. Her recent arrest sparked a public outrage. Every major newspaper is covering this. I think we might be looking at a significant policy change in Norway. Mirithing (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about policy change, but when there's demonstrations of a noticeable size in all the major cities just a day after her arrest (considering the short timeframe that the arrangers had the size was impressive on an norwegian scale) and the outcry from political leaders and other public people all over Norway it might have a big enough impact to influence the upcoming election... Luredreier (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thing is that after the financial crises the number of norwegian news in english sources have gone down a little so it's not as easy to show how really important this is/might be. But would it qualify if we found an article about her in all the norwegian news in english websites? I honestly think that we can do that without any problem. (and I haven't checked if that's true but I'd be really surprised if it wasn't) Luredreier (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I know about at least one russian language news article about her if that would help... (from a russian newspaper or something) Luredreier (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, I suggest that we wait a couple of weeks to see if this blows over before deciding on any deletion. If it's still going strong then there shouldn't be any doubt about it's importance I guess... Luredreier (talk) 13:56, 15 January 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. Courcelles 22:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Igor Ogirko (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 one of an army of vanity entries, which this Ukranian professor has created about himself in many language editions of wikipedia and wikiquote, Many of these articles feature "Огірко Ігор Васильович" as main author, see here for his contributions to all wikis: http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=%D0%9E%D0%B3%D1%96%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE+%D0%86%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80+%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&lang=

Independent attestations of his notability are missing. Johannes Rohr (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete as an unsourced BLP of dubious veracity. The above named contributor created an article on the same person at Wikiquote that reeked of bogosity until it was purged of falsehoods.. Whether this was a case of naive hagiography, delusional vanity, or outright hoax, we cannot have a biography of a living person without reliable sources if it is edited by someone who spreads transparent disinformation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:40, 15 January 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. Courcelles 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found to support text. Nothing found to support the award given. Nothing in The Hindu or Times of India. no mention of him at the Konkan Railway website Plad2 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. The google hits for "Vasantrao Naik" are for a different person.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:43, 15 January 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. Courcelles 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

No reliable sources indicating notability for this filmmaker, at this time. His film's acceptance into the little known Syracuse International Film Festival does not confer notability. (In fact, a quick look at the festival's own article reveals it to be highly problematic, in its own right). Perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 14 January 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. Courcelles 22:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Less a documentary than a sponsored film, it seems to me, the nominated article has social networking site and video sharing hits, but my Google searches for combinations of the film title and subject reveal no WP:RS. One Times of India hit appears in the Google results because of a YouTube link, not secondary coverage. Despite being proclaimed as a "globally renowned artist," there is no article on Jehangir Sabavala to redirect to at this time, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Looks like an article on Jehangir Sabavala is worth considering, as he himself apears to meet WP:GNG (even if not "globally"), and a mention of the documentary can be included therein. But as it's always difficult for ducumentaries to show notability when pitted against their mainstream big-budget brethren, let it get coverage and critical comentary before considering a return. Schmidt, 04:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Sabavala seems notable as an artist, but this film isn't.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. Article had already been deleted with db-web when this AfD was raised. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-notable online job hunting site. Only assertion of notability is that the site has won several Weddle awards. Google news lists a few mentions; none appear to be substantial. Article created by User:Adguide, who appears to represent the site's owner. Zachlipton (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs); rationale was "‎G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible: G3: Blatant hoax." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Arcanni (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 article on what are apparently characters of a computer game )as http://rtw.heavengames.com/rtw/info/units/rome) seems to suggest. There is another source http://thearcani.com/content/squads.html which seems to be some kind of fantasy role-playing club. Unfortunately no reliable sources seem to prove that these "arcani" every actually existed in ancient Rome Travelbird (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Skier Dude, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Low-budget documentary uploaded to video sharing sites that meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:FILMNOT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 14 January 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 to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise characters#Team Bullet Train (Team Shinkansen). –MuZemike 23:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Rapid Run (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 fictional character, no reliable sources, and none of the non-reliable sources are even about the character. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:55, 14 January 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 to List of Transformers: The Headmasters characters#Decepticons. –MuZemike 22:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Weirdwolf (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 fictional character, no reliable sources, and none of the non-reliable sources are even about the character. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:55, 14 January 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) CTJF83 chat 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Self-promotion for non-notable delusional Internet celebrity wannabe. Damiens.rf 19:54, 14 January 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. –MuZemike 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

This article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources establish that the concept of "exploding animals" has any notability in its own right; instead, this is a mish-mash of a variety of news reports which have been unified under one topic only because Wikipedians said so. The history shows that a lot of other "Exploding..." articles were redirected here; I don't see how putting a bunch of garbage all in one place makes it any more notable than before. Most individual incidents violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SBST. *** Crotalus *** 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak delete Some of this might be individually notable, but not as a subject area. If there were a general cause, that would be notable. If there were a technical name for "exploding animal" where all the instances had a common cause or theme, that might be notable. It's kind of too bad though, this is useful... uh... kind of. BE——Critical__Talk 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: The reference to WP:SYNTH is badly wrong: it says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources but here there is no original conclusion here. There is no original research. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SBST would be appropriate if we were discussing articles of each episode, but they do not refer to article content. In fact it was exactly for these reasons that several articles were merged into this one. Actually, unifying sources content under a common denominator because Wikipedians say so is exactly our job in making an encyclopedia; that the nom thinks it's "garbage" only means he doesn't like it, but well, this has never been a good reason to delete stuff. It could be renamed as List of exploding animals however, but this is an editorial decision. --Cyclopia 02:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: I concur with Cyclopia, this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than original research or synthesis. The fact that prior deletion requests resulted in a speedy keep the last two times this was proposed should have clued in the nominator. -- Marcika (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Jaque Hammer. Neutrality 04:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: I don't see a WP:SYNTH issue here. The introduction and content makes clear there are a variety of causes/sources and there is a common thread. The article does need improvements so it wouldn't be an incredible loss but the preferable solution would be to improve the article. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Normally multiple nominations for deletions occur because the same issue is recurring and there is no clear consensus. Now that I look at the history, this article survives the 2nd nomination for having original research, the 3rd nomination is non-constructive and involves merging articles and this one is sythesizing because too many articles were merged? I've never thought an article was being persecuted before, but this is looking a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy Pointy nomination, user has been reported for being disruptive. Speedy close.. (non-admin closure) Dusti 23:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

H-58 (Michigan county highway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable county road. Recommend Deletion. Gamweb (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Article is well-referenced and notable. older ≠ wiser 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article is notable due to it being the primary access for a US National Lakeshore, and with its upgrades from the state of Michigan, it is a primary connector between Munising and Grand Marais. –User:riehlj —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC).
  • Strong oppose and suggest closure per WP:SNOW—The Alger County Road Commission recently completed paving this road. That paving was funded by the National Park Service, and literally took an Act of Congress to complete. (The NPS was required to build its own access road to the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore when the park was created in the 1960s. No such road was even built, and Congress amended the legislation creating the park to allow the NPS to fund reconstruction efforts by the ACRC.) This county road is it as part of the Michigan County-Designated Highway System, a system of primary county roads that acts as a secondary highway system in the state, albeit under county maintenance. CDHs carry the same designation across county lines, and those designations are assigned, not by the counties, but by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The nominator of this AfD discussion is likely making a WP:POINT because I have nominated several Florida county roads for deletion or merger. Unlike this road, they do not have any significance outside of their counties, and even that significance is debatable. Imzadi 1979 → 22:29, 14 January 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 Bad faith nomination, user is trying to make a point. Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti 23:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

H-63 (Michigan county highway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable county road. Recommend Deletion. Gamweb (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Perfectly fine, moderately well-referenced article. older ≠ wiser 20:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and suggest closure per WP:SNOW—This county road predates the Michigan Highway System as the Sault - Green Bay Trail, a native American Trail linking Green Bay, Wisconsin with Sault Ste. Marie Michigan. Later it was a part of the Mackinac Trail, a name it still carries in addition to the current CDH designation. When it was part of the state trunkline highway system, it was paved as part of US 2. Now is it as part of the Michigan County-Designated Highway System, a system of primary county roads that acts as a secondary highway system in the state, albeit under county maintenance. CDHs carry the same designation across county lines, and those designations are assigned, not by the counties, but by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The nominator of this AfD discussion is likely making a WP:POINT because I have nominated several Florida county roads for deletion or merger. Unlike this road, they do not have any significance outside of their counties, and even that significance is debatable. Imzadi 1979 → 22:33, 14 January 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 Bad faith nomination, user is trying to make a point. Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti 23:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable county road. Recommend Deletion. Gamweb (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Well-referenced and notable. older ≠ wiser 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and suggest closure per WP:SNOW—This county road predates the Michigan Highway System as the Marquette–Negaunee Road. When it was part of the state trunkline highway system, the first highway centerline in the United States (and the world) was painted along Dead Man's Curve. The site of this centerline is marked by a county historical marker, and it's eligible for inclusion on the State Register of Historic Sites and the National Register of Historic Places. The nominator of this AfD discussion is likely making a WP:POINT because I have nominated several Florida county roads for deletion or merger. Unlike this road, they do not have any significance outside of their counties, and even that significance is debatable. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 14 January 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. Taking into account the single-purpose and sock puppetry activity, there is a consensus for deletion here. –MuZemike 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of online calculators (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 mere list of external links - it has no sources independent of the article subject(s) and so does not meet the general notability criteria. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 14 January 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. –MuZemike 22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

totally non-encyclopedic essay WuhWuzDat 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep The article just needs more work per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: Gone is year 2005 when a user would write an article with basically no referencing and quit without saying anything, but the article is valid. Agree with colonnel Warden: Unfortunately we'd need some good souls to find the pages of the books the article is claiming to be referenced to. And, probably the reason why this article was forgotten is because no wikiproject was following it. I listed it now, it should be easier for the members of such wikiprojects to start referencing.--Sepastaj (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep An encyclopedic topic. Google books says there is 423 results, but doesn't list any of them, they having some sort of error right now. Not sure who to contact about that, or if they don't already know. If the nominator has a problem with the article, please use its talk page first and discuss it, don't just sent it straight to AFD. No one has posted on the talk page in years. The article has references. Google news search confirms this is a real thing. I see no reason not to keep it. Dream Focus 07:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: in its current state, the article is simply a WP:CFORK of Database security combined with a WP:HOWTO manual. An encyclopaedic article on this topic is most probably possible, but the easiest way to create one would be to write it from scratch. HrafnStalk 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong  14:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hrafn. It may be possible to write an article on this topic, but none of the current article could practically be used in an encyclopedic article. WP:Delete the junk. SnottyWong  14:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Snottywood is right that the subject is appropriate for an article, and also right that the present material is not suitable as it is, but I do not see why he concludes that none of it can be used. Unless it proves to be altogether a copyvio, it's at the least a start. If that an article be poorly written should become a criterion for deletion, almost the entire contents of the encyclopedia would be in jeopardy. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Similar to Hrafn (although not quite), I see this as too much of a WP:HOWTO. We could support an article on database audit without that, but this isn't it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Week keep. Poorly written, but appears to be a notable topic.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a notable and significant subject, but the article needs more inline citations and more details. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Ironically, the article had inline citations in its original, 2005, form. They even had the page numbers of the books in them. Some hamfisted editing since, not recognizing citations for what they are, has largely lost this information from the article. Of course, the problem with the original 2005 form, that Hrafn and others haven't tackled, is the fact that it spent several sections explaining background completely unnecessarily, before getting to the actual subject. The first six sections could have been wiped and replaced with something explaining "What is a database audit?", leaving the final three that actually got around to the topic at hand. We did, and do, have a database article answering the question "What is a database?", after all. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 20 January 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 History of the hamburger in the United States#Competition. The rough consensus clearly favors some sort of deletion, in which a redirect should suffice given the discussion at hand. –MuZemike 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Dicdef, stating the obvious. I found no sources except for articles that just used the words "burger wars". One source is NNDB which is not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep This is not a "dicdef" (!?) - it appears that TenPoundHammer is confused in his use of this term and it seems to be a DONTLIKEIT nomination. Mandsford argues delete because the article at present is not good enough. I argue keep because existing references from NY Times and LA Times use the term. How can TenPoundHammer say "I found no sources" - when sources are easily found, i e.g. Gscholar Enacting competitive wars: competitive activity, language games, and market consequences The Academy of Management Review, 2004; or Marketing Mistakes, (10th Ed.). The same book also has a chapter on Cola Wars. Knowledge (XXG) also has Browser wars and probably many other notable competitive wars for which sources exist, irrespective of whether somebody like the subject or not, if the article is incomplete or not, or if someone care to look for sources or not. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:36, 21 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Iskra Research (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 publisher, sourced to a self-reference. My Google search hasn't come up with any reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Intended addendum to Vadim Rogovin and Nadezhda Joffe pages. Latter page mentions this organization but leads to dead link, former page should probably mention this organization, as it is the sole publisher in the author's native language. Recommend merge with another page. Perhaps a single page listing all Trotskyist Publications, but that would seem least favorable. YB1940. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearbuilt1940 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Note, not publications, Publishers. Most recommend by far some mention on Rogovin's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearbuilt1940 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources? Corvus cornixtalk 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources are only in print form as far as I can tell. Once again, it may be best to clip back this article to a sentence or two and place it on the Vadim Rogovin page. For instance, "The sole publisher in Russian of Vadim Rogovin's works is Iskra Research;" with the remaining composition of the edit being fairly irrelevant. I can understand why a whole article may be excessive as it is a very small publisher. Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to deleting this page and sorting out other concerns later, by the way... Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 5 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, NW (Talk) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G3 by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Erpert 08:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Victoria Chang's The Little Merman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quite clearly a hoax, literally the only source that comes up on google is a fanfiction. BOVINEBOY2008 18:00, 14 January 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. Courcelles 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom Sotis (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 an unsourced article that fails to really show why the subject is notable. The article has a number of issues and has been tagged as needing sources for 3 years Astudent0 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of works by Salvador Dalí. No indication that this has any independent notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Omelette About to Be Irreparably Crushed by Hands (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 created this article last spring as a stub. However, I was a newer editor, and I didn't understand the notability guideline's as well as I do now. I am beginning to have doubts about whether this individual drawing is notable enough for its own article. There are very few, if any sources which could be used to expand it, so it would be highly unlikely for it to ever be anything more than a one-sentence stub. I would like other editors' input on this. Thanks. —focus 04:15, 4 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, NW (Talk) 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and since nom is also the author. Dali himself is notable, but this particular drawing does not seem to be. YardsGreen (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as G7 (author requesting deletion). As far as I can tell, there is no time limit on speedy deletion, and while this page has been edited by two other editors, none of those edits added or removed substantive content. Absent that, I still say delete as I find no independent notability for this subject. In either case, I have no prejudice against recreating as a redirect to List of works by Salvador Dalí. —KuyaBriBri 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a notable work by a notable artist and its the only paperwork by Dali on wikipedia. Bottom line - it's notable and valuable to the project. It's a working sketch, and is reproduced in various books on Dali's oeuvre...Modernist (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It's the only paperwork by Dali in Knowledge (XXG) because I randomly decided to create this article and not one for a different sketch. I think this was listed at WP:RA actually. But that doesn't make it notable. Focus (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying I own it; that's why I took this to AfD in the first place. But the reasons you've provided above don't explain why this drawing, and not any other random drawing, is notable enough for an article. If you could provide even one source which could be used to expand this article (not just a list of his works), that would be a different story. Also, I'll note that you have supported this twice, and so your second 'strong support' is not valid. Focus (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • comment It's a documented work by a notable artist and is sourced to books on Dali's work, BTW my support is certainly valid, as is your 2nd non-support here...Modernist (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. As someone who works almost only on visual articles, I would be dismayed if any article on a work by a (it kills me to say this as I do not generally like Dali at all) major artist would be deletable. I worry about precedent, not knowing enough to know if a judgement on a single ADF becomes law. For what its worth the drawing is useless. Ceoil 00:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • There's no reasonable way this AFD, no matter how it closes, could be used as a justification for deleting another article on a completely different work of art. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 14 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, -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 14 January 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 15:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Never played in major leagues, questionable notability; no sources outside of B-R. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:02, 14 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The only significant third party sourcing is an editorial about the subject and his previous criminal record WP:BLP1E Active Banana ( 23:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable triathlon coach for two reasons: has coached high profile professional triathletes, and the sexual abuse case. The case of sexual abuse case itself doesn't make him notable, it only raises his profile because he is considered a top level coach and has committed this type of crime. Here is some 3rd party coverage: , , , . Other "blurbs" about him exist that support article content that he has coached different professional athletes, but are not listed here. Barkeep 14:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep (but...) (see note below --NSH001 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC) ) Certainly a notable coach, he has coached many World and Olympic champions. Not only that, several of his formaer athletes are themsleves in turn now successful coaches, for example Ben Bright, or Siri Lindley, coach of current world champion Mirinda Carfrae. The article in its present form is of very little value, so I wouldn't be sad to see its demise. It is also a POV-magnet, mostly for Sutton's opponents. This is going to be a tricky one to get right, both because the sex conviction is an emotional subject, and the lack of high-quality sources on basic facts such as his date and place of birth, as well as the interesting earlier phases of his career. Neverthless there are more than enough sources to produce a decent article, but it needs to be done well, or not at all. Given Sutton's importance and significance in the triathlon world, it would be ludicrous not to have an article on him, so I will shortly be starting a sandbox version of an article on him in my user space. Given the difficulties I've mentioned, it may take a week or two to produce an article good enough for mainspace, but it will be done. --NSH001 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete The article as it is written does little more than name the subject as a sex offender. Sadly, this sort of offence is common and the subject, as a criminal, is no more notable than tens of thousands of other sex offenders. This is a BLP and as such we need to be sure that sources are of a high quality and that the subject is treated fairly. (Note: fair treatment does not mean whitewashing) Delete without prejudice to a recreation when better sources allow for an article that will avoid issues of WP:UNDUE. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete It's shocking and sad that he seems to still be working as a coach, but really WP is not a most wanted poster or a milk carton warning people about possible dangers in society. This seems to be the main point of the article. No real information on (or claim to) his importance as a coach. Wolfview (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note OK, I've now started a sandbox version of the article at User:NSH001/sandbox. I reckon it covers the sex offences part pretty thoroughly, and in a strictly NPOV manner. It still needs several days' work to expand the triathlon section to give proper weight to that part of the article. Either the article can be kept as it is, and I will paste my version on top of it when I think it's ready for mainspace, or it can be deleted, then I will move my version into mainspace when ready. My preference is for deletion, as I see nothing worth keeping in the current version or its edit history, but I will leave the decision up to the closing admin, and possibly other editors. It might be best to wait a few days to allow consensus to emerge regarding my proposal. --NSH001 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:BLP1E. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the sexual abuse issue didn't exist. Lankiveil 23:12, 13 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, -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 14 January 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. After taking into account the single-purpose activity, the consensus clearly favors deletion here. –MuZemike 22:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Original research. The original article included a paragraph about the creator of this concept, one Iva Isaković, whose name is similar to the username of this article's creator (Ivaland (talk · contribs)). The concept was apparently created as part of the author's Master's Thesis. No other uses of this terminology can be found. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. It looks like original research to me too. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the term in this context, and I can find nothing on a search for "Iva Isaković" that mentions this work. Of the two sources given, one is a definition of a different term, Social Capital, and the other is a search result that has some hits on the words "survival" and "capital" individually, but not the phrase itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Pure original research. The second link has the illusion of an article entitled "SURVIVAL CAPITAL", but turns out to be the results of a search engine-- you can type in anything in the upper right hand corner. Mandsford 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is just the beginning of the mentioned list and the rest will be considered later.Master work is not testing presence of concept because it is obvious that the concept is very familiar to our years and eyes and used by actors and different promoters of social capital practice. So, master work is not criteria for reality of survival capital but Internet practice including Knowledge (XXG). Master work is trying to denote survival capital as academic notion and candidate for contemporary social theory and I am not selling my vision for best mark. As I understand Knowledge (XXG) policy rules, my article has only Knowledge (XXG) profile without informations specific for original master work. http://www.earth.org.in/organic-farming.txt There can be no economy without ecology and all ecological losses are erosion of our survival capital on this earth. Polo Group’s Miranda Liu: ‘Innovation Is Our Survival Capital’ http://www.knowledgeatwharton.com.cn/index.cfm?fa=printArticle&articleID=2053&languageid=1 Nikhil adds: Well, it looks like survival capital, and $12 million is significantly higher Than http://www.medianama.com/2010/01/223-sms-gupshup-raises-12million-in-series-d-funding/their previous rounds of funding. William Goldberg & Co For over twenty years, the firm has helped companies with profit improvement, business consulting, expansion or survival capital, and mergers & acquisitions. http://www.business.com/directory/financial_services/investment_banking_and_brokerage/mergers_and_acquisitions_manda/consulting_services/ For those companies that are able, tapping the public markets for equity regardless of whether to raise “survival capital” or dry powder has been made more challenging by the increase in volatility and the sharp decrease in company valuations. http://www.marine-money.com/archive/tag/ethan-ram
  • Keep Article has lots of great information. V RS --Anna O'Leary (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Anna O'Leary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete No sign of use in a reliable source. Google books and scholar come up largely negative. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Last year when I started with master work I have found about 200 Internet online locations with Survival Capital topic ,with different degrees of independence of the concept Eg Survival Capital,,,Capital in Surviving ... Capital ....Survive .Six month later I have found 400 Internet locations with same topic and much more articles using Survival Capital as construct.The things are moving so quickly to the fact that Survival Capital is reality of contemporary existential practice and my master work is dedicated to importance of this concept for our civilization .Thanks to people who are not deleting our reality ,who recognize and have a vision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaland (talk • contribs)
    • Comment If there are 200 - 400 sources, please provide a citation any of them to indicate that this term has actually been the topic of significant coverage. So far, we have only your word for it. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 16:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • But this article is your own synthesis, based on your own research into those sources - and that breaches the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR rules (I have a Masters dissertation of my own that probes what I think is an important and emerging concept, and which got me good marks for original thinking, but it is not notable according to Knowledge (XXG) rules). For this article to be considered notable, you need to get your own Masters work published, recognized, and written about by multiple reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don’t believe that this article contains original thesis. First of all in the article there is no mention of master thesis there is only mentioning of internet and academic usage of the term survival capital. Author also provided several web pages which indicate that term survival capital has been around for awhile. I find this article an important and valuable, it provides some new insight in general development of capital in new and modern social order particularly through modern media like the Internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wukicevic (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Wukicevic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • The author has not provided a single web page that in any way defines or describes the concept of "survival capital". Also, "new insight" is not what Knowledge (XXG) is for - Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia and should only contain information that is already known and notable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment The original form of the article clearly indicated that the concept of "survival capital" discussed in the article was the concept of an author named Iva Isaković who created the concept in his (her?) Master's Thesis. That citation has later been removed, but its presence in the original article indicates that the source of this article is original research. The link farm that has been added to the article really just consists of a bunch of articles that satisfy the term "survival capital". Each link uses the term in a different context with a different meaning, including one that claims that "Wellington will soon overtake Seattle WA as the heart attack survival capital of the world." Surely this is not the meaning that the author has in mind, and the addition of such a link farm merely serves to obfuscate the issue. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I knew what the article was about from the title. Then I started reading it, and found myself in a mire. I think the article could be reduced to "Survival capital is capital you need in order to survive". With possibly a second sentence, "You must make this capital provision out of your other capital assets". I could be wrong. Words are my business, however. As to references, what is http://radaris.com/p/Jessica/Roar/ there for? It appears to be some form of social networking and doesn't contain the word 'sur' (the box went red when I'd got that far typing in 'survival'). http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2007/Volume26/EB-07Z10012A.pdf seems to be talking about cultural capital. The third random one I picked turned out to be already mentioned above. So I picked a fourth - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,900094,00.html and bingo! Well, a brief use of the words in an article about something else. Peridon (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • KEEP If Knowledge (XXG) is Encyclopedia for informations that are "...already known and notable" than Knowledge (XXG) is running after other mass media and Knowledge (XXG) is media that did nor recognize presence of concept yet or just hesitate to be the first Encyclopedia to do it.I understand.But Knowledge (XXG) has the chance to be the first because of its nature and position-encyclopedia with modern and actual access. Knowledge (XXG), please just type Survival Capital in eg google and you should found 400 or more articles. I know that some of them are not point of this article but are "some" important for deleting this article more than all others? Everybody heard and feel familiar with this notion,even my 10 year old neighbor.Survival Capital is interesting for the whole modern World and process made a notion to be mature for encyclopedia and supported by it. I told before that there are no definitons of Survival Capital and this is the point of my master work which is not important here.But there are descriptions which underline value and function of concept for people and institution using this concept on Internet again and again and again ...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.73 (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • "But Knowledge (XXG) has the chance to be the first because of its nature and position-encyclopedia with modern and actual access." - Wilkipedia does not want to be the first, because the publishing of original research is NOT the purpose of an encyclopedia.
    • "Knowledge (XXG), please just type Survival Capital in eg google and you should found 400 or more articles. I know that some of them are not point of this article but are "some" important for deleting this article more than all others?" - Show us one reliable source, then - just one - that defines and describes "Survival capital" in a way that would support this article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep This article contains only informations about Survival Capital which are known and notable yet and original aspect of notion should be discussed in another form ,hope soon will find a place here,Everything on Knowledge (XXG) was original once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.73 (talk • contribs)

Comment I think this IP editor has made their opinion well known in several posts on this page already. However, rather than soliciting the opinions of individuals, we are actually trying to establish whether this article meets the relevant guidelines. No indications have been given by any of the "keep" !voters as to how it does meet guidelines. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I've struck the "keep" - they've already !voted once. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 21 January 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) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maldivian honours system (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 search for references found only Knowledge (XXG) mirrors. The requirements of WP:V are "whether readers can check that material in Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". All indications are that article is the fabrication of a banned user. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete This one closed as a keep two years ago, based on the old "someone, not I, will improve this" argument. Needless to say, it's the same piece of garbage that it was last time. Nothing links to this article . There's no content, other than to say that there was a system, in the Maldives, to honor people and that "Kilegefan" was the highest honor, although even that is unsourced. While every governmental unit in the world has a way of honoring people, ranging from a "key to the city" to a medal, the primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide reliable information that can be verified. Until someone who knows what they're doing can write a stand alone article, a paragraph will suffice. Mandsford 20:04, 14 January 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 to 720p. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

720i (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 not a standard resoultion. It should be deleted. Hinata talk 15:55, 14 January 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. –MuZemike 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Jacky Wong (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 appear to be notable: (1) He has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; (2) He does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; and (3) he has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • The blog has scans of a three-page article. The links to the three pages worked earlier but have now become error messages. Here are the links again (this time using the durable WebCite): 1, 2, and 3. Cunard (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Er, the article says nothing of notability as far as I can tell (the words of page 2 are really blurry). It's mainly about how Wong entered a band-one EMI school. A lot of people enter band-one EMI schools every year, so this does not establish notability. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Page 2 provides in-depth biographical information about Wong. That a third-party publication chose to write a featured story about his personal life—how his mother ensured that he studied hard, did well in his classes, and was able to get into his chosen secondary school—indicates that Wong is notable.

    It is true that many people enter band-one EMI schools every year. But how many of these people are written about by the media? Very few, I would predict. Cunard (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a systematic bias as it becomes difficult to verify sources if they are in a language different from that of the Wiki itself. How can one confirm the statements if one cannot read the cited source?Wkharrisjr (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of Chinese Wikipedians on en.wikipedia (including me). Kayau Voting IS evil 10:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I can read the cited sources and verify their information. Cunard (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I am quite sure that you are a honorable and trustworthy editor (no sarcasm intended) but that still does not mean that a non-Chineese reader can verify the citations for themselves. Isn't the point of citing sources is for the reader to investigate and verify the claims themselves instead of relying on third-parties to do it for them?Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG) recognizes this concern, and DOES allow non-English sources in such cases where English sources are unavailable... specially for someone with an assertion of non-English notability. See: Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability#Non-English sources, Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources#Non-English sources, and Knowledge (XXG):Systemic bias#Biographies And for non-Chinese-reading Wikipedians, a translation may be requested and included in the article... usually in a "notes" section. Translations ARE allowable, and follow both policy and guideline. Schmidt, 21:45, 18 January 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. Courcelles 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Ogletree (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:Notability The subject appeared in only one film and notability for entertainers requires multiple appearances. No indication of any significant fan base or "cult" following and no indication that the subject made any significant or unique contribution to her field. Declined PROD. Safiel (talk) 15:16, 14 January 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 as the rough consensus seems to favor retention. Any further discussions regarding merging can be handled outside of AFD. –MuZemike 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The subject of the article has been an unsuccessful candidate for election to Parliament, and was a local councillor; it is generally accepted that neither is a claim of notability in itself. It is possible to argue that he is notable because of the rare legal case he fought to overturn the 2010 election result, but I would contend that it is the case itself that is notable rather than the litigant. All relevant information about the case is contained in the article about the resulting by-election; so I suggest deleting the biography and then replacing with a redirect to this article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Only notable for one event; ample precedent that just being a parliamentary candidate is insufficient. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Watkins is more than just a (former) parliamentary candidate. He is responsible for challenging the general election result which found an MP guilty of a criminal offence and voided the MPs election, prompting their removal as an MP and a by-election. This is far from a regular occurrence, the last time an election was voided like this was in 1997 and it was under an election law that had not been used in 99 years. He was of course the target of the statements which the court found were illegal. I suggest he meets the criteria set out at WP:POLITICIAN regarding candidates: ...such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Adambro (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The media are wrong to state that the section invoked by Watkins had not been invoked in 99 years; see Miranda Grell for one, and the court judgment cites other occasions as precedents. But even if so, that does not make the litigant notable. We need multiple independent sources on the subject of Elwyn Watkins, not on his election petition or election candidatures. I have found none. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep/possibly re-work/re-name. Clearly Watkins does not meet notability purely as a councillor and unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate, but, also clearly, an unsuccessful candidate can still be notable more generally under WP:GNG. The events around the election court case and subsequent by-election are clearly very significant, notwithstanding precisely when the law was last invoked (although thanks to Sam Blacketer's usual precision on that matter). For me, Timrollpickering's WP:ONEEVENT argument is the most relevant. WP:ONEEVENT says, "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Watkins' role in the event was clearly very significant, and I feel the event was very significant (to UK politics). I don't agree with Sam Blacketer that the event is adequately covered under the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011 article, although it is better covered under Phil Woolas. However, there is no article specifically about the event. It seems to me that what we should do to follow WP:ONEEVENT is create Watkins v Woolas about the court case, its background and associated appeals, then re-direct Elwyn Watkins there! In the absence of someone more legally minded doing that, I'd keep this article, but I can see the arguments both ways. If this article is deleted, I suggest re-direction to Phil Woolas#Re-election 2010 and election court case rather than Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011. As a final observation, I think the analogy with the Miranda Grell article (which I note I created) would suggest that this article should be kept: Watkins is more notable than Grell. There was an AfD for Miranda Grell, not that I can find it, but the decision was to keep. Bondegezou (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge, probably to the article about the by-election. The by-election, and the court case surrounding it, are both notable chapters in the history of this parliament, and Elwyn Watkins played an important role in it, but he doesn't seem to have any coverage independent of these events, so this is a clear WP:BIO1E. However, this should be merged properly, to make sure no information in this article is lost if it isn't already in the article of the merge destination.. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep /strongly support the positions of Bondegezou. Material is not covered sufficiently elsewhere and very notable (disagree about his comparison of Grell compared to Watkins though as Watkins is the victim whereas Grell was the perpetrator). The reason for notability is because this is a case occurring in General Election seat and therefore had a huge amount of coverage, the Grell case was merely a local election.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete a failed candidate. Alternatively merge into new article on unsuccessful UK tactical voting. 86.161.31.200 (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to the bye-election article, whose background section ought to be expanded. Since he was not elected, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. However the circumstances of the by-election need coverage in more than the Phil Woolas article. I do not think we usually have by-election articles, as it is sufficient to put the results in the constituency article, but this is the first occasion in about a century that an election court has overturned an election result for misconduct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact we do have articles specifically on all recent Parliamentary by-elections - see Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011 and explore away with the box at the bottom. There seems to be a general belief that all by-elections are notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I am more used to editing constituency articles, where people have frequently provided a link to a non-existent by-election article. However, this error does not invalidate the point that I sought to make; in fact it probably strengthens it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 18 January 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. Courcelles 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Babajide Ogunbiyi (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 pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a source what says the Danish 1st league isn't fully professional?--TM 14:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This source, also listed at WP:FPL, provides information on the pro status in the Danish football pyramid. In addition, since notability requires verifiable evidence, this player would have been non-notable simply in the absence of a source indicating he had played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 14 January 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 NAC - Speedily deleted as G11 by User:RHaworth. meshach (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

EP China / Electrical China 2010 (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 no more than an advert for an upcoming (but subsequently past) trade show. Emeraude (talk) 13:44, 14 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Not sufficiently notable; google returns six results. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:08, 14 January 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 speedily deleted (G4) by JohnCD. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Are Yaaroo (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 solid sources. A previous version of the same name was deleted before. Novice7 | Talk 13:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is something in Hindi language. Novice7 | Talk 13:27, 14 January 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. –MuZemike 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Not sufficiently notable. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep ; nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri 16:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Only 613 results in Google. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for keep the article

Ábrahám, a professional handballer, plays for Veszprém Barabás KC in the Hungarian Championship, which is among the strongest in Europe, listed second on the seedings of the EHF Champions League, the top continental tournament in handball. (Seedings for the current season). She is also a Hungarian full international, having played on the 2010 European Women's Handball Championship, therefore fits the criteria of notability which says "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics."

Generally, handball is sourced poorly throughout the net, which can be a reason for the low number of results in Google. However, searching with her native name gives over 60,000 results, which indicates her notability. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyper Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite a long and spirited defense of this article's creator, the consensus here is to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Risk (clone) (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. Strange article which aims to provide a complicated theoretical rationale for an utterly trivial idea, namely that you can use the word "clone" to describe a copy of a game. Probably created with the aim of promoting Xisk, one of the game sites referred to in the external links section. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR and possibly WP:SPAM andy (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. Reads like a brief defending the legality under copyright law of a game copy. Loved the "time travel" argument but it doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG). Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's the germ of an idea in here - that certain games introduce a basic gameplay that is then the basis for numerous others. However, even if such an article could ever be written encyclopedically, nothing in this would be salvegable. So, delete.--Korruski 14:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentleman, the entire purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to define and document term Risk (clone) which has been in use by Risk players for many years now. The term is very relevant today and deserves it's own article.

Some of the information in the article previously lived in the Risk (game) article but was removed for various reasons (some stupid, some legitimate). Hopefully much of that very useful lost information will find it's way back into the Risk (clone) article where it belongs.

As the Risk (clone) article states, the purpose of a Risk (clone) is NOT to be the same as Risk and in fact in all cases, the exact opposite is sought.

I refer you to the IBM_PC article, specifically the history of the term PC clone where every ma an pop were cloning the original artifact. There is a reason they were called clones - they were NOT identical - if they were they'd've been called 'PC COPIES'.

In the land of copyright you are allowed to 'clone' the source idea. But you may not 'copy' already published copyrighted expressions of said idea. Risk clones are expressions of the generic platonic non-copyrightable IDEA of Risk. They are NOT copies of 1959 expressed published materials.

Just as there ended up being more PC clones than actual IBM pc's, there are more Risk clones than actual Hasbro licensed variants. And there are more players playing Risk clones (on a daily basis) than there are playing the actual game of Risk.

Legally, Risk is no different than Chess and Checkers. Anybody can legally make a Risk clone as long as they do not re-use any of the Hasbro published materials.

I'd suggest also adding Risk (variants) to the disambiguation list and redirect to the Risk (clone) article.

The commercialization argument does not hold water, the Risk (game) article is a shrine to the Hasbro commercialized versions Risk. There are some of you that are failing to understand that Hasbro does not have the soul exclusive monolpoly to commericialize expressions of Risk. Yes they (Parker Brothers) were the first to express the idea of Risk. But doing so does not prevent others from also expressing Risk. If you delete this article for commercial/copyright reasons, then you are being hypocritical and you are persuing a policy that does not agree with United States Copyright laws.

The term Risk (clone) is very legitimate and deserves it's own article. --Riitoken (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • NOTE: the following line appears in the Risk (game) article "There have also been many unlicensed variants, some of them distributed freely over the Internet and others available commercially." This is clearly referring to what are known as Risk (clones).

IDEAS are cloned. MATERIALS are copied. --Riitoken (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Risk (clone) article contributes to the clarification of what is and is not a violation of copyright using real world examples. The article has real world value for any reader seeking to understand the difference between an IDEA and an EXPRESSION of an idea. --Riitoken (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia article Lux_(video_game) is a Risk (clone) which is fine. But we need an article that clearly defines what a Risk (clone) is, specifically that they are legal and do not need the consent of Hasbro. --Riitoken (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What you need to do to rescue this article is to concisely show the notability of the term, through its use and explanation in reliable sources. Explaining at great length why you personally think it is important is, unfortunately, no substitute.--Korruski 16:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to document the already existing phrase being used by the internet community. The term is not new and has existed for some time. There is no way to know when it was first used but I know that I personally heard the term back at the beginning of the IBM pc era in the 80's. The article has merit because it documents the populist term already in use. Here are 6 hits from a google search for the term "risk clone": http://www.baumanfamily.com/john/risk.html http://boardgames.about.com/od/riskonline/Risk_Online_and_Computer_Versions.htm http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=48539 http://demonews.com/thread104-1.html http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/flash+risk+clone+freeware/ http://touchreviews.net/pocket-world-war-risk-clone/ The article is NOT doing original research on the term. It is merely documenting what has already transpired in the modern lingo of the internet. Sometimes wikipedia IS the authoritative place to learn what a popular term means - certainly in this instance. Now if any of you disagree with how the article describes the already existing term then please EDIT THE ARTICLE with your changes, but do not delete the article. --Riitoken (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Riitoken, have you read the links I provided you above to WP:RS and WP:Notability?--Korruski 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Korruski, yes I have. I would gladly document the term Risk clone as soon as we can find the entity with the authority to define the term. This is one of these rarer instances where the standard wikipedia OR guidelines are net helpful to the wikipedia community. I chose not to include the google hits as references because the links seems a bit transient and some of the pages were product ads. Nevertheless, the term itself is being used and has been used for years. It is time that for a wikipedia article that documents the meaning of the popular usage of the term. Read the opening line of the article and see that it properly describes the phrase and that sentence is useful to readers who simply want a nice reference point for the term. --Riitoken (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I never mentioned WP:OR. Google hits are not adequate references, as you yourself point out. You say you have read WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY, yet you continue to ignore these policies. Until you can come forward with an argument for keeping the article that is rooted in policy, and not in your own opinion, there seems little point in debating the matter further.--Korruski 03:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As of 2011-Jan-14 google is showing 25,700 page hits for the exact phrase "risk clone" --Riitoken (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Compare the number of hits for "Asteroids clone", "Space invaders clone", and so on. We don't need to have (and should not have) articles for all of these, because this is really just one concept (cloning) being applied to many different games. We only need one article for clones in general. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Ollie your point is noted and I've suggested above that we add Risk (variant) to the disambiguation. Consider the other pages like Chess and Checkers that have their own variants WP article. These Risk variants previously tried to live on the Risk (game) page but were rejected because they were not officially licensed ... nevertheless they deserve mention. And the Risk (clone) page is the place to do it. --Riitoken (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll go on record now and say that when the number of published Risk variants matches the number of Chess variants, I'll support an article on Risk variants. I imagine this will take quite some time, though. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Google this phrase what is a risk clone? and see that the first hit is a reference to Risk (game) (the original) and the second hit is a reference to Risk (clone) and that is as it should be. The two article combined serve the reader fully. --Riitoken (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Merge any encyclopedic material to a new section Risk (game)#Clones, and move this page to the new title Risk clone redirecting to that new section; delete the resulting double-redirect page Risk (clone), whose mistaken pseudo-disambiguation name (this is not about something called "Risk" that is a clone) is an unlikely search title.  --Lambiam 19:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Lambiam, might I remind you that the Risk (game) article used to have a large selection devoted to clones and variants. And then there was a huge edit war and all of clone type info got evicted from the article. There was, for a time, an unofficial list of risk games article but that got removed as well. Hasbro now gets a free shrine for every commercial product released under Risk license. Meanwhile none of the legal legitimate clones get zero mention anywhere. But this isn't just about mentioning Risk clones; it's also about all of the useful Risk related info that got removed from the Risk page in the edit war. Hopefully some of that content can find a place to live on the Risk (clone) page. The Risk clone article is the best place to document the world of Risk clones. It does not belong on the Official Hasbro Risk page and Hasbro does not want it there. --Riitoken (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the alternative is Delete. If all the material that is not based on reliable sources is deleted from this article, not even enough remains for a stub. When was this huge edit "clone war" you speak of? I couldn't find anything indicating an edit war in the article history of Risk (game) or its talk page and talk page archive. Are you referring to the deletion discussion for List of unofficial Risk versions? That was a regular discussion, not an edit war. In any case, this article is not the solution. I'm confident a reasonable amount of verifiable material on Risk clones can be added to and kept in Risk (game).  --Lambiam 13:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
"There have also been many unlicensed variants, some of them distributed freely over the Internet and others available commercially. See the Risk (clone) article for more information."
"In addition, there are many unofficial Risk clones, both for download and online play. Due to the history of the game's creation, there are no IP protections on the game, other than a US trademark on the word RISK when written in the distinctive red font ."

And I ask any of you to refer me to the Knowledge (XXG) rules that, allow Hasbro to enshrine every commercially licensed instance of a Risk based work, but disallow a similar shrine to legitimate Risk (clones). Furthermore, given that these two excerpts remain in the Risk (game) article, where EXACTLY is the reader supposed to learn more about the history of Risk clones with the expected Knowledge (XXG) Neutral Point of View?

I again remind all of you that the list of unofficial clones used to live on the Risk (game) page but were evicted in the giant edit war last year.

And to Ollie, yes there SHOULD be a page for Asteroids (clone) and Space Invaders (clone) assuming there is a wikipedia writer/editor willing to start those articles and there is something legitimate to say within those articles and assuming the article can be written from the neutral pov. --Riitoken (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You totally ignore the issue that the article does not conform to the policies of Knowledge (XXG). If you want these policies changed, fine, go ahead, make the case for changing them — not here, but at the Village Pump or on the talk pages for these policies. But as long as they are as they are, we should not make an exception for these clones, however crucially important it may be for the world to be able to partake of this information.  --Lambiam 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Update I rewrote the copyright section. The time travel thing is entirely based on the legal concept of the subtractive test which is a valid legal concept - I added 2 references for this. I am trying to find the ref. for the time travel example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • KeepThe "Modding" and Cloning of games is becoming more and more popular. This is a legitimate area for information and discussion. I would disagree with Ollie who wants to hold the "Number of Chess variants" up as the threshold. Chess has existed for thousands of years, and there are untold number of variants. For people who are interested in clones, I can see no reason why Knowledge (XXG) can't be a source of information about those mods and clones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.2.79 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — 71.59.2.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Objection There are no WP:RS issues in the Risk (clone) article. There are no unreliable sources and/or references. --Riitoken (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    The issue is that there is a lack of reliable sources.  --Lambiam 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Objection There are no WP:N issues in the Risk (clone) article. I agree that any one individual clone might not be noteworthy enough to merit it's own Knowledge (XXG) article. But COLLECTIVELY, the entire congregation of Risk clones is most definitely notable and worthy of an article with a neutral point of view that discusses the entire collection of clones. --Riitoken (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    If that is the case, you should be able to cite reliable sources that discuss the concept of "Risk clone" is some depth (and not just mention it in passing). The content of the article can then be based on what is said in these sources. Without such sources, the content of the article is unverifiable.  --Lambiam 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Lambiam, you're being obtuse. How does anybody define a term that is already in the collective language and has been for years? As I've already said I first heard the term Risk clone back in the 80's. Furthermore ... tell me WHO has the authority to define something that's already in use by the collective population of online Risk players? (rhetorical:nobody). The article defines the term as is being already used in the lingo. It does not redefine the term. It just states what's already a fact. However, if anybody (any Risk player) were to happen along and take issue with the way it's defined in the article then, they might, in the spirit of Knowledge (XXG), edit the article for better wording. But if that doesn't happen then we can assume that those who already know what the term means are agreeing with the article by NOT making an edit. How do you document what a collective is already doing and has been doing for sometime? This is one of those situations where it's perfectly fine for Knowledge (XXG) to simply report the facts with neutral pov - which is exactly what the article does. --Riitoken (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you document what a collective is already doing and has been doing for sometime? Not by doing original research on the topic and then writing it up as an article on Knowledge (XXG). All I'm trying to do is apply established Knowledge (XXG) policy to the issue of whether your article should be kept; your objections appear (to me) to ignore the gist of our policies and therefore come out as irrelevant. The concept of "authority" plays no role in our policies; that of "reliable source" does. I've probably heard the term "conclusive argument" long before you first heard the term "Risk clone", but that does not mean I can just start an article in which I write up my understanding of that term as I've encountered it. Instead, if I want to contribute an article about that concept, I need to find reliable sources that have written in some depth about it, and summarize in encyclopedic terms what they have to say.  --Lambiam 10:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You're doing a sincere job of trying to defend the policy. However, consider this opening line in the PC_clone article "Such computers used to be referred to as PC clones, or IBM clones since they almost exactly duplicated all the significant features of the PC architecture". This is an UNCITED statement nor can it be cited with a reliable source ... because nobody has the authority to be a reliable source for something the collective is ALREADY DOING. In other words ... everyone who was alive during the PC revolution already understood the term PC clone so much so that nobody has thought to tag the article reference with the CN tag - and why is that? rhetorical: because the collective mind/lingo IS the reliable eye witness source and that is plain and acceptable to everyone reading the article. There is no original research here. To some degree, all of Knowledge (XXG) is neutral fact based reporting on what the collective mind already knows to be true. If You cry foul over the term Risk clone then you need to do the same for the term PC clone to be consistent in you position. I grant you that the term PC clone is more notable than the term Risk clone but that does not mean that Risk clone is not notable. --Riitoken (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me try to clear up a point of confusion: 'reliable' in terms of Knowledge (XXG) policy has a specific (jargon) definition, which you can read here. It has nothing to do with authority - a source being 'reliable' just means that it was independently published by some organization with a reputation for doing decent fact checking. Original research has a Knowledge (XXG) specific meaning as well - it is anything you just wrote down yourself without following a source. Since you admit that your article is uncited (as you claim it cannot be cited), then it is by definition original research. - MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Point me to the reliable source that fact checked the term PC clone. It is unacceptable to reject google as an unreliable source for collective behavior (facts) seeing as the relevance of page sorting is decided by quantity of collective reference. The truth of the term Risk clone does NOT become more or less reliable just because some individual or group publishes something on the subject. Nor would it mean that they were the first to use the term. The term Risk clone is there and has been there for over 3 decades. I know this the same way I know that the term PC clone has been used for over 3 decades. The terms are accurate by simple repeatable observation - which is about as scientific as it gets. I didn't need a reliable source to tell me this. --Riitoken (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. That another article has bad sourcing does not mean that Risk (clone) should have bad sourcing as well. Your objections to the WP:RS guideline are noted, but the fact remains that if you want this article to be kept, you will need to edit it to be in compliance. - MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
In addition to MrOllie's remarks (with which I fully agree), it is actually easy enough to find reliable sources for the term "PC clone": Boston Globe (December 4, 1983), Atlanta Journal (December 23, 1985), Seven Principles that Drive Corporate Value in any Economy (2003; ISBN 0-7879-6604-5), Computers: The Life Story of a Technology (2007; ISBN 978-0-8018-8774-1), and so on.  --Lambiam 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Please re-read my PC_clone argument. I never said there was bad sourcing for the term PC_cone. I said that it was a case where sourcing wasn't needed because anyone involved in the PC revolution already knew what it meant. The same thing applies to the phrase Risk clone in that anybody involved in the world of online Risk knows what that means without ever having a reference as a reliable source - the collective is a reliable source. Once the initiate begins looking for various places to play Risk online, they are guaranteed to bump into the phrase Risk clone often and after having seen the term used the same way for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th and Nth time, they don't need a reference - the collective online mind was the reference. Try hunting for online Risk sites without encountering the phrase Risk clone - impossible. Knowledge (XXG) serves the public interest by providing an article explaining Risk clones and some of the more notable sites with the expected WP:NPOV.
  • Update I have removed the Time travel test until I can find a solid academic ref. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Update I have changed the legal wording in the List of Risk clones section. After re-reading some of the arguments here, I now admit and agree that Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to pronounce any given Risk clone as legal unless we have an official cite stating such. However, Knowledge (XXG) is also NOT the place to declare a Risk clone to be illegal just because the clone is not an official Hasbro licensee. Hasbro bears the burden to defends it's copyright (not Knowledge (XXG) or it's editors). We should also recognize that Hasbro is the definitive authority on exactly what has been officially licensed and that list is very well documented on the Hasbro shrine for commercialized Risk (game) - and for this reason I say it is best to not sully their shrine with the notable clones for which they have no commercial interest. However, legal Risk clones have been around for 30 years or more and they deserve their own article - the commercial interests of Hasbro be damned. --Riitoken (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep no-merge I refer all of you to this markup comment from the Risk_game#Official_licensed_Risk_games "This section is for OFFICIAL implementations only. Do NOT add any unofficial "Risk" clones no matter how popular they might be. If in doubt, bring it up on the talk page first." . So two things to say here: 1) somebody wanting to assert authority over that list stamped the markup comment. 2) that same editor used the term Risk clone and recognized the fact that some Risk clones are NOTABLE. --Riitoken (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    Of course one should not add unlicensed Risk clones under the heading "Officially licensed Risk games", but I can't see an objection to listing other notable but unlicensed Risk clones in a new section Risk (game)#Other clones.  --Lambiam 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    Lambiam, you're not listening. We aready tried a section for "unofficial clones" and it was strongly opposed by those who feel that the Risk (game) article be devoted to the "official" Hasbro game. I for one, used to be a supporter of having the clone list maintained there - but I have since changed my mind. We also tried a separate article called "Unofficial List of Risk games" (or something very close to that) and it was also evicted by various editors for being just a shrine list (similar to the shrine inside the Risk (game) article). The Risk (clone) article can be encyclopediac in it's own right and it can and will have a WP:NPOV given enough time and enough input by those motivated to watch over the article. The problem has been that everytime this collective participation begins to happen some !bleeping wiki admin removes the bleeping section or page (and that kills the willingness of voluntary participation). Leave it the bleep alone and give it time; I'm not the only editor with expert knowledge; there are others out there, but they have to first believe that all of their writing and contribution isn't going to get bleeping deleted (harsh abusive language omitted). --Riitoken (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    I asked above: 'When was this huge edit "clone war" you speak of?', but did not see a reply. Can you give a date on which the Risk article contained a section for "unofficial clones"?  --Lambiam 00:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    Lambiam, quite frankly, I'm trying to forget the experience. There are others who gave up on Knowledge (XXG) at that time - they were attempting to make a contribution to that page and kept getting deleted, reverted, undone, etc. If you really care then search through the history for edits made by 'Riitoken' and others. I personally do not care to help edit that page ever again other than to add the links to Risk (clone) for the 2 places where other "unofficial" clones are mentioned. We tried again when the unofficial risk game article was started and were shot down again. Most of them now have a "screw you" Knowledge (XXG) attitude. So I am trying yet a third time to make the case that the Risk (clone) editors/enthusiasts should have their own article to write the WP:NPOV for Risk clones separate from the Hasbro copyright protected content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    If you mean the section removed in this edit, I think it was rightly removed, as it was an unencyclopedic linkfarm with a complete lack of citations from reliable sources and no means to distinguish the notable from the totally non-notable. As I wrote before, I don't think there would be an objection to listing notable Risk clones, such as have their own Knowledge (XXG) articles.  --Lambiam 07:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    I agree that the "unofficial list" does not belong in the Risk (game) article. It belongs in the Risk (clone) article. You'll also notice that not all of the clones in the edit section you referenced did not get mentioned on the Risk (clone) page. It will be up to the Risk (clone) editors as to what is notable enough to mention as a Risk clone and those editors will be avid players of Risk and Risk clones and/or makers of Risk clones. I qualify in all 3 categories. Do you? --Riitoken (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    You don't understand. The reason it did not belong in the Risk (game) article is that this list does not belong in an encyclopedia, period. That is the meaning of "unencyclopedic". If an article cannot exist without such an unencyclopedic list, the article does not belong on Knowledge (XXG). See What Knowledge (XXG) is not. What is acceptable is a reasonably sized list of notable Risk clones. Almost all clones on the list that was removed are not notable (in the sense as defined by Knowledge (XXG)).  --Lambiam 17:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    We are just not going to agree here. I've seen what happens when "unofficial" clones get mentioned on the Risk (game) page. There are many readers not involved in this current debate who will immediately remove/revert any such list in the name of purity and loyalty. The concensus was that the Risk (game) page be reserved for only the commercially licensed products and the commercial interests of Hasbro. I used to oppose this concensus but I now support it. However, if Hasbro is going to be given a free commercial shrine to every profit motivated Risk based product they've ever made, then, at a minimum, the non Hasbro licensed Risk clones should get a shrine of appropriate magnitude, otherwise you and any other editor in this debate are by default being hypocritical and you bear the burden to explain why a Hasbro licensed products get mentioned and the "unlicensed" products do not. One central purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to draw attention to the world of Risk clones and NOT the world of Hasbro products. What is your justification for granting attention to Hasbro products but not allowing attention for Risk clones? What is your justification for wanting all notable Risk clones to be mentioned on the Hasbro centric Risk game article where attention is drawn to Hasbro commercial products? If drawing attention to viable Risk clones is "unencyclopediac" then drawing any attention to Hasbro products is equally "unencyclopediac". Do you work for Hasbro Lambiam? --Riitoken (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete bizarre content fork, with most of the article being a silly legal defence of why the "clones" are supposedly not illegal. Simply put, this isn't encyclopedia material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    Andrew, the copyright info is there because, while Hasbro would have everyone believe that they own the idea of Risk, the U.S. copyright office disagrees. Having actually spoken with Hasbro attorney's and having been served cease and desist letters, I'd say I know WTF I'm talking about. Explaining why Risk clones are not infringements is not silly ... however, not understanding why (apparently in your case) is silly. Commenting on your own ignorance in a debate is even worse. --Riitoken (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    No personal attacks, please.  --Lambiam 07:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    Lambiam, no personal attack was leveled. Andrew is simply mis-informed if he thinks the copyright section is 'silly' and/or irrelevant. Where Risk and Risk clones are concerned, it is VERY relevant. I am simply challenging the notion that Hasbro is the authority who gets to decide what is or is not an infringing Risk clone; Poor Boy Risk definitely is not and they know it and I know they know it. I am also challenging the notion they they get to decide whether or not "unofficial" notable Risk clones are mentioned on Knowledge (XXG). Remember the list of "unofficial" Risk clones have been evicted from the Risk (game) article at least twice now because they were "unofficial". --Riitoken (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    You appear to have a quite curious idea of the extent of the authority of Hasbro. I can assure you with total confidence that Hasbro has no authority whatsoever to decide what content is acceptable in our Risk (game) article. There is only one authority for that: the consensus of the Knowledge (XXG) community. The list of unofficial Risk variants was removed from the article simply because it was unencyclopedic material, as I've explained above.  --Lambiam 16:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you for saying this out loud. As the Purpose section indicates, the Risk (clone) article is not about any one individual Risk clone, it is about the collective Cult following of those who play and make Risk clones. It may be that any given clone isn't notable enough for it's own solo WP article but that does not mean it can't be discussed in a historical section in the main Risk (clone) article. And I'm going on record to say that the only Knowledge (XXG) editors who get to decide what is 'notable' are actual Risk clone players and Risk clone makers. If you qualify then good; I am definitely qualified. Those that don't play Risk or Risk clones or have never made a Risk clone are less qualified to settle the 'notability' issue - doing so would be the same as if I were to comment on what was notable in the world of Gay/Lesbian fashion. --Riitoken (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    Should only actual communists be allowed to edit the article Communism? Whether you like it or not, that is not how Knowledge (XXG) works. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia anyone can edit; what counts in case of a content dispute is the quality of arguments (in the context of the principles and policies of Knowledge (XXG)), irrespective of the credentials or qualifications of the discussants making these arguments (unless you're User:Jimbo Wales speaking ex cathedra).  --Lambiam 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    Anybody should be allowed to make valid edits for Communism and anybody should be allowed to make valid edits for Risk (clone). However, deciding who/what is 'notable' in the history of communism is not something I would do and neither should you unless you are an expert in that area. Each of us have areas where we bring expert knowledge. I happen to be an expert on Risk clones and copyright issues regarding such which is why I started the article. Risk has a Cult following of enthusiasts who play and make what are known as Risk clones; it's the same type of cult following found amongst Trekkie's and this Risk cult following is worthy of it's own article. --Riitoken (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    We don't decide what is notable in the field of risk clones. We rely on third party sources to do it for us - that it why we keep asking for them. That is how Knowledge (XXG) works. - MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    Riitoken, if anything the opposite is true: people with conflicts of interest regarding a topic are frequently banned from editing that topic on the grounds that they are not able to write objectively. Just like we wouldn't want a card-carrying neo-Nazi to write our article on Hitler, neither do we want someone who has apparently been threatened with legal action by Hasbro to write about Risk, for what I certainly hope are obvious reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete The term "Risk clone" does not appear in reliable sources, even allowing for game-related ones. For what we're looking for for "gametype clone" articles, please see Grand Theft Auto clone where the term is strongly-defined in sources, including the elements that set up the GTA clone game, and the fact that GTA really isn't the first game to have those features, and notable games that are called clones. While we wouldn't expect as much depth to other articles at the start, the existence of this type of information relating to Risk clones are necessary. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    Masem, I am confident that reliable sources will be found over time. Knowledge (XXG) is a publically edited work. It will take more than one editor (myself) to find reliable sources. All of you know that WP articles grow and expand and evolve over time. This article needs public attention and a chance to live long enough such that it can be fed by the collective mind the same way that all WP content is served. Deleting this article too early is a mistake and does not serve the Knowledge (XXG) readers specifically those readers who are looking for a WP:NPOV neutral point of view for non Hasbro Risk clones. The article should remain and we can tag it with a 'more sources needed' banner that will invite all readers to help with the edits (and that's the true spirit of Knowledge (XXG) as it was first founded). I for one am not a fan of this new wave of anal editors who are more excied about being policeman and tagging and attacking stub articles, than they are about letting things live and grow into excellent content. Shame on all of you; you kill the spirit of Knowledge (XXG) and worsen the experience for those trying to contribute. Knowledge (XXG) is about serving the Knowledge (XXG) reader and not about serving the anal retentive needs of it's editors and admins. --Riitoken (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Andy, it's not a personal attack to tell Andrew that he's flat out wrong. Getting your feelings hurt because you were wrong doesn't mean you were personally attacked; it means you were wrong. Also, I do genuinely miss the old days of Knowledge (XXG) when everything was new and growing like crazy and there were tons of unwritten articles and the editors knew the value of just letting stubs and fledglings exist and wait for volunteers to get involved and make it better. The current state of Knowledge (XXG) specifically this debate does not feel the way Knowledge (XXG) used to be; it's not a personal attack for me to say this out loud; it's my personal pov.--Riitoken (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
a) to document the term Risk clone that has been used for 30+ years.
b) to offer clarity about the rules of copyright infringement (regardless of the Hasbro non-neutral pov).
c) to discuss Risk clones with a WP:NPOV neutral pov (which is what Risk clone players want).
d) to list some of the notable clones and their histories.
e) to intentionally be a non Hasbro article separate from the Hasbro commercial interests.
f) to invite other Risk clone makers to become editors of the article.

The article can meet these goals while upholding the high standards of Knowledge (XXG). The article will only become better as real clone makers/players volunteer to edit the content - because they are the real 'Policeman' who can decide the WP:NPOV for Risk clones. Forgive me for saying so but the only editors qualified to contribute to the WP:NPOV are actual Risk clone players and Risk clone makers. We need to allow the article to live so we can tap that collective editorship; doing so will allow this article to make an excellent contribution to Knowledge (XXG). --Riitoken (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On 2011-Jan-16, google showed 14,700 hits for the search phrase "risk clone" -wars -high-risk -antigen --Riitoken (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Please do not alter the structure of this page, which you did with your previous edits. Threads are shown by indentation, not by sub-headings. If you would like to tidy the page you could indent your comments properly, but please be careful that by doing so you don't de-link them from other editors' replies. andy (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Update I found the usenet ref. for Poor Boy Risk. --Riitoken (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    I hate to break this to you, but this usenet posting does not count as a reliable source, and it is also not a source that is independent of the subject, so this reference contributes neither to verifiability nor to notability.  --Lambiam 18:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    The usenet reference verifies and cites the accuracy of the sentence that is superscripted by the reference - Poor Boy Risk is an analog paper Risk clone first described by Ray E. Bornert over a usenet board game group in 2004. This is a true sentence as evidenced by the usenet ref. in the google archive. The reference isn't supposed to verify everything Bornert said - but only that he said it and that makes it a reliable source. --Riitoken (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You're simply not listening. Usenet cannot be used to support any assertion in an article (other than, of course, a statement such as "x is found on usenet"). You state that the usenet reference proves that Bornert first described Poor Boy Risk on usenet and is to that extent a reliable source. In fact that's 180 degrees away from being correct: since usenet is not a reliable source then the usenet reference cannot be taken as a proof of anything. This is clearly explained at WP:ABOUTSELF. Knowledge (XXG) rules on reliable sources are very clear and you should read them. andy (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Andy the reference is just an item to show source of the sentence "x" is found on usenet nothing more nothing less. It's not the only reference out there but the only one I've found so far. I'm still working on references and as other interested editors work on the article I'm sure they will collect more. --Riitoken (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

*POLL I'd like to request that all present volunteer a YES or NO answer line, with signature inside the ////// markers.

Do you work for Hasbro or represent the interests of Hasbro YES or NO?
/////////////
NO --Riitoken (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
YES - Hasbro pays me big money to keep the brave rebels of the Risk clone resistance movement down. The money arrives each month in a black helicopter and is given to me by a large man in a white suit who strokes a black cat and has a monocle. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
///////////// (no one needs to answer any silly poll here)
  • Andy, the poll is purely voluntary. Chill man. I have no idea who any of you are and I am not suggesting that any of you work for Hasbro ... But if any of you do then you should be honest about it so that others can measure your comments in that light. And btw Andy, you opened this deletion debate by accusing me of wanting to violate the WP:SPAM policy and that offended me; but I said nothing. --Riitoken (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You are making precisely that suggestion. For example "Do you work for Hasbro Lambiam?", "Do you work for Hasbro or represent the interests of Hasbro YES or NO?", "…the Hasbro copyright protected content", "…the Hasbro non-neutral pov", "…a non Hasbro article separate from the Hasbro commercial interests" and so on. You're obsessed about Hasbro and are prepared to insult anyone who disagrees with you. So… pay attention… stop it. And read wikipedia's guidelines on notability and reliable sources. andy (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Let me tell you what was NOT neutral within the history of the Risk (game) article - a concensus that the unofficial Risk clones did NOT deserve ANY notable mention anywhere, not the main article nor it's own separate unofficial list article. THAT IS/WAS NOT NEUTRAL dude. Ok so fine. The Knowledge (XXG) policy asks any article to not be only dependent on some link farm list inside that aticle. I get that (and to some degree the old list was just a list and nothing more). So I am attempting here to satisfy that policy by actually writing a worthy Risk clone article that can and should exist whether or not notable list is present. So if you see angst on my part, it is due to suggestions that 1) Risk clones do not deserve notable mention anywhere or 2) Risk clones should return to some notable list in the main article. Those suggestions OFFEND me. --Riitoken (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, if the story you told above is true (the one where you have received cease and desist letters from Hasbro's attorneys), then I'd say you have much more of a conflict of interest than anyone else at this discussion. Why don't you calm down and let the deletion discussion run its natural course? Continuing to insult people after having been warned could eventually lead to your account being blocked. SnottyWong  23:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The story is true but there is no conflict of interest; as a result of that incident I learned much about copyright law(s) and what is and is not copyright infringement. I'd like to help other would be Risk clone makers avoid the same mistakes I made and thus I am attempting to make a contribution. The poll is voluntary; I wanted it on the record that I am WP:NPOV toward Hasbro and the Risk (game) article. I seek neither to promote Hasbro commercial interest nor do I seek to harm them. I am neutral and it is not abusive to offer the opportunity for others to go on record voluntarily. There is no reason for ANYBODY to be offended. --Riitoken (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Your lack of familiarity with WP policies is showing, and this is probably contributing to the frustration that you appear to be experiencing. You say that your purpose in creating the article was to help other would-be Risk clone makers figure out the intricate copyright issues associated with doing so. In other words, you were trying to create a guide on how to navigate the copyright issues associated with creating a legal Risk clone (and this is largely what the article turned out to be). However, are you aware of the policy which states that Knowledge (XXG) is not a manual or how-to guide? The policy suggests that you might want to take this content and add it to Wikihow or the How-To Wiki. Since it seems all but inevitable that this article is going to be deleted, I'd suggest preparing for that eventuality and figuring out what you'd like to do with the content you created before it is deleted. Continuing to post long rants and arguing with everyone who votes to delete the article, however, will almost certainly prove to be an enormous waste of time. SnottyWong  14:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sadly. We used to have an article that was a List Of Risk Clones, and I thought that was a handy resource, even though only a few of them could assert notability. This page, is not useful for anyone. It's just a defensive justification for the existence of Risk clones, with the only references being links to pages about copyright law!! The article contains no useful content on Risk clones, and anyone who could do the research to put together a well researched, referenced article about the topic would be better off starting from scratch anyway. There's nothing salvageable here. APL (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes we used to have such a list and yes it was very handy for those wanting to find an unbiased list of notable clones. But it was shot down by those demanding that there be an article and not just a list. So that is what I'm trying to start. But I find it very annoying that not a single one of you can admit that sometimes articles take time and require the input of more than one author. There isn't a single human being that can write an article like this in it's entirety; It's a large subject spanning 30+ years. I've done my best to start it and lay out some of the major issues for clone makers; but apparently all you guys can do is complain and some of you are biased. What exactly are any of you good for here other than complaining? Why don't you actually help make the article better? Isn't that what Knowledge (XXG) is about? Or is this just a place where editors and admins sit around all day and enter *Delete for any incomplete articles? And yes I am taking this personally. And yes I'm offended. It's my first attempt at a writing a minimally standard peer reviewed Knowledge (XXG) article and all I see is complaints. I am attempting to do the research but I've got a DELETE banner at the top of the article. So why should I or anybody spend any more energy when some authority higher up in the Knowledge (XXG) food chain can just decide to delete it? Why should anybody help with an article that has a DELETE guillotine hanging over it's head? What exactly is their motivation to spend time and energy on something that's going to get deleted? --Riitoken (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Riitoken, I can completely understand your frustration. I have no doubt you are editing in good faith, and with a genuine interest in your subject. However, what the extensive debate on this page demonstrates clearly is that you are taking criticism personally and failing to listen to feedback from experienced editors. Knowledge (XXG) has policies about the notability of a subject, and the fact that it must be dealt with by reliable sources. These things are not negotiable, and have been pointed out by several editors, and yet you continue to stick to arguments that have little to do with wikipedia policy or practice. You must understand that people are not at AfD simply to complain and criticise, but because removing articles that do not meet the minimum standards for inclusion is an important way to maintain the encyclopedic value of Knowledge (XXG). As I see it, you have three choices:
  1. Accept that this article is not appropriate for Knowledge (XXG) with a good grace, and apply your enthusiasm to writing or improving other articles. Personally, I mostly stick to articles that I don't care very much about, as that way I have no POV and it is less heartbreaking when they get changed or deleted. But that is up to you, really.
  2. Continue to make your case using long posts, insulting other editors, and insinuating that people are under the employ of Hasbro, but without rooting your argument in wikipedia policies. If so, the article will almost certainly be deleted at the end of this process, and you will permanently damage your reputation on Knowledge (XXG).
  3. Carefully read WP:GNG and WP:RS and, if you still believe your article is acceptable for inclusion, go out and find at least two significant references to 'Risk clone' in a high-quality independent source such as a major newspaper, a published book or an academic paper. If you can do this, I will change my !vote to Keep, and asist you with improving the article.
I hope this helps.--Korruski 10:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Not really. I absolutely refuse to believe that a Knowledge (XXG) article cannot be allowed to exist in an unfinished state whilst the public collective mind hammers on the article to make it better. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT BEHIND WIKIPEDIA. This is why thousands of people fell in love with Knowledge (XXG). This is why it has been successful. Only certain types of personalities are rubbed the wrong way for seeing an article that is not yet fully compliant. I am not one of those. I get excited when I see an article in an unfinished state; it makes me want to help (if I can make a decent contribution). Is the original idea of Knowledge (XXG) dead? Is it now just a bunch of policy police? What none of you are willing to admit is that this article can be a fully compliant encyclopediac contribution to Knowledge (XXG). But it will take time and it will require more than just my efforts alone. It will require the efforts of those familiar with the history of Risk clones since the 80s'. It will require the efforts of those who play Risk clones and it will require those who are aware of the copyright case law on the subject. When the article is finished, future generations of Risk clone players and makers will be able to get a solid education from Knowledge (XXG) on the subject. --Riitoken (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I pretty much give up, in that case. However, let me finish by saying that there is a difference between an unfinished article, and an unencyclopedic article. Many articles on Knowledge (XXG) are unfinished, but they must make at least one reliably verifiable claim to notability. I am afraid that yours does not and, yes, I will admit that I do not believe this article can ever be fully compliant. If it was an obscure historical character, and you told me that the only reliable sources were out-of-print books in private collections, then I might be inclined to accept the 'give me time' argument. However, you are talking about a phenomenon that has existed for a couple of decades at the very most, and appears to revolve to a certain extent around the internet, so if you cannot find a single reliable source through a quick Google search, I am inclined to believe that they do not exist. I cannot understand why we need the efforts of those who play the game, or those who understand the case law, to be able to write the article. Indeed, if we do need people with specilised knowledge, then that strongly implies that whatever they added to the article would be original research and, therefore, not permissable.--Korruski 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Riitoken, that's a fair comment, so I'll explain. I honestly do not know where to find good source material for an article like this. If I did, I would overcome my lazyness, and rescue it by putting in a couple good, useful, well referenced paragraphs. I honestly believe that that's all it would take to swing this debate.
But apparently I'm not alone. No one, including yourself, knows how to turn this into a useful, well referenced article, otherwise they would have said right here, mentioned some sources that we could all go to the library and check out, or simply have fixed up the article.
That's why I believe that the article as it stands has no real value, and should be deleted without prejudice against recreation. APL (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


  • Update I have added a section for legal cases surrounding Risk specifically. The plan is to collect some case law and some actual examples for reference. --Riitoken (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Update I have re-arranged the sections. After re-reading some of the objections above, I now realize that leading with the copyright section is a mistake. It gives the reader the wrong impression as to the main purpose of the article - which is simply to document the 30+ year history of Risk clones. Yes, copyright issues are part of the article but it's not the main purpose. --Riitoken (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note. The author of this article, Riitoken, appears to be the designer of a risk clone covered in the article. See here where he states that he is Ray E. Bornert, who also appears in articles at Ray E. Bornert II, WinHoldEm and Xisk. His comments about being offended that the article is alleged to be spam are therefore disingenuous to say the least, if not downright deceptive. andy (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    Andy, judging any article for WP:NPOV is based entirely on the actual wording, phrasing used irregardless of who wrote the words. Do you care to prove that nobody from Hasbro or nobody favoring Hasbro's interests, has ever edited or not edited anything in the Risk (clone) article? Furthermore, if you want clarity here then how 'bout some Quid Pro Quo - answer the Hasbro poll question above if you think "conflict of interest" should be an issue in this debate. NOTE: there is zero reason for you to be offended. If you are then please explain why? --Riitoken (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Update added a Lingo Jargon section that documents the current/recent usage of the phrase Risk clone --Riitoken (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Update added an academic reference from the main article --Riitoken (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • QUESTIONS:
Is there anybody here that knew the term Risk clone before reading the article or participating in this debate?
If you say YES then please explain where you first learned the term and document the reference please (if you can't document your source then please explain your justification for knowing a term without a reference point).
If you say NO then - Have you now learned how the term is used and what is means when it is used?
If you claim the article is a lie or mis-representing reality then please cite a source that disagrees with the article documentation.
If you can't then please explain how you know this without citing a sacred source.

--Riitoken (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I had certainly heard the term before. It's common to refer to generic versions of well-known games as "{Game} Clone", just as acetaminophen is often called "Generic Tylenol". APL (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe you. Now prove it with a sanctioned Knowledge (XXG) blessed hard source (newspaper, book, magazine, etc.) --Riitoken (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? That's the 'trap' you were setting here? I was hoping for something with wit. Or, failing that, a reply that had some basic awareness of the purpose of this entire conversation. The whole point is that no one here except you believes that such sources exist, and unless someone provides them then the article cannot continue to exist. APL (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Enough with the polls and questionnaires. It's pointless and insulting. As has been explained ad nauseum to you is this discussion is about whether the article meets Knowledge (XXG) standards. You're arguments should be focused on those standards, not on challenging editor's qualifications. OhNoitsJamie 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Jamie, APL answered the Risk clone consciousness question ... why can't you? --Riitoken (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Because it's irrelevant to an AFD discussion. OhNoitsJamie 20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Jamie, the questions are VERY relevant to those who demand that we cannot have a Knowledge (XXG) article for the term/phrase Risk clone just because we don't have any hard sources that define the term. The questions are a rebut to that mindset. --Riitoken (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Please review our WP:AFD, WP:OR, WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources policies. The article's adherence to those and other Knowledge (XXG) policies are what is relevant here, not some nebulous idea about the "spirit of Knowledge (XXG)." OhNoitsJamie 21:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Jamie, yes I have reviewed those policies (and a friend has as well) and I do not find any glaring violations. I'm not willing to say the article is 100% at this point but it's getting there. Have you read the article lately or are you going on what was there several days ago? --Riitoken (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I have read it just now, and it still does not meet WP:GNG. Looking for ways that the article violates policy is rather misleading, what actually matters is does it conform to policy. For example, take the WP:GNG. This asks for significant coverage in reliable sources:
  1. Significant coverage - I see no evidence of 'significant' coverage of this term. I see it being used occasionally by individuals in specific gaming circles, but that is a different thing.
  2. Reliable sources - I see no reliable sources covering the term. Source 1 is a Masters thesis of limited reliability according to WP:RS, source 2 does not mention 'Risk clone' anywhere in its text, source 3 contains no content, source 4 does not mention 'clone' once, and does not mention 'risk' in the context of the board game at all, source 5 does not mention 'clone' once, and is in any case a Google group posting of almost no reliability according to WP:RS. (Citation numbering correct as of time of this post)
--Korruski 22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
1) Is evidence that sometimes there are academic reasons to write a risk clone. The word clone doesn't have to be used for you and I to know that it is evidence for the general idea of the article as well as the sentence it superscripts.
2) Is taken from the U.S. copyright office. Why would it mention the word 'clone'? It's not supposed to and nobody suggested that it should other than you. The purpose of the reference is to support the fact that "you cannot copyright an idea."
3) source 3 is an error and will be removed
4) source 4 is a legal opinion that references copyright law and isn't expected to state the word 'clone'. It supports the fact that "you cannot copyright an idea."
5) doesn't contain the word clone; it's purpose is to illustrate an instance of a risk like game that does not infringe copyrightable elements of the original. the instance illustrates what "non-infringement" is.
--Riitoken (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
My point, which once again you seem to have missed or ignored, is that the article contains no reliable sources that suggest 'Risk Clone' is a notable idea. It may contain reliable sources for all kinds of other things, but that is beside the point since there is nothing to show the notability of the article subject. That is why it does not conform to policy. You can accept this or not, but it is pretty much the most fundamental of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies, so no amount of argument or sophistry is going to change that. If, as is suggested by your posts below, you do not understand what Knowledge (XXG) means by notability then all I can do is, for the third time, point you at WP:NOTABILITY and ask you to read it.--Korruski 09:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Riitoken, Under construction or not, articles are expected to assert notability at every stage of their existence. If you're so certain that you'll be able to do that in the near future, why not stand aside gracefully right now, and come back when you're ready to create the article? Knowledge (XXG) will still be here. APL (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no requirement that an article be notable to every man woman and child on the face of the earth - but only that it be notable to the audience it serves - and in this case the article is notable to any high school or colledge kid seeking to understand some important things about writing a Risk clone. Is every article on Knowledge (XXG) notable or important to you? Not me. But this article will have value to those wondering what they can and cannot do by way of writing their own clone. Right now they have no where to go for this info - which is why I am trying to contribute. --Riitoken (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a requirement that an article be notable to the publishers of reliable sources. the Risk (clone) article's failure to meet that requirement will be the reason that it is deleted. Please be careful, your persistent misstating of policies can appear to be a sign of disruptive editing. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - MrOllie (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Ollie, Risk IS a notable idea and the act of creating Risk clones has been happening for 30+ years. Now we may not have an actual hard source that states this truth in paper/ink (because so far nobody has cared enough to write a book or article); nevertheless it is true. Assume for a moment that no such hard reference source exists until the year 2040? Will the readers of that book at that time believe that Risk clones were first notable in 2040? (the truth is Risk clones began with the PC revolution - I am an eyewitness - Now I've not published this fact in a book or magazine but it's still true.) Furthermore, if we have no hard sources publishing the observable facts of Risk clones today (and yet they exist), then what exactly would the 2040 author have to say about the History of risk clones if he's the first to publish on the subject? There are things that are true and observably true even if there isn't a hard source. Hard sources do not cause truth - they simply catalog it. Knowledge (XXG) does not cause truth; but it does catalog it. Now if the reality of Knowledge (XXG) is a mentality of "It didn't happen unless it was recorded in a book, newspaper or magazine, etc.", then that it IS NOT an appropriate mentality for a MODERN online digital collectively edited encyclopedia. Reasonable, repeatable, observable truth is ALWAYS it's own reference source. --Riitoken (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Most of this has been well addressed below, but I will answer the question put to me: Yes, if a given concept is first noted in 2040, that would be when it became notable. - MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Your posts above indicate either a clear unwillingness to follow Knowledge (XXG)'s rules, or a willful lack of understanding them. You're also ... let's say, not entirely civil(Note edit summary). Why wouldn't that imply that you're more trouble than you're worth? APL (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I know, I know. I should have given up ages ago. I just keep hoping that what I've been saying is going to get through. But yes, it's not worth the effort anymore :( --Korruski 14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Question How do we document reasonable, repeatable, observable truth in cases where there isn't a hard source? I can accept an answer of "we are not allowed to publish truth unless we have a hard source"; I just want somebody to say that out loud in the record of this debate. If somebody wrote a line in an article that said "All cars ever made are yellow" - I don't need anything other than repeatable observability to KNOW that is wrong - I don't need a hard source telling me the truth of this; I can figure it out on my own (and presumably any normal reader would as well). The subject of Risk is notable as evidenced by the existing artcle. The truth of Risk clones are repeatedly observable without a hard source. They exist; Nobody (and I mean nobody) needs a hard source to know the truth of this. It is observably true. But if you're saying we cannot write on the subject of Risk clones until there is some hard source saying they exist then that is just plain silly. --Riitoken (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
From WP:NOTTRUTH : "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.".
No one is disputing that your article is true.APL (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • NOTE I am not opposed to WP policies. But I am opposed to the interpretation of those polices in this case. Risk is notable. Risk clones exist by independent repeatable observability. The article is not a violation of policy. --Riitoken (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Haha! So basically, "I like rules except when I have to follow them!"?
Dude, you realize that you've lost this, right? Any second now an admin might come along and snowball close this and delete your article. People are just debating with you in the hopes of making you understand why. APL (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that rules are always safe from misapplication and misinterpretation right? I am definitely in favor of following rules that are interpreted and applied correctly with neutral bias. --Riitoken (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
What interpretation? Articles MUST HAVE reliable sources that verify notability and accuracy. Articles CANNOT be based on personal knowledge or experience. It's pretty straightforward. APL (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank You Gentlemen (and ladies?), seeing as my 7 day deadline is drawing close, I'd like to say a genuine thanks to everyone who participated in this debate. I'd always wanted to create an article for Knowledge (XXG). This was the first subject where I really thought I had a chance to satisfy all the rules and I gave it the college try. I must admit that as a result of this experience I've more than doubled any pre-existing knowledge I had about Knowledge (XXG) and the standard rules and guidelines. This debate has helped me ponder issues I hadn't fully considered. For the record, there was and is not any willful deceit and/or conflict of interest on my part - anybody may contribute to an article as long as they remain neutral (and that is a good and healthy). I wish you all well. --Riitoken (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Snowball Delete: As everyone above but Riitoken readily agrees, there are no reliable sources attesting to the notability of the subject. It may warrant mention in the Risk article, and little beyond that. (I also commend WP:KEEPCONCISE to Riitoken).  Ravenswing  14:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, G7, single substantive author requests deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Firehole composites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

E-learning/version 3 (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 does not indicate notability of specific subject "version 3" (though im sure thats an artifact transferred from a userpage). subject is covered by Electronic learning, which is linked at the beginning. seems a rehash with no references. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (PS this was created using Twinkle. if this was in any way done incorrectly, or if Twinkle is not considered appropriate for this function despite it being in the menu, i apologize, as this is my first use of the function.)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Tagged on 12 March 2010 by User:Abductive for its questionable notability, and even with some copy edits this article clearly fails to establish either Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people) or Knowledge (XXG):Notability, as well as pushing the limits of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Having survived the Holocaust and doing well in life later does equal true fame and notability. This obituary would be nice in a small local paper it is not encyclopedic. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:30, 14 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,  Sandstein  07:17, 14 January 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. From my read of the deletion discussion, the valid arguments boil down to whether or not the article is encyclopedic as well as whether or not the sum of all entries conferred notability for the topic as a whole. I could not find a consensus for deletion on any of those aspects. –MuZemike 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Wow, where do I begin. The article began from an alert on the Notability noticeboard, where instead of deleting the individually non-notable people, apparently someone decided to just plop them all together in one article without addressing the notability concerns in the first place. Unfortunately, it was a lazy way out that didn't solve the underlying problem in the first place (but that's its own issue). For instance,the line "A photograph from November of 1940 was alleged to show a time traveller.It was claimed that his clothing and sun glasses were modern and not the style worn in 1940." constitutes the entirety of a full L2 section and is pretty representative of how bad the rest of the article is. There are also significant issues with BLP on this article -- despite being decently sourced, the section on the time travelling spammer brings up the subject's mental health for no significant reason and begs the question why it's even there in the first place? ⇒SWATJester 07:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep Several of the subjects have received a fair amount of coverage (especially John Titor and the 1928 cell phone). Much of the nominators arguments come down to issues of writing quality rather than whether the topic is notable. As urban legends go, these are among some of the most well known. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment The most well known? (Citation needed). Not a single one of the incidents on this page is mentioned on the urban legends article. It's beyond a stretch to say that these are "among some of the most well known". Furthermore, we already have an article on John Titor. That just reinforces the point that if the rest of these couldn't survive on their own as individual articles, why are they expected to be any different lumped together into one conspiracy theory article? ⇒SWATJester 08:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment the urban legends uses specific examples that illustrate specific aspects of the anatomy of an Urban Legend it's wholly inappropriate to consider the article as some measure of how well known specific legends are. These articles may stand on their own as the Carlssin one did and as further time passes and analysis by secondary sources increases there may be a point where spinout is inevitable but at the moment it makes more sense to keep them together - probably with a bit more detail into this genre of urban legend as a whole. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Slight coverage does not warrant to keep an article that is wholly unencyclopedic. Η936631 (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep The notice at the notability noticeboard was placed due to questions of relevance in relation to the Charlie Chaplin film's article - it was quickly established as a notable Urban Legend but WP:UNDUE would apply to giving any analysis in the Chaplin article. Rather than have a series of single Paragraph stubs (as already existed in the Carlssin article) it made sense to cover them within a single article (a prose list of these events) better scope for expansion. I broadly agree about the L2 Paragraph on the man in the 1940's, but as it already had extensive coverage and further coverage occurred as a result of the Chaplin video I feel it should be retained but moved to a different part of the article. Regarding the BLP aspect, we have reliable sources (and I can provide more - including interview with his parents) discussing Robby Todino's mental state in regard to these emails - It is notable that Robby believed that he could make contact with real time travellers - and conducted this activity as a personal attempt to achieve that rather than as part of his multiple commercial spamming operations.
On Η936631's claim that the subject matter is "wholly encyclopaedic" I would quote WP:FIVE Knowledge (XXG) "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias" in the past I have owned specialized encyclopaedias on subjects such as UFO research and the Paranormal that cover time travel in articles such as these - however each section would be in it's own entry something that seems wasteful to do here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'd warrant that creating an entire article and cluding together slightly connected elements, instead of keeping them in their parent articles seems ever more wasteful. At least on of the componesnts - the Chaplin one, should be retained in the parent article. Titor already has its own article. We can categorize articles that have the 'mysterious time traveler' or whatever element. Its the difference between a smart encyclopedia and a 'nyah nyah nyah' one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
How is it more wastefull to have one place wehre users can come and look up time travel legeands then have them spread all over wikipedia with no patern. I want to look up a time traveler at a bridge opening. Where would I look? I don't know the name of the bridge or where it was, just that a time traveller was involved. I do a search for time travel I would hope this page comes up, if I did a search for bridge how many pages would I have to wade through?Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep As I said to anther user who objected to this page, it's a work in progress. Yes it needs work I agree but all of these subjects have been coverd in multiple RS. Not enouogh to warretn their own articels or to be included in artciels on other subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Not a great article, but presents notable information in a way that will be interesting and useful to readers and will contribute to greater understanding of the topic. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete- This entire article was cludged together by the creator so he could justify removing one of the instances from its parent article. It's an ongoing hot mess from snout to tail, and while I am intrigued by the concept of all of these in one place, this should have sat in the creator's sandbox until it was a lot closer to being ready. As it stands, its a simple gaming of the system. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The artciel in question is this one The Circus (film) please see Talk:The_Circus_(film)#RfC:_George_Clarke.27s_time_travel_urban_legend.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Jack I don't want to repeat what has been said to you at the notability noticeboard, but the Time Traveller is not Relevant to The Circus (film). To take a modern example, Liz Hurley created a notable event when she wore a unique Black Versace Dress to the Premiere of Four Weddings and a Funeral that event is not relevant to the film so is not included within the Film Article it is however relevant to her and is included within her article (in the lead no less). Your continued insistence that the time traveller Urban Legend is relevant has been proven wrong by consensus and a delete of this article will simply remove all reference to the notable urban legend rather than suddenly making it relevant to The Circus. Your own argument is based on the the footage being considered relevant because of it's inclusion in the DVD release but the article currently contains no information on the DVD release to show that the DVD is relevant to the film in the first place let alone that an Urban legend based on that DVD footage is relevant to the film. Your other points are simply justification for an article clean up not for an article deletion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, you are incorrect, Stuart; my stance on its inclusion is clearly within policy. Therefore it isn't wrong, simply against the same four editors. You are beating the same dead horse by insisting that it isn't related. This is an AfD, weighing the merits of the article. It's a crappy one, and you should instead confine your comments to those discussing the actual article being nom'd for deletion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Then you have failed to show that policy in all the forums you have raised this in, again see WP:Undue and the essay WP:HTriv this does not support more than a brief mention within The Circus (film) even though it is related to it it is not relevant to it. Regarding the AfD, you were first to discus the other article when you said "At least on of the componesnts - the Chaplin one, should be retained in the parent article." so keep your comments to the article in question rather than justifying the delete by suggesting the information could be moved indiscriminately to somewhere it does not belong. If you feel the article is "a crappy one" then policy is to improve not to delete - according to WP:AFD, reasons for deleting are WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:NPOV none of those apply in this situation because the article is well referenced, verifiable and not original research, each section is also neutrally worded to maintain NPOV. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I didn't bring up the topic, Scotty, aside from pointing out the circumstances surrounding its Bad Faith creation. This is a discussion re: this article's sustainability in the Knowledge (XXG). Stay on target, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • "Bad faith"? Tone down the rhetoric and please assume good faith. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • AGF doesn't excuse bad behavior. The article was created so as to presumably remove any reason for the claim of time travel being anywhere near The Circus. It was bad faith in that it was cludged together with no real effort to bring it to acceptable standards, so long as it was out of the article in question. It's so transparent that it's almost a case of WP:SPADE to even bother mentioning it. It's the origin of a substandard article created with tons of speculative info. It's why we are here now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Swatjester; I've been dealing with these particular four editors, who haven't really been easy to work with to this point.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep At least till they get a bit further. For example this is RS and worth the read. this is another RS, but some of them aren't RS. Still, I think there's something in FRINGE which allows bad sourcing for these things. BE——Critical__Talk 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep "Decently sourced" remains a rare quality on Knowledge (XXG). Though we occasionally get an argument that people and events have to be notable to even be referred to at all, the very first sentence in WP:N is "On Knowledge (XXG), notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." The primary purpose for an encyclopedia is that people consult it to find out more about something that they wish to learn information about. Mandsford 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - Totally agree that this is the sort of thing that some of our readers might like to read - there is substantial indications that thye like that sort of thing. However, it would be far easier and more encyclopedic to create a category for this info instead, wherein the parent articles where many of these 'urban legends' occur would simply keep the info there. Pre-existing articles, like the Titor one, would not be repeated in another article but simply linked by category. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. No policy-based reason given for deletion, just some people saying that don't like the article. I'm not a fan of it either. If I had my druthers I'd eliminate all Internet hoaxes and memes from the encyclopedia entirely. But I'm not seeing any reasons under policy to delete. It did originate from discussions concerning one of the items, because that item (The Circus "phone user") was clearly inappropriate for that article. Originally I had notability concerns about this article when it was far shorter, and tagged to that effect, but the article was expanded and I withdrew the tag. If I'm wrong about policy, please advise. I'll look back here in a few days and see. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Changing to Redirect to category. I've been disturbed from the beginning by the lack of encyclopedic value of the items in this article that are not already significant enough to have articles of their own. I think that creating a category on time traveler urban legends is the ideal solution. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to agreee. If wiki is to have any repectability and integrity it should be a repository of unsefull and valuable informaion, not artciesl about some kid having his finger bit.' , But if we are to have them at least keep them from damaging more important artciels. Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - I find the last comment to be very telling, and encapsulates the problem here. The above user is the creator of the article being considered for deletion, and even he considers it lacking in integrity and usefulness. Despite the ill-considered comparison (the finger-bit kid never received the level of RS and V media attention that The Circus claim did), the user created the article to - quite simply - provide a landing pad for the info he wanted deleted from the article. He created the article, and doesn't even consider it "unsefull and valuable informaion" , instead seeking to isolate it from "more important artciels". What he likely fails to realize is that, in Knowledge (XXG), all articles are of encyclopedic value. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Lay of the PA's argue againt articel, not the percived motives of otehr edds.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It isn;t a matter of IDONTLIKEIT, RotS (well, it is the case in the article that inspired the creation of this one); in this matter, its more a case f there being a far better way to have accomplished the same goal without the "Dinner for Schmucks" feel of this result. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have Swatjester's comments been addressed here? I share his concerns about this article and I wonder if we are really dealing with an actual topic, rather than a list of time travel related hoaxes, or perhaps better yet, a category. I've looked through the urban legend literature and I'm not seeing anything about time travel. Do we have a legitimate topic here, or something Knowledge (XXG) editors put together? We have a situation where individual entries aren't notable for their own article, but are grouped together on a single page. As far as I can tell, we still have a notability problem and I have yet to find a single source about urban legends that discusses these incidents. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment "Myth" or "Mystery" are sometimes used instead of but as a synonym of "Urban Legend" in some sources.
  1. Time Travel:Myth Or Reality? - Richard Heffern, 2003
  2. The myth buster: 150 great misconceptions clarified By Nirmal Chandra Asthana, Anjali Nirmal
  3. Mysteries and Secrets of Time By Lionel and Patricia Fanthorpe, Patricia Fanthorpe -2007 (noted Fortean investigators working from a NPOV)
  4. Much of Jenny Randles work also investigate Time Travel Myths and Urban Legends from a NPOV. Including "Breaking the time barrier: the race to build the first time machine", "Time travel: fact, fiction and possibility", and "Time Storms:Amazing Evidence for Time Warps, Space Rifts, and Time Travel"
  5. Above Top Secret: Uncover the Mysteries of the Digital Age Jim Marrs - 2008
  6. Heretics: Past and Present: Can We Now Explain the Unexplainable? By Brian Allan
  7. Weird Science and Bizarre Beliefs:Mysterious Creatures, Lost Worlds and Amazing Inventions by Gregory L. Reece
    • So there is material to confirm notability and verifiability, though changing Urban Legends in the title to something that takes in the synonyms as well is certainly a possibility that could be discussed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Which of these sources, if any, discuss the subjects in the current article? My guess is that none of them do, except for TPE. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
        • The criteria I used to search for them was whether they discussed modern cases for which I chose John Titor so most cover that, Many cover TPE/MP, a handful cover the Chronovisor, and the remainder use other cases not yet listed or discuss the type of legend in a General style. Searching for the ones that covered Rudolph Fentz has thrown up several others not in that list, I haven't checked those in the list to see if he is included in any of them. Cases such as the circus will probably not appear in such books for a few more months and it may be difficult to identify ones about the Bridge opening man but if anything the amount of material in these documents which is not yet in the article is grounds to expand and improve not delete. The topic is notable, the individual cases are mostly notable and could have stood on their own, but would have been stubs with little room for expansion until such time as a critical level of secondary sourcing became available - here they can spin-out at that time, but are in context at the moment. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Ok, so TPE/MP, Chronovisor, and John Titor. Wouldn't this topic be better covered by a category rather than a list? Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Precisely my point: keep the info in place in the articles, tag these articles with a category, and move on.
            • I think reasonably given time an in depth discussion of the intersection of time travel and myth/legend/mystery can be drawn from the above sources in fact some material should be taken out from our existing Time Travel article where it currently discusses Ancient Myths in the same context as modern published fiction - The two are not the same and really it would sit better here where old and new myths alike can be discussed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
              • It sounds like you are broadening the scope of the topic rather than narrowing it, which does not help. In other words, time travel in fiction is not treated the same as time travel urban legends, but time travel in popular culture might cover both. In any case, this does not cut down on the trivial elements, but avoids the question altogether. As a category, membership would require a topic to be notable and well sourced before it was added. In any case, could you clarify something you said earlier? You wrote: "Cases such as the circus will probably not appear in such books for a few more months..." Please keep in mind WP:CRYSTAL. There's no guarantee that Clarke's claim will appear in any book. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
                • Viriditas, I'm not sure if there is some communication problem here so I'm going to try and repeat what I said. At the moment some Legends are represented in Time Travel as fictional works (which is an unsourced claim). I am not considering a change to Time Travel in fiction or Time Tavel in popular culture but to Time travel Myths and Legends or similar with these ancient legends being represented as Legends (since they are). You are right that Clarke's claim may not appear in a book, but that does not mean it may not be well sourced in other media as being a myth or legend about a time traveller. TV and Print media have already covered it in such light. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
                • Let's dispense with discussing the validity of the claim of time travel claims ("verifiability, not truth" is what counts here, as per WP:V); it is very much besides the point. As well, while some of these are outright hoaxes, some of them haven't been discovered as such. In at least one case (I refer to the woman talking on what Clarke considered to be a cell phone), it would appear to have been a case of a crazy woman taking to a hearing aid in the way that we talk on our cells. A hoax would imply that Clarke doctored millions of DVD collections, which I don't think can find a reference for. L Keeping the information in their relevant articles (perhaps even expanded slightly to explain the background) and using a category allows us to monitor the expanded use of that cat. It's got to be a lot easier than trying to repair at least a half dozen articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I was not aware that any one had susgested we re-name the page time travel hoaxes. As you seem to acceot that (in the Clarke phoine mis-indetification incident) that in fact this is not a time traveller then calling this page Time travel Myths and Legends seems fair, that is what they are. Un proven (and in many cases unprovable) stories.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I don't think all the examples listed are notable enough to be covered by Knowledge (XXG), but some of them are (e.g. John Titor, the Philadelphia Experiment), and arguably the general concept of 'time travel urban legends' is as well. It just needs to be watched carefully to avoid gathering too many trivial, unencylopaedic examples. Robofish (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • As previously mentioned, a category called something like "time travel in popular culture" would alleviate a lot of the impetus to add the trivial, unencyclopedic examples - an article without sufficient sources isn't going to survive long here anyway. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      I agree that the items in this article not significant enough to have their own article are unencyclopedic and trivial, and have no objection to there being a category instead of a separate article. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I would have to agree that withthe exception of those that already have thier own artices non of this stuff is notable in its own right. But I cannot belive that its notable enought to be put in articles about painters, or bridges would be aceptabel but putting it here is not. Our rulkes a clear that material should only be in artciels that are about the material. So Time travellers seen at film premiers or bridge opeings are not relevant to artciels about those films or bridges. So this is the only place I can see them having any relevacne.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I wrestled with that same point. However, after some reflection, my feeling is that WP:INDISCRIMINATE requires deletion: "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Keep in mind, per this policy, that "Knowledge (XXG) considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Thus "while news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This same policy applies to constant and wearying struggle to ram the "cell phone" tidbit into The Circus article. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You are offering a drastically different interpretation of INDISCRIMATE than is accepted within the wiki community. I'd note that the wikilink covers those events without a great deal of citation, which doesn't apply in at least the cell-phone user. The instance of at least one of these has at least a dozen, all from notable news outlets, as has been pointed out numerous times. Unfortunately, the side effect of articles like these is that it becomes a clearinghouse for any material that folk with WP:OWN behavior will turn to to purge their articles of 'undesireable' information (the "cell-phone" user seen in the premiere of The Circus being the primary example here). As for trivia, I think that predicting that this was all just a flash in the pan is a by=product of at least WP:CRYSTAL; of course every argument has been used under the sun to argue for its removal, each more bizarre (and incorrect, let's not forget that no one has been able to use a single policy correctly) than the last. While I think this AfD should conclude with the article's removal (instead noting the information in their parent articles in some minor way), I think a category would work better. Indeed, We have to keep the info in the article for the category to function as intended. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If the article were to be deleted and replaced with a category, then the notable subtopics (John Titor, etc.) would become members of Category:Time travel urban legends. I haven't voted either way, but if, for example, someone wanted to create Chaplins Time Traveler as a potential member of this category, then they would have to demonstrate its notability. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I was originally not going to vote here, but after seeing the recent creation of Talk:Time travel urban legends/Sandbox by Stuart.Jamieson, even after we discussed the problems with the old version, I see we have a serious problem with an editor who refuses to abide by RS, OR, and NPOV. Many of the sources in Stuart's most recent version of this article are distorted beyond recognition, and either have nothing to do with time travel, quote blogs and primary sources, or attempt to synthesize all three to come to conclusions not reached in the original source material. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete- This is essentially a list of legends. As a list, what is needed are some sources that discuss the topic of urban legends that involve time travel, as a concept, phenomenon or group (as opposed to what we have... a series of sources that each talk about a specific legend.) I question whether such sources exist. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Potential rewrite

Potential rewrite, Collapsed to focus AfD on Original article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

comment - Taking on board some of the comments above, I have begun an at least partial rewrite of the article in the article Sandbox Talk:Time_travel_urban_legends/Sandbox Whilst comments below would be appreciated on whether a move to this format would be beneficial (and hopefully change some of the above delete votes) I'd respectfully request that I be allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion (things like reliability of Sourcing, Manual of Style, etc) be left until (consensus not withstanding) this version is moved into article space. That said I still stand by my original point that some of these items are best placed in a list article not for a lack of notability but for a lack of potential for expansion, once this rewrite is complete it may be that a discussion has to take place on whether the article in it's current state should be retained in List of Time Travel Urban Legends or equivalent.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuart has made a good start in his sandbox effort, and I'd certainly have no problem with holding off on the determination of this AfD pending completion of his rewrite. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think its a good start, but it reads like a persuasion article, wherein Stuart is arguing for a particular point of view, using citations. Last time I checked, this is an encyclopedia; we don't do persuasion here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If that is the case, then please let me know what my bias is so I can eliminate it. I am attempting to maintain a NPOV and was the person arguing most strongly for NPOV in the first version of the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no consensus for deletion, so there's no need to try and broker a deal. In the future, it is best to use your user space for rewrites and proposals, for example, User:Stuart.Jamieson/Time travel urban legends. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not an attempt to broker a deal, it started out as an attempt to sum up the origins and structure of Time travel Urban Legends, during which it became clear that the list structure of the current article could be encapsulated in a article format. However it is reasonable to lay it on the table at the AfD in case it causes any of the votes to swap in either direction. As for your advice about where to write the draft, WP:Subpages is clear that article rewrites should occur in the Talk namespace and that only new article drafts should occur in the User namespace. I have only once reversed this for an article that was closer to a delete and new write and even it has been moved into Talk space from User Space for third party contribution before it gets moved into main space. In general please refrain from giving me any more "advice" of this nature. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Your personal request that you be "allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion...be left until...this version is moved into article space" is an attempt to broker a deal. And, since it is not a collaborative rewrite, but your own personal take on the subject, it belongs in your user space. While it is true that the subpage guideline says that a major draft of an article revision may go in the talk namespace, it is assumed that this namespace will be used for collaborations between editors and in fact, this is generally deprecated in common usage regardless of what the guideline says. In other words, most editors use their user space these days, especially for writing a non-collaborative version of the article as you have done. This is why WP:USERPAGE lists "drafts" as one of its main uses (see WP:UPYES) and why the {{Userspace draft}} template was created (see who is using it). It also appears that you are creating a non-NPOV version with elements of original research restored, even after these problems were raised on the talk page. For example, the introductory quote you cherry picked from Rodney Dale has nothing to do with time travel, nor does the quote from Brunvand. You take a quote from Dégh, which has nothing to do with time travel, and combine it with a quote from Jones to promote your own theory! You are engaged in obvious OR and synthesis, attempting to argue that "the legend that relates a mobile phone user at the premier of Chaplin movie "the Circus", cannot be proven false" based on premises that are entirely unrelated to the subject. Then, of course, there is your use of poor sources. This would not be serious if you were naive and uninformed about the problem. However, you were previously informed about the problem, and it was discussed on the article talk page (and you were given a warning on your user talk page). Instead of meeting the objections, you completely ignored them, and went ahead and deliberately reinstated the problematic material, adding more synthesis and OR than the first version. If this kind of patchwork quilting pattern represents the rest of the article, then you should not be using the talk namespace at all and you should confine your original research to your userspace, if anywhere at all. I hope you can use this advice to your advantage. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
To the contrary, I welcome collaborations which is why it is in Talk space and any editors willing to improve this version are welcome to do so. What I have requested is that we deal firstly with issues related to the AfD; Notability, verifiability, and NPOV and once they are resolved; guidelines that are not grounds for deletion such as RS and MOS can be dealt with. All your claims about WP:Userpage and {{Template:Userspace Draft}} place emphasis on new article drafts - or proposals for articles that are protected or in the midst of an edit war; none of which apply here. I am sourcing every paragraph at a bare minimum in order to avoid these occurring. The Rodney Dale quote that you take offence to is in reference to the whole field of Parascience which is put in context in the previous paragraph of his work - the section omitted from the quote is about flying saucers but the previous paragraph and the previous sentence of that paragraph puts the context that these are just isolated subjects and that he is talking about the wider range of unexplained happenings in making these comparisons. The claim of OR is disproved by the cited ref , The Brundvand quote is taken from Urban Legends though better cited, and covers the origins of all Urban Legends. If you don't like the quotes, find better ones that's the great thing about a collaborative project. 12:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You said, "I have begun an at least partial rewrite of the article in the article Sandbox...I'd respectfully request that I be allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion...be left until...this version is moved into article space." I'm not seeing any invitation to collaborate, and it sounds like it is your rewrite and we're supposed to let you replace the old version with your draft, even though you have failed to address the old problems and have compounded them with your new version. I'm getting the sense that you haven't read WP:SYN. Please read it. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Afraid I have to agree, insofar as the sandbox version has progressed. I liked the initial start, but it has morphed into a version that presents the same problems as the current article. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
While I applaud the effort to do a rewrite of the article, it is (as I and others have noted above) severely flawed - perhaps beyond recovery. You asked where the problems exist. The largest failing, as Viriditas pointed out, is that while even though you are working on a sandbox version of the article (and I don't necessarily fault you for putting it in the wrong place as you likely didn't know how to start a user subpage), your version eeds to reflect a version that has been borne out in discussion. If there are points of contention, mark them differently somehow, whether through bold text or whatever, so they can be pinpointed and discussed.
Secondly, Viriditas' comment, though a little condescending, is accurate. Your material is the very definition of Synthesis. You are using your own opinions and backing them up with citations to create something that wasn't intended by any of the citations by themselves. That is why I called the version a 'persuasion piece' instead of a wiki article. The citations make all the claims in the article - not you. We do not evaluate, dismiss, endorse or in any way judge the validity of the claims made by the sources. If sources exist that contradict the initial claims, we note them in the interest of neutrality to present a balanced view of the subject. Your sandbox version - put simply - doesn't do that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Jack, and for agreeing that Viriditas continues to present a condescending manner towards me. I would like to address your points - firstly, I am happy to try and recover the article with the support of others and have started marking in strikethroughs and collapsed sections that are being contested. Secondly I am not trying to present my own opinion, although I do agree that unintentionally I synthesised (a policy I was already aware of Viriditas) - in my opinion these are all hoaxes and/or mistaken identity - however the article is fundamentally about a form of belief by a majority of individuals compared to a number of scientific explanations; in comparable religious articles for instance Jesus walks on water the scientific explanations come after the belief and are presented as the minority viewpoint not the majority. Instead this article is being assessed as a WP:Fringe article with the majority viewpoint being represented as scientific opinion and with widespread coverage being dismissed by Viriditas in particular as not reliable (and part of the reason I did not include them in this draft). But if it is being taken as being about the individual opinion then these sources are acceptable - however wording and sourcing need to support that style. It's notable that all of the other sources which reliably approach the subject from a NPOV (such as Fanthrope, Randles, etc) never label the legends as such or as myth or folklore or whatever but simply consider the mythical viewpoint as another possibility amongst many with equal balance despite their fantastical nature. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on the discussion above, there is no support for your revision at this time, and it would be best if you move it to your user space before I also nominate it for deletion; POV forks don't belong in main space, and what you've written violates our OR policy. For more information, see this report I filed. Asking you to use your user space for your personal essays is not "condescending". Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • How so? Anyway lack of sources is no reason for deletion, as the subject of the article (that there have been reports of suspected time travel) is notable. victor falk 22:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The list in the original article has no good reliable secondary source that covers the topic, and was created by several editors from a disparate variety of sources, none of which cover the subject in whole or in part. Can you point me to a featured list that has similar problems? Also, the sandbox revision doesn't meet our most basic policies for OR and NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • So now a list has to be at FL-level not to be deleted? I think the problem is there is a content dispute between editors (the fact that a subpage with an alternative version has been created is very symptomatic) and AfD is not the forum to resolve it. victor falk 23:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • No, a list, all lists, need to be based on sources about the subject. The issues raised here have been brought to the table by many editors not involved in the content dispute, and in fact, have nothing to do with the disputed content, which you are correct in noting as a separate issue. Related issues are as follows: Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Question Viktor how would you feel about a rename to Claims of time travel? There is already a badly sourced subsection of this title at Time travel#Claims of time travel, this might fit better as a fringe topic rather than as an Urban Legend/Folklore topic?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Still needs work and improvements. JJ98 (Talk) 06:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Clearly, this article and the list of characters has no real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 06:27, 14 January 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 of this discussion is that there have been sources produced that establish notability. Xymmax So let it be done 17:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ganfyd (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 website as require per WP:N and WP:WEB. The website doesnot meet the criteria for both policies. Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete: does not meet two guidlines of WP:WEB
  • The website or content has not won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).
  • The sources mentioned are not Independent of the subject and the website doesnot have significant coverage.
  • It is a website with a few editors editing on daily purposes link and mostly it is a dead website.
  • The articles mostly in it are unsourced stubs mostly copied from Knowledge (XXG) or other free medias Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment:From its first nomination till to date this article has not improved from a start-class to a C or B class article. The goal for every article on Knowledge (XXG) is to get featured! This article is not going to get expand even in the next coming months because it has no notability, no distinguishing features, no large userbase Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 03:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The page has been covered in respected professional journals and is indexed in the medical-profession search engine TRIP (which is no small thing and could be considered as fitting in spirit "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"). Wickedjacob (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I've not seen this written any where, but I was under the impression it was bad form to vote on a AfD you initiated. Not trying to make trouble, just wondering. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • further comment Also, I hate to be a jerk but the nomination came from a user who is very active on medicalopaedia, which is an ad-supported website with similar goals to the subject of the article in question. I'm suspicious about WP:COI. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment:The AfD is indepenedent of my link to medicalopedia, the decisions made on Knowledge (XXG) is for the benefit of this website and decisions made on Medicalopedia are for the benefit of that website. It has nothing to do with rationalization of any of the two projects or just making mess on Knowledge (XXG). I hope you can understand! Secondly the article was also nominated before but the consensus was NO RESULT; so a through discussion keeping in mind the old one would be better rather than discussing who nominated it and why ! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per nominating reasons. Η936631 (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of pages on TV shows is only for a small group of users yet we do not delete these.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I'm inclined to agree with the nominator on this one, fails for notability, fails for WEB inclusion guidelines, and with it being so restrictive (registered med. practitioners only) it doesn't look like it will get any better soon. Alexa rank for this site is 642,612. It gets little traffic, little usage, not worth an entry here. Burn it with fire. BarkingFish 12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He had been invited on 10:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC); you can see User_talk:Midgley#Nomination_of_Ganfyd_for_deletionv Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 11:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I would remind you that "inviting" people to comment could be construed as WP:Canvassing, which would be grounds for invalidation of thej result of this AfD. Ronk01 talk 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out, Burhan. Axl ¤ 09:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I think Doc James is having a WP:COI with other editors here! He has restored the WikiDoc article which was deleted by consensus! Now he is actively participating in two other discussions 1 2 and voting to keep articles which have no notability on Knowledge (XXG) ! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Advice to Doc James: I understand that you are a doctor and so I am but it doesnot mean that we have to keep fighting for projects which are not notable on WIkipedia. I agree that they may be notable in the medical field but they doesnot meet the Knowledge (XXG) guidlines! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
For what it is worth I do not work with or on any of these other sites. It only takes a quick look to find a fair number of references for all these sites. Why not improve rather than attempt to delete. In this edit you removed your association to http://medicalopaedia.com/ which is not better supported by refs than any of the other sites that have been put up for deletion.
I have researched the medical wikis that are available online for a paper that is currently in publication. Could you please link to something which shows I have a WP:COI? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 16 January 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 (to say the least). Most of the reasons for retention leave more to be determined, but weak evidence of assertion of notability has come forth. –MuZemike 22:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi All, Non-notable company in Western Country doesn't make it Non-notable in Asia, right?Felixlhk (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is some reference by the history book written and Hovid's history was part of the development in economy in Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia mainly the after World War II, tin mining industry boosting to be major economy of the country.
I had no idea why the hyperlink I added is not working, so I post the full link here, apologize to flood the screen. Ipoh, When Tin Was King Thanks! Felixlhk (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
KEEP is all I would say now. Felixlhk (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per nominating reason. Η936631 (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

KEEP, notable widely to Malaysian & Singaporean, they had company in Philippines & Hong Kong as well. Ho Yan Hor is their patented Chinese herbal tea recipe, well known to Chinese community. Since my grandfather era, the company bring economy and medical contribution to Ipoh, Malaysia. 219.95.123.254 (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 16 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yaesu FTM-350R (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 brand product. G11? CTJF83 chat 05:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs); reason was "‎A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Biographical article of what I assume is a living person. Has all kinds of claims, none of them sourced. Google doesn't really seem to show anything pertinent either, just lots of twitter, facebook and similar pages. Has a strong smell of hoax. Travelbird (talk) 04:53, 14 January 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 Redirected. No other suggestions made after 10 days, and I don't see anyone else objecting this, so I'm being WP:BOLD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Only sources are blogs, Amazon, interviews and otherwise poor. Article is very spammy. Gnews search shows only JustJaredJr.com, which is of dubious notability. Also claims that they're signed to Interscope, but Interscope's site doesn't list them and their own personal website is offline. Close, but doesn't quite meet WP:MUSIC despite having other members of a less marginally notable band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 03:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, there is plenty of evidence listed there to prove that it is a real band and it meets WP:MUSIC. They are listed on Interscope's website (http://www.interscope.com/artist/default.aspx?aid=1178 ), which is also provided as an article reference. One of their recorded songs was included on the "Despicable Me" movie soundtrack - which was the #1 movie at the box office on July 11th, 2010. It's Amazon product listing is listed as an article reference to prove that they are on the soundtrack. Their personal website points to their MySpace Page, which lists several of their recorded songs. Many artists use their MySpace Band Page as their main website. Any Google search proves that this is a real band. Jasmith1990 (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Amazon and MySpace are not reliable sources. It's not proving that they exist, but proving that they meet WP:BAND — the first criterion of which requires coverage in third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:04, 12 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) 04:21, 14 January 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) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. This 2nd year AHL player is currently his team's eighth defenceman. He is nursing nagging injuries and has dressed for only 18 games to the halfway point of this season. Knowledge (XXG) is not a Crystal Ball. Dolovis (talk) 03:15, 7 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) 04:21, 14 January 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 you can find anywhere that would take this all you have to do is ask Courcelles 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The article treats very many (all?) "species" which were hypothesized to might evolve in the documentary The Future is Wild. The species + the periods are treated in a way as if this fiction is a truth. I see (apart from the style issue of presenting fiction as truth) no encyclopedic value in this extensive treatment and regard it as a fan site. The species are not treated extensively in popular culture or science warranting inclusion of an article on that ground. I realize wikipedia has (de facto) much lower standards for notability of lists than of articles, but in view of the treatment of the subject, the introduction of the eras and the length of this list, I have treated this list as an article here. L.tak (talk) 03:56, 7 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) 04:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:56, 14 January 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 incubate to Knowledge (XXG):Article Incubator/Transition (Chipmunk album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Transition (Chipmunk 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)

The name isn't even confirmed, the first single hasn't even been released, there's no track listing and there's no confirmed release date. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 04:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep - THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ARTICLE FOR WHICH " there's no track listing and there's no confirmed release date". ALSO FLYING HIGH WAS RELEASED LAST YEAR.19:37, 7 January 2011 Keep

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Too soon. Things like this always look like advance promotion, placed to whip up enthusiasm among the fans (or readers as the case may be - this happens with books too). There may well be other articles in the same position. They should go too. Because they haven't been caught yet doesn't mean this one gets a life. When there's a release date, title and definite track list, that seems to be the generally accepted (by Wikipedians, not promotors...) earliest time for an article. Personally, I don't see why every record by every artist deserves an article. 'Tubular Bells' and 'Dark Side of the Moon' are examples of albums that are definitely notable both on artistic and sales grounds. There are many more - but not every Tom, Dick and Lil Twitch's record. Peridon (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, when I went to click on this discussion's link. I was expecting to find an album by Alvin and Co being debated. I hope Chipmunk doesn't suffer from people who are also expecting small squeaky voices. Peridon (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just discovered there really is a 'Lil Twitch'. The mind boggles... Peridon (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The name of the album "Transition" has been confirmed on several interviews and articles. The album is officaly active since it is first single "Flying High" has been released and charted at 72 in 2010. 11:53, 8 January 2011. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.70.137 (talk)

That doesn't make the article notable per WP:NALBUMS. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if the single has been released, albums do not inherit notability from released singles. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 02:04, 9 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) 04:11, 14 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door (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 unreferenced. This article has no sources or real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete OK, go ahead. JSH-alive 01:21, 15 January 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) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Not notable. The only sources cited for information on the person are a court document and an article in a college newspaper. I'm glad that he was caught and punished for his crimes (assuming that is true) but that is the job of the police and courts, not WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think that WP should not have articles on people whose only notability is being convicted criminals.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:53, 11 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) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G12. A Google search of the article's first sentence showed that they had been lifted from the book Semper fi-- Vietnam: from Da Nang to the DMZ : Marine Corps campaigns, 1965-1975. I've also blocked the editor who started this article as they've repeatedly breached copyright. . Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Detailed account of a battle. Either this was taken from a book or another source in which case it is a copyright violation or it was written up from personal memory by the author in which case it is OR Travelbird (talk) 03:33, 14 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (])

The name of this article is already insulting to azerbaijanis. The people from the Historical Western Azerbaijan never named themselves Yeraz and they consider this word as insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 2011/01/05 13:15:23

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) 03:11, 14 January 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 Hilary Duff concert tours. Per IP, no reason not to redirect (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

More comprehensive list already exists at Hilary Duff concert tours. Fixer23 (talk) 06:13, 4 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) 03:05, 14 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Provost (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 individual lacking Ghits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

After wading through the list of refs, I agree with that, Bonadea.Kudpung (talk) 05:06, 16 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The only Google results I can find are Knowledge (XXG) mirrors are other people with the same name. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:45, 14 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The topic of the article, while interesting, seems to me to fail WP:Notability Prod was declined by IP. There are potential WP:COI Issues here as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:34, 14 January 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 '. redirected by nom (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Athletics at the 2011 Southeast Asian 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)

Does not give reader any information at all. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 14 January 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 Redirected by nom. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Aquatics at the 2011 Southeast Asian 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)

Gives reader no information at all. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Giving the reader no information at all is not a valid rationale for deleting this article, there are perfectly valid stubs around, including this one which an event in all possibility would happen this year. If something happens we can always discuss it in a future AFD, but right now it's a Keep Secret 21:57, 4 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) 02:29, 14 January 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 Ras Barker. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Life Is a Circus (2004 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)

Article fails notability criteria for films Armbrust Contribs 22:16, 7 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) 02:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect per MQS. Unless reliable sources can be found that discuss this film in depth a separate article is not needed but a redirect makes sense and it preserves the history for a selective merge or a later spin out should coverage be found. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:05, 15 January 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 Ras Barker. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere (2005 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)

Fails notability criteria for films Armbrust Contribs 22:29, 7 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) 02:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Without coverage in reliable sources the fact that it has screened at festivals or is available for sale does not mean that it merits a separate article. Nevertheless, a redirect that preserves the history for a selective merge or later spin-out should sources emerge makes sense. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:09, 15 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The only source I found that wasn't non-trivial I found was at the blacklisted suite101.com. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep A google book search or scholar search shows numerous sources proving that Pavis has "made significant impact in scholarly discipline" as required by WP:ACADEMIC. He is the author of several highly cited academic works. I'll start adding these in, the article as stands is a stub, certainly, and has much room for improvement. - ManicSpider (talk) 03:06, 14 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina Fisheva (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:BIO. I searched gnews for her name in English and Azerbaijani and got nothing. 1 gnews hit in Russian. gbooks only gives her 2 hits and one of them used Knowledge (XXG) as a ref. article claims her career started in 1930 yet she was born then? LibStar (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • G3 obvious hoax; she couldn't have started career in the same year she was born. No hits anywhere for "History Laid Away on Archive Shelves" either; if the article existed I'm sure it'd turn up at least something. The external links make no mention of her. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Delete Hullaballoo has done some work here but I don't think it's enough. The sources are very thin at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Keep per HW's improvements. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 05:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a hoax as the spelling "Nina Fischeva" gives hits indicating she is indeed the director of the state film/photos institute whatnot, but way too little coverage in reliable sources. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per awards in sourcing found by HW. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aside from a bit of poor phrasing inserted in the article by a non-native English speaker (which I've repaired), the problems in the article seem to stem from the fact that there's no standard transliteration of the subject's name, and that most of the coverage isn't English-language. But the central facts in the article can be verified via the online-accessible obituaries and subsequent eulogies (some of which I've now cited in the aricle. The honors and awards mentioned in those texts should be enough to demonstrate notabiliry: the subject played an important cultural role in her country, and received both official honors and significant professional recognition in her field for her work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per the improvements by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Lovetinkle (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • keep I came over here after an AN thread discussing her notability. I found two articles co-written by Fischeva, either in English originally or an excellent translation, plus an American piece that gives her special thanks as a resource. Definitely a notable person. KrakatoaKatie 06:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 January 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.

↑