Knowledge

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concerns about sourcing and possible renaming do exist, however. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dissident Irish Republican Campaign 1998 - Present (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 complete work of unsourced original research. No sources that refer to the periodic dissident violence from various quarters as a unified "campaign". Only exists in the head of its creator, I'm afraid. JonChapple 19:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep - from what I know of recent Northern Irish history, (enough), this article reads as factually correct. It is written from a neutral point of view and with what would seem a considerable degree of authority. The fact that it lacks referencing almost throughout is a considerable weakness but it's a young article - let it breathe. Mark 12:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. If this article stays, it needs urgent attention with the referencing. Normally I'm happy to let uncited articles hang around, but when it's such a sensitive and still divisive subject, we don't really want the article to be open to any allegations of bias of fabrication. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep real and notable events; numerous sources can be found --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - as far as I can tell, factually correct and definitely notable. However, calling it a 'campaign' without sourcing seems to constitue original research. Perhaps renaming is in order? Maethordaer (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep It seems very likely to me that sources exist for this topic. I've tagged the article to the effect that they need to be added. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.   -- Lear's Fool 01:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Populated place (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 stub is nothing more than a definition used for the United States Geological Survey database purposes. It is most certainly not the only possible definition, is not notable by itself, and is a borderline dictdef. Re-writing this stub from scratch is not impossible, but in six years no one ever tried to, and it certainly isn't worth keeping in its present state.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 18:46 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 18:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 18:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry if the DelSort categories seem weird. I really had no idea where to put this one. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 18:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Since the expression "populated place" is used on WP, including on a couple of categories on this article, having an article explaining what it is is probably useful. "Not a dictionary" is often ignored in cases like this. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Explanations of terminology Knowledge uses do not belong in the article space, though. At the very least, this definition should be moved to WP space (which effectively means deletion), and even then consensus needs to be established that the USGN definition is the one Knowledge standardizes on (which I am not so sure is the case). And what other cases where the "not a dictionary" guideline is intentionally ignored do you mean?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 20:12 (UTC)

• Comment I wish I could simply argue that the term is useful, since I use it in the articles I write about places, to contrast it with a "locale" which is pretty much just a name attached to a piece of nowhere, but it's not a good AfD argument. I did add a bit showing that the term is used generally in the field of cartography. I'm looking for more information about the various uses of the term, but much of what I found is in obscure GIS works and they're a bit too scholarly for my brain to handle today. I think there is more information out there, though if it still ends up being merely a dicdef then deletion might make sense. Some dicdefs, however, can actually address many aspects of a term beyond its definition. Note that six years of not being expanded is not usually considered a valid reason for deletion. Valfontis (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Heavily used in WP, see Category:Populated places and the article gives a nice overview about the contents of that category. Additionally the term is a feature class defined by the USGS a scientific agency. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The term forms an important distinction in the areas of Cartography, GIS, Census, Planning, ..., and a whole bunch of other areas I can't even think of right now. Although its a bit limited at the moment to the American definitions of what constitute a populated place, it should be possible to broaden it to a world view fairly easily. Haruth (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• keep Used throughout this English language WP. Pointy deletion based dislike of the usage of the term regarding Russia. Result of special pleading to make Russia an exception. Hmains (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  I see good faith is just overflowing with this one!</sarcasm> Anyway, as Valfontis above rightfully pointed out, being useful is not a valid keep reason. If this article can be expanded to show notability of the term and properly sourced, fine. Otherwise, all we have is a stub about a field definition in a database used by a US government agency (and after the most recent expansion—a synthesized hodgepodge of barely related factoids). How's that a keep?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2011; 13:39 (UTC)

  Background at Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19#Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  That's not really background; that's where I noticed that the "populated place" article is disturbingly substandard to the point of being a dictdef and asked why. If we only keep it around because it is "useful", that's wrong.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 14:49 (UTC)

• Keep, article is not so warm now but just does fog the mirror. If the term were not used authoritatively off-wiki, it should be a dead letter, but alas WP hasn't invented this term. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 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. causa sui (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lars Hampel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An American football player from Germany playing in the German Football League (GFL). According to WP:NSPORTS, "Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not presumed notable unless they meet another criterion". At the List of leagues of American and Canadian football, the GFL is listed under minor and semi-professional leagues. For more info on the GFL, I found this Sports Illustrated article. He is mentioned in news articles, but the articles are about the team. The only thing that might be notable is he played in the 2011 IFAF World Cup. The United States national American football team first competed in 2007 and the could not have any professional football players. I'm not sure about the 2011 team. Bgwhite (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete don't really see any independent sources. If they appear, I'll change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear in any independent sources. I don't see the player meeting GNG. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment This year's tournament did feature a couple professional players, a couple players from Mexico played in the IFL and a good portion of Canada have CFL experience, including some who were cut in this season's training camp. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:17, 26 July 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. causa sui (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jonnie Marbles (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. One event. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can provide any further references about this comedian. Several Times (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's the best I can find besides all the frothy, pie-related media coverage. He might have a blog as well but that's hardly a decent source. Several Times (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much a textbook example of a passing mention. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. No coverage in reliable sources until today's publicity stunt. Cullen328 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and per WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 18:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ONEVENT. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I think in the coming days this article will come more prominent, Hes also a sucesfull comedian and activist. I recommend you tag it for rescue. Goldblooded (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Yep, this is major news around the world. In fact, it's the first thing in the news around the world. Keep. --Tris2000 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Difficult to think of a clearer cut case of WP:BLP1E. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Too early to delete it, you can't say that he's only notable for one event and that said event is a passing one when it hasn't even been 24 hours since the event in question occurred. There are several cases where a person comes into the spotlight and stays in it, or where a notable event caused by them draws attention to lesser known ones. This guy was plastered all over international media, this isn't just a bio on someone from an obscure local newspaper. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment The fact is that he wasn't at all notable 24 hours ago, and so shouldn't have a Knowledge biography based on a single event, especially something that was really just a stunt. If this jumpstarts his career as a comedian (or whatever), and he gets ongoing coverage, the article can be recreated at that time. See WP:TOOSOON Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment You can’t justify deletion by saying that an event is passing when it hasn’t even passed yet. News happens, that he wasn’t notable 24 hours ago doesn’t change that he’s now notable. Now that the article is created only time can show whether it warrants deletion.174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E without prejudice for undeleting and expanding if further events warrant. Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably should have been speedy'd initially. Nevard (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. I apologise. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, too early to keep it. Currently the article falls under WP:ONEVENT. Recreate it, if he does it again.--Ben Ben (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Give him his footnote in history.  Francium12  11:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Roll some of the information into articles relevant to the events, he's not notable otherwise. 173.177.167.208 (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete relevant info could perhaps be smerged into Rupert Murdoch (which sounds like a very unpleasant experience...) Yunshui (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete- BLP1E exists for situations like this. And a minnow slap for the creator. We should know better than this by now. Its possible he might become notable for more than one event later, but we can revisit that at a later date. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. He just isn't a notable comedian.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete per above. He hasn't done anything except one pieing, and as a person isn't notable enough to have his own article. (IP because I have no Knowledge account.) 86.182.169.180 (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep If someone in the future stumbles upon a mention of Jonnie Marbles in a book or in a magazine article it might be very helpful to find out what the author was referring to. If, on the other hand, all mentions of his name disappear, one will be kept wondering what was being alluded to. Oclupak (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete 86.147.56.13 (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - as plain an example of WP:BLP1E as they come. Nothing in our policies justifies having an article on this person. Robofish (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Some mention of the incident should be merged into Rupert Murdoch; I note that the incident is already mentioned at News International phone hacking scandal. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete; the guy deserves a medal, but we can't give him a wikipedia page for a single event. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to News International phone hacking scandal where we can give brief mention of it with regard to the Committee hearing. He doesn't seem to be notable other than for that one event. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Incubate for two weeks before releasing to article space without prejudice to a new AfD.  Claims that this topic fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT, or WP:BLP1E are WP:CRYSTAL.  Likewise, the keep !votes are premature.  A reason for incubating for two weeks is to allow time for the weekly news magazines to weigh in.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 25 July 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. This time, we will be using the salt shaker. Courcelles 22:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Veronica Grey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional article about a self-published author of questionable notability. Many of the provided references either don't mention the subject or don't back up the claims made. Movie roles listed on IMDB are mostly background extra work. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete and SALT the page (maybe speedy delete per G4?) The page has been previously deleted twice. Here is the description of the previous page in the 2nd nomination:

Article is, in its previous form, little more than a promotional vehicle for a non-notable person who has appeared in a pilot and had a number of uncredited appearances. The only information that can be somewhat reliably gleaned comes from the IMDB, and it indicates non-notability. That she is a "modern day muse" and a "a trusted authority in the field of anti-aging and self help" (from that previous version) are unverified claims. I foresee some rebuttal that may be long on text but short on references; I urge contributors here to focus on the BLP mandate of providing reliable sources.

There appears to be more unsourced claims made in this article, and so because the article was not substantially improved after two previous deletions, this may be a candidate for speedy deletion. I'll wait to tag the page until consensus on this proposal is reached. If not speedy deletion, the page is a terrific failure to provide verifiability for a BLP. Finally, that ridiculous surfing picture on the page ought to read: Veronica ready to get deleted for the third time! I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. Her roles in acting are not major and in fact mostly uncredited. Her books are self published with no indication of significant coverage or critical review. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rewrite the page and address the issues??? Is there anyway to re write or reword the article that can make it suitable for wikipedia? Also, two of the books are NOT self published and were published by others. She has been in several films, and her philantrhopy is significant as there are very few other people pursuing her kind of "self help" genre. Also... Many great people started out as being self published - Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, it's similar to independent film where Joe Favreau started out before directing Iron Man 2 and Cowboys and Aliens. - JTHockey08 7/22
  • Reply - The fundamental issue is one of notability. This requires coverage in independent reliable sources, and no amount of rewriting or editting of the article can address the lack of available sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply All of the sources listed are now independent. And the majority of novels referenced were externally published, and there are links to prove this. Veronica is notable in the literature industry, and despite her limited roles, she has been in several independent films in a leading or main supporting role. Her "limited" roles include supporting or extra roles on several prominent, A-list Hollywood films. Her literature is unlike any other artists ever. -JTHockey08contribs) 23:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • comment - The sources are either insignificant or not reliable. I see no real improvement in the sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Her literature is unlike any other artists ever. Just saying her literature is really great is not really a good reason to keep this article, unless you can find third-party independent sources that describe it as such. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 03:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Well... there are independent third party sources praising her work - Spiritually Raw, and reviews from third party publisher websites. We are trying to get more third party sources supporting our case for notabilaity. Please give us some time. She is an entrepenuer and helps to manage some bands. Why is it so terrible to let her have a biography? We will do anything to make it a "non advertisement" and we are trying hard to make the notability issue solved. She is a writer and annst actress... there are some other less notable people on Knowledge... -JTHockey08 — JTHockey08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well... there are independent third party sources praising her work - Spiritually Raw, and reviews from third party publisher websites.

Spiritually Raw is a forum, and contains user-submitted content. Because it is user submitted, we can't really confirm whether it's independent. The publisher is also not independent as they have a financial interest in the book's sales.

Please give us some time.

Although there are no official deadlines on Knowledge, we should delete, merge, or keep articles on topics based on their potential notability and verification, not just how they look now. The current article has issues, but more importantly, it has also been up for two deletion nominations already and deleted each time for pretty much the same reasons we are discussing now. The potential for Grey to meet the notability guidelines for authors or in general is not favorable. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

She is an entrepenuer and helps to manage some bands. Why is it so terrible to let her have a biography?

It's not "terrible," it just doesn't follow the policies for notability that we try to support on Knowledge. Also, being a certain type of person doesn't make someone notable automatically.

We will do anything to make it a "non advertisement" and we are trying hard to make the notability issue solved.

Again, there doesn't appear to be WP:POTENTIAL for this individual. However, if you find sources, please tell us about them here. Deletion discussions like this one usually last for a week, so you don't need to rush. I've removed my recommendation to speedily delete this page. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

She is a writer and annst actress...

She doesn't appear to fulfill WP:AUTHOR as I discussed already. As for being an actress, the current article doesn't have listed as acting in any TV shows or films. Only that she has been present at awards ceremonies (not receiving any) and comedy / running charity events.

there are some other less notable people on Knowledge...

Whatever else is on Knowledge is also user-generated content and sets no precedent for this current article. Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to understand why justifying an article with other articles on Knowledge generally doesn't work in deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete not only is this clearly spam, it was written entirely by JThockey08, who I must assume is Ms. Grey or a stalker --Djohns21 (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.   -- Lear's Fool 01:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rubberecycle (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 looks like it has a long list of references at first glance, but if you check them individually, a few are to indiscriminate business directories, a few are links to general EPA information on rubber, and (with one exception) the rest are press releases or reprints of press releases. The one exception is a link to a LA times article called 'Health concerns over Obamas' swing set mulch.' However, that article does mention that there are health concerns with the rubber mulch installed at the White House, but the Times does not mention the Rubberecycle by name or include any discussion of the company - it is purely about rubber mulch in general. As such, this company doesn't have 'significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources' and fails WP:CORP. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment NN. I can also create an article about a local tire recycling company, but I'm also not sure if two notable distinctions are enough - largest in the Middle East, and another one I cannot mention right now. --Shuki (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, Not sure if it is grounds for deletion, but apparently editors with special interest for this company keep advertising this article on 2 other articles repeatedly. here and here, in fact a lot of the edits on those 2 articles have to do with adding a reference to the AFD'd article. .--Shmaltz (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  It's more like 7 or 8 articles, here's an example of one of their IPs: . They used to do a lot of refspamming, too, but thankfully they have given up on that. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  See also, for example, this habitual spammer (now blocked), and this one. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  And one of the spammers has just tried to remove the AFD tag from the page. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete the independence of the sources is just not there. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 24 July 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. causa sui (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gus Sorola (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, no third party sources. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Sorola was a voice actor in Red vs. Blue and The Strangerhood. I think there could be a case to be made for all three guideliens in WP:NACTOR if appropriate sources exit. I agree references are a significant problem and I could not turn up much else via Google. However, I do not know enough about this area to have an opinion. I've made a note about this AfD on Talk:Red vs. Blue and perhaps someone more familiar with Sorola's body of work can provide some guidance. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't even buy "appeared in popular web videos and podcasts" as a claim to notability, but I'm sure there are others who disagree. Hairhorn (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Red vs. Blue, but I do know it is a video series in its 9th season, some of its content was included with the release of Halo 3, DVDs of the seasons are sold at Game Stop, and they had a film in the Sundance Film Festival. It's not a traditional TV series to be sure, but to categorize Red vs. Blue as simply a "popular web video" doesn't seem objectively accurate to me. In my opinion, a notability claim here has a lot to do with this voice actor's prominence and role in the series, a question which I am not qualified to answer. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. If he's notable, the coverage will be there. I see a lot of mentions, but little else. Hairhorn (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I very much agree. As I mentioned earlier, I did some work trying to uncover additional coverage of him and I could not find anything significant. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep 1, 2, 3. Penny Arcade is one the largest online comic distributors in the world. This article easily meets the minimum threshold for notability. Wikifan 23:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes this individual notable. And blogs are not considered reliable third party sources. Hairhorn (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are tradionally seen as unreliable sources but in this case these sources provide sufficient notability in spite of their "blog" status. Many reliable sources such as CNN and The Guardian publish blog-like articles and yet their reliability is not questioned. This article easily meets the bare minimum threshold for notability. He is one of the chief founders of Rooster Teeth and continues to act, write, and participate in its on-going business ventures. Wikifan 08:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, the refs and the point about Penny Arcade only establish notability for Rooster Teeth, as far as I can tell. I don't see the individual notability. The fact that a reliable paper might have an attached blog does not magically make blogs a reliable source.Hairhorn (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources explicitly refer to Sorola, not simply Rooster Teeth. IMO the threshold for notability has been proven. Wikifan 16:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, the issue is coverage in reliable, third party sources, which appear to be absent; thus the AFD nomination. Hairhorn (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The issue is verifiability. Gus Sorola is a notable figure and founder of Rooster Teeth, a leading machinima company. I've provided several sources that you dubiously dismissed as "blogs" though some were clearly not as defined by wikipedia policy. Wikifan 20:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• ? The primary issue, as it says in the nomination, is notability, which the references you suggest don't seem to establish. Being attached to a successful company is not a good claim to individual notability. Hairhorn (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• The references more than suggest notability, they confirm it. And you have not argued against their notability, but reliability. Wikifan 04:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just wanted to chime in here. I think it would be useful and constructive to ground any discussion of WP:N in specific guidelines (i.e. WP:NACTOR). As an example, I think Red vs. Blue speaks to guideline one of WP:NACTOR, as he voiced what looks like a notable character in a notable production. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He has also acted in over 20 Rooster Teeth shorts that have received millions of views both on youtube and the official website. Not sure how relevant that is here though. Wikifan 07:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep per Byzantium's arguments for WP:NACTOR. Red vs. Blue is a notable show (see this review by CHUD, this review by e-film critic, this review by Collider.com, this article from IGN about its upcoming season DVD release, this interview with the creators including Sorolla, plus mentions in the Boston Globe. Sorolla is a main character in the show, so this article is a sure keep. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:28, 19 July 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. There's no consensus to delete an article about a film that, if maybe a bit obscure, has apparently been the subject of some coverage in its country of origin.  Sandstein  05:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hymenée (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 evidence anywhere of notability. I can find almost nothing about this play, except that it existed. The article gives no sources, unless we count an external link to IMDb. Apart from the fact that IMDb is not a reliable source, the entry gives nothing more than bare details (such as cast list and date of production) which would not establish notability even if it were in a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The disambiguation page Hymenaeus might be a redirect target. Hymenée is the French spelling. I think it's a motion picture rather than a play. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The article originally said "drama", but I see it has been changed to "drama film". However, that makes no difference to whether it should be deleted or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, 00:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I did a bit of cleanup and sectioning in the hope that French-reading Wikipedians might have access to sources about 1947 French cinema that I do not, else WP:UNKNOWNHERE will be this article's demise. Schmidt, 00:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

fr:Émile Cousinet has a biographical source about the works of its creator : Mamolar, Françoise (june 2008). Éditions Bonne-Anse (ed.). Citizen Couzinet, Hollywood-sur-Gironde (in French). Vaux-sur-Mer. ISBN 978-2-916470-03-0. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |lire en ligne= (help)

• Comment I only found using google.fr. Also, it's a french translation of the play Женитьба (the wedding) by Gogol: fr:s:Auteur:Nikolaï_Gogol. I left a note on the french wikipedia cinema project. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Hello, I take part to the French WP Cinema project. I am not aware of the notability/acceptance policy on this WP, but the film sure does exist. According to this site which indexes all cinema magazines in France, the movie appears in two occasions: one critical review in 1947 upon its release in one of the major magazines of the time (l'Ecran français), and in the complete movie directory covering 1945-1947 releases. So the movie is fairly unknown, and Cousinet (or Couzinet) is well known to have made unknown films (!!) and of rather lower quality, a kind of French Ed Wood (but maybe not that bad either). We do not have a page on this movie on the fr.WP yet, but my approach is to cover as many films as possible, and for sure all French productions (around 10,000 talkies). Regarding IMDb, according to my 15 year experience with it, its questionable reliability is not at stake here, and the related entry looks perfectly alright. So up to the en.WP to decide whether to delete this film or not, but I will definitely manage to have it under the fr.WP -- Vincent alias Fourvin 11:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The existence of the film is not questioned.
2. You say "the movie is fairly unknown", which suggests a lack of notability.
3. You say "my approach is to cover as many films as possible, and for sure all French productions (around 10,000 talkies)". However, Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information on just anything, and requires notability for inclusion. Just being a film does not guarantee notability.
4. IMDb is not reliable, as anyone can edit contribute information to it. The fact that a Knowledge editor thinks that the "entry looks perfectly alright" does not alter that. However, in my opinion a bigger drawback to using IMDb as evidence of notability is that it is indiscriminate, and includes entries on virtually anything at all connected with films or the film industry. That means that the existence of an IMDb entry is no indication at all of notability, even if the entry is totally accurate. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify User:JamesBWatson's point #4: No... not just "anyone" can edit IMDB. While it is true that anyone might submit information for their consideration, IMDB is edited only by their own database editors, with a claimed 70% of their staff dedicated to vetting information after submission.. Their "unreliability" is seen in their not disclosing just what their vetting processes might be, so that we at Knowledge might for ourselves determine their editorial oversight or fact-checking policy for its efectiveness. So while yes, much of what they offer is considered unrelaible, and while even they admit to not being perfect, certain portions of their database are genrally accepted as reliable and there have been conversation in which these portions have been discussed (see failed proposal Knowledge:Citing IMDb and discussion at Knowledge talk:Citing IMDb). It has generally been accepted that the older the film, the more likely it is that the information concerning cast/crew/title has been so many times repeatedly vetted that it has the greatest chance of being accurate. While we do not give credence to IMDB trivia or user blogs, we do give credence to information that is attibuted to the WGA or other organizations where IMDB's information can be verified. Of course, and as JamesBWatson points out, this naturally results in our citing to that attributed source itself, rather than to IMDB. Schmidt, 22:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is all true. It was careless of me to say "anyone can edit it", which is not really what I meant. However, I still think that the indiscriminate inclusion of almost anything is a more important drawback of IMDb than its questionable reliability. Information in IMDb is probably usually true, but inclusion is no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree: Simply being listed on IMDB imparts no notability. But as I stated above, the information contained therein can often lead to the sources we do accept... which is why while it may be "useful" enough for consideration as an EL to encourage our looking further, it is not as a citation. If someone says to me "It's on IMDB!", I will reply, "Nice. It screened someplace. Now use that information to find the better sources we require." Schmidt, 02:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on all points, but on the other hand, since I have never seen a clear-cut definition of what is notable in WP and what is an actual encyclopedic material (caractère encyclopédique in French) , it is left to a part of subjective judgement. And the fact that a collection of items is complete and undescriminate does not bar it to appear in WP. Most of the Bristish PMs are unknown to 95% of fr.WP visitors, i.e. unnotable in my understanding, but I would expect to find them there. Same for the French movies on a encyclopedia in French! Now when it comes to the en.WP, I do not prejudice the decision, even though, with more than three million pages, you can expect to find a kind of coverage completeness on some popular domains such as movies -- Vincent alias Fourvin 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that you're looking for Knowledge:Notability and Knowledge:Notability (films). In short, the article might lack significant coverage, since there's only one source at the time of this writing. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these references, I am not familiar with en.WP (yet? :o), and I will review them. But, in my opinion, it seems we are confronting yet another fuzzy concept with significant coverage! This is also another reason why I am keen on relying on exhaustive (and reasonable) collections with official recognitions (all French films must be delivered an official certificate known as visa d'exploitation) -- Vincent alias Fourvin 21:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I have added a few more details and two external links. Octave.H (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Comment To summarize my position, there is no reason to delete this article: it is a "small" and "unnotable" movie indeed, but it is a registered French one (made after 1944, it has to be officially registered with the French Cinema Authority - CNC); it is accounted for by R. Chirat's directory of French films, which is THE reference index; its two major actors (Gaby Morlay and Maurice Escande), are notable; a poster can be found here. This may appear unsufficient and unnotable enough, but I do not subscribe to throw an actually existing movie in oblivion, as fas as en.WP is concerned. This is not what I expect from an encyclopedia. -- Vincent alias Fourvin 22:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep the article has one good published source. I would suspect there is more on this film available in French. The article is weak now, but it has the potential to grow. No reason to kill this article that has been began well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Fourvin's mention of French publications mentioning this film would suggest we should keep this article. For something to be notable it does not have to have been mentioned before in Egnlsih, any language can be used to support notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 27 July 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. After being moved and partially rewritten as Architects of the United States Forest Service, consensus has shifted towards keeping the article. The history contains a lot of problematic edit-warring between the two main participants in this discussion; this is worrying.  Sandstein  05:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

United States Forest Service Architecture Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: Article was moved during AFD discussion from "United States Forest Service Architecture Group" to "Architects of the United States Forest Service". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 July 2011

Largely original research on a topic whose notability -- and even existence -- is dubious. The "group" that is the subject of this article seems to have been 5 people who once worked for the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Region. The sources cited do not confirm that this group actually was a formal organization nor what its actual name was, much less indicate when it existed, what its mission was, where in the Pacific Northwest it had its office, etc. Sources consist of entries in a database attributing various properties to this "group" and one document that mentions the "group" twice, once as "Architecture Group" and once as "Architectural Group," and that names its 5 members. As discussed on the article talk page, efforts to find additional information have been unsuccessful. I think that a list of National Register listings attributed to US Forest Service personnel would be a worthwhile basis for a list article (and, indeed, when I saw this new article I tried to convert it to a list, but I got reverted), but the creator of this article is adamant that the "Architecture Group" is a notable topic for an article, so here we are at AfD. Orlady (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure: Orlady has long tangled with me. Note Orlady agrees that there is a valid topic here. As discussed at Talk, I reversed Orlady's undiscussed move of article to "List of buildings and structures attributed to the United States Forest Service and its Architecture Group", which seemed like not the right title. An article about an architectural firm or design group can include a list of works; a rename can better be discussed in a Requested Move at the Talk page. I consider this AFD to be in bad faith. --doncram 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To address one complaint, the Northwest Regional architect group was started in 1934, per this, part of larger online book about USFS Architecture. --doncram 18:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That source says "In 1934, Regional Engineer Jim Frankland set up an architectural section headed by Tim Turner." That's hardly the same thing as the official formation of a USFS Architecture Group. --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That source also cites "The History of engineering in the Forest Service: (a compilation of history and memoirs, 1905-1989)", which seems to discuss Turner's department of 10 people. (I just figured out the full title from Google Books). That book is not available on line. I'm asking that we don't rush to delete until we've collectively done the research. —hike395 (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - no apparent sourcing for existence/mission of group outside of "architect" listings in NRHP docs.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources available are the National Register's NRIS database, and NRHP nomination documents such as offline one cited in Unity Ranger Station by editor Orygun, and such as online "Depression-Era Buildings" of OR and WA tr document. These are reliable sources already providing adequate documentation of existence of group. There will be more available too. --doncram 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. "More available" now includes an entire online book about USFS architecture, which would allow for development of this article to be about USFS level with subsections about regional variations, or which would support separate articles on regional groups and their works. --doncram 18:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and allow sorting out of a possible rename/reorganization at Talk page of article, where that was going on already.

The Northwest region architecture group, aka USDA Forest Svce. is identified in about 25 National Register NRIS database listings as the architect of record, reflecting collective design responsibility, as in architectural firms when an individual architect cannot be identified. This is echoed in other online sources derived from NRIS, which show up in Google searches. Also, one document, the "Depression-Era Buildings" of OR and WA document, provides characterization of design work of this one group as opposed to that of other Forest Service regional offices. As was being discussed at Talk page. There is adequate documentation of at least the Northwest Regional architecture group to establish its notability on its own, and to include list of its works, like for other architectural firm articles. It remains open whether one combined article should cover that group and also cover other groups, such as Region 2's group. Deletion of the article would remove useful history and development already, in article and Talk page; rename can be discussed there. --doncram 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue here is not whether the general topic of Forest Service architecture is significant or notable. You have made clear on the article talk page that this is an article about the USFS Architecture Group, not an article about USFS architecture. However, there is no solid evidence for the existence of such a group. There's even a nice online book about USFS Architecture, including a page about Tim Turner and a page about Linn Forrest (two of the architects who you say were in this supposed Architecture Group), but no indication that the USFS ever had an organization called "Architecture Group." (These appear to simply be architects who worked for the agency in different offices and capacities.) There is no evidence that the topic of this article existed. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care for Orlady's characterization here. There is a valid topic, or several of them. The exact name to use for an article about just the Northwest region's architecture group and its works is not obvious yet, and it is also not obvious yet whether there should be one combined article about all the USFS architecture and its regional variations, or separate articles. To assert that there is no topic seems silly. The AFD seems silly. --doncram 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for now. I agree that there are serious notability issues with the article, but there's valuable material here that I don't think should be deleted (as per the advice of WP:FAILN). Let's try and work on the article longer: if after reorganizing, merging, or renaming the article, it still fails WP:N, then we can come back to AfD. —hike395 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Which is the valuable information that you think should be kept?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The material that you moved to the talk page: like Orlady, I think it can be transformed or merged into reasonable standalone list article(s) —hike395 (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I said it could be a list, but Doncram reverted my edits when I converted it to a list article; his comments on the talk page indicate that he is determined to prove that his proposed article topic about the "Architecture Group" is notable. At any rate, that list was a database dump from NRIS; it shouldn't be real hard to recreate it in the future, if desired. --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I disagree with Orlady's characterization. Again, I reversed Orlady's move of the article to a title starting with "List of...", because it was undiscussed and because I think the particular name he/she chose is a bad one. An article can contain a list without having "List of..." type title. --doncram 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I consider that some of the most worrisome information, actually. When Doncram pulls a list from the database, all he's going by is the name -- he has no idea what the association with the name actually is. See John Ross, referred to below, for a particularly nasty instance of this going wrong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I completely disagree with SarekOfVulcan, but this is off-topic for Keep vs. Delete decision regarding this article. --doncram 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Hardly off-topic, as it's directly relevant to whether or not the article should be kept. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Going off-topic, this AFD is about Keep or Delete. But, the material to be kept or restored includes information so far developed about architects and style of the Northwest regional architect group and a list of its works that survive and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. And edit history to be kept is all the edit history, including the identification of there being a notable topic (or several) here. And Talk page discussion. --doncram 18:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Considering that some of the items on that list aren't even credited to the Forest Service, never mind the Forest Service Architecture Group, I don't find that a compelling argument. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
        • "some"? Given your comment, i look now at the removed list and see 2 items that possibly don't belong because they don't have "Forest Service" in the attribution name given: Sedona Ranger Station, Brewer Rd. S. of Hart Rd. Sedona AZ (USDA/USFS Standard Plans), NRHP-listed and Shirley Field, Off US 80 Tallulah LA (USDA Delta Laboratory), NRHP-listed. But the first one is a Ranger Station, so I suspect it does in fact belong, when information comes available. I appreciate your sharp eye, but the presence of one or two redlink items that eventually might get removed does not justify deletion of the article, and it does not undermine the value of having that specific list kept in edit history and talk page discussion. I think when I started this that i did a pretty exhaustive search of the 2009 version of NRIS database, finding overlapping and separate "USDA" hits as well as "Forest Service" ones, thereby ensuring a more complete list for consideration. --doncram 18:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Right. You have no idea whether the items in that list actually relate to the subject of the article, you just pulled in everything you could.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Wrong. I originally had a damn good idea that the architectural group or groups of the US Forest Service were worth a Knowledge article, based on variations being among the most frequently credited architects of NRHP-listed places. Which turns out to be spot-on. I did not then know how exactly the USFS architectural work was split up into units or how its organization might have changed over time. I still don't know whether or not the "USDA Delta Laboratory" item was designed by a different group or whether one of these architectural groups did that one item. So sue me. Your sharp eye identifying outliers to question is truly appreciated by me, but wholesale deletion of article and wholesale removal of all of a large list, for sake of one or two questions, seems not helpful. --doncram 19:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
              • You shouldn't be starting articles before you have assembled enough information about the topic(s) to write coherent declarative sentences about the topic that you can back up with references to reliable sources. Why does this remind me of that article you started about an architect who did important work in both Grand Forks and Davenport, but turned out to be two completely different people? --Orlady (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
                • I disagree with Orlady's views. I was also thinking about the John Ross architect case, where it turned out John W. Ross (Iowa architect) and John W. Ross (North Dakota architect) turned out to be different persons, both notable. That happens, as someone else noted in the AFD that SarekOfVulcan opened about it. There can be some confusion which takes a little time to sort out. A closer example is Linn A. Forrest article, about architect in the Forest Service group who worked in both Oregon and then in Alaska, but is not the same person as son who is still alive. First sources might not clarify, which is no big deal, not cause for an AFD. Knowledge:Articles for deletion/John W. Ross closed KEEP. Get over it. --doncram 21:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
                  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, huh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: There's a history of the architecture of the Forest Service which lists some of the architects involved. I haven't read through that entire document, though. I'm not sure if the architecture group is notable within a general context outside of the existing Forest Service articles. It seems to me that unless there was a cohesiveness of design and a sense that all of these architects worked together, the architecture group isn't notable as a standalone article. Compare this group to Office of the Supervising Architect, which supervised the design of a number of buildings of similar functions and design elements. --Elkman 21:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I've skimmed parts of that online book. The Forest Service definitely has employed a number of architects in its history, but (as I noted above) that book does not indicate that there ever was an organization called the "Architecture Group." Most of the architects appear to have worked in Region offices. It appears that the first architect was hired in one of the Region offices in the 1920s. During the CCC years, some of the regions had several architectural professionals on staff. Apparently only one architect ever worked in the agency Washington headquarters, but he created a lot of standard plans used around the country. None of this indicates the existence of the organization described in this article. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The cited reference makes it clear that one "Architecture Group" or "Architectural Group" (possibly the same as an "Architecture Group" or "Architectural Section") existed for the Pacific Northwest region, but as Hike395 pointed out, that doesn't necessarily constitute "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. It's not clear whether these were officially constituted or ad hoc groups; furthermore, some online searching suggests that other Forest Service regions also had "architectural sections," so "United States Forest Service Architecture Group" may be as ambiguous as saying "State Department of Transportation". Creating pages that conflate multiple entities through carelessness is not a good thing.

Right now, this is pretty much a textbook violation of WP:NOT: "Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It isn't clear what the scope of the article should be, what location it should exist at, or how it should be adequately balanced. There is no point in writing this article, or any article, until those questions can be answered. Given that the information in the article is basically derivative of the linked NRIS document and could easily be re-created from it, I think it's safe to delete. Choess (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or rename. This is misinformation. There simply is no such organization as the United States Forest Service Architecture Group. This appears to be about one small section within one region. I will try to edit the article to make that clear. Station1 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

**At this point, the article does not seem worth keeping. I recommend delete and restarting a new article. Something like Cascadian architecture style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hike395 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 July 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - There is no sigfnificant coverage about this Architecture Group to establish notability, and in fact, I'm not even convinced it meets verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have been reworking the article towards it being renamed to Architects of the United States Forest Service, with subsections Region 6, to which USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group redirects, and subsection Region 2 to which USDA Forest Service, Region 2 redirects. Orlady, perhaps not understanding, has seen fit to re-redirect the Region 6 item, which i then reverted. There are about 25 places specifically attributed to the Region 6 group by explicit name USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group. Go ahead, google that exact phrase, and you will see a lot of hits. It is, in practice, an alternative name of the Region 6 group, and it should redirect to the section of this combined article, or to a separate article on the Region 6 group if multiple articles are to be split out. --doncram 03:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Orlady fully understood your intent and was thoroughly convinced that you were wrong. "Svce." is a common abbreviation for "service," not a special blessed code word created by the Gods of the NRIS database to signify "Region 6." And the chance that anyone searching for USFS Region 2 would be expecting to find an architecture article is vanishingly slim; I retargeted that one to point to the "Regions" subsection of the USFS article. --Orlady (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Per that and its nasty-toned edit summary, i stand corrected. Orlady was not accidentally being unreasonable, she was deliberately being so. There are in fact about 25 National Register places, covered in Knowledge and in many other sources using National Register info, that refer to the Region 2 architect group by that exact name. There are no different uses of that exact name. Way to be obtuse about development of wikipedia, to prevent link from working properly to bring people to the relevant point. More evidence of silliness of the AFD in general. --doncram 14:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• And, of course, since you put {{Under construction}} on the article, nobody is supposed to touch it or delete the article until you're done with it, right? --Elkman 05:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• The tag says "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's not my interpretation. I interpret it the same as a database lock, to mean that nobody else should be editing the article. --Elkman 18:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, is mistaken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, SarekOfVulcan. Yes other editors are indeed welcome to edit, as the tag indicates and was meant by me. Elkman, the article is developing somewhat and I think it now establishes that there was "cohesiveness of design and a sense that all of these architects worked together", your condition stated above for whether an article on this topic is acceptable to you. Your !vote Keep would be appreciated. --doncram 19:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't respond to canvassing or pleading. Don't count on me to give you a keep vote. --Elkman 03:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Move to Architects of the U.S. Forest Service or Architecture of the U.S. Forest Service. Much of the controversy here seems to stem from concern as to whether a specific sub-group of Forest Service architects based in the Pacific Northwest has notability. That is debatable. What appears to be clear is that the architects (and architecture) of the U.S. Forest Service made important contributions to American architectural history, particularly in the period from the 1930s to the 1950s. In this diff], User:Orygun expressed a similar view on the article's Talk page. He pointed to an excellent source on the subject, history of Forest Service architecture, which I have used to create and article on Keplar B. Johnson. Orygun also pointed to the National Museum of Forest Service History as another potential source for developing the subject. Much of what has been written in the existing article would form a nice base for a broader article using one of the titles suggested above. For these reasons, I suggest a "move" of the useful material rather than a "delete." Cbl62 (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Support move Article has come back: this would be useful to our readers if renamed instead of deleted —hike395 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Move to avoid semantic difficulties with the name. It's clear to me that the U.S. Forest Service built a huge lot of interesting things over a relatively long period of time. Quite a few of those things seem likely to have featured in various media (travel and tourism media in particular) as well as the architecture trade press. That's notable. Pick a topic name that reflects that notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cbl62, Hike395, and Stuartyeates. I prefer the name to include "Architects", as in Architects of the U.S. Forest Service or Architects of the United States Forest Service, supporting focus in the article upon the individuals and groups of architects working together. That way it serves need in related articles to link to this article on the architects, where they mention the USDA Forest Service Architecture Group or variations as being the designer of a given place. --doncram 18:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on moving I am semi-boldly moving the article now, to support making DYK nomination at the title Architects of the United States Forest Service. The DYK will not be accepted until this AFD is closed, I presume, but I want to put in the nomination now. This move does not preclude a further move to a different title later, if a different consensus emerges in this AFD, but I would hope the DYK could be achieved first. --doncram 19:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Surely this is worthwhile to people who need to know about this subject. Paul Musgrave (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)r
• Keep as a notable topic with good soiurces, though I would prefer the title architecture of the Forests Service DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or Move to Architecture of the U.S. Forest Service (or Buildings of the US Forest Service or similar title) - In focusing on the architects the article overly relies on "Inherited notability" - ie the idea that: If the buildings are notable, the architects must be notable as well. This idea has long been rejected at Knowledge. What is needed are sources that discuss "the group". This is addressed at WP:GNG which says: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. We appear to have sources on the buildings and their architecture, and perhaps some sources on some of the individual architects, but none on the architects as a group. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - "Architecture" would be an appropriate title and scope for an article, but "Architects" is not. Much of the Forest Service's architecture, particularly in the early years, was not designed by architects (for example, much was designed by draftsmen or the builders themselves) and, particularly in recent times, it was not designed by Forest Service personnel (this is clear, for example, from the report on LEED contracting that Doncram has been eager to include in the Further reading section). Furthermore, most of the individual architects who did work for the Forest Service were fairly anonymous civil-service employees, but their architecture is well documented. I note that my initial involvement with this article was an effort to repurpose it with a focus on the buildings rather than the alleged organization, and came to AfD after the article's creator insisted on an article about the organization. This AfD was started after seeing Doncram's reaction to my following comment on the talk page:

You have created an article about a small government organization that probably never existed under the name you have given it here, and about which you have only the slightest amount of information. I'm trying to decide between (1) moving this page to your user space, (2) taking it to AfD, or (3) simply slapping notability and original research templates on the article. You could, however, prevent any and all of these outcomes by voluntarily moving the page to your user space until you have obtained and documented some solid information on which to base an encyclopedic article on whatever topic turns out to be appropriate.

Doncram's reply (in part, that he resented my "butting in" and that "there is merit in starting an article about an architectural group of the U.S. government that is notable, just as there is for notable private architectural firms, and sooner is basically better than later") led me to start this AfD. --Orlady (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional Comment - another possibility would be to merge the information into National Forest Service (appropriate since presumably each of these people were employees of that agency). Or (perhaps even better) to split the information up... merging the bio information on the architects to the NFS article, and the information about the buildings to an article specifically about NFS buildings. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The suggested merger into United States Forest Service would not be a wise idea. Buildings (historic or otherwise) are peripheral to the USFS mission, and detailed content about matters such as the architectural styles of 1930s ranger stations would overwhelm the article about the agency. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Orlady: please don't merge this with United States Forest Service. There is far too much detail here. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE would work best: a paragraph in the main article, with a {{main}} pointing here. —hike395 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

United States Forest Service is approaching the point where it's already had to have section promoted to their own ages (i.e. History of the United States Forest Service); merging substantial content in won't help.Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents on naming. As noted above, I think either "Architects of ..." or "Architecture of ..." would be acceptable. I do lean slightly in favor of "Architecture of ... " This would cover the topic most broadly and allow for the fullest treatment of the topic. If the article becomes too big, then a split could be done at that time. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but I don't think the concept of "Architects of the United States Forest Service" exist outside of Knowledge. I feel like we have, out of purely good intentions, invented an organization that simply does not exist. Moving forward, the buildings may be noteworthy enough to establish pages for some of the individual architects, but the article really must be deleted. The problem with a rename, move or merger is that the article is not about a thing. It is about an artificial category that we created. Djohns21 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to an opinion, but what about 25 works of architecture that are credited to U.S. Forest Service Architecture Group, meaning the Pacific Northwest Region 6 group of architects, for which there are many references? This article as now written is about that group and other architects of the Forest Service, with a number of sources. It seems like a good article to have, in part to link to from pages about the places designed by these groups, as these are like private architectural firms that have collective credit for various works not attributable to specific individual architects. --doncram 03:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, that's original research to claim that that particular title always refers to those particular architects. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty much my exact point. Go to google and search for U.S. Forest Service Architecture Group in quotes. I got 0 results. When I did it with United States Forest Service Architecture Group, I got only wikipedia and mirror sites. We keep capitalizing it like it is a proper noun. There is not, and never has been any organization, government agency, or club, refereed to as the U.S. Forest Service Architecture Group. As to the Pacific Northwest Region 6, it certainly exists, and architects surely work there. However, if you read the sources you will notice they use the phrase Region 6 as a location, as in I live in Region 6, not a group. If there is a need for an article about the architecture itself, we should write that. This article not only allows the individual architects to inherit noteworthiness from the buildings, it then puts them as the focus of the article.

To SarekOfVulcan and to Djohns21. Google searching on exactly ' "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" -wikipedia ' currently yields 77 hits, most from www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com and other sites that are not mirrors of wikipedia, but rather are using information from the National Register's public domain NRIS database. Every instance relates to the 25 OR and WA places that were listed for their architecture designed by the architecture group of Region 6 and credited with exactly "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" in the National Register as their architect. Consistent with the MPS/TR document explaining that they were joint works of architects of Region 6.

SarekOfVulcan asserts it is Original Research to say that the phrase "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" applies to the Region 6 group. What other group does it refer to???

Djohns21 asserts there is no such group. Seriously, what about all the references identifying it and explaining about the group, when it was formed, who were its members, and so on???

I think the term "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" was coined, but by the National Register, not by wikipedia editors. There could be a wikipedia article on that group alone, i.e. the Region 6 group, as there are enough sources for that, but I prefer to cover it in a larger article covering the other groups and individual architects of the Forest Service. It is proper in the wikipedia article to mention the term and explain what it refers to (the Region 6 group) and where in proper noun form it seems to have been derived from (by its usage in the National Register listings). It is proper in wikipedia to have a redirect from "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" and variations to the Region 6 section of this article.

Come on people, please get it together and stop with the contradictory claims. --doncram 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll "get it together" to respond to your ridiculous assertions.

"Svce." is a common abbreviation for "Service." Abbreviations often are used in database because they are short -- and database structures often require or reward brevity. The need for brevity in database entries is one of many reasons why you should not be attempting to craft entire articles solely on the basis of database entries.

You acknowledge that those 77 Google hits on "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" are 77 hits on sites that use the NRIS database output -- that's 77 hits on that one source, not 77 separate sources. Additionally, the fact that a particular text string appears multiple times in a database is not sufficient to make that text string a notable topic.

I can't detect any basis, other than some creative synthesis on your part, for the theory that the string "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" uniquely refers to an organization in Forest Service Region 6. Synthesis is original research.

You seem to be asking those of us who question the existence of the "Forest Service Architecture Group" to prove our theory that it did not (or does not) exist. Knowledge doesn't work that way. If you want Knowledge to host an article about this group, it is up to you to convincingly demonstrate (through reliable sources) not only that your topic exists (or existed), but that it is notable. As I stated earlier on this page, the statement "In 1934, Regional Engineer Jim Frankland set up an architectural section headed by Tim Turner" falls far short of documenting the official formation of a USFS Architecture Group, much less the establishment of "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" as an official organization in Forest Service Region 6. Your other sources include a document that mentions this "group" twice, once as "Architecture Group" and once as "Architectural Group," and one architect's description of working with other architects in the region, including a statement that "our design team received awards..." The documentation does not convincingly demonstrate that this "group" ever existed, and it definitely does not indicate notability for the group. --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also a note on the sources. Sources 3 and 4 attribute the buildings to the Civilian Conservation Corps which already has a thorough and well sourced article. If the buildings were built by the CCC, then this article should be severely reduced and merged to give credit where credit is due.––Djohns21 (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the OR, WA, and AZ ranger stations in this article were designed by architects of the USDA Forest Service for building by the Civilian Conservation Corps. That is not an argument against there being an article on the architects and architectural groups of the U.S. Forest Service. --doncram 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Listing as the architets of record in NRHP listings seems to be about as airtight a confirmation of a coherent group as is possible. If it is felt that the content is better served through its inclusion in a broader article on Forest Service architecture, then I would also support a merge, but definitely not a delete. VI_WS

Vanisaac, are you aware that the "listing as architects of record" that is relied upon in this article consists only of the entries in a particular field of an electronic database -- and that this database field can include architects and builders? The actual individual National Register nomination documents that I have looked at (examples: https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/86000820_text, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/86000837_text, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/86000843_text) do not contain any indication of an architect of record. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The National Register database lists the architect as "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" for several buildings in the Depression-Era Buildings TR in Oregon and Washington. "USDA Forest Service" is listed as the architect for several buildings in the Depression-Era USDA Forest Service Administrative Complexes in Arizona MPS. "USDA Forest Service, Region 2" is listed as the architect for the buildings in Depression-Era USDA Forest Service Administrative Complexes on Medicine Bow NF MPS. There are other multiple property submissions that list "U.S. Forest Service" or some variation, as well as a number of individual properties not part of multiple property submissions. The three documents Orlady cited are part of the Oregon and Washington MPS. I'm going to look at the MPS to see if those actually list an architect. --Elkman 05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There is clear evidence there was some organization of architectures with the US Forest Service organized in 1934 that created buildings that were included in the national register. The exact name of the arfticle is another question, but having an article on this is clearly worthwhile.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 27 July 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 Mergers and acquisitions. Irony! causa sui (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Acqui-hire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is about a neologism. There are some sources that use the word, and some that give a short definition, but none linked that are about the word per se. I couldn't find any on Google News or Google Books either. This should be deleted per WP:NEO. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Also, this article is a contested PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is about Acqui-hire the trend and not about Acqui-hire the neologism. For instance Acqhire, Acquhire and Manquisition all redirect to Acqui-hire therefore the article is about the trend and not about the neologism. And if the article was about the neologism then we would have had separate articles for each of the terms Acqhire, Acquhire and Manquisition.

Only the title of the article is a neologism. But the article itself is not about the neologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.49.242 (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And it turns out that the trend called Acqui-hire is quite notable, because it has been mentioned prominently by major sources such as the New York Times, Huffington Post, GigaOM and TechCrunch.

This link describes the term and its history in quite detail: http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/2435/

That link is one among the External Links to the Article and was probably not noticed by the person who nominated this article for deletion.

The article should not be deleted because it describes the trend called by the name Acqui-hire (or by other names such as Acqhire, Acquhire or Manquisition) and not the neologism called Acqui-hire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.206.170 (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I did miss that link. Thanks for sharing it. I notice that the link pretty much admits that the term does not have wide usage yet, though. The real problem here is that having the article title as "acqui-hire" is definitely going against WP:NEO. If the trend of "acqui-hiring" passes the Knowledge notability test, then the article title should be a phrase in plain English. It might be possible to move this article to such a phrase, or maybe it might be more sensible to merge it with another article. I shall have another look at the possibilities tomorrow. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that the title of the article is a neologism and therefore it violates WP:NEO. I suggest that we rename the article title to a more familiar English phrase such as Talent Acquisition.

Secondly, whether or not the article should be deleted or merged is not an issue here, because the trend of "acqui-hiring" is quite notable as has been claimed by the anon IP above and it would definitely pass the notability test.

The only issue here is that the title of the article is a neologism and therefore the title should be renamed to a more familiar and self explanatory phrase in English. One option is Talent Acquisition, but if anybody can find a better phrase, it would be welcome. Prachursharma (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I had another look at the article, and the vast majority seems to be about the term "acqui-hire" itself. There is some commentary on mergers of Facebook and Google, which could possibly be merged into mergers and acquisitions, but that article is fairly long and there is already some material in it about "acqui-hiring". So, in the balance, I still think deletion would be a better choice (although I would also support a redirect). — Mr. Stradivarius 01:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, I would be willing to change this to a move if the article was edited to make it more about the concept and less about the neologism. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Teeth-grindingly ugly neologism that describes a subject that could easily be covered in a couple sentences in mergers and acquisitions, as it is already. The current article seems to be less about the underlying concept (acquisitions made to acquire key people rather than ongoing business) and more an effort to catalogue when the word has appeared in print. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Merge into mergers and acquisitions as per above. Several Times (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into mergers and acquisitions. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into mergers and acquisitions The term describes a specific type of acquisition, but it is not well enough developed to warrant its own article. The etymology and the like can be sent over to wikidictionary if we like, but there is just not enough actual content here to justify an independent article Djohns21 (talk) 01:53, 26 July 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 Clojure. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rich Hickey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability is not established. Artem Karimov (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hickey is the creator of Clojure. This is undisputed and alone makes him notable. He is one of the key pillars of the Clojure's community for over 4 years now. Clojure rose to fame due to his video lectures on blip.tv which are still popular today. He was interviewed several times and presented several keynote lectures. Some can be found here. Do not delete! 46.116.139.61 (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• The notability is not inheritable (WP:NOTINHERITED). Clojure may be notable but its creator may be not.
• There are no independent reliable secondary sources. His keynotes or videos may be very popular but they do not add to notability unless they get reported in the media. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• What about this and this? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

These sources are not notable themselves. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue Code Quarterly is notable; it is a magazine with an editor, not somebody's blog. That said, it is kind of new. 66.194.235.133 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Magazine with editor? Good. But merely saying "it is notable" is not enough. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Or this (LinuxJournal) --216.26.125.63 (talk)

The article is about Clojure and adds little to Hickey's notability. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an interview with RH. At least half of it is about his opinions. And it has a giant picture of Hickey in the lead. And the journal, which is quite reputable, mentions: "An in-depth look at the new language from the man himself." Which totally hints to anyone who still is not quite sure of RH's notability that he's the man. I think this should put this to rest. We're not dealing here with some obscure person. Artem, why are you so strongly in favor of deleting this entry based on technicalities? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god! The article has a photo in the lead! You know what, I also have a giant photo in Facebook. Still, common sense suggests that the man is not covered in RS and therefore there is nothing to post in Knowledge, anonymous. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Linux Journal is a reputable source. The guy really is notable. Let's at the very least agree to keep the article for the time being. What do you say? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Merry-go-round. Again, there was no coverage of Hickey himself. Hickey cannot inherit Clojure's notability. As for "this guy really is notable" I suggest that you read which arguments to avoid at AfD. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CREATIVE provides for just that sort of inheritance. (I copied the criteria several sections down.) The relevant point is the provision for situations where "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Clojure has been the subject of several independent books. The question then is, is Clojure "significant or well known"? You can argue that it's not; just don't keep pretending that there are no qualification or exceptions to WP:INHERITED. Blowfish (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Or this Expert to Expert: Rich Hickey I realize (WP:NOTINHERITED), but the weight of the other interviewees (Erik Meijer for instance) seems to add weight. Since I've mentioned Erik Meijer it might also be worth noting that Rich Hickey will be one of three keynote speakers at this years' Strange Loop Conference. The list of keynote speakers is a short one that consists (this year) of Erik Meijer, Gerald Sussman, and Rich Hickey. Last year the list included Guy Steele and Douglas Crockford. I don't know if any of this is helpful, but that company alone seems to be reason enough to reconsider deletion. --216.26.125.63 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

MSDN Channel 9 is more of a blog (primary source) and therefore does not count towards notability. And no, by our standards other keynote speakers do not really add any weight to Hickey. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Reference to Rich Hickey by the very notable Brian Kernighan. Google Scholar results. Mention in InfoWorld. --216.26.125.63 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

These are mere mentions which do not help establish notability. And Hickey cannot inherit notability from Kernighan in our case. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The notability guidelines do allow notability for creative works such as books, films, music, and the such. Clojure is a creative work. This case should not be any different for the same logic other types of creative work bestow notability. This article was nominated for deletion twice in the past and it was decided against it. 46.116.139.61 (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Again fallacy. Clojure's notability cannot be inherited. Artem Karimov (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not and how is it any different from other cases of creative work? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No different. No coverage of person = no article. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why Julian Assange and Jimmy Wales are notable? Why a reputable online programming media infoQ doesn't count as notable media? What's the difference between blogs, TVs, magazines, radio, podcasts and newspaper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenejen (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Should I consider that a legitimate opinion or a joke? WP:OTHERSTUFF. Plus if you cannot differentiate between primary and secondary, reliable and unreliable, notable and unnotable sources then you should probably not be editing Knowledge. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked a legitimate question. If notability is not inheritable, then Jimmy Wales and Julian Assange should not be considered because they are notable due to Knowledge and Wikileak. So notability is in fact inheritable but it seems like notability depends on how influential the media is. Influence is a quantitative concept, therefore I asked the question about what is the difference between those type of media. If MSDN, InfoQ are considered not notable media outlet, then what about Usenet? Consider Erik Naggum, he was a very prominent figure in Usenet in 90's, but outside Usenet and computer programmers, he is not wellknown. But if someone starts to propose deletion of Erik Naggum's page, I bet the resistance will be very high due to he was in fact an important figure in Usenet history. Eugenejen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.194.211 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Insulting people isn't helpful. Blowfish (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rhethoric (i.e. pointless) questions are neither. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But the one doesn't justify the other. Blowfish (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep: See article here along with the previous mention of Channel9 here. His appearance on Channel9, it should be noted, is not a blog, but rather an interview as is clear here. Also, I believe that Mr. Hickey meets several of the guidelines in WP:BIO. Thus, I would recommend keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.27.114 (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Channel9 is a mix of forum, blog and wiki. Neither of these formats are acceptable as a reliable source. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The specific section of Channel9 is actually produced and created by a technographer at Microsoft - see here for reference to Charles Torre, and then here for a link to his personal Twitter here, where he describes himself as "Technographer at Microsoft (Channel 9)". This proves that the show "Going Deep" is an official production, and thus suitable for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.27.114 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Though creative works were mentioned above, I think it might be useful to point towards WP:CREATIVE, since it gives pretty specific criteria. To whit:

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

I would guess that 1, 2 are arguable, 3 is likely true in that the programming language has gained some traction, 4 fails except perhaps part c, and 5 doesn't really apply, since I don't believe Hickey is an academic. Blowfish (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It may fit into 3 but does this not contradict general notability guidelines? 3 implies the fact that Hickey may not be really covered anywhere but still gain notability. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's an interesting point that you just made. I would suggest that the most specific guideline should be the important one (and therefore WP:CREATIVE). At the same time, we may run into a situation where the guidlines under WP:CREATIVE are met, but there are no sources of very good quality to use as material for the article. So in that case you might be correct. Blowfish (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So none of the sources offered are legit? Not even the Linux Journal or MSDN one? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well they are a bit marginal. The linux journal one seems reasonable, the others I'm not so sure about. I think a case can be made for Hickey's notability, not a slam dunk case by any means, but a reasonable one. Sourcing is trickier. And on balance, I'm not really sure whether this should be a keep or a delete. Blowfish (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's err on the safe side and Keep it for a while longer. 46.116.139.61 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So this seems to be going no where. If anyone could fetch some more experienced editors to chime in, that would be great. Blowfish (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CREATIVE #2, and #3. User:Artem Karimov's understanding is WP:RS is incorrect. Reliable sources do not have to be "notable" themselves. There is not a list somewhere of "approved" reliable sources of "notability". Any source that meets the requirement of WP:RS is a reliable source. Many of the links provided by the IPs are infact reliable sources. Blogs, for instance, can be a reliable source if they are written by a professional or expert in the field.--v/r - TP 00:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Merge to Clojure. If he is truely notable then links to WP:RS will naturally accumulate there and we can reverse the decision. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to Clojure. No real notability apart from his work on Clojure. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I almost said merge, but I decided this was wrong. Why? Well, I found this page while searching for info on the guy because he wrote Clojure. I feel it is perfectly valid to include people in an encyclopedia who did only one notable thing. Indeed, probably many of the people listed in print encyclopedias for science and maths are most known for one particular achievement. Computing in particular is littered with such personalities: it's the nature of the beast. prat (talk) 14:33, 25 July 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. Spartaz 07:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Maugé (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 as it exists doesn't really make a claim to notability and gives no information about him. So I looked for more information online, but all I found, aside from Wiki, was Genealogy pages and occasional references to modern people with similar names D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, at least for now. Note that we have Category:Convicted book thieves and an article Bibliomania. Obsessive book thieves can be notable, as rare book librarians know all too well. In this case, the reliable sources are likely to be in French, which I don't read. If a French speaking editor is unable to find any reliable sources, I will change my recommendation. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - per cullen328.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• weak keep I've tagged the article as needing sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete The page has been up for almost a year now, and consists of exactly one sentence. There is no evidence that this man specifically is of any note. If more reliable sources are found in the future, the page will be easy to recreate in a more substantial form, but for now there is simply nothing worth keeping here. --Djohns21 (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak delete. With apparently only one brief mention in one book, the coverage is too thin for notability per WP:BIO.  Sandstein  05:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The lack of an article within the French Knowledge does not help his case. Location (talk) 05:35, 27 July 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. Spartaz 07:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrey Bryukhankov (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 Russian triathlete. He as placed high at some competitions. (Note: between 40-60 usually are in a junior competition) He was not ranked in the U23 (junior) junior world rankings at the end of 2010. He currently ranks 457 in the current 2010-2011 world point total. Currently 227 in the Men European cup standings. He is NOT on the national team according to the Official page of the Russian Triathlon Federation.Bgwhite (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There are clear criteria for the relevance of an article in WIKIPEDIA. Unfortunately, Bgwhite does not refer to any of these criteria. He (or she) thinks that Bryukhankov junior is not good enough. Well, this is an interesting opinion, isn't it, but completely irrelevant for the relevance criteria. Bryukhankov IS relevant for several reasons, according to the WIKIPEDIA criteria! He is a member of the Russian National Team, he is an elite sportsman taking part in ITU events, he is one fo the foreign guest stars in the French Club Championship Series, which is noit completely irrelevant, and he won medals at Russian elite Championships. It is true that he is young and most top positions were in the junior category, but people grow older, Bgwhite, and automatically grow into the elite category, in which Andrey Bryukhankov has good cards, as it were. The ITU U23 ranking is not the only criterion. Martinp1 (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just two remarks concerning the ITU rankings quoted by Bgwhite. There is no such thing called "U23 (junior) junior world rankings" at all. What Bgwhite refers to is the U23 ranking, which by definition does not include juniors at all. The European Cup list is also irrelevant and misleading because many of the best triathletes of the world do not take part in the European Cup at all and do not show in this list at all, some top triathletes take part in one or two of the European Cup triathletes and have no good position in this ranking either. The female winner of the European Cup last year jokingly said, when ITU perople congratulated, that she was too bad for the World Championship Series or the World Cup. To cut a long story short: the lists Bgwhite quotes are irrelevant because for instance all Ironman triathletes would be missing in ITU lists as well, so should we delete all bioraphies of Ironman winners? Let's follow the WIKIPEDIA rules and according to them Andrey Bryukhankov definitely IS relevant. Martinp1 (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment He is NOT on the national team according to the Official page of the Russian Triathlon Federation. True, the European Cup is below the World cup which is why I also gave the World cup total, of which he is ranked 457. Here is the Knowledge criteria for a triathlete to be presumed noble. As Bryukhankov has not had a podium finish at the ITU Triathlon World Championships, not been to the Olympics, not competed in a Ironman, and not competed in a XTERRA, he is not presumed notable. Knowledge goes by what a person has done and not the potential of doing. Bryukhankov has only three competitions at the elite level and only in the European Cup, which as you say is lower competition. Bgwhite (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Meets notability for triathlon athletes. Perhaps more sourcing would hep the article, but it should be kept.--Aftonj1993 (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Here is the notability guidelines for triathlon athletes. How do he meet notability guidelines?

• Here he is on the ITU website. On the right you'll see his latest results. All of those competitions are ITU sanctioned. He placed first in Alanya last year, meeting #2 of the notability guidelines for triathlons. Also, he is listed on the Russian team on the website you linked to. A reserve is still a member of the team, and Bryukhankov shows to be an active representative of that team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftonj1993 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• His name is not on the Official page of the Russian Triathlon Federation page. Could you show me the page where it says he is a reserve member of the Elite team? He did not have a podium finish at a ITU World championship. Bgwhite (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is what I am seeing. If you scroll down you should see his name listed under Men(reserve...). I think we are on the same website, but I am unsure why we are seeing different things. As for the championship, I did make a mistake in that. I referenced a competition, not a championship, but it does not have to be a world championship. The guidelines ask for an ITU sanctioned championship, so his 2nd place in the European championships 2010 should fall under that category.--Aftonj1993 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• I made a mistake and apologize: I hought the "relevance criteria" used in the German WIKIPEDIA more or less reflect the "notability criteria" of the English WIKIPEDIA, this is, however, not the case. So I have to change my argumentation slightly, but the result is the same. Andrey Bryukhankov IS definitely a member of the National team (check the Russian list, not the abridged English version!!), but as it seems, this is not a valid notability criterion. BUT: he takes part in ITU races and this seems to be a notability criterion because he also achieved podium positions. According to the "notability criteria", it does not matter that some of these ITU competitions belong to the junior category. To cut a long story short: according to the notabilkity criteria, he IS notable. Martinp1 (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• In case Bryukhankov junior had not met the specific triathlon notability criteria, in any case he would easily fulfill the (vague) general notability criteria. It is easy to find dozens of articels on him, e.g.: http://93.190.42.170/index.php?id=41761. Just type his name in Cyrillic and you will find ample news coverage. If one deleted all triathletes who have not yet won a medal at an ITU sanctioned championship (does "championship" include Continental Cup triathlons? does it consider the World Championship Series (!) as a whole or are the individual triathlons in Sydney, London, etc. enough...??!!), one should delete many articles, this would not be a great advantage, would it? Martinp1 (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• One day after deletion was requested, the viewers statisrtics rose up to 260 hits! And a Swedish version of the article appeared. Great. I think I should ask Bgwhite to insist on the deletion of all of my articles. Martinp1 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Very strange, indeed. Bryukhankov formally fulfills the triathlon notability criteria (3 podiums), he definitely fulfills the general notability criteria, he is a promising young triathlete and a member of the Russian National Team and has several national and international titles. Still, the closer does not accept that the notability criterion is fulfilled. Very strange... Martinp1 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) It is really strange, because the Andrey Bryukhankov article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force and by the sports and games work group. I really wonder why BGwhite is such an important user that all the notability criteria, all the arguments etc. are considered less important than BGwhite's opinion according to which Bryukhankov is not good enough for Knowledge. Shouldn't one apply the Knowledge rules?Martinp1 (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep notability established and evidenced on the page as it now stands. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:03, 24 July 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaagaz Ke Phool (upcoming 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)

No evidence film has premiered or has ever been in production. BOVINEBOY2008 15:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CBALL. Since the article has no references it does not demonstrate "...sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the had already occurred." //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability, or even existence. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete – No sign that film is even in pre-production. — Bill william compton 04:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - existence of several reliable & independent online sources. I'll put them in the ref - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 09:22, 25 July 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 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seth Tucker (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 author. A brief list of links to publications does not help: to establish notability we need in-depth discussion of the subject's work, and the article doesn't supply any secondary references. I can't find any either, using "seth tucker" and "seth brady tucker". To the defenders: please look at WP:AUTHOR and explain how subject meets those guidelines. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage about him or his works to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice - Pretty clearly a self-written bio. I wish Mr. Tucker good luck in his writing career. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lord Ghantakarna Mahavir (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 sources provided, looks to be original research done by someone with a COI. Cannot find sources. Karl 334 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see any COI issues here (and that's not a reason for deletion). There are no sources, but that's just a cause of not so good article writing. A Google Books search demonstrates that sources are available--all the article needs is an editor who is able and willing to get to work. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep as per Drmies. Enough sources indicating notability are available. Edward321 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep but remove honorific Lord. Enough sources --Redtigerxyz 17:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Redtigerxyz. I have some sources.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Please be forgiving of editors whose first language is not english. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:07, 24 July 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. v/r - TP 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Projects and Development India Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced. No assertion of notability. The article was (still is) mostly a copy/paste from the company's own website. Biker Biker (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.

• Delete and perhaps speedy delete as copyright violation. They edited out some of the peacock's crowing from the official website text, but apart from that the text seems the same. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I stubbed the article due to copyvio issues and added in some reliable sources. This is a major player in the chemical industry in India. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep A notable company.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Weak Keep sources are not enough as per guidelines WP:CORP but the organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered as per guidelines to keep it in wikipedia. In whole article must be edited and need independent sources.Sehmeet singh (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as per Sehmeet singh. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nemesis Fighting: MMA Global Invasion (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 sources I could not find from gnews is MMA which is not third party. pretty much the same for google. No evidence of significant third party coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Also having notable participants or being televised does not mean keep either. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Note. This needs to be added to mixed martial arts discussion page as well.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Found plenty of coverage at usatoday.com and virtually every mma site. The event seems to be a textbook example of what can go wrong (everything did). I wish these events got general coverage for something other than not paying the fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep I'm also sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like there's enough coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:19, 24 July 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 The Smashing Pumpkins discography. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Smashing Pumpkins 1991–1998 (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. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Weak Keep I wasn't feeling especially hopeful after reading this on the article page:

This release was allegedly limited to a pressing of 1,000 copies.

I was unable to find any reviews. But, I found a website stating that its release was limited to radio stations. Also found a website featuring a very heavy analysis of the cover's specific artwork. According to WP:NALBUMS the fact that Smashing Pumpkins is a notable band AND independent coverage of the album merits keeping the article. Also, they have too many albums to merge into their main article. For it to become a Keep, reviews or some other substantial independent sources about the album must be sought. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 16:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Per the above sources/rationale. Lugnuts (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to The Smashing Pumpkins discography, at least until there is something more substantive to warrant its own article. Otherwise, there is only one thing of note here, which can better be mentioned in the discog article. –MuZemike 05:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to one of the many other articles related to the band. Being a notable band does not make everything they touched notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:20, 24 July 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 we don't have reliable sourcing for the town being named after ghim then that make the claim OR and not suitable for a merge so the policy based argument is the deletion one. Spartaz 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

John Smith, the Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Mis-titled article about a person not subject to significant personal coverage in multiple reliable sources ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 08:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Having a town named after you and being mentioned in early histories seems notable enough to me. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Ehhh...on consideration, merge to Smithfield, Rhode Island. Or rather, now that I've removed the unreliable source, there isn't really anything to merge, so just expand the "History" section of that article with the sources on Smith in Google Books (, for example). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is that the article says the town was named after Smithfield in London, not after a John Smith. Which is correct? --Bduke (Discussion) 10:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
    • While it seems to me that that is the more likely explanation, it's unsourced. The claim that the locality is named after John Smith doesn't appear in this extensive study, however, so my advice would be to put in the Smithfield article that the town's website says it is named after Smith. (Nor does the book say it's named after England's Smithfield, unless I didn't look hard enough.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete short of a time machine, I can't imagine how we could ever have enough material for a half-decent stub. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• 'Merge the town website's claim to Smithfield, Rhode Island. If he's only known for allegedly founding that town, and that's we all we know about him, then the town's article is where we should cover it.  Sandstein  05:40, 27 July 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 The_Panics#Discography per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Factory Girl (EP) (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. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:23, 24 July 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. There is a clear consensus against deletion. The consensus to keep versus merge or redirect is less clear, but as none of these options would result in the deletion of the article, I'm closing this as keep; further discussion on the desirability of a merge or redirect can take place on the article's talk page if desired. 28bytes (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland (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. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. It's plenty notable.--Michig (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge into Grandaddy. 1 sentence comments by reviewers does not, I Believe, denote Independant Notability. Exit2DOS 03:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Keep How is it not notable? On what basis does it fail notability? I have to say keep until I can know how the nom thinks it fails any notability guidelines.Roodog2k (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to be bold and suggest "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" Exit2DOS 07:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Redirect to Grandaddy#Singles. Coverage is trivial for this promo single. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Whpq. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:24, 24 July 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. joe decker 16:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Media Magik Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable post-production company. Obvious puff piece. IP commenter on talk page suggests that the company may be a fraud. Google concurs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete It is a self-published sources without any proper primary and secondary sources. It is a promotional and it seems advertisement should be deleted as per WP:SPIP. Sehmeet singh (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of notable media coverage. I didn't find anything on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete independent sources are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:25, 24 July 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 a7 - unpublished author, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Robin P. Nolet (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 author Wandering Courier (talk) 14:54, 19 July 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. joe decker 16:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Association of British Turkish Academics (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 assertion of notability per Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies). No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Had a quick look on Google. Couldn't see any references that could meet WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  22:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable at all. I have looked at the first 30 Google hits (out of a total of 73), and there was nothing at all other than (1) the association's own web site, (2) Knowledge and a Knowledge mirror (3) business directories and similar listing sites. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of notable coverage. I didn't find any sources on Yahoo either, SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 24 July 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. Courcelles 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nurse Ratched (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:PLOT; character biography presents no additional plot/fictional biography information or criteria proving notability that isn't already covered in the plot sections of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel) or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film). Sottolacqua (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Not only has the character spawned significant critical commentary with regard to the novel, the play, and the movie, but she has become a common metaphorical figure in artistic, social and political discussion. Here's just a sample of Gnews cites from 2010 which refer to the character without mentioning the underlying work. . Article could certainly use expansion in terms of the available critical commentary, but that's certainly not a reason to delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Although, I believe the novel makes repeated reference to the character's bosom, which is described as quite large. Fortunately this was kept out of the film. Louise Fletcher is a fine actress, but... you know... Anyway, so long as the article makes no mention of this aspect of her anatomy, I see no reason to delete. If this were an actual person, of course, that would be another matter. Dekkappai (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment On the other hand, "Consensus" says we delete Randle McMurphy. This is a proud day for Knowledge. Removing this fanboy cruft is sure to help raise our reputation as a forum for reasonable discussion. Dekkappai (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete Per consensus on Randle McMurphy‎, which is now a redirect. I might have voted Delete here originally, but I was afraid it would be an obvious "Pointy" disruption. Some things are beyond satire, however, and Knowledge is one of them. Dekkappai (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - There is no consensus on Randle McMurphy‎, it's an ongoing deletion debate and citing the fact that there's an on-going deletion debate on that page seems a strange argument for a delete vote here. Also, that page is not a redirect, it is a standing article. I'm a little baffled. Carrite (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Randle McMurphy AFD was originally closed as "delete", and the page was converted to a redirect. I objected to the outcome, and the closing admin graciously restored the article and relisted the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If I might step out of character: That these two articles were even seriously nominated for deletion is evidence to me of an absurdly huge problem with the WP system, which is the reason I left, coming back now & then just to moon the inmates. As Big Nurse-- er, Big Bad Wolfowitz-- points out, McMurphy was actually deleted earlier today, per "consensus". Had it not (by chance, I guess) come to the attention of Wolfowitz, it would still be a redirect now. This sort of thing used to drive me crazy. But now I'm gone. Just call me Chief. Dekkappai (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm gonna give a quick opinion without digging: Nurse Ratched has become part of popular culture and a dedicated page on the character is appropriate. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

And here's a little something-something for those who like their sourcing: HERE'S AN ARTICLE by the chairman of the English Dept. of Boise State University which delves into character analysis of Nurse Ratched and the good Mr. McMurphy. These are, in short, iconic characters of modern American fiction who have trickled from the high culture of Kesey's work to popular culture. Carrite (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Great notability - see Reflections of the Shadow, for example. Warden (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep obviously; no digging required. And common sense is prevailing with Randle McMurphy‎: 2 is no consensus. Occuli (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep A highly notable character of literature and film culture. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect: WP:INUNIVERSE-only treatment of fictional material. Can be recreated if WP:SECONDARY analysis providing a non-fictional perspective can be found. Hrafn_Stalk 11:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Google Books link, above, confirms the obvious: this character has been covered sufficiently in reliable secondary sources to have independent notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Query. It's Louise Fletcher's birthday today. Wouldn't it be appropriate to snow close this now? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  Wouldn't it be more appropriate to AfD her article today? Looks pretty skimpy, sourcing-wise, for BLP to me... I heard Kesey wanted Jean Hackman to play her role anyway... Dekkappai (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• keep Clearly notable. Lives a vibrant symbolic life in modern discourse, as per above citations. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:32, 23 July 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. Apart from the author Garry Denke, nobody supports keeping this article.  Sandstein  05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Scroll Trench (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 have no reason to believe this exists under this name. There may be a trench that meets some of the description (ignoring the geology) but it does not appear to be significant and certainly not discussed in reliable sources under either name. It is however widely publicised on the web by the article's creator, see for instance ]. I know the creator of the article (see also their last edit just before mine) well from off-Wiki as an extremely prolific poster whose edits are (trying to be polite here) basically fantasies. This old version of his talk page provides an example of his style. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Scroll (Arc) Trench of Stonehenge (UK) duly Filed and Recorded in Deed Records and Official Public Records of Archer, Baylor, Hampshire, Wiltshire, (etc) County courthouses (Just to name a few); Therefore any such re-Publication of said Scroll (Arc) Trench of Stonehenge (UK) hereinat Knowledge not required. Thank you. Garry Denke 01:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Denke (talk • contribs)

• Delete If it even exists, there's no way a single feature could be notable enough for its own article. joe•roe 17:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Other than Doctor Garry Denke's (1622-1699) eastern 8 ft (2.4m) vertical Core-cutting of it (Scroll Trench: 1656), and Colonel William Hawley's (1851–1941) western 9 ft (2.7m) horizontal Cross-section of it (Scroll Trench: 1923), no other Physical evidence of it exists; Therefore the Knowledge article unnecessary. Maps: Sections: Thank you. 76.184.189.94 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This is the article's creator, Garry Denke, editing logged out and evidently agreeing to the deletion. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I don't believe so, I believe it's a delete !vote from a different IP user, possibly a SPA. -- 202.124.72.158 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hound Lord over Foxhole Trench opens Scroll — Master of Foxhound — the Creator Garry Denke 08:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Office of Works, now Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Secretary): Jeremy Hunt; National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty (Board of Trustees): Simon Jenkins, Sir Laurie Magnus Bt, Patrick Casement, Sir Crispin Davis, Richard Farrant, Sir Edward Greenwell, Charles Gurassa, Nichola Johnson, Sir Mark Jones, Adrian Phillips, Michael Quicke, Mary Villiers; Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England (Chair): Baroness Kay Andrews; (Commissioners): Lynda Addison, Maria Adebowale, Joyce Bridges, Manish Chande, Sir Barry Cunliffe, David Fursdon, Ronald Hutton, Jane Kennedy, John Walker, Elizabeth Williamson; (Chief Executive): Simon Thurley; (Executive Directors): Mark Pemberton, Edward Impey, Deborah Lamb, Keith Harrison; not interested in obtaining a satisfactory examination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.189.94 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Pip pip. Jolly good. Cheerio. Garry Denke 13:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Denke (talk • contribs)

• Delete No evidence of notability. No Google News, Google Books, or Google Scholar references, except ones derived from Knowledge. -- 202.124.72.158 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 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. CSD G12. Actually it's a close paraphrase. I'll close this as G12 so there's no prejudice against creating a new sourced article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Copied from Website www.sappk.org Tashif (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:CV Sehmeet singh (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy delete because of copyviomabdul 14:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 July 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. As an aside, this closer also has an EN of 4. joe decker 16:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anar Ahkmedov (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 Mathematician. Received PhD in 2006. Is an Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota. Google scholar comes up with 14 publications (minus the duplicates). Fails WP:PROF. Note: The article has his last name spelled wrong. Last name should be aKHmedov. Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. I was in the middle of writing an almost identical Afd for Akhmedov when Bgwhite preempted me. GcSwRhIc (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. GS h-index of 8. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC).
• Delete. A recently appointed Assistant Professor, was a postdoc until 2009, does not pass WP:PROF for now. Off to a strong start, as already has two papers in Inventiones Mathematicae (which is one of the most prestigious math journals), so may well become notable in several years - but not yet. Nsk92 (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Premature, but probably meriting sometime in the future. Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC).
• Keep. He has an Erdos number of 4. Voyager640 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • To quote from WP:PROF: "Having a small collaboration distance from a famous or notable academic (e.g. having a small Erdos number) is not, in and of itself, indicative of satisfying Criterion 1". This is a general consequence of the WP:NOTINHERITED principle. Plus Erdos number 4 is actually pretty large (I did a random check of a few people in my math department and everybody I looked at had Erdos number 4 or smaller; my own is 3 - it really does not mean anything). Nsk92 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I second the above. I have an Erdos number of 4 and I'm a nobody. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Erdos number is used in determining whether an integer's mathematical properties are interesting or not; see WP:1729. Voyager640 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

First, WP:1729 is just an essay, with no policy/guideline standing, unlike WP:PROF, which is a guideline. Second, even taken on its own terms, WP:1729 is entirely irrelevant to notability of individuals, as WP:1729 deals with issues of notability (or "interest") of numbers, not people. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:1729 is a joke page. See Interesting number paradox for another joke. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Ah yes, good point! I should have tried to read that page itself, not just its header. Nsk92 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. My own Erdos 2 doesn't make me notable. There's probably a stronger case for Erdos 1, but even then notability is probably established under some other more solid grounds. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. WP:Prof makes it clear that there is no case at all for Erdos 1. Notability has to be established according to agreed policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing this out. It seems pretty ironclad. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:53, 26 July 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 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Marc Hugunin (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 does not assert notability with independent sources, which I failed to find with a quick Google. There is also potentially a conflict of interest as the creator is a co-author of a book along with the subject. wctaiwan (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. A similar version was speedied before as A7. Hairhorn (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable as an WP:AUTHOR as sources do not exist that are independent of the subject that establish his expertise as a writer. The current article relies frequently on original research and self published sources. It is possible someone can demonstrate notability based on WP:POLITICIAN. However, most of sources on Google are subscription only and I cannot determine if it goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage to determine if notability can be established by WP:POLITICIAN. Some quotations from identified sources could help to verify any notability claims. With the noted conflict of interest concerns, please ensure sources are reliable —Bagumba (talk) 18:56, 19 July 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 Emory University#Student organizations. Spartaz 07:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WMRE (Emory) (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 local college amateur affair. No independent sources. No evidence that there is any coverage of it outside its own college. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect I don't see a listing for WMRE in the FCC ULS. Some low-power stations are allowed to transmit w/o a license. A redirect to the Emory University page would be in order, but I wouldn't cry if one deletes this. Roodog2k (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Emory University#Student organizations No FCC entry or incoming links, sounds like a better redirect candidate than an article candidate. Nate • (chatter) 11:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge I really chose my wording poorly above. I apologize for that, I had not finished my coffee when I wrote it. If notibility cannot be established, the article should be merged with the Emory University page. Roodog2k (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Emory University#Student organizations, and drop the unsupported claim of 'enjoying a worldwide audience' (not mentioned in linked source) in the main article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Question Is there a wikipedia policy on notability for radio stations. This is a radio station that has an actual frequency and braodcats. I am not sure if that matters or not, but it would be nice to know if there was a relevant policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 27 July 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.  Sandstein  05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

David Levine (photographer) (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. Fails WP:ARTIST -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete-Per the policy mentioned in the nom. Tarheel95 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The article says that works by Levine have been exhibited at the NPG. This Levine should not be confused with another, far better-known Levine. However, the latter wasn't born in 1960. A David Levine born in 1960 is (minimally) represented in the NPG. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 24 July 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 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jessica Moore (actress) (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 Disputed prod several years ago due to article being less than 24 hours old at the time. Actress had less than a dozen total appearances in film, and only one article about her that I can find. Not sure that one passes WP:RS either. Nothing with significant coverage found via Gbooks, Gnews etc. Doubtful that any exists. Fails WP:GNG, and additional criteria of WP:BIO. NOTE: This is the 80s Italian actress, not the current porn actress. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete I'm in support of more porn stars on Knowledge but this person isn't notable enough to have an article for herself.--Silent Bob (talk) 10:16, 20 July 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rustington F.C. (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 recreated after deletion by prod and still no sources. Fails WP:FOOTY guideline of eligibility to play in the FA Cup and the FA Vase is not the same at all.No reliable secondary sources have been found to establish notability. The club is not even in the top league for the county. Charles (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Club plays at Step 6 of the English football pyramid, which has also been used as a notability guideline in the past (see here and here). By playing at this level, the club is eligible to compete in the FA Cup, but cannot due to lack of floodlights. Number 57 20:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• It can but it can't? You can't have it both ways. Clearly the club is not eligible.--Charles (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It can't play in the Cup because of certain conditions related to its ground, but it plays at a level at which clubs without this problem are eligible (the club could actually play in the cup if they really wanted by moving their home matches to another stadium like Durham City do (as they have a plastic pitch which is not allowed by competition rules)). Anyway, as noted in the two links to AfDs above (one of which subsquently links to many others), playing at this level has previously also been used to prove notability regardless of FA Cup playing. Number 57 22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I have also added a couple of references to the article. Number 57 10:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - not eligible to play in the FA Cup, failing WP:FOOTYN. GiantSnowman 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• The FOOTYN criteria is a nonsense, because it would mean 6,000 French clubs are eligible for articles because there is no restriction on entry. Number 57 22:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - on further thought, this team plays at a notable level. Would still like to see the article improved though. GiantSnowman 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - regardless of not being eligible for the FA Cup. Is a team that can't even get itself floodlights really notable? Delusion23 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as per Number57's rationale. --Jimbo 11:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments put forward by number 57. To delete this article because they don't have floodlights seems like a technicality. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 July 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 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

K-1 Burning 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

also nominating:

• K-1 VSN Cup 2004 Japan GP
• K-1 Battle of Britain 2004
• K-1 MAX Portugal 2004
• K-1 World Grand Prix 2004 in Saitama
• K-1 MAX Scotland 2004
• K-1 Beast 2004 in Niigata
• K-1 Battle of Anzacs 2004

another sprawling series of non notable results that fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Only sources listed are primary, and insufficient coverage in third-party sources. I am just shocked there are this many articles. Everytime I come onto AfD, I see about three or four new ones of these. I did a quick search for K-1 Burning 2004:

• This newspaper article, half about the event, half about how the servicemen going to the event were happy about seeing it. I'm genuinely surprised it exists, and it's actually a halfway decent source for the event.
• This page (translated from Korean) appears to an interview with an individual fighter, where the the fighter's injuries during the fight are mentioned in relation to a question about what fight was the "most difficult and best."

All that said, there's only one non-primary source here, and it's just not going to cut it. If there are more independent sources that provide significant coverage (which I was unable to find), I'll consider changing my vote. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 07:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete These events are loaded with non-notable fighters and don't seem to be significant. The articles also lack good sources. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this is OR by SYNTH and therefore falls to deletion. Spartaz 07:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominant group (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 an amalgam of information contained in other, dedicated articles Robin S (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: I added this page to today's AfD log, because I forgot to do so at the time. Robin S (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I am the article’s creator and a substantial contributor. The article contains information from 20 authors regarding aspects of a 'Dominant group'. By reference number the authors information is found on the following Knowledge pages:

1. Knowles - only 'Dominant group',

2. Bourdieu - Culture, Archaeology of religion and ritual, Sociology of education, Structure and agency, and 'Dominant group',

3. Spain - Kinmel Hall and 'Dominant group',

4. Moore - only 'Dominant group',

5. Hardiman - Christian privilege and 'Dominant group',

6. Blumenfeld - Christian privilege and 'Dominant group',

7. Lieberson - only 'Dominant group',

8. May - only 'Dominant group',

10. Reskin - only 'Dominant group',

11. Moro - only 'Dominant group',

12. Rosenberg - Rosalind Rosenberg and 'Dominant group',

13. Rothman - only 'Dominant group',

14. Young - Spatial justice, Iris Marion Young, Political freedom, Christian privilege, GIS and environmental governance, and 'Dominant group',

15. Johnston - Human geography, Imperialism, Outline of anarchism, Anarchism, Karl Marx, Libertarianism, Individualism, and 'Dominant group',

16. Gilmartin - Tropical geography, Imperialism, and 'Dominant group',

17. Ås - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

18. Andrén - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

19. - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

20. Benton - Evolutionary history of life, Paleontology, Extinction event, and 'Dominant group',

21. Van Valkenberg - Evolutionary history of life, Extinction event, Life, Cat gap, and 'Dominant group'.

• At least ten of these authors are discussing dominant groups, which meets the Knowledge:Notability guideline. Further, seven of these authors' information is unique to 'Dominant group'. The last three sections bring in a broader view of the concept. Author 1. Knowles provides a definition of the term. No one article on Knowledge specifically focuses on the concept of a 'Dominant group'. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• My principal argument against disambiguation is that the concept of a 'dominant group' such as defined by author 1. Knowles has been modified somewhat and applied to areas outside Sociology, yet the concept is basically the same whether by simple numbers of organisms, biomass, power, or whatever. There are dominant groups in other species and between species.
• With respect to synthesis or original research WP:SYN states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Smerdis of Tlön is essentially correct that any synthesis perceived by the reader comes from the authors themselves.
• As to merging, each of the subtopic articles either only mention a 'dominant group' a few times such as in Minority group (four times); Marginalization and Extinction event (twice); The Establishment, Romantic racism, Imperialism, Master suppression techniques (only once); Discrimination, Hegemony and Dominance (ecology) (not mentioned); or are articles in need of extensive revision such as Dominant minority, Elite, and Oppression. Each of these actually focuses on the article topic not necessarily on 'Dominant group' per se.
• Concerning revision, the initial author content of twenty has been raised to forty-seven, hopefully adding clarity as well as content. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• This article is about 'dominant group', not about Cultural dominance/Cultural imperialism which is an article which has multiple issues. I've added a sentence within the introduction, "This numerical majority can be numbers of individuals, numbers of species, surface area, biomass, or maximum intensity, among many other applications of the concept." which should help clarify this point. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Your article doesn't address the definition of a dominant group either. You have synthesized information from many different fields using examples from these fields of dominance.Curb Chain (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Smerge lots of useful sources, but the information would be better incorporated in some of the other linked articles. At present, this is a bit SYNTHy. Yunshui (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think this is a terribly-written article. It reads like a term paper, and is difficult to determine context unless your familiar with the subject matter. The problem is that it is an amagalm of information with not a lot tying everything together, but I can see how it could be useful if significantly improved. Just because an article needs significant improvement, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Roodog2k (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• comment It's a weak keep IMO b/c it does smack of original research...Roodog2k (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. "Dominant group" is a highly plausible search term, but there are lots of things the searcher might be looking for. No objection to the smerge proposed by Yunshui, which isn't an incompatible outcome.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I haven't looked extensively at the history, so I don't know if this has been edit extensively during the nomination, but it doesn't seem unsalvageable to me. It is rather vague in spots and contains synthesis, but most of the synthesizing seems to have been done by the sources rather than here. Move to Dominant group (sociology) if it is decided to make this a disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep reasonable article topic. The material is to a certain degree related to other topics also and could be used there as well, but this quite specifically is acceptable in its own right. A little too much of an an essay in tone, rather than a summery, but still acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - The article and its links are mish-mash of several topics, including social dominance and ecological prevalence, which have nothing to do with each other. One editor has been linking this article from articles about such disparate topics as reptile evolution, soil geology, and ethnography. The "topic" covered in the article is Cultural dominance along with a variety of other meanings of dominant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a place specific article masquerading as a general article. I was unsure of this until I got to the religion section. The specific mention of "non-Christian" as the marginalized population shows a total failure to consider reality. This would imply that there are no dominate religious groups that are other than Christian, which considering power stuctures in most Muslim countries, India and Israel, Sri Lanka is just hogwash. Beyond this, considering power stuctures in some other countries, it is a sub-group within Christianity that is in question. We cover this topic with adequate articles on the history and politics of various countries and do not need this article trying to synthesize these complexed facts and doing so while ignoring the vast array of reality. I might try to edit the article but the underlying assumptions about the methods and means of discrimination are questionable. Besides this the various statements should be supported with sources and they are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The whole article is riddled with assumptions that may or may not be correct. Statements like "minority groups do not discriminate" are hard to support as other than POV, and the article seems to assume a static understanding of the term "minority" without acknowledging that the way it is using the term differs from the way it is used in other contexts. The article also inadequately addresses the issues of context of dominance. The main problem is that is trying to describe as static and proscribed phenomena what actually are unique and cultural specific phenomena. The interaction of each group is conditions by its own unique attributes, a fact that this article is desgined to ignore.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The comment "minority groups do not discriminate" does not even occur in the article! Marshallsumter (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay-form synthesis of unrelated topics. Possibly there is an article to be written about any of the separate meanings, but this is not it.  Sandstein  05:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete As noted by others, the article puts together a number of totally unrelated uses of the term "dominant group". We don't have articles on ambiguous terms: we have a disambiguation page linking to specific articles. "Dominant group (sociology)" and "Ecological dominance" are just two of the meanings covered here. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I came here out of concern with Marshallsumter's edits in wikilinking all instances of "dominant group" to the article on AfD. It created numerous cases of overlinking where the concept(s) described in the Dominant group article have not been proven relevant in the respective topics. It is inappropriate and can be construed as original research by creating a semblance of importance in the Dominant group discourse. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:22, 27 July 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.