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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nana's Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Could not find any reliable sources, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. MacMed_stalk 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. LK (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, a search fails to turn up any reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. BigDom 14:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Tyler Johnson (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. The editor who removed the prod noted that this player won the 2008 WHL Playoff MVP, however I am not convinced that this is a major award so I am bringing this to AfD for the community to decide. Onthegogo (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Playoff MVP is certainly a major award. -DJSasso (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:HOCKEY had the discussion in the past and it was decided that playoff MVP's are notable. Patken4 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Agree that Playoff MVP is a major award. Rlendog (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - This is something from WP:NHOCKEY that makes them notable - # Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements); Tyler plays in the Western Hockey Leauge, part of the Canadian Hockey League, and was named to a first-team all star this year as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usasoccer2010 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination Against Men in Israeli Family Courts (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 appears to be, not an encyclopedia article, but a persuasive essay. I cannot think of any way that it could be revised to comply with the neutral point of view policy. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete It seems to me that the few encyclopedic facts can easily be shortened and merged into the Men's Rights article. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a horn book case of WP:FORK and WP:SOAP. Beyond an ugly mess of unsourced opinion, it's not even wrong. An embarrassment to Knowledge. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Original essay city. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Not encyclopedic - clear case of WP:SOAP--Shrike (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. A bit of essay-like, unnecessary article. Some useful info could be merged to other pages. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 15:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The article is, unfortunately, factually accurate. What is more, it provides some insight as to why Israeli social workers are now on strike and how that impacts Israeli society. The writer is a native Hebrew-speaker and most of the sources s/he could cite are in Hebrew, making it tricky to articulate as a first-draft. However, it is a matter of citing more statistics - especially where available in English. Here is an example: http://www.love4israel.org/admin/pdf/Update_Mar11.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.151.41 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — 109.253.151.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per WP:SOAPBOX, number 2.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Peterborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unenclycyclopedic and non-notable content. WP is not a directory or guide. Similar articles for Sudbury and Downham Market have been deleted. Charles (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Knowledge is not a directory.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails any kind of notability test. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Any kind? Did you even look for sources about bus routes in Peterborough?--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes - No books on the subject and incidental mentions in books are often about international Peterborough's as the one in england. Incidental mentions in local Press, no mentions in national press incidental or otherwise. Scholarly Articles give overview of Bus services UK wide any mention of peterborough is incidental. Finally google hits - substantial number, but all I can see is re-printing of timetables and routes (primary sources) - no sources assert that these routes have any notability. So as I said fails to meet GNG or any sector specific notability guideline. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete This has no place in an encyclopaedia. Bazonka (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The content clearly is encyclopaedic, as we have numerous "List of bus routes in..." articles. Most English counties have one e.g. List of bus routes in Essex, List of bus routes in Derbyshire. Peterborough being a unitary authority is equivalent to a county in terms of control of the numbering of bus routes, so it should have it's own article. An analogy would be Bristol which is also a unitary authority and has List of bus routes in Bristol. The nominator's contention that Sudbury and Downham Market are similar is wrong, since these are minor towns within other counties. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Other stuff exists I would also contend that Bristol and Derby should equally be deleted for lack on notability. Essex (like London) is reasonable because some of the individual routes are notable - meaning it is heading toward if not yet meeting our Stand Alone List policy. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such policy - I've yet to see a valid "delete" rationale other than a contention that this doesn't meet the general notability guideline. My response to that is that even though the article has references to reliable sources, this subject does not even have to meet the GNG - the first of Knowledge'sFive Pillars states that we include elements of almanacs, and gazetteers. In that case information such as this is suitable for inclusion as long it is verifiable, which this is, and has some degree of notability consistent with other content in the encyclopaedia, which this does as I outlined above.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1. There is Policy on Stand Alone Lists - it exists within our notability policy, From WP:NOTESAL

   A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.

   - do you have a single let alone multiple reliable sources that discuss all the bus routes in Peterborough as a Group or a Set? I'm also concerned by the fact that you think that because we include elements of almanacs that we don't have to establish notability for that content - The farmer's Almanac publishes lists of recipes suitable specific days of the year, should Knowledge automatically copy this list because exists or should we establish whether that information is notable first? An article completely source to primary documents is not notable, why not list everyone buried in my local graveyard, or the house prices of every property on my street - these are verifiable by multiple primary sources but they are not notable by wikipedia's standards and neither are lists of bus routes. Whether or not bus routes in other areas are notable is irrelevant to whether or not bus routes in Peterborough are. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not said we "don't have to establish notability for that content". In my two comments above I said clearly that sufficient notability is already demonstrated by (1) the sources given and (2) the fact that Peterborough is a unitary authority and on the same level as an English county when it comes to the administration of bus services. In applying the gazetteer/almanac test and not the GNG, this is sufficient.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this established by Policy or guideline anywhere at all? The sources given fail to meet any guideline on what is acceptable for notability (as defined in verifiability policy it requires third party coverage) and are similarly considered Original Research when no secondary source has previously collated and tabulated the data. Having a timetable for a bus route does not establish that route as notable - we have no policy or guideline claiming that is the case. Nor do we have a policy or guideline on defining a gazetteer/almanac test - in fact the only time I've seen something similar mentioned was in the attempt to class all fatal hull loss civil aviation accidents as automatically notable despite failure to meet GNG and that was soundly rejected. Please feel free to consider writing a new guideline for Bus Routes that supports your position, and if you get support for it then articles like this can exist. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines and policy stem from AfD outcomes; I have stated why this article should be retained - I am not currently aware of all previous UK bus list AfDs and might consider another attempt at a guideline when the result of this AfD is apparent. I think I've said enough here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - It's a perfectly valid standalone list of routes of a major bus system in a major city. Bus routes are integral parts of the workings of a city and that is very encyclopedic. I see "WP is not a directory" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in WP:DIRECTORY that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This isn't a " repositories of loosely associated topics " or anything of the like. I also notice the nom and the pack of delete voters are simply stating lists of bus routes are unencyclopedic in general and not making a case to delete this list article of this specific city's bus routes, yet they haven't touched the List of bus routes in London List of bus routes in Manhattan or the like which one would imagine are much more colossal violations of encyclopedic content to those who don't like bust list articles. This some kind of WP:POINT test case on a small market. --Oakshade (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• I nominated this list and others in the East Anglia region because I have been working to clean up articles on that area, an area with few active Wikipedians it seems, not to make a point or target any particular "market". If this is not a directory what ever useful purpose does it serve? It is of no interest to the general reader, unencyclopedic, non-notable and largely original research.--Charles (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Further to what Charles says, please reread WP:STAND in fact I'll quote it with emphasis.

  Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area....

  in order to be a stand alone list each entry has to be a link to an article on the subject of that individual bus route - and that article has to survive it's own notability test. Both London and Manhattan Achieve this - Essex is making inroads with some notable routes linked, Peterborough, Bristol, Derbyshire and plenty of others in no way approach this and instead consist of simple lists of information - they do not meet our criteria for stand alone lists and need to be deleted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:STAND is simply a style guideline recognising that most lists will link to other articles. There is no rule specifying all lists on Knowledge must have each list entry linking to a separate article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - As mentioned before, nobody seems to be touching lists of bus routes in bigger cities. Peterborough is also a fairly major city. My argument would be, that if you don't want to look at it, don't, but leave for others who do. I created this and it takes a lot of hard work to perfect an article and it just wastes others work, while if it doesn't get deleted, it doesn't go into someone's way. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Janos Boros (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 : This is the second, not the third nomination

Support Not notable. I don't see how this passes either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. He does not possess an article not even on Romanian Knowledge Iaaasi (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - a minor local official not covered in any meaningful depth by independent sources. Yes, local newspapers did feature his name from time to time, but only in passing, or in tangential relation to a corruption scandal (tellingly not mentioned by this promotional article). Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN requirements. - Biruitorul 04:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Vice-Mayor? Delete as per Biruitorul. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: I originally closed this as delete, but in light of the previous AfD a fuller discussion is probably more appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I found this in the previous discussion, can anyone confirm if it was legitimate?

"As to the aspect of finding mention in Romanian media, 61 mentions in Evenimentul Zilei, 37 mentions in Adevărul, 41 mentions in Ziua, 200 mentions in Clujeanul - a newspaper from his own city, 128 mentions in hotnews.ro are significant." Hobartimus (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't manipulate the information. The correct data are: 4 mentions in Evenimentul Zilei, 8 mentions in Adevărul, 0 mentions in Ziua, 123 mentions in Clujeanul - a newspaper from his own city, 100 mentions in hotnews.ro (Iaaasi (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Did you read the above? I said I found it being posted in the previous discussion. Obviously the listed results show the data at the time of the first Afd, which was in 2009. Unless they were manipulated in 2009. Seems a case of selective reading to me. Hobartimus (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete What has changed here since the last AfD? Oh, yeah: mudslinging. Here I am, standing by my earlier comment: "I don't see how this passes either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage that he got in the press is, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively owed to a local corruption scandal which implicated him (an incident which, tellingly, is not even covered by the article). The news is of marginal interest even locally (in Cluj County, that is), and the text, which is most likely promotional, is horribly written. This is a quick way to make oneself look important, not an encyclopedic topic." Dahn (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Dahn, I reviewed the talk page comment that you cite and In my view it was an inappropriate remark. Without a doubt there are some legitimate concerns with this article, such as tone and it's creator's list of contributions making a description of "most likely promotional" accurate. However these problems can sometime be fixed by rewriting by someone else. I think the ideal solution here would be a stub written by someone like Dahn or Biruitorul. Hobartimus (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

True perhaps, but that only addresses part of my point, the other being that Boros is merely a vice-mayor of a reasonably large but still provincial town, and that the third-party sources which we could cite on him, the only ones on which we could base the article if it need exist, are either trivial or describing a passing controversy that is an embarrassment for Boros. These would be, if stretched, the only reasons why Boros would make the GNG cut. Dahn (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I appreciate your suggestion, but why would a stub be justified? "Deputy Mayor" (of a provincial city, no less) is not a notable position, per WP:POLITICIAN. And there simply aren't references confirming notability per WP:BIO, the standard there being Boros should have been the subject of multiple published secondary reliable sources. - Biruitorul 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, in my opinion, it doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG --Codrin.B (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: @ Hobartimus, Yes this is a case of selective reading.One should look at the references and also the cross references of those articles in those news sites. For example Evenimentul Zilei, 4,340 mentions and cross-mentions, in Adevărul 1,170 mentions and cross-mentions, Ziua.net is now so the search there which is of news = 8,190 mentions and cross-mentions. The exmaples can go on and on.

One thing that also needs to be reckoned is the while has quite many citings not favourable to him, the local Hungarian papers have none. The right way to interpret this is that minority politicians stand to get maligned a lot in majority news dailies. Otherwise how is it possible that not only does have positive mentions in the minority Hungarian press, but also they are quite significant in number. This is considering only around 2 percent of the whole Romanian population(Mostly elderly Hungrains) form majority of its readers. Now take the example of Szabadsag = 89 mentions and cross-mentions if you search with with his family name second in the search string. If you search how a Hungarian would write and read - family name first the result for the same search is = 366 mentions and cross-mentions, in another local Hungarian paper Kronika = 53 mentions and cross-mentions.

There are many Romanian politicians and public figures who have entries in Knowledge. Just a few examples of Romanian Politicians who are Vice-Mayors and have entires: - Camelia Gavril, Vice Mayor of Iasi - Romeo Olteanu, Vice Mayor of Zarnesti - Ioan Todiraș, Vice Mayor of a Sector in Bucuresti - Mircea Dolha, Vice Mayor of Baia Mare etc.

Anyone searching for "viceprimar" on Knowledge.org will find a whole list of pages/entries of Romanian Politicians who are and were Vicemayors themselves. So why the differential treatment?

Warm regards, Hangakiran (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All those examples are from Romanian Knowledge. Can you please show me on en.wp an article about the Vice-Mayor of any other city from the world? (Iaaasi (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

• • WP:WAX is not a valid argument, particularly if you refer to articles from ro.wiki, which is rife with promotional material.
  • My Google searches of Romanian papers actually give 4, 8 and 199 hits (not 4340, 1170 and 8190), but regardless, see WP:GHITS for why that's not really relevant. The totality of those results seem more than trivial in nature. To take the four EVZ results for instance, one tells us that Boros and several colleagues misused city funds; one lists him as losing an election, one mentions he gave an order to fill in a hole, and one again is a candidate list. I'm afraid none of these is particularly useful in writing an article. The Hungarian-language sources appear of a similarly insubstantial nature, though you may correct me on that point.
  • In short, you'll want to present reliable, in-depth sources attesting substantive notability, not random bits of news coverage (remember, we are WP:NOTNEWS), if you want this article kept. - Biruitorul 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: This discussion seems to have been canvassed on the Meta-Wiki talk pages of at least three Hungarian users. Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The canvasser is User:Hangakiran, the only editor who opposed the deletion. He put also messages on en.wiki asking for help: (so a total of 7 canvassed users) (Iaaasi (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

• Comment@User:Iaaasi When Iaaasi nominated the article for under WP:Afd, no notification was sent to us User:Hangakiran. So the outcome was the article was deleted. Another reason for the intimations was to request Hungarian users who are interested about what happens to pages of their leaders and to avoid the discussion becoming one sided with contributions only from Romanian Wiki users. Hangakiran (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Commment You should understand that what you've done (choosing invited users after a clear criteria like Hungarian ethnicity) is WP:Votestacking and it is illegal. You did not send neutral invitations, but requests "for help" in your attempt to prevent the deletion of this article. However this is not a vote (WP:VOTE) where the majority wins, but a "battle" of arguments (Iaaasi (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
• It's a bit of a stretch to call a former vice-mayor of a Romanian city a "leader" of Hungarians anywhere. Also, will you kindly stop viewing everything through the prism of ethnicity? This is not a numbers game between "Hungarian users" and "Romanian Wiki users". It's an attempt to remove an article on a non-notable figure who fails to meet applicable standards (WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, etc). - Biruitorul 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Further canvassing alert: User:Hangakiran set up an account on hu.wiki exclusively for canvassing "keep" votes for this article; see here, here, here, here and here. He has now canvassed 12 users on three projects. This is getting out of hand, and really threatens the integrity of the discussion. - Biruitorul 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• @ Biruitorul, please can you give reference to the page created by me? I don't recall creating a page to exclusively canvass on hu.wiki. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangakiran (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a lie. You know very well what you've done (Iaaasi (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

• @ Iaaasi. Can you elaborate on what is the lie you refer to?

I am sorry, I owe you excuses, I thought you were saying that the account from hu.wp is not yours (Iaaasi (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Request for more information: Can someone list the applicable standards under which the politician does not qualify? This nomination makes a blanket statement regarding qualifications with no supporting details; just leaves it up to everyone else to figure it out for themselves with their own interpretation of the criteria. That makes me uncomfortable when we are talking about deleting content. This politician doesn't seem to be one of those "common sense" deletions. There's quite a bit of information in the article. In the first nomination, I had written about what I thought was a meeting of criteria. No one responded. I would like to understand from the nominator what their interpretation is and how they see that the criteria is not being met. Thank you. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Note: User:Sborsody joined this discussion as a result of Hangakiran's canvassing (Iaaasi (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)) Further note This is allowed under WP:CANVASS as I participated in a previous discussion on the same topic. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment BTW, I'm not really Hungarian, just married to one and have ancestors from that empire who were minorities, as should be clear from my user page. I thought I was solicited for input because I commented on the previous nomination. While I don't agree with the canvassing based on ethnicity, I also don't agree with not taking the good-faith effort of reaching out to the major contributors of the article. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• If I may try to answer your question by looking at WP:POLITICIAN:
  • Boros has not held international, national or sub-national office, or been in the national legislature, so he fails point 1.
  • As for point 2: well, we know he wasn't mayor. We're told he was on the city council, but we have no source to back this up, and anyway, my reading is that in general, only city councillors of "a major metropolitan city" (of which Romania has but one, Bucharest) tend to be notable. Was he a "major local political figure"? Probably not: power in Cluj-Napoca city government is concentrated in the mayor and to a lesser extent the council, with the unelected vice-mayors serving more of an administrative role.
  • Finally, has he "received significant press coverage"? I tend to think he hasn't. Let's look just at the footnotes. I can't read Hungarian, but the two sources in that language seem to make only passing mention of him. Of the ones in Romanian, one is a quote in a news brief, one is a declaration about an obscure corruption scandal, one mentions his opinion on some highway project, one is a quote about housing, one looks at his allegedly corrupt deals, one is a quote about a city contract for a plot of land, one mentions him strictly in passing, one is a dead link, one is a news brief about a lawsuit filed against him by aggrieved tenants in two buildings, one mentions he ordered a hole to be filled, and one is an opinion piece that doesn't mention him. The one source in English is a news article that doesn't mention him. Oh, and almost all of these are in local rather than national newspapers. Can we say no one cares?
  • Some of the claims, by the way, tend to be overblown to the point of having nothing to do with the source. Take for instance this passage: "Though during the years of the Boc administration he no longer had to face constant ethnic provocations, his tenure was not fully void of ethnic disputes, either. Being the vice mayor he was tested time and again in his ability to reconcile disputes between the majority Romanian governance and the expectations of the minority Hungarians he represented". The source makes no such claim. "One such conflict was regarding restoration of the statue of Matthias Corvinus. The ex-mayor Gheorghe Funar was the one who started the controversy by changing the label of the statue of Matthias Corvinus from 'Matthias Rex Hungarorum' (Matthias King of Hungarians) to just 'Matthias Rex'." Again, nowhere does the article say this. "Being supported by the liberal Emil Boc, Janos Boros was able to diplomatically reconcile differences between the governments of Hungary and Romania, who together decided to finance the restoration of the historical statue group (of Matthias King) from the centre of Cluj-Napoca." The source (an opinion piece, by the way, which can't be used to support anything) makes absolutely no mention of Boros. So you see, not only is the sourcing trivial, it's been manipulated so as to endow Boros with an exaggerated importance.
  • As was brought up earlier, we don't really have articles on deputy mayors. OK, we do for London, as well as having a couple for New York, but one can't really compare Cluj-Napoca to those cities, can one?
  • Personally, I've written articles on five ethnic Hungarian politicians from Romania (László Borbély, Attila Cseke, Attila Verestóy, Iuliu Winkler, Péter Eckstein-Kovács), so it's not like the topic doesn't interest me. It's just that I tend to know a notable UDMR politician when I see one, and, for better or worse, Boros just isn't one of them. - Biruitorul 05:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Suggest Merge/Weak Delete: Thank you, Biruitorul, for taking the time to write more about the criteria and address the concerns I raised during the first nomination for deletion. I learned from you that vice-mayors are non-elected administrative roles (really?) and that to me somewhat lessens the importance. The "significance" criteria always seem to be a sticking point on these AfDs because everyone has their own ideas of what is significant. What is really telling to me is the total lack of links in Knowledge to the Janos Boros article. I guess I'm still concerned about a story here regarding events in Cluj-Napoca politics that may be lost by outright deletion of the article. The sources seem to suggest Janos Boros is a supporting character in that story, which indicates to me that it may be possible to preserve the story under other, more appropriate articles such as the article on Gheorghe Funar or Emil Boc. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • During 2004-2008, one of the main developments in Cluj-Napoca politics was the defusing of ethnic tensions built up by Mayor Funar. Indeed, by the end, the latter had managed to alienate pretty much everyone, Romanian and Hungarian alike, with his combative style, so that after a year in office, the technocratic Boc believed his main achievement was to bring about a "climate of normality" in city politics, whereas his populist predecessor had tended to file lawsuits against most decisions of the local council, the county council and the prefecture. No doubt, part of that process was in having a Hungarian for one of his deputies, in removing the Romanian flags one saw on every street corner, etc. If sources make the link, no doubt this can be mentioned at Emil Boc or even History of Cluj-Napoca.
  • But based on what I said above about the sources here being manipulated, I would caution against using any of this text in other articles. Let me give another example, if I may. We have this passage: "The issue of the statue has been a barometer to the sensitivity of the multi-ethnic groups cohabiting in Cluj-Napoca. It is wishful to think that this shared restoration brings a final resolution to Cluj-Napoca's ethnic conflicts, though efforts of leaders like Janos Boros and Emil Boc have eased tensions and have been successful in curtailing the nationalists from both Hungarian and Romanian sides to a great extent." The only problem is, it's completely unsourced, and was probably concocted by the author. Once we have an article on the statue (and we should), some of this should definitely be mentioned, but from a reliable source like this one, not the editorializing of a Knowledge editor. - Biruitorul 13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• just a few comments: I don't see what is the problem with notifying other editors about this AfD. English Knowledge is too big for us to keep an eye on all Hungary-related articles, especially that there are only a few Hungarian editors here (also, most of us are used to the much smaller Hungarian wikipedia where it's relatively easy to watch all AfD pages). Hangakiran couldn't even be sure that we'll vote for the article to be kept. I think if the majority of the sources regarding a subject's notability are in a certain language, it is necessary to notify users who can understand that language (and I've seen enwiki sysops doing this.
• Also, I don't see how Cluj is not a "major metropolitan city", it is stated that it's the fourth largest in Romania, with a population of about 400,000; seems to be significant even by European standards.
• Boros has over 37,000 google hits in Hungarian, mostly about monument protection, local events, and losing an election. I'm not sure it makes him notable, though. – Alensha  21:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I suppose everyone will have a different definition of "major metropolitan city", but how about using the list of Largest urban areas of the European Union? (Romania's next six largest cities are some six times smaller, correspondingly less powerful, and widely thought of as "provincial".) By that standard, Romania does indeed have just one, and I tend to think that's about right: members of the General Council of Bucharest maybe (as in, a few of them) are notable figures, but one simply doesn't see members of the Iaşi, Cluj, Timişoara, Constanţa, Craiova or Galaţi city councils exercising any sort of influence or having any kind of renown outside their own cities. Their mayors, yes, but not their city councillors.
  • I've never thought of Boros as being a nobody: he had a decent-enough career in politics and no doubt was well-liked by some voters and helped them out, while angering others (like the ones who sued him). But that's true for thousands of local politicians in mid-sized cities around the world, and it shouldn't necessarily follow that he gets a Knowledge article. WP:POLITICIAN should be applied equally.
  • As for Google: well, from what you say, it sounds like Hungarian sources also mainly deal with his involvement in local issues and making the local news. Perhaps some of that has its place at, say, Matthias Corvinus Statue, Cluj-Napoca, but I doubt it rises to a particularly noteworthy standard, though feel free to correct me. By the way, we get lots of hits for (just to take an example) today's UDMR Cluj city councillors (Irsay, Somogyi, Csoma, Molnos and László). Of these, Molnos may be notable primarily as a writer and László is just possibly notable as a politician, but I wouldn't say the same of the first three, or of most of the other 22 members of the council. - Biruitorul 22:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - In my opinion the sources points to notability. I see no reason to delete this article right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete While I think this person passes WP:GNG it is a borderline case. As I said I see some issues with the article, which could not be resolved at this time per comments above. I would have no problem with the article being recreated at a later time as a stub by an established editor, should someone change their mind or become interested. However this recreating user writing the stub, should be someone with interests in a few other topics as well, not just this single article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Janos Boros Has been the President of the State of Cluj of the RMDSZ(UDMR In Romanian) - The Largest Hungarian Party in Romania for 2 Years and Vice-presidentship for 4 Years. Put together he has been the head of RMDSZ's Cluj City party head for nearly 6 years. In addition has been the Vice Mayor of Cluj Napoca for 8 Years. Another important aspect about his Vice-Mayorship is that he was the first Hungarian to enter Cluj-Napoca city governance as Viec Mayor after the fall of communism - a notable event for Hungarians, while Romanians might well predictably find it insignificant. This should qualify him easily under WP:Politician

He was:

- From 1993 to 97 Vice-president Cluj County of UDMR

- From 1997 to 99 President of Cluj County UDMR

- From 2000 onwards he was the Vice Mayor of Cluj Napoca for 2 successive terms

References:

- http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/archivum/1997/7okt-23.htm (under Máshol elképzelhetetlen)

- http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/archivum/1997/7nov-28.htm (Under Diplomats visit Körösfôn )

- http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/archivum/1997/7jul-28.htm#E13E4

These are but a sample of the links that can be found in the Hungarian press about Janos Boros. If one does site :searches as I have in the links in my previous posts, and does get a proper Hungarian Translation, would find news :coverage of significance unlike in the Romanian press( which is an admixture of very little good, some neutral and :bad to a large extent for Janos Boros).

About Cluj not being of importance and Bucharest being the only city worth Reconing in Romania:

Cluj County has had a GDP 37% higher than the national average, with the only county having a GDP 3/4th that of :Bucharest [http://www.romania-central.com/economy-of-romania/the-economy-of-romania/33-development-regions

-of-romania/339-regional-disparities-in-romania/]. With investments in hundreds of millions of Euros by companies :like Nokia, most of the software from Romania coming form Cluj [http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet

/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206103523&queryText=cluj= According to American News Magazine InformationWeek], Multi-billion dollar corporations MOL, Genpact and many more having chosen Cluj over Bucharest. If this does not

qualify Cluj as a major center of power in Romania, what does? Cluj county and Cluj-Napoca its capital are quite :significant in Romania. The perspective where Cluj Napoca becomes more important than even Bucharest is from that

of a Hungarian. For a Hungarian from Transylvania, Cluj Napoca is where their their culture is rooted. It is the city :of their greatest king Mtyas. Was the capital years before occupation by Romanians. This is not something you find

reflected by any Romanian, or Romanian Media or political groups. So it is no surprise that for the Romanians there :is no city worth mentioning other than Bucharest, while Cluj Napoca or Kolozsvar(As called by Hungarians) is

onsidered precious by Hungarians.

Role of Vice Mayors:

The Role of Vice Mayors in Cluj-Napoca is administrative as much as that of the Mayor. They have a definite role - :for example the Hungarian Vice Mayor is responsible for focussing on the general welfare and upkeep of the city

while safeguarding and promoting acts and regulations that are favorable to their Hungarian Electorate. That is what :the Mayor does as well. So it is better not to twist facts than how they otherwise are. It seems that facts available

even on Knowledge are being twisted around with claims that there are no articles of Vice Mayors other than for huge :cities like London. Here are a few:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/Jigme_Namgyal

- http://en.wikipedia.org/Morten_H%C3%B8glund

If one has the patience can dig up a whole list of them from cities far less in relevance than Cluj Napoca.

News about him being not relevant: It is possible to relegate any news about anyone as irrelevant by saying one :it was just a quote, it was about a scandal etc. Janos Boros has been in the news and Hungarian news which have

sought his opinion and his ongoing work as the Vice Mayor of Cluj Napoca, while the Romanian dallies dish either :insignificant news or news about his scandals. Take for example the news about the restitution of the Roman Catholic

Church Property was portrayed only in the negative in connection with Janos Boros. While Szabadsag, gives account of :the Hungarian perspective (Reference: [http://www.szabadsag.ro/szabadsag/servlet/szabadsag/template/

article,PMainArticleScreen.vm/id/1996;jsessionid=360D04D9E99CDDFEC0F47835482AB4CC] ). Incase further proof of the :search results from the Hungarian news dailies being note worthy or not, please use a proper Hungarian-

English translation service and you will see that the news is not only notable but also quite different and positive :towards Janos Boros.

Regarding dispute over some of the sources in the Article:

- "Though during the years of the Boc administration he no longer had to face constant ethnic provocations, his :tenure was not fully void of ethnic disputes, either. Being the vice mayor he was tested time and again in his :ability to reconcile disputes between the majority Romanian governance and the expectations of the minority :Hungarians he represented". The source makes no such claim." If the sources provided in the article are not :sufficient, please refer to this link here where it clearly mentions the existence of ethnic tension about the :removal of King Matyas's statue, between Hungarians and Romanians living in Cluj (http://www.hhrf.org/nepujsag/05okt/5nu1007t.htm ). As quoted by Janos Boros himself in an interview ( ) mentions how difficult it was to be of Hungarian ethnicity with Funar and how he :evolved a peaceful co-working environment under Emil Boc.

Hangakiran (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Being president of a county party organization isn't in itself evidence of notability as a politician. It can be a contributing factor, but if we look for instance at the Social Democrats, of ~40 such presidents, just six (Constantin Niţă, Marian Oprişan, Viorel Hrebenciuc, Oana Niculescu-Mizil, Radu Ştefan Mazăre and Ilie Sârbu) jump out as being notable. A couple more may be, but the point is, it's not that meaningful a position, and all these PSD members are notable for reasons other than their leadership of county parties. (Five have served in Parliament; of these, two have been in Cabinet and one is a big-city mayor. Oprişan, the sixth, while never having held national office, has gained widespread notoriety for his activities, on a level far greater than Boros ever did.)
  • I did not say that Bucharest is "the only city worth Reconing in Romania", and that would be an absurd contention. I simply said that by a reasonable definition, it's Romania's only major metropolitan city, and thus this encyclopedia shouldn't tend to have articles on its local officials (other than mayors), unless they've gained press mention that immediately and obviously attests their notability — which would be a stretch in Boros' case.
  • Our having an article on the vice-mayor of Lhasa probably falls under WP:WAX. Morten Høglund, of course, sits in the Norwegian Parliament, and that's his primary claim to notability.
  • "It is possible to relegate any news about anyone as irrelevant" - well, yes, but it's also possible to make claims of relevance where there's little of that. For instance, yes, Boros has commented on the restitution of a church. But is the church itself notable? If so, once we write an article on the church, I'm sure we can devote a few lines to his comments. But the comments wouldn't necessarily have a place in a biography of his. And yes, the current "sources" for the article are, by and large, on the trivial side. Issuing comments on local matters here and there, passing mentions now and then, are standard in the local press for local officials, but they don't really indicate encyclopedic notability. They happen routinely for thousands of local officials around the world, and usually remain unnoticed by us.
  • I know there's been tension about the statue since about 1920. There's a great place we can cover the entire debate: Matthias Corvinus Statue, Cluj-Napoca. - Biruitorul 05:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment/Still Suggest Merge: In the first nomination, I felt that being a vice-mayor of Cluj-Napoca was significant as it is the third largest city of Romania so still the decision isn't so clear. Again, a big problem to me remains the fact that Janos Boros is an orphaned article. I suggested merging with another article. UDMR (note that Cluj-Napoca is an important center of this political party) could be another candidate article. Boros isn't even mentioned in it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Further comment - by the way, I'd like to debunk a meme that the article creator has repeatedly stated, which runs to the effect that Boros hasn't received much mention in the Romanian-language press because he's an ethnic Hungarian and gets ignored for that reason. Let's approach this claim in two ways:
  • First, let's look at an ethnic Romanian deputy mayor. How about Romeo Olteanu, deputy mayor of Iaşi, the country's second-largest city? He gets thousands of mentions in local papers, but low double digits or even single digits in the main national newspapers. A situation analogous to that of Boros - by this measure at least, neither man seems to be notable.
  • Second, let's pick a relatively obscure ethnic Hungarian mayor: how about Antal Árpád, who heads the rather small city of Sfântu Gheorghe? The same national papers give him many hundreds of mentions, and Antal is likely notable. (I should add, more for his provocative statements and strident stance on Székely autonomy, than simply for the fact that he's a mayor.)
  • So you see, deputy mayors do tend to be ignored by the national press, regardless of ethnicity, and notable local officials do receive its attention, again regardless of ethnicity. Given the paucity of national press mention for Boros, and the generally trivial mentions he received in the local press, I think that's further evidence of his failing to meet the notability standards. - Biruitorul 05:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• The whole discussion is missing the main point, which is "Yes" Janos Boros might not have been a prominent name in National news except for a casual mention once in a while. This is so because the National news is saturated with news of Romanian Politicians. Take for example the case of "Romeo Olteanu". He has been the Vice-Mayor of Iasi only since mid 2008 and a site search of Adevarul = Search result for Romeo Olteanu in a popular Romanian National news daily reveals humungous amount of news referring to him and his actions. This is for a person who has held the Vice Mayors office for just 1.5 years. Do the same for Janos Boros who had the same position for 8 years in a row and Adevarul gives just a one page Search result for Janos :Boros in a popular Romanian National news daily result where only a couple of news links are directly related to him.

This is just one example of bias in the media.

About Biruitorul question if the Roman Catholic Church is itself Notable indicates his bias towards minority institutions. Why, because it is has the second largest denomination after the Romanian Orthodox Church with majority of its followers being Hungarian. By the way Roman Catholic Church is notable and does have an article on Wiki = http://en.wikipedia.org/Roman_Catholicism_in_Romania . I also cannot help but notice the way Biruitorul refers to the Roman Catholic Church as just "The church".

Hungarians account for under 6 percent of the population and their political party RMDSZ hardly garner as much of the votes. The competition for leadership is intense in such a small political party is intense and in cities with majority Romanian population, it is almost impossible for a minority leader to become the Mayor. Holding 8 years in a row across 2 terms is itself a sign of Janos Boros popularity among the Hungarians.

To sum it up the right way to look at leaders of Minority like Janos Boros is through the lens of the Minority, The Minority media. As I said earlier if one reads the news coverage for Janos Boros in the Hungarian press coverage it is significant and voluminous. These are the news dailies popular across the much of North-West and parts of Central region housing the much of the Hungarian population in Romania. Hungarians in Romania know who is Janos Boros, while :someone in say Sfantu Gheorghe might not know who Romeo Olteanu is. This is debate seriously should be about protecting an article of a leader from a minority group who definitely is popular among that minority and not if he has National relevance, let alone that being positive. Knowledge and its rules cannot ignore the environment in which minority leaders survive. The right way is to look at their achievements through the eyes of the minorities themselves

Hangakiran (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is moving way beyond ridiculous. Hangakiran, you spare no effort in canvassing for this article, and no strenuous rationale for defending it against wikipedia content guidelines, and you even kicked this whole thread back into existence on the claim that we are all against Boros because it is Hungarian (this being a frivolous and insulting piece of personal propaganda). Never mind that the intense promotion and calumny should have prevented experienced admins from even bothering with this project of yours, but surely you must be aware that the amphibology between "a church" (the building) and "the Church" (the Catholic institution), which you use to misrepresent Biruitorul's argument, is indecent. Unless you're trying to suggest that Boros has rescued the Catholic hierarchy or faith in Romania - if you plan to, at least let me get my popcorn first.

To everyone else: this is not a nationality issue; there is absolutely nothing about Boros' case that would make it relevant whether he is a victim of anti-Hungarian sentiment. Hangakiran's core argument, so often seen in AfD's, is the simple sophistry: "If you're against my biographical article, you're against ." I couldn't tell you how many times I have seen this line of thinking surfacing among Romanian users, so very often nationalist Romanian users, who did not understand what wikipedia is about. And, quite clearly, Boros is by no means and under no definition a "leader" of a minority group - he is simply a bureaucrat who took over an office which is assigned by default, according to party politics and election scores. No community will be "harmed" by him not having a bio on wikipedia, no romantic tears will be shed.

The substance of this vote refers to the notability of a person, any person, in his position. Whether we are wrong or not, me and Biruitorul have stated that the basic criterion is not met - and Biruitorul has patently and convincingly shown how sources were manipulated to write what is basically a promotional CV from someone who has so intensely campaigned for this article. Our objectivity in handling this topic is noted even by those who disagree with our position: a user above has payed us an undeserved compliment, noting that, "Without a doubt there are some legitimate concerns with this article, such as tone and it's creator's list of contributions making a description of 'most likely promotional' accurate. However these problems can sometime be fixed by rewriting by someone else. I think the ideal solution here would be a stub written by someone like Dahn or Biruitorul."

Enough said. Dahn (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think I did interpret Biruitorul correctly. He presents the news in the source as "Boros has commented on the restitution of a church. But is the church itself notable?". The core of the matter was about restitution of property belonging to "The" Roman Catholic Church in Romania, The Institution - NOT "a" Church. If amphiboly has occurred, it must surely have been in the way Biruitorul presented the news in the source.

Is ethnicity important in this discussion? Yes! Here is why: All Romanian contributors demanding widespread recognition pan-Romania for Janos Boros to prove Notability is absurd. Why? Please read how Janos Boros with a 8 year tenure as Vice Mayor compares with Romeo Olteanu in one of Major Romanian News Dailies. Romeo Olteanu get voluminous results while Janos Boros get just a page. That is why I am saying that this discussion should be whether Janos Boros is Notable and Popular among the Ethnicity which he represents? Yes, he is. Is this accusing anyone of being Nationalistic, No! This is the truth, however harsh.

Inspite of me giving sources from Major Hungarian news dailies with tons of quality references you continue to claim that his Notability is of question. This attitude infact proves my point above.

It is not my intention to sound or be Nationalistic in my approach in this discussion. The truth remains that the Hungarians rights and any news about them is misrepresented by Romanian News dailies. Take the example of Adevarul the leading news Daily in Romanian trying to portray schools run by Hungarians to help their children learn in their mother tounge as illegal and bad and promoting anti-hungarian sentiments and accusing RMDSZ of being racially intolerant. What was their fault, the Hungarians and the RMDSZ wanted their children to study in their language. Click here for the article: .

I can give you plenty of such reports from the Hungarian Media when they feel they have misrepresented by the Romanian National Media. In essence my point is not to sound "Nationalistic" and accuse you of being one. My focus is to point out the ground reality which this discussion should factor in - "It is better to judge a leader representing a Ethnic :Minority by that Minorities Media arms and by its people".

I wish to sum my point of view here for one last time(Hopefully). Articles of leaders like Janos Boros who are popular among their Ethnic minority group to this day, will find much unfavorable mention in the media dominated by the major ethnicity and hardly any mention after their tenures. So to determine if such a person is notable or not entirely based on National Media will take the focus away from the person's notability among his people. This view is not meant to sound Nationalistic like Dahn claims, but infact is reflected and felt widespread among Hungarians. For them their regional news media entities like Szabadsag are the ones which bring balanced views about things Hungarian and related to their leaders.

Hangakiran (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Repeating the term "minority", incantation-like, won't add to his claim of notability. The rest of your post is largely inconsequential, except I will note that Romeo Olteanu gets 47 hits in Adevărul and Janos Boros 9, so very much on the same scale, and very much showing the general lack of importance the Romanian press accords to deputy mayors, minority or not. - Biruitorul 16:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Borderline Keep Seems to meet GNG based on the sources shown. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, and Note: this is an interesting discussion above. One pro-delete editor is already blocked; other one seems to be busy stalking pro-keep editors and tracking whether they "canvass" anyone in any Wikimedia projects whatsoever... I'm not really sure this all goes objectively. As well as I'd like to note that the prejudgement that the invited editors cannot think for themselves is borderline offensive. (Inviting people to follow a debate they aren't aware of isn't a sin in my opinion, and it's unrealistic to act like it was.) My experience usually shows that most Hungarian and most Romanian editors can live just happily together but from time to time a few ones start nationality-heated debates about basically nothing. I'm not through the whole discussion, but I remember it from the last time, where it's been cited that the guy have references in Hungarian language (at least, and a few mentions elsewhere), which pretty much justified keeping it. What I don't really see why do some fellow editors actually fight for deleting it? Third time, too? Because he's a Hungarian nationality Romanian politician? Because the references are in ("evil") Hungarian? Because he didn't (shouldn't?) earned the right(?) to be published more in the Romanian media? We actually burn ten times more bits debating this whole shebang than by keeping the article and let it rest. I'm actually fine with having two dozen meaningful Romanian politicians around, if anyone cares. (Of course I already could live without more than one Hungarian ones, either.) --grin ✎ 15:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Policy-based reasons for keeping, rather than ones casting aspersions, would be much appreciated. Yes, WP:CANVASS is policy, yes, sending out a dozen invitations to users one thinks will share an opinion, even ostensibly "neutral" invitations, is against that policy, and no, checking up on a proven canvassing user's contributions at other projects is not "stalking". No convincing evidence of notability has been presented in any language, and no, no one has said or implied the article should be deleted because Boros is Hungarian or because the "references" (trivial as they are) are in Hungarian, so you can stop with that line of argument right there. Yes, his lack of coverage in the Romanian-language press, considering he was active in the capital of Transylvania, and that that same press routinely provides ample coverage on plenty of ethnic Hungarian politicians (and note that I deliberately chose "second-tier" ones for those searches), is a strong indicator that notability is lacking. That, and the similarly mundane mentions he received in the Hungarian-language press. So please, if you do participate here, try to show how and why he meets WP:POLITICIAN, and steer clear of muddying the waters with talk of ethnic-based voting. - Biruitorul 16:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding canvassing, I posted request for participation in good faith. The administrator has asked me not to any more, I have agreed. So there ends the discussion about it. The focus of this discussion should not be on the article now and not in else.

Biruitorul Janos Boros has ample coverage in Hungarian media starting right from 1999 up until now. :And I have presented them in my previous posts. It is easy to just say there was none even after one presents the evidence. That is not nice. A person who is not notable cannot be in the news for such a long time. He has also been the President of RMDSZ for the State of Cluj. If these do not qualify him for WP:POLITICIAN, what will? I have heard your argument before, it is about the Romanian media, national level etc. I reiterate what i said in my previous posts, Janos Boros needs to be judged not by his notability according to Romanian Media but by that in Hungarian Media and the Hungarian people. It seems you either did not read through my posts properly or refuse to acknowledge, so I am posting a few links more for your perusal as to why Janos Boros is relevant for the Hungarians. Hope you read it this time around

- 1997 from the Archives of Szabadsag, the Hungarian news daily quotes him as Chairman of RMDSZ of the state of Cluj :with the Japanese Consul. This is the post he has held for 4 Years before becoming the Vice Mayor till mid 2000

:http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/archivum/1997/7nov-28.htm

- A 2000 Entry which cites him in the role of Public Administrator of DAHR(The English acronym for RMDSZ party)

: http://www.hhrf.org/monitor/002rom.htm

- 12th Jan 2001 Gives a citation of how Gheorghe Funar, the Romanian Mayor, opposes Janos Boros who is by then the Vice :Mayor in setting up a Office for Minorities in the Mayor's office. He held this office for two consecutive terms, that :is for 8 years till 2009.

: http://www.hhrf.org/monitor/101rom.htm

These are to one prove that he does pass WP:Politician. All the links I have posted in previous posts will prove his notability. It would be appreciated if the Romanian editors vying to have this article deleted not come back with misleading statements like "He doesn't even find mention here or there OR The mentions are not noteworthy". All sources cited by my in the discussion of this article have links which are relevant and notable. In case you need more, I will more than happy to be of help with translations for as many number of news articles in the Hungarian Media you deem fit to ask.

Janos Boros person who has been the head of the State Unit for the largest political representing minorities in Romania :for 4 years and then 8 years as the Vice Mayor of the Capital of that state. This he was because of the popularity among :his people the Hungarians. That is how his stature should be seen. They way this discussion has developed is demeaning :to him as a person and the service rendered by him to his community.

So I ask Janos Boros to be seen through the lens of the Hungarian Media and its People.

Hangakiran (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• • To begin with, it's Cluj County. There is no such thing as a "state" on the sub-national level in Romania.
  • In response to your question about the notability of his being county party chairman, let me repeat myself: "Being president of a county party organization isn't in itself evidence of notability as a politician. It can be a contributing factor, but if we look for instance at the Social Democrats, of ~40 such presidents, just six (Constantin Niţă, Marian Oprişan, Viorel Hrebenciuc, Oana Niculescu-Mizil, Radu Ştefan Mazăre and Ilie Sârbu) jump out as being notable. A couple more may be, but the point is, it's not that meaningful a position, and all these PSD members are notable for reasons other than their leadership of county parties. (Five have served in Parliament; of these, two have been in Cabinet and one is a big-city mayor. Oprişan, the sixth, while never having held national office, has gained widespread notoriety for his activities, on a level far greater than Boros ever did.)"
  • Let me also repeat another theme you seem to be missing: in Romania, ethnic Hungarian politicians who are genuinely notable will receive ample coverage in the national press; I've shown this over and over. Especially as we're talking about someone active in a city that's 80% Romanian.
  • I'm sorry, but your "sources" continue to be in the same WP:NOTNEWS vein of routine mentions, and don't satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. Yes, he was a local official mentioned now and then in the local press, but so are tens of thousands of others worldwide. That doesn't mean he met the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul 17:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is no comparison of County presidents of PSD with County President of RMDSZ because RMDSZ is the only party representing the Hungarians(If we ignore the couple of minuscule ones trying popout the last couple of years). On the Other hand Romanians have 3 major parties and many more medium sized minor ones. The loyalties are divided. So it is not easy said in case of PSD leaders that their leadership was representative of the favour of all Romanians. That CAN be said about Janos Boros about the loyalty of HUngarians voters to him, as he represents the ONLY party which represents the Hungarian minority in Romania. So him being elected Cluj County Head for 4 years in a row clearly qualifies him as , not because I say so, but by Point 1 under the guidelines. While any of the people whom you mention, even if they were to lead their parties for the same tenure would not mean they are representative of all Romanians as Janos Boros was to Hungarians.
  • Sorry, but your claims here are veering into the preposterous. So what if the UDMR is the main party representing the 6.6% of Romanians who are of Hungarian ethnicity? The PNL is (or claims to be) the only major party representing the 15% of Romanians who are economic liberals, while the PSD is the only major party representing the 35% of Romanians who are social democrats. Also, you can't quite call the PCM "minuscule"; it won over a third of the Szekely vote at the 2008 local elections. And of course, only 8.5% of Hungarians in Romania actually live in Cluj County, so even if we stretch things a little and call him their "leader" (an odd notion, since Romania is not a party-state, and people do tend to live their daily lives quite without reference to political "leaders"), he was no leader to the other 91.5%. I'd accept the notion that László Tőkés and Béla Markó are/were "leaders" of Romania's Hungarians; perhaps also someone like György Frunda; but I think no one has ever made the claim for Boros before this discussion.
  • Do consult for a moment the list of UDMR county party heads. Of these, Iuliu Winkler and Attila Verestoy (whose biographies here, incidentally, were written by me) are notable; so is Attila Kelemen — but, at least at first brush, none of the others are. And no, the ethnic-based status of their party doesn't confer automatic notability on them, either. - Biruitorul 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My sources are news worthy. You are doing exactly what I said in my last post: Just ignore the posts, not raise specifics, but make random generalizations like they are not even news, they are vague and so on. So for your benefit let me give you summaries for a few links here below. As I said, if you need more, please don't hesitate to ask, I can keep giving summaries for as many news worthy links for you as you want.

Link 1: http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/archivum/1997/7aug-07.htm#E13E4

States that in 1997 Janos Boros the President of RMDSZ, CLuj County, presenting before an Administrative Board the proposal of the Hungarians to allow them to have Namebaords of legal establishments in Hungarian and Romanian. Janos Boros Goes on to explain the difficulties the Romanian authorities are posing to stop its implementation.

Link 2: http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/main.php?datum=20060111

A 2006 news quote Janos Boros assuring Hungarian Farmers who lost their lands during communism, that as the Chairman of Committee for Land Reforms in Cluj Municipality and as the Vice Mayor, the steps he was going to take to speed up the processes that were required from the city hall.

Link 3: http://archivum.szabadsag.ro/main.php?datum=20060324

In this link of 2006 Janos Boros explains the steps he has taken to fast track the process of restoration of King Matyas's Statue, which the Hungarians considers as their greatest king. He also goes onto quote how the process was held hostage by Gheorghe Funar the Nationailistic Romanian Mayor of Cluj earlier.

Link 4: http://maszol.ro/tarsadalom/97508

In the 2009 link Janos Boros describes what he feels about the manace of beggars on the streets of Cluj Napoca and how he plans to put a stop to this habit of begging.

If this is not enough, just let me know how many of what type you need, will give the links.

Hangakiran (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• • You may want to keep familiarizing yourself with the news vs. encyclopedic content dichotomy. - Biruitorul 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• The links were not meant for the inclusion in the Article of Janos Boros, but as a sample of the coverage he has received since his tenure at the head of RMDSZ started in 1997. The quality and content are similar to any politician who has been a Mayor or Vice Mayor of Cluj. This was in support of his notability. Furthermore Notability is a guideline not a policy under Knowledge rules for Biographies. Given the fact that Janos Boros was the President of RMDSZ since 1997 to 2000 and the First Hungarian to Occupy the Vice Mayors Chair in Cluj Napoca after the end of communism and held the tenure for 8 consequtive years qualifies him under WP:Politician. Hangakiran (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As you (hopefully) know, Boros was not President of the UDMR from 1997 to 2000; Béla Markó held that position from 1993 to 2011; Boros was merely head of one of its 29 branches, which on no account renders him notable. As for the vice mayor position: so? He is simply a bureaucrat who took over an office which is assigned by default, according to party politics and election scores. Seriously, did anyone devote any special attention to that fact? And did you pay attention to the fact that a mere handful of deputy mayors (of the thousands worldwide) are noticed by Knowledge, or that no deputy mayor, of whatever ethnicity, ever really gets covered in the Romanian press, which does (your baseless claims notwithstanding) devote ample coverage to ethnic Hungarian politicians who actually do have valid claims of notability? - Biruitorul 23:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: A vice-mayor of a city of 400,000? We don't likely have many articles like that here. This discussion seems like horrible mess at this point. (note, i don't believe any regular ARS member tagged this for rescue.)--Milowent • 06:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Biruitorul This is the second time you are trying to misinterpret and misrepresent what I said. Clearly if you look at all my posts, I clearly said, Janos Boros was the President of RMDSZ for Cluj County. Second he is NOT simply a bureaucrat who took over office as you depict it to be, the process which you seemingly seem to be unaware of is that he got elected through voting in the Cluj Napoca Council election. Third let us look at the Rome Olteanu the Vice Mayor to Iasi, he has humungous number of mentions in the National Media. Take the example of coverage by Adevarul about Romeo Olteanu: Yet he is just 1.5 years into his tenure. On the other hand for Janos Boros who has been the Vice Mayor for 8 years of another big city in Romania, Adevarul has just a page to show. THIS is the bias I am trying to show that exists in the Romanian Media. If one wants to see Janos Boros's notability take a look at the coverage he got in Hungarian press. Even after someone presents facts about that Janos Boros was the President of the largest party for Minoroty for the County of Cluj for nearly 4 years, the held Vice Mayorship for 8 years, meaning that he was at the helm among the leaders RMDSZ party leadership for the County of Cluj for nearly 12 Years in a row. This by definition is indicative of the popularity among his people. This is no small feat.Also qualifies him under WP:Politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangakiran (talk • contribs) 09:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this short. 1) Look, Hangakiran, these pages are not forums, and your rebuttals can't go on forever. If you haven't made your point by now, you'll not be making it by flooding this discussion with your more or less accurate comments. 2) As was noted, president of a regional branch of the UDMR/RMDSZ doesn't count for much notability-wise, nor does it make Boros a "leader" of the party, let alone "leader of the Hungarian community". Let's adhere to a modicum of common sense. 3) Yes he is simiply a bureaucrat, since vice-mayoral offices in Romania, everywhere, go to the people nominated by the party after local election scores are in - you will find that they are mostly assigned to the nobodies of party politics, since they greatly hamper someone's chances of political advancement, being highly specialized and virtually invisible political offices. 4) You should really learn to restrict your google searches: a search for Romeo Olteanu gives you all the possible pages where "Romeo" and "Olteanu" (both of them common Romanian names) appear, in whatever order, however far apart. Try searching for "Romeo Olteanu", subtract the blog entries, forums, his Romanian wikipedia bio and other crap, and you end up with very little credible results - the few that still point to national media have been counted above, and they don't take up that much time to read through and note the triviality (WP:NOTNEWS). This is roughly similar to what Mr. Boros gets. Really now. Dahn (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Dahn, I think I have the right to post my rebuttals to all your posts. Interesting the way you put it, you seem to suggest I have no right to post my reply after you have made your point of view. This is not fair. Anyway, regarding your statements just made by you regarding the article:

• Point 2: That is YOUR point of view stated as a fact my friend. The head of a state unit of a political party does qualify under WP:Politician guidelines. That he was the Vice Mayor strengthens the case. And moreover at the county/state level these are two of the highest posts for a Hungarian politician. He was at the highest position a Hungarian can possibly be at, in the County level.

• Point 3: Vice Mayorship of for Hungarians is not given to push aside someone in Hungarian politics. It might happen in Romanian parties, if you say so. There I have no idea. But surely not in RMDSZ. So please don't make statements you cannot substantiate. And don't say "take my word for it".

• Interesting you are getting this vague results unlike what I see. Take a look at this search again: http://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=war&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Romeo+Olteanu%22+site%3A+www.adevarul.ro&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= . I did search for "Romeo Olteanu" and clearly see most of the results do refer to him directly and his actions as the Vice Mayor.

I request you not make comments like "Yes he is simiply a bureaucrat, since vice-mayoral offices in Romania, everywhere, go to the people nominated by the party after local election scores are in - you will find that they are mostly assigned to the nobodies of party politics, since they greatly hamper someone's chances of political advancement, being highly specialized and virtually invisible political offices.". This is insinuating that Janos Boros is a nobody, is unsubstantiated and evidently trying to malign him and belittle his achievements. This is not to be done in this discussion. Kindly stick to statements you can prove with sources, not "your words".

Hangakiran (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste the day bickering about this with you, you're obviously set in your campaign to keep this misleading article and the rationale supporting it. To clarify, this is my third post on this page, so you were not in fact replying to me. Carry on "answering" if you will, but expect to lose all your remaining credibility when you're manipulating info with sophistry. As for me answering all your claims, including about how Vice-Mayors are "somebodies" including in provincial cities, or how Boros' office is notable in itself, or how google hits prove "bias" against Boros and for Olteanu, let me just end my interventions here with this note, that I was otherwise going to add to an earlier post: This is roughly similar to what Mr. Boros gets. And don't take my word for it: check out what a regional newspaper has to say about none other than Mr. Olteanu: "Viceprimarul Romeo Olteanu, un anonim pentru ieseni. Iesenii nu stiu cine este si ce activitate desfasoara viceprimarul Romeo Olteanu. Un sondaj realizat in perioada ianuarie - martie 2010 pe un esantion de 1474 de persoane arata ca 63% dintre subiecti nu au cunostinta despre cine este si ce face acest edil." ("Vice-Mayor Radu Olteanu, an anonymous man as far as the people of Iaşi care. The people of Iaşi have no clue who Vice-Mayor Romeo Olteanu is and what his field of activity is supposed to cover. A poll carried out in January-March 2010 among 1,474 people shows that 63% of those interviewed have no clue about who this official is and what he supposedly does.") Tolle, lege. Dahn (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please stop using words like "bickering" and "manipulating info with sophistry". I am set in nothing but to defend as rationally as possible, yes. I have a right to answer to posts which I find unfair. A poll showing Romeo Olteanu as not known to people in Iasi does not mean the same applies to Janos Boros. You logic seems to run like A is a fruit, B is a Fruit and if A is rotten as a consequence so is B. This is logical fallacy. Hangakiran (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, my logic is: rotten or not, both A and B are fruits. Since you claimed that the Romanian fruit is more exposed, let's note that the allegedly more exposed fruit is still anonymous among his fellow Iaşi folk! Dahn (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• My claim was that Romeo Olteanu who has held office fo rjust 1.5 years, irrespective of whether he is popular among his people or not, gets more mileage than Janos Boros who has been at the helm of Hungarian Politics in Cluj County for nearly 12 years on the Adevarul. This was to show how skewed news reportage in Romanian media is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangakiran (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's why your claim is special pleading. Dahn (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

*Your claiming so does not make it one. You have to explain why? Hangakiran (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mengdi3wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Brand with no claim of significance or importance. Speedy deletion templates have been consistently removed by an IP Quasihuman (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It had been speedily deleted and recreated, but the creater/IP kept removing/changing the speedy deletetion templates that I placed on it. BurtAlert (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt for goodness sake! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Non-admin Close, result is keep. GB fan (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Actor with no evidence of notability WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 17:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant 16:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete no single reference, no single external link. Fails notability guideline.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Keep as referenced now.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral was in the core cast of Mr. Belvedere, a fairly major sitcom which lasted 6 seasons and over 100 episodes. Admittedly he doesn't seem to have done much else, but my gut instinct is that reliable sources probably exist which aren't easily accessed online. Neutral because I can't vote to keep an unreferenced BLP, but I'd gladly change to keep if sources are found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm with Starblind here. While a member of the main cast of a long-running show on a major network would normally be a slam-dunk keep, this article needs more sources before I can vote keep. I'm trying to find them now ... it'll be a hard slog, but I'm betting they're there. Blueboy96 22:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to meet WP:ENT based on his credit list. A GNews search on "Rob Stone" + Belvedere turns up enough potential sources to write an article from (even though there's admittedly very little recent, the most useful stuff would be late 80's profiles and such). Since one of the few things in the world I wouldn't rather do than watch Mr Belvedere is to read about the show, though, I'm not inclined to do that work myself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and his diligent WP:AFTER. What can be fixed, should be fixed... through regular editing. Schmidt, 22:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ugh, "keep" !votes on an unreferenced BLP with no sources offered? Fine, I'll source the thing myself. 28bytes (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that it's sourced. 28bytes (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep 28bytes added a couple of sources. I expanded the article and added four more sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - sourced and done.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Minimal participation, but no defenders after three weeks. It can obviously be restored if (and only if) someone can provide sources to establish notability. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Zvornik Theather Kapitalina Eric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:ORG. sources don't really establish notability. gets 1 gnews hit in cyrillic . LibStar (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose you could just prod it. A local amateur theater, probably fails WP:ORG, and needs a short mentioning in Zvornik. The late actress Kapitalina Erić herself appears to deserve a page based on those refs. So delete or refactor into a stub about the actress. No such user (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BigDom 17:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 21:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Contested PROD. This is a completely unsourced neologism. The term was coined only last month, but the book cited as a reference was published in 1994, and none of the external links provided mentions it. A search finds a number of uses in the internet, all in identical words e.g. here, attributed to "Angela-May Worthington, Senior Staff writer, SSEC" (the organization where the term was originated), and all dated 5 March, the same date this article was input, and almost certainly the same source. If speedy-deleted as a copyright violation, it is likely that a copyright release would be made, so it seems to me better to bring it straight here.

The undeletion request suggested that the term should actually be "Phychopsema" and there are references to that, e.g. here, also attributed to SSEC. It appears that even the spelling of the word is not yet settled.

Per WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Knowledge to increase usage of the term...To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term... Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Knowledge."

This is not yet even in wide use. It is not Knowledge's job to help a campaign to establish it. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as the reference clearly has nothing to do with the neologism itself. Maybe at some point in the future, this will be ready for Knowledge, but as of now clearly fails WP:NEO. Kansan (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide extensive coverage of the term. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEO, etc. --joe decker 21:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong delete - for all the reasons stated, not to mention a serious case of WP:SOAPBOX. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive switch theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable theory. Zero hits on Google Scholar, just one mention in Google Books which incidentally does not agree with what the article says. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete – I could find no references with regards to this term. At best this is another expression for core gender identity which redirects to Gender Identity. Without even one reference, I couldn’t even propose a redirect. Thanks ShoesssS 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BigDom 20:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. If this was a notable theory, it would have resulted in more than a single hit on Google book search and Google scholar search combined. The only source given when the article was created was "Information directly retreived from class lectures". That is not a verifiable source, and it is entirely possible that the editor who created this article (which thus far has been their only edit on Knowledge) misunderstood and misremembered what was presented in class.  --Lambiam 23:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  Addendum. Actually, there are three hits for on Google book source. Unfortunately, all are "snippet view" – not enough to see what they give as source for this theory, and also not enough to see what the theory really is, but enough to see that the description in this Wikpedia article is seriously off the mark. I still recommend deletion, without prejudice – if someone can produce a verifiable article on this topic, it is fine with me (although a brief paragraph in Gender identity seems more plausible for this at best marginally notable theory).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

EncoreBassing (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 fails to address WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT and after searching GNews and GBooks to find no matches and Google in general to find only circular references, forum matches and download sites, there seems little prospect of this being addressed in the near future. PROD removed previously so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BigDom 20:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - unreferenced; as above, no coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Dialectric (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Rehan Khan Bugti (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 biography. Zero hits on Google News, Scholar; a few mentions on Google Books. Unreferenced for over 4 years. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. No content. If the information is missing from the article on the father then just merge in to his father's article.  Nipsonanomhmata  21:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable sources, no article. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - a classic case of WP:ITSA and WP:INHERITED. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ladyfly (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 invention. Article cites 11 references, 9 of which were written by the leader of the project, Professor Alberto Rovetta. The 10th is a report written in collaboration with Rovetta. The 11th, a conference in which Rovetta was a speaker (the reference is only used to verify the dimensions of the robot). A Google News Search and a Google News Archive Search return no result. The only claim of independent and reliable coverage is of a CCTV report that simply showed "the robot in motion for several minutes" and then cites references that have nothing to do with CCTV. If I had to guess, it's a self-published piece. OlYeller 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable due to a lack of third-party sources. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note - The author of the article has added another reference from the NYT. The article does not mention Ladyfly by name (is not significant coverage of the subject) so in my opinion, the notability of the subject has not changed. OlYeller 14:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, no significant third-party coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu /_c 18:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sybase MobiLink (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 software. Only a few passing mentions at Google Books, Scholar Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with Sybase. This is about a database synchronization tool - sounds like fun, eh? At any rate, the closest thing I was able to find to a source for this is an offhand mention in a tech blog, which seems to indicate rather clearly that this is a small part of another product; and this, a "sys-con" story from a website that solicits user written stories, that also indicates that it is part of another product and was included starting with a specific version. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete- no refs, no evidence of notability apart from sybase, as above. Dialectric (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE, however weakly. postdlf (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Carmeli's cosmological relativity (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:FRINGE. Describes a one-author theory with virtually no citations in the mainstream literature. Bm gub (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Bm gub (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Weak delete - not entirely non-notable, see . Bearian (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Bearian's evidence. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me comment on that. I did a search like this before AfD'ing. Note that several of these are well-known fringe/crackpot journals (Foundations of Physics Letters), and several more are unpublished ArXiV preprints or unrefereed conference talks (see Knowledge:Reliable_source_examples#arXiv_preprints_and_conference_abstracts). The only one with any claim to be a mainstream refereed journal is Int. J. Theor. Phys., and that one has attracted citations only from Carmeli himself and his coauthors---and the citations are nowhere except, again, the ArXiV, Foundations of Physics again, "Creation" (!!), and ITJP again. If this were a notable theory, you'd be seeing citations from review articles, observers, etc., in journals like ApJ. Bm gub (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear, too: the theory is pure junk science, but it has gotten some press, just not enough to pass WP:FRINGE. This is a borderline case. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Murry Hope (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 clear how this person meets WP:BIO, appears to be a promotional article. Of the references present in the article, 3 are to this person's book. 1 is to "Healing Energies Center" website, remainder are to books which appear to mention the subject only in passing. RadioFan (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - This biography (Murry Hope) supposedly meets the criteria for notability WP:BIO Any biography (2) and WP:BIO Creative professionals (1) and (3) and perhaps others. Some reasons: This woman author published nearly 30 books and had translations in several languages making contributions (in her field) along all her life.
  

This biographic article never intended be promotional for anyone, besides (until now) was not possible to determine if the author still is alive or not (may be others editors can provide this information). I have created this article seeking only to fill a missing piece in Knowledge.

As for the references they supply all that was reported in the article (every sentence). The article has full consistence but of course always can be improved with more contributions (and new references) by wiki-editors. Hour of Angels (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete There are no notable third-party sources, and I was unable to find any. If all the sentences were pulled directly from the sources (as Hour of Angels suggested) then there is also a possible copyright issue as well. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ops, better elucidating then: “Every sentence, in the article was edited distinct of the sources for not exiting copyright issues, (only the information provide from these sources)”. Besides the WP:BIO appoint that in the case of notable persons this comply sufficient encyclopedic suitability. Well, it’s up to you, I just hope you decide the best to Knowledge but remember one thing: All you are deciding keep or not the memories and deeds of a remarkable old lady writer (may be dead). I would like but I can’t afford go back to this discussion any more. So, good luck.Hour of Angels (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment From what I can tell there is no copyright issue, but the sources themselves are not reliable as per the guidelines. If the article stays, it will require major changes to correct grammar. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. This "lady" has received no attention whatsoever from third-party reliable sources, and fails WP:GNG. Totally promotional article. --NellieBly (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Murry Hope article has been improved with reliable secondary and third-party references (after those earlier comments).177.24.65.174 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — 177.24.65.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment I see only 1 reference being added and it is of similarly questionably reliability.--RadioFan (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - seems to have adequate third-party referencing within her field. Occultists typically don't get a lot of mainstream press and typically have to be judged by their publications and references within the occult field. Occultists with multiple books published by reputable occult publishers such as Weiser, Llewellyn, etc. (full publication data should be added to the bibliography to help support this) and whose works are cited in other occult works published by reputable occult publishers are typically considered notable within the field of occultism. (Google scholar results show that her works are so cited in other publications.) When the strict interpretation of notablity standards would exclude most people from a whole field except those who "act out" (such Aleister Crowley or Anton LaVey) and get their antics written up in the papers, then one has to rely on common sense and relative notability in their field. Just because the field is fringey doesn't mean that all subjects connected with the field are automatically non-notable. An author with 26 books over 18 years, with some republications and new editions, is certainly notable, even if there is not much detailed biographical information available. I remember The Way of Cartouche and it was available in mainstream bookstores, which tends to support the notability of the author. St. Martins Press is certainly a reputable publisher. We are not talking about a self-published corpus here. Yworo (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep The article could use some work, but the subject seems notable and time should be given to improve it rather than shooting it down right away. Rosencomet (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep, if The article is badly written and poorly sourced. She writes about the occult and the presses her "books" are "published" by are mostly so minor you cannot find them. Perhaps some are self-published. One book by her, Practical Egyptian Magic, was published by "St. Martin's Griffin", a real publisher. The other solid factor in favor of keeping is that, if the footnotes are to be trusted, she appears to have been mentioned in books about the contemporary occult by real publishers (Brill, Rowman & Littlefield). If this is sufficient to establish notability, then Keep, I suppose.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the publication data to the bibliography. None of the publishers are vanity presses: Aquarian Press, Elements Books and Thoth Publications are all small but independent occult/new age presses. Even The College of Psychic Studies seems to be independent and not associated with the subject. Thorsons is now part of HarperCollins. Yworo (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. Player is injured and he will not play in 100 games before the end of this season. Onthegogo (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Turnbull's entry-level contract expires after this season, and his record in the minors is undistinguished; this is exactly the point where many a young player retires from the game. No prejudice to recreation if he does decide to play next season and some AHL team's willing to sign him.  Ravenswing  21:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. BigDom 14:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wilbär (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 polar bear. Damiens.rf 19:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. A quick google search shows coverage from institutions such as the BBC, The Guardian, Der Spiegel etc. Clearly meets notability requirements. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Extensive news coverage, continuing after his transfer to the Swedish zoo. I have added a little more info and 3 more references.--Yngvadottir (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Extensive news coverage Agathoclea (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In Astronomy the only one available characteristic empirical physical constant is the gravitational constant. Without completing the charge-mass unification or final unification: one cannot say, whether it is an ‘input to the unification’ or ‘output of unification’. The same idea can be applied to the atomic physical constants also. Sitting in a grand unified roof one cannot make an ‘absolute measurement’ but can make an ‘absolute finding’. Till today no atomic model implemented the gravitational constant in the atomic or nuclear physics. Then, whatever may be its magnitude, measuring its value from existing atomic principles is impossible. Its value was measured in the lab within a range of 1 cm to 1 meter only where as the observed nuclear size is 1.2 fermi. Until one measures the value of the gravitational constant in microscopic physics, the debate of strong (nucler) gravity can be considered positively. The idea of strong gravity originally referred specifically to mathematical approach of Abdus Salam of unification of gravity and quantum chromodynamics, but is now often used for any particle level gravity approach. Now many persons are working on this subject. The main advantage of this subject is: it couples Black hole physics and Particle physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.205.121 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong gravitational constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

nominator changes to keep/improve WP:FRINGE. Article cites one utterly non-notable mainstream reference (Sivaram & Sinha 1977, cited 10 times 1978-1993, only twice by someone other than Sivaram or Sinha); two recognizable crackpot journals (cold fusion and Progress in Physics); and four articles apparently by User:fedosin himself. Oldershaw 2007 is in a dubious journal and has never been cited; moreover Oldershaw is a collaborator of Fedosin's and their joint work has been AfD'ed before (Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_Hierarchical_Nesting_of_Matter) Bm gub (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Bm gub (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the beginning of discussion. I have some remarks. First of all, Oldershaw only one author in Russian Knowledge article about Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, and the article is there some years.

In second shot list of references to Strong gravitational constant may be explained as the idea is only in recent time become more actual because of difficulties of Standard theory of particles.

You quite right when say about some of the references are not in very popular journals. But new ideas very seldom are published in popular journals if authors do not well-known. So on the base of discussion I feel it is necessary to add some other references in article Strong gravitational constant. Two of them are papers of Nobel Laureate in Physics Abdus Salam, and first of it with Sivaram C., mentioned above:

1. Salam A. and Sivaram C. Strong Gravity Approach to QCD and Confinement. Mod. Phys. Lett., 1993, v. A8(4), 321–326.
2. Strong Interactions, Gravitation and Cosmology. Abdus Salam Publ. in: NATO Advanced Study Institute, Erice, June16-July 6, 1972 ; in: High Energy Astrophysics and its Relation to Elementary Particle Physics, 441-452 MIT Press, Cambridge (1974).

I also added two papers of Recami (but he and coauthors has a lot also about the Strong gravitational constant):

1. Recami, E.; Ammiraju, P.; Hernandez, H.E.; Kretly, L.C.; Rodrigues, W.A., Jr. Elementary particles as micro-universes: a geometric approach to "strong gravity". Apeiron, January 01, 1997.
2. Recami E. and Tonin-Zanchin V. The strong coupling constant: its theoretical derivation from a geometric approach to hadron structure. Found. Phys. Lett., 1994, v, 7(1), 85–92.

I also added two papers (see article Strong gravitational constant about it):

1. Stone R.A. Quark Confinement and Force Unification. Progress in Physics, April 2010, Vol. 2, P. 19–20.
2. Perng J. J. Strong gravitation and elementary particles. Nuovo Cimento, Lettere, Serie 2, vol. 23, N. 15, 1978, p. 552-554.

Fedosin (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input Fedosin. However, you have just supplied links to a set of well-known WP:FRINGE journals. Progress in Physics and Apeiron are both in . Until t'Hooft took over, Foundations of Physics was just as bad.

Nuovo Cimento is highly variable and historically has published lots of nonsense. Let's look at the particular document you cite: It's from an author with no other published work whatsoever. It's cited only once, and only by Singh, and in a way that doesn't really use any of its conclusions. (It's mentioned as one of two papers that make a similar choice of ansatz.) Your links seem to support, not refute, my impression that "Strong gravity" is a non-notable topic, pursued 20 years ago by a small number of non-mainstream physicists; and that it was barely publishable even at the time and is certainly forgotten now.

What would help would be a *mainstream review article* citing these papers and explaining their context, but clicking through citation-links I find no evidence that any such article exists. Bm gub (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK The Salam article is a different story. This is an obviously non-fringe author, and it leads to actual citations that continue---many in a fringe-y way, but not all---into the present day. This is enough to convince me to withdraw the AfD. Change to keep. Fedosin, I think the article could be improved to reflect Salam's involvement, and the actual status of those ideas in the cited literature---and please be so kind as to deemphasize your own (uncited, non-mainstream) papers, however important they are to you. Bm gub (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• From the discussion it is seen that in Knowledge must be the list of journals which are named bad for references. In your opinion in the article are WP:FRINGE journals. May be it so. But in WP:FRINGE I do not find the list of such journals. It leads to subjectivity, no to objectivity in discussions about quality of references.

You quite right in that "Strong gravity" is a little-notable topic and is not in mainstream. May be anyone ready to write a *mainstream review article* on the topic. But it will very hard for me since I do not believe in modern Standard Model. The reason for it - it is the first physical theory, which have so many – about 19 unexplained parameters. I do not find in the Model viable and universal mechanism of strong forces.

My own references were limited only to explain the texts. May be it is possible to do in another way. If it necessary other users of Knowledge can edit according to the rules. Fedosin (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The fringe list is linked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Fringe_science_journals. (I tried to link to this earlier but did it wrong.)

It does not matter whether you believe in the standard model or not. For the purposes of Knowledge, you should be editing in a well-balanced and encyclopedic way that reflects the knowledge of the *field*, not that reflects your own personal views. If you want to argue against the standard model and in favor of "strong gravity", please do so in the refereed science journals---and allow Knowledge to report when your views have become notable there. Bm gub (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK. Fedosin (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would replace this article with a more "encyclopedic" Bi-scale Gravity article. BEGIN SUGGESTED ARTICLE

Bi-scale Gravity

Bi-Scalar Gravity is a (non-mainstream) theoretical approach to particle confinement originally suggested by Einstein where there is a cosmological scale gravity and a particle scale gravity. In the 1960's, it was taken up as an alternative to the then young QCD theory by several notable theorist including Salam (Strong Gravity) , Recami (Bi-metric Gravity) , and others. Both Salam and Recami showed that the particle level gravity approach produced confinement and asymptotic freedom, while not requiring a new force behavior (vs. 1/r) as does QCD. Sivaram gives a review of the various potentials of the strong /bi-metric gravity approach. The term Strong Gravity originally referred specifically to Salam's mathematical approach, but is now often used for any particle level gravity approach. The notations used for strong gravity are not consistent but vary with the author (e.g. _sG, G_s, Γ). A basic attraction of a particle level gravity approach, in addition to not requiring a new force behavior, is that it solves the Hierarchical Problem , results in a force unification at the particle level , and gives a reason for the Reggie trajectory like pattern of particle masses .

String theory and the Hierarchical Problem Although string theory has had success in producing the magnitude of other particle forces, it has grossly failed to produce the value of cosmological gravity. One solution given by Arkani-Hamed and Antoniadis, was to have strings of two scales differing by about 10^19. With this they were able to produce the cosmological gravity constant (an inter-scale value). As pointed out by Arkani-Hamed and P.Caldirola, M.Pavsic & E.Recami a multi-scalar approach also solves the Hierarchical Problem. Note that in this bi-string theory approach the inter-scale gravity value is a constant because it reflects the difference in the two scales. Thus "intra-scale gravity" value is not required to be constant .

Various Approaches Different authors have treated the role of the particle level gravity in a different manor. The main differences are scope (confinement only, confinement + other effects like nuclear force or the weak force) and properties (constant, variable, sourced). For example Salem only treats confinement while Recami treats confinement and associated strong coupling constant and the mass states bottomonium and charmonium. Stone treats confinement and based on a strong gravity suggestion by Sivaram makes a connection to the weak angle. Some move outside of confinement to associate strong gravity with other particle properties. Oldershaw and Stone connect it to the proton radius, Seshavatharam and Lakshminarayana connect strong gravity to the Fermi constant and nuclear binding energy, J. Dufour to the interaction of two deuterium nuclei. All of these approaches result in strong gravity values in the range of about 10 m kg s with a variation about this value of ~ 10. Most authors treat particle level gravity as a constant while Stone treats _sG_xm_x (x=p, e, μ etc.) as a constant where the strong gravity source is the particle’s energy (spin angular momentum energy). Just as charge and spin couple to give the fsc (e^2/.5 ћc), Stone couples the constant _sG_xm_x and spin (.5 ћc/_sG_xm_x) to give a charged weak angle values of .2344 vs. the PDG value of .2312 This also means there is a unification of forces at the particle level.

END ARTICLE (references not included here for "brevity" but available)

In this way the basic concepts would not be lost while highlighting some of the areas of application. Other references to some of the main information (e.g. other references to Reggie trajectory behavior) by other authors can be added if applicable. If acceptable to others replacing the strong gravity article with this or similar bi-scale gravity article would be fine with me. --Robert a stone jr (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G12 by Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri 19:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The operating system of the brain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

essay, original research WuhWuzDat 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom 14:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

List of manual labour tasks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

List of 'manual labour' jobs - potentially endless list as even a CEO will carry his briefcase and manually sign documents with a pen. Peridon (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)}}

• Delete Obvious joke page (fluffer, anyone)? From the same user that brought you the List of fictional animal-powered transport. Sweet Zombie Jesus. Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually fluffer was my proposal, check the talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I created the list with the fictional animal-powered transport in order to offload these from Animal powered transport where they had been mixed in. By creating the list of the fictional ones I ensured that nobody got offended. --hulagutten (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and gently (or firmly) caution user against creating similar would-be joke pages in the future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and recommend that the user consider taking their talents to someplace like The Onion instead of Knowledge. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I believe the user is genuine and this is not a joke page. Check the discussing on the talkpage after he declined my prod. As Peridon argues this is really just a list of all potential physical actions, which is far too general a scope too be of any use. Yoenit (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I pinched the idea from your prod, actually. I've been trying to think of a job that doesn't involve manual action (in the definition used in the article, as opposed to heavy labouring like a navvy). The only one I can think of the case of Stephen Hawking, but that's him not the job as such and he has people to do the physical part. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep From what I gather, the arguments for deleting the page are:

1. The list is not useful. 2. The list will be too long.

With regards to the usefulness of the page I have described the following usecases for the list in the discussion of the article: - It can help people with disabilities to see all the manual labour tasks they will still be able to perform - Respect for all the types of manual labour tasks performed and the skills needed for doing them. This is especially important in western countries where manual labour is considered to be low status work - It can help in the discussion of what kinds of tasks it would be useful for robots to automate - It helps answering the question: "I know there are 1 million employees in Denmark, but what do they actually do all day?". The answer is probably that they do a mixture of the items on this list.

With regards to the length of the page I honestly do not believe that the list will be unreasonably long. The first category is "handling", which includes the majority of manual work undertaken in modern factories and back-office functions (paper handling). If one includes "typing", I believe that we have covered around 30% of the time spent in the service and production sector. The point is to not make "typing on a typewriter" into a manual labour task, but rather generalize it into "typing". If we generalize like this, my guess is that the list will contain 200 items if it was ever to be completed.

If I am wrong and the actual number of activities is 1000, then it could easily be split into separate pages. Another list I created was list of emerging technologies, which has more than 1k viewers per day and has grown considerably from when I started it. I have proposed to split it up, and it probably will when it gets too long.

It is though important to note that the point of the list is not to have all the activities listed, just having the majority would be interesting reading. It would therefore not be inaccurate when it is not finished (I have marked it as a stub because of this). This is, however, Knowledge and not some minor publication, I believe we are capable of completing this list over time. Please, keep it.--hulagutten (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete this is practically a random collection of stuff. Roger (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Tasks of this kind have been classified and analysed by researchers and bodies such as the Department of Labor. For example, see Handbook for analyzing jobs which classifies such tasks as setting up, feeding/off-bearing, &c. Analyses of this kind are therefore notable and should be improved rather than deleted per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your competent support. I viewed the book you referenced, but exactly page 235 was not available for viewing, the page before and after was however. --hulagutten (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Pointless list of nearly infinite length: talking, walking, running, jumping, eating, drinking, sleeping, taking pills (medical research subject), scratching someone else's itchy ass (personal care assistant), wiping said ass, watching TV, reading, writing, typing, sweeping floors, polishing floors, vacuuming floors, installing floors, removing flooring, measuring for flooring (which is actually bending over + kneeling + lifting (measuring tape) + putting down (measuring tape) + looking (at measuring tape)...), oh fluffing (I think we should separate out hand, and tongue work, and sucking and blowing on this one), fucking/being fucked, ... - SummerPhD (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and include a reference to the aforementioned Handbook in Manual labor. Regarding SummerPhD's comments, "tongue work" is lingual labor. Only "hand work" is manual. And I'll keep my tongue in my own cheek. Ma_chups 02:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Come on, folks, this is clearly a joke. Listing "killing" and "demolishing" as manual labor tasks? Listing "executioner" as an example of someone who carries out medical service? Listing "carrier" as an example of someone who carries, and "cleaner" as an example of someone who cleans? Looking at the history this may have started life as a straightforward article, but it certainly isn't one now. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

This article appears to be about a Sunday league 6 a side squad with no notability (small notability for manager, but notability is not inherited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennydigital (talk • contribs)

• Delete The club needs its own pages, perhaps using somebody's free webspace from their ISP, and even its own domain would not be expensive. The editor of this article would be a good person to run it. But sadly Knowledge isn't the right place, because not only are there rules about which teams qualify for an article but Knowledge requires a neutral point of view. AJHingston (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - low-level team, no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - very non-notable club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete As non-notable as it can possibly get. Argyle 4 Life 10:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, no reliable sources to establish much notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 15:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.theshriek.net/odo.01.html.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

This article was clearly written by a family member as a tribute to a loved one. While this is a nice gesture, Knowledge is not the place for it. Unless reputable sources are provided in support of the subject's importance, this article must be deleted as a vanity project. - historianofart talk) 07:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Fixed nom by completing Step III (add nom to AfD log). Please close seven days after 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Advertising company. Notability is based on other advertising company rankings. Looking for consensus on this from other editors. Golgofrinchian (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Page has improved since nomination. It still should have an independent view of it so I am leaving the nomination.Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Since none of the references meet the notability guidelines. The 'Endeavour' and 'CrunchBase' references do not meet the depth of coverage guideline, whereas the 'Issues with Smowtion' and 'IMReportCard' reference do not meet the self published sources guideline. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, yet another global technology company which focuses on online advertising in Web 2.0 marketplaces. If this is "improved" I quail to think of what it was like before. Penalty of -25 notability points for "global" and -50 for "Web 2.0". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Sad to listen your thoughts on the article, nonetheless fail to find your pro-deleting comments on truly 'unacceptable' articles listed on List of advertising networks - namely ClickDiario Network, Chitika and Buysellads. Maybe it's you lacking of NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.231.34 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — 190.55.231.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have never made a secret of my opinion that almost every online business lacks the kind of enduring historic significance that would be needed to make them encyclopedia subjects. You also missed the AfD on WP:Articles for deletion/Buysellads, which I (predictably) think should be deleted as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Ihcoyc By re-reading what I did post, I realised I was rude unneccesarily. So I would like to apologise with you first of all. 190.55.231.34 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. The arguments below that this was a WP:POVFORK and a synthesis were substantive and not credibly rebutted. The mere fact that the article is sourced, really the best defense I see below, does not prove otherwise, as the very nature of the problem is that it sticks together bits that belong in other, already existing, articles, and I do not see a strong argument or consensus establishing that those sources treat this as a singular, coherent topic. Numerous merger targets for such bits, to the extent they are valid and sourced, have been noted in the discussion below, such as racism in the Arab world. I find completely unpersuasive and not consistent with policy the claim that this article is necessary to maintain NPOV because an Allegations of Israeli apartheid article exists; each topic must be evaluated on its own terms and according to what reliable sources report, without regard to our own subjective notions of fairness within Knowledge. postdlf (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• This article discusses accusations of apartheid in the Arab world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of Arab Apartheid (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 functions as a WP:COATRACK for every negative action that the Arab world has ever been accused of. Just because a commentator uses the word "apartheid" does not make the criticisms similar. Moreover, how can one Arab group (the Bahraini or Lebanese governments) practice "apartheid" against another Arab group (i.e. Shiites in Bahrain or Palestinians in Lebanon). It totally misconstrues the notion of what apartheid was. TM

Nonesense. If some Israeli Mizrachi/Arabic Jews are "blamed" for "racism" against Arabs... so can this be. The fact is that there's Arab discrimination against Arab-Palestinians is undisputed. there's NO COATRACK here, there are several well sourced articles that many Arab systems are accused of.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

namiba TM, "Never been accused of"? Excuse me??? How about in the Arab apartheid accusations already in the 1980s by the organization fighting for Mauritanians' rights. see my comment at the bottom.--Doogielien (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Clear case of WP:NeenerNeener in response to Accusations of Israeli Apartheid, or whatever the article was titled. Pointy original research. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not true. What is OR here by citing the sources that specifically state apartyheid accusations?Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Words have specific origins, then their use broadens. Apartheid is an Afrikaans word coined in the specific conditions of South Africa. Today, however, apartheid is used in political discourse when one group is perceived to relegate another group into an inferior legal status. Gender apartheid, for example, is widely discussed, with no racial connotation. As is Israel and the apartheid analogy; the divide between Israelis and Arabs is certainly not racial, it is ethno/religious. Many students of Africa, including the distinguished George Ayittey see the treatment of the people of Darfur by the Arab government and dominant ethnie of Sudan as a form of Apartheid, Ayittey also applies the term to Mauritania. Nicholas Kristof sees an analogy to apartheid in the treatment of the discriminated against Shia majority by the Sunni ruling class of Bahrain. The distinguished Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh sees apartheid in the official Lebanese denial to Palestinian refugees not only of citizenship, but of the right to purchase real estate, hold jobs, or be admitted to hospitals, despite the fact that fully three generations of these families have been born and reared on Lebanese soil. This article admittedly needs significant expansion. As the sections about, for example, the practice of apartheid against the Coptic Christians of Egypt is improved and expanded, it could have a separate article , as gender apartheid does. What the sections have in common with one another and with apartheid era South Africa is the practice in a large number of Arab societies of essentializing individuals, of defining groups by ascribed status (Christian, Shia, Palestinian, women, marsh Arabs, non Arab) and denying all members of the group rights enjoyed by members of the dominant group in a society which may, in Bahrain as it was in South Africa, be a ruling minority.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Lots more material is available on this topic. In particular, google: sudan Darfur arab apartheid. Many scholars and journalists have described the pan-Arab nature of support for the apartheid-like policies of the Sudanese government discrimination against non-Arab Sudanese citizens.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

well said.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Tentative Keep - There are sources, and the terminology is not unfitting, and has been used by sources (in both the Israeli and Arab cases). However, this is going to be an NPOV nightmare, so while it seems a credible article, I wouldn't be sad if it goes! Bennydigital (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NPOV. The criticism that some Arabs are racist has been made in reliable sources—and we have an article for it (Racism in the Arab world). The criticism that some Arabs are sexist has also been made in reliable sources, and our article for that is called Women in Arab societies. Last thing we need is a content fork.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about racism. It is about social, economic and legal inferiority imposed on a racially indistinguishable group by the governing group. Like the Lebanese laws that bar Palestinians from owning property.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Racism in the Arab world covers an array of forms of intolerance against non-Arab groups, minorities in the middle east and Arab rule on Africans."—first sentence of Racism in the Arab world, as of the time of typing. This is clearly in scope.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What an odd opening sentence. The article itself begins and continues with extensive documentation of "old fashioned" hated of and discrimination against people with very dark skin in the Arab world. By contrast, I found the term Arab apartheid being used to deal with discrimination against people of the same skin color and physical type, but different identity, i.e. Egyptian Arab apartheid against Egyptian Copts. Lebanese Arab apartheid against Palestinian Arabs. Sunni apartheid against Shia in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The concept of apartheid is distinguishable from that of racism, there are, for example, articles about both Jim Crow laws and Racism in the United States.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh so you mean this is a fork of Religious intolerance as well. Passionless -Talk 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When Sunni Arabs in Lebanon pass laws against Sunni Palestinians in Lebanon it is not religious intolerance. And don't look now, but the black-skinned people being killed by Arabs in Darfur are Muslim.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Evidence of apartheid in Mauritania is also damning, and practiced by Arab Muslims against black African Muslims.

• Delete So a few people used the word apartheid instead of racist or discrimatory, these few acts should be added to their respective article rather than creating a content fork. Things like "Lebanese laws that bar Palestinians from owning property." are common in most nations of the world like how Mexican laws bar Americans from owning property. Passionless -Talk 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is in fact uncommon for a group that legally resided in a country for three generations to be forbidden to buy property, hold a job, or get hospital care because their great-great-grandparents were born in a specific country. The Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are in a fairly unique position.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Luckily that's all irrelevant to this discussion and my reason that this article needs to be deleted is still WP:POVFORK. Passionless -Talk 23:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

*Keep Supported by reliable sources, here and here. Article meets basic requirements, editors should be wary of SYNTH and OR. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, do you realize that those are both opinion columns and therefore not reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Malik, the reliability of source is not necessarily dependent on how information is delivered (editorial). The first source is an editorial, but it is still hosted by a reliable news organization. Israel and the apartheid analogy is dominated by editorials and opinion pieces (by experts and notable persons of course). See WP:NEWSORG. Mainstream writers and experts have compared numerous Arab governments to the South African apartheid state as well as apartheid-style governments in general. This is notable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has questioned notability, the problem with the article is inherent WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. Passionless -Talk 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

::What is this a POV fork of Passion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Women in Arab societies, Racism in the Arab world, and Religious intolerance. Passionless -Talk 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Malik is absolutely wrong, of course jpost is reliable. any accusations of apartheid on Israel or about others, is an "opinion." So what? If you object that it's Malik's personal opinion again.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Israel and the apartheid analogy is a lousy article but at the very least it is a topic that has generated significant attention and controversy (c.f. Carter's book). I don't see the use of the term apartheid to describe certain practices in the Arab world as being nearly notable enough to warrant an article. The issues covered in this article (which are encyclopedic) should be covered in Racism in the Arab world or, say, Discrimination in the Arab world. GabrielF (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete , per GabrielF . Seems like a WP:POINT response to Israel and the apartheid analogy. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a brazen attempt to restore the substance of the "Allegations of apartheid" page, which was deleted a while ago. CJCurrie (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I've amended my comments, although I still believe very strongly that this page should be deleted. See below. CJCurrie (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Further comment I think Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) this page may be of some relevance to the present discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree; I've added a template taken from that page and updated so that the links to previous AfDs are readily available. There definitely seems to be a bit of a history with this and similar pages. Prioryman (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Rename or Merge. At the moment, this article is a bit of a synthesis - it has plenty of sources demonstrating that allegations of apartheid have indeed been made against Arab countries, but few about the phenomenon of 'Arab apartheid' as such, suggesting that collecting these instances into one article may not be justified. I would be more happy with it if the scope were broadened to include non-Arab countries, and it were renamed to something like Apartheid outside South Africa; or alternatively if it were merged into the article Racism in the Arab world. The content here is worth keeping, but not in the way it's currently presented. Robofish (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete , per applicant.--Severino (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• I was not aware that there had been previous pages about Arab apartheid deleted from Knowledge. The debates are interesting, but they are also ancient history. As far as I can tell, the last of them was deleted in July 2008. The application of the term "apartheid" to the mistreatment of ethnic minorities or majorities by the governing group does date back to about 1990, but as near as I can tell it has only become widely popular since about 2010. I only first heard it used quite recently, I think it was in a Nick Kristof column. The idea caught my eye because it fit with what I already knew about, for example, the abuse of Christians in Egypt, Iraq and Syria. To me, apartheid is a reasonable analogy. In the process of writing this article, I would say that it was a series of hard hitting articles using the phrase "Arab apartheid" by Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh beginning in the spring of 2010 that popularized the concept of Arab apartheid. He wrote 2 such articles in 2010 and another just this month. "Apartheid" has been used to accuse Arab regimes of abusing minority groups by such distinguished people as former Canadian Minister of Justice Irwin Cotler, professors George Ayittey, Koigi wa Wamwere and Alan Dershowitz, and by journalists including Nicholas Kristof, Ben-Dror Yemini, Rami Khouri and Irshad Manji. You may agree or disagree with the analogy being made between the way Arab governments treat disfavored groups and apartheid, but denying that the analogy is being made regularly, by distinguished people, in major periodicals (The Economist) and in serious articles and books is like denying that the tide is coming in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. But the Economist doesn't have a policy called Neutral Point of View.—S Marshall T/C 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

*The Economist is a reliable source. The title of the article suits the content it is based on. Notable figures are drawing parallels between apartheid policies and Arab governments. This is precisely what Israel and the apartheid analogy revolves around - a long survey of people who claim Israel is/isn't an apartheid state. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand the (many) problems with Israel and the apartheid analogy. I don't think the answer to that article is to create a counterarticle, though.—S Marshall T/C 01:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

*If the article is a response to Israel and the apartheid analogy, the content and quality of the sources remain unchallenged. Knowledge is predicated on not simply neutrality but balance. It is a reasonable to create an article about allegations of Arab apartheid if reliable sources exist to support it. There is even more reason if another article exists (precedent) that includes identical claims. Whether or not the original author has an agenda is simply irrelevant. We should AGF naturally. IMO, I think the title of the article is suspect. Arab is an ethnic and social identity, not a government. We don't have Allegations of Jewish/Turkish/Kurd apartheid. Assuming this AFD is revolved, I would support a speedy move to something like Allegations of apartheid in Arab governments or Muslim governments/nations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• QUESTION? I understood form the notice box that it was permissible to edit the page while this argument goes forward. I have expanded the article (the evidence that Arab Apartheid is a significant idea seems to me extensive and valid, I hope people writing on this page will read the article objectively) I also put links to Accusations of Arab Apartheid on relevant pages. I understood this to be standard practice on Knowledge. An individual named CJCurrie who has asked that this page be taken down has on March 22 at 23:33 taken all of the links down excepting only the link to the page on Apartheid in Israel. Is this correct behavior? A scholar like George Ayittey who has made accusations that Arab governments in Mauritania and the Sudan practice apartheid against non-Arab Muslim citizens can surely be linked to this page.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that User:I.Casaubon tagged several articles with links to Accusations of Arab Apartheid and that I subsequently removed these. This is not in any way contrary to policy or past practice, particularly when the article in question is of dubious quality. Readers should also note that I did not delete Ayittey's accusations against Mauritania and Sudan; I only removed a link and changed the wording.

I didn't realize there was still a link on the Israel page, btw. CJCurrie (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - the individual sections are probably all notable, but connecting them all for being in the Arab world even though they're otherwise unrelated is far too much of a synthesis. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why they're not connected.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment LMFAO. Article looks good. If Israel can be accused of apartheid then ti is fun to see the Arabs accused of it. The only thing that should stand in the way of an article is if a source does not connect Arabs with apartheid but only individual countries. From what I have seen, some sources say "Oh noes: Israel apartheid. Oh yeah, well they say Arabs do it, too". That makes me lean towards keep. On second thought is good enough for me. This is just a preliminary search and it shows some biased sources but for sure some RS. It is a topic discussed by a significant amount of independent sources. GNG is fulfilled. Keep an eye on it to make sure it does not become a POV coatrack (same should have been done for the Israel one but editors have tunnel vision). GNG is GNG even if it is just a stub and the garbage is riped out. Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  "If Israel can be accused of apartheid then ti is fun to see the Arabs accused of it" is precisely the kind of mentality that makes this topic area a hostile battleground. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  It is funny. If you do not see he humor in it then I don't know what to tell you. But regardless of any mentality or POV: GNG is GNG. Sucks, huh?Cptnono (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep FWIW, I agree with a lot of the criticisms of the current version of the article, but I think that the notability of the topic has been established. I think that it would be possible to re-write this to solve the NPOV and SYNTH issues. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - A synthesized mess of an attack article, apparently created to serve as some sort of pointy counter-balance to Israeli apartheid, and article still on the hit-list of many, many POV warriors. I really don't see why we allow the continued recreation of the same material under slightly different article titles. Honestly, delete this, salt it, and take the proponents to WP:AE; this disruption has been tolerated long enough. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand! Wide noteriety for Arab apartheid (A quick google search shows that too). this is not as TM tries to suggest about "every negative action," but about clear cut apartheid features, and this info about oppression in Arab countries with clear discriminatory practices/laws resembling apartheid is much more facts based than the pseudo claims of "apartheid" on democratic Israel fighting off attacks. Expand on: Syria VS oppressed Kurdish minority who are denied basic human rights, and on Gender Apartheid in Arab-Palestine. It is NOT included in 'Racism in Arab World' because it is also about Islamic Apartheid such as FreedomHouse accusing Saudi Arabia of religious apartheid, which is not race based. Moreover this is not charging officially Arab apartheid but citing claims of accusations of Arab Apartheid, fair enough. Disliking a page does NOT constitute an 'attack article."

comment Please provide a valid reason why this should not be stayed on, thank you.Maresi (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Note Maresi is an account created today...Passionless -Talk 18:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Note Passionless is baselessly attacking maresi, not to mention his "reliablity" contributions that show a standard anti-Israel bias.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. My position is that all these wp:coatrack (as nomintator puts it best) should be deleted. However, to the extent we have Israel and the apartheid analogy, per WP:NPOV we must have this article. Before anyone jumps all over me with wp:othercrapexists, let me explain. The Israel apartheid runs into the same coatrack and misconstruction that this article does. However, if that article is kept despite those deficiencies and passes the relevant Knowledge policies, there is very little to distinguish this article from the israel-apartheid article. Thus, this should be kept not due to wp:othercrapexists, but due to wp:gng and wp:npov.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV is not a zero-sum game, achieved by simply creating negative content to balance the positive, or in this case balancing a perceived negative article with the creation of another negative article. This approach to editing is generally held to be tendentious and has led to many blocks and bans from past ArbCom cases, both in this topic area and in others. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - You can always question the content of an article. But the content that are disputed can often be removed or re-written in a better way. I see no reason to delete the article in full. Also I am saying Keep per Brewcewers reasonings which is closest to the truth on this matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  Echoing an WP:OTHERCRAP argument by another user is probably not the most beneficial use of a !vote. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERCRAP doesnt apply to my valid Keep comment. But good try.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  Since that is precisely what brewcrewer argued...that he sees the same problems with the Israeli article, so if that is kept then this has to be kept as well...yea, it kinda does apply to your argument. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Per Tarc's arguments. NickCT (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To NickCTs comment WP:OTHERCRAP does really apply.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Further comment I think I should amend my previous comments on this discussion. When I first intervened, I said that Accusations of Arab Apartheid was an attempt to revive the "Allegations of Apartheid" fiasco from a few years ago. It now appears that I was mistaken on this point, and I will withdraw that comment. I will also attempt to provide further context to this discussion as based on past precedent; I hope that my remarks will considered in a fair light by other contributors and by whoever decides to close this debate.

The "apartheid" debates have a long, though not necessarily a noble, history on Knowledge. In 2006, the page currently known as Israel and the apartheid analogy was created. There were several attempts to delete the page during the first two years of its history, and I believe that many of these efforts were politically motivated. This notwithstanding, the page remained on the project and a consensus eventually developed that the subject was encyclopedic.

Let me be very clear on this point: when I say that Israel and the apartheid analogy deals with a subject of encyclopedic merit, I am neither endorsing the analogy nor suggesting that the reality or non-reality of "Israeli apartheid" should be the standard by which the page's suitability should be judged. Rather, the page has encyclopedic merit because there has been an extensive public debate on the subject. There are numerous volumes of academic literature on the subject, former Israeli cabinet ministers such as Yossi Sarid have endorsed the analogy, and Jimmy Carter's Palestine Peace not Apartheid brought the debate into a much wider sphere of discourse. Today, it's unlikely that any serious contributor to the Knowledge would dispute the suitability of a page on this topic, whatever specific issues they may have with Israel and the apartheid analogy in its current form.

For the same reason, Knowledge also has pages on Social apartheid, Social apartheid in Brazil, Gender apartheid, and so forth. These are also controversial and disputed topics, but there's a sufficient body of credible, secondary-source information to justify articles on all of them.

"Allegations of Apartheid" was a different matter entirely; it was essentially just a list of references to accusations of apartheid against different countries. Many of these references were based on very weak sources, and some were based on passing references in journalistic documents to apartheid-like conditions. It was a terrible entry -- not appropriate as a list page, and not suitable in its own terms. In other words, it was the definition of a coatrack.

The current page, Accusations of Arab Apartheid, is perhaps less bad in this respect than was "Allegations of Apartheid," but not by terribly much. It's based on a synthesis of various sources, not on sources that address the specific issue of "apartheid" in Arab states. Some of the sources are fairly weak here as well -- I've checked one of the George Attiyey articles referenced in it and discovered that the article mentions the words "Arab apartheid" only in passing, as part of a much longer comment on corruption and factionalism in governments all throughout Africa (see Talk:George Ayittey for details). I've removed the reference from the Ayittey article, as it was patently unsuitable.

In assessing the suitability of Accusations of Arab Apartheid, the only vital issue is this: is there a significant body of credible, sustained secondary sources (at least some of which should be scholarly) that address the issue of "apartheid in Arab states"? From what I can gather, the answer is "clearly not." There are several accusations made against specific states, but the number of sources looking at "apartheid in Arab states" is much smaller, and most of these would seem to be journalistic articles, often polemical and written for short-term consumption. The debate simply hasn't reached a critical level of discourse to justify this article, nor is it suitable as a "list page" for the individual countries in question.

It is possible that there's a level of discourse concerning "apartheid" in individual countries (such as Sudan, perhaps) to justify pages for those countries. If so, I will not object to the creation of those pages.

Some people have suggested that this article provides "balance" to the Israel and the apartheid analogy article. This reasoning is entirely contrary to the purpose of the project and to reliable past practice on this issue.

I should raise one further objection to this article: its title. Although Israel and the apartheid analogy deals with a very controversial topic, all sensible commentators on the subject will acknowledge that "the State of Israel" and "the Jewish people" are distinct concepts. Although many supporters of Israel regard the phrase "Israeli apartheid" as coded anti-Semitism, it is nonetheless not the same as "Jewish apartheid," which would be recognized by most people on all sides of the Israel-Palestine debate as a far worse phrase.

The same logic applies to the phrase "Arab apartheid." It's not uncommon for some of Israel's most vocal supporters to refer to "Islamic state apartheid" or perhaps "Arab state apartheid" in describing conditions in other countries. I happen to think that these phrases are often used very cynically and that they imply sweeping, simplistic, and ultimately unjustifiable claims against diverse and multi-faceted societies. However, neither phrase is quite so problematic as "Arab apartheid," which is capable of being read as targeting Arab people generally.

The specific title of the current page is inherently unsuitable, unless the point is to document instances of the incredibly specious claim that Arab people generally are guilty of "apartheid." (And as such sources would by their very nature represent only a fringe element, one wonders why such a page would be necessary or desireable in the first place.) If this page is retained, which I truly hope is not the case, then at minimum its title should be changed.

Comments and respectful discourse are welcome. Again, I hope whoever closes this debate will take these arguments into consideration. CJCurrie (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I support all that was said, and on a side note, Gender apartheid was changed into a redirect in 2006 and only recently brought back by a single editor. I think that that article should also be changed back into a redirect for all the same reasons. Passionless -Talk 01:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete and salt per CJCurrie. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per CJCurrie and Tarc. --John KB (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as per CJCurrie and Tarc. As CJCurrie says, if there's appropriate material, an article specifically on, say, the Sudanese case can be created. Part of what happened with the Israel and the apartheid analogy article is that it moved from a back-and-forth about the accuracy of the criticism to an article about the debate as a phenomenon in itself. That clearly has not happened here. People making accusations of "Arab apartheid" is insufficient for an article, so Google searches of the phrase are unhelpful. There would need to be appropriate articles about the criticism to avoid this being WP:synth and WP:coatrack. Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  All these requests for SALT are ridiculous. So I will pretend that you provided a reason instead of just a meaningless !vote: This article can be deleted per WP:DEL#REASON WP:NOTADVOCATE but notability is shown in a google news archive search with the likes of the Washington Post. So this article should be recreated when it meets our standards. Hopefully by then you guys voting to salt will understand policy and the notability guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep 1) The objectionists here have a history of anti-Israel bias.
2) There are roughly 4,000,000 results on google for 'Arab apartheid.'
It is well sourced.
3) Accusations have been made on both: Individual Arab countries and on the Arab world as a whole.Chorlseton (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You may want to double-check your Google hits. I see only 655 distinct pages on "Google Everything"; and only 20 on "Google Books". --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the User:Chorleston account has made fewer than twenty edits. CJCurrie (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - There does seem to be the distinct odor of Knowledge:Do not disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point about this article. The sources do appear to be legitimate, but they are rather lightweight. The corresponding Israel article was created only after a President of the United States and a Nobel Laureate made the analogy. Perhaps this article should be deleted, and revived when sources with more gravitas have established notability for this topic? --Noleander (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that it is unfortunate that well-known words for things become used in less appropriate contexts (I am thinking of the word Fascism which really should pertain only to the Italian WWII era political group), but that does not mean that WP can pretend that they are not in wide use. The photograph says it all; it does exist. So the subject is valid; I do not have time for anything other than an assumption that sources exist. I will take Benny and Wikifan, etc's word for it. Anarchangel (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is quite beside the point. As I've said above, the relevant question is whether or not there's a credible public discourse on the specific subject of "apartheid in Arab states." The sources, which you don't appear to have checked, do not back up this assertion. CJCurrie (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep it appears that all is sourced and quite clear that it is as real as 'the other one'. no reason to delete at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soosim (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I just added a quote from the book written by Walid Phares. He is a known scholar of Middle East, and he calls the discrimination against Copts, blacks, women an "apartheid" . Also this book by the same author has lots of information about apartheid in Arab world.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see how this article is different from the other articles of it's kind. It is a documentation of reality, has good and reliable sources, and the subject is very notable. Broccolo (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a textbook example of original research by synthesis; a collection of unrelated quotes stitched together to support an original argument of the existence of "Arab apartheid". The author's approach seems to have been essentially to cherry-pick any book that contains the words "Arab" and "apartheid" in proximity to each other. There is no context and no assessment of whether the assertions made are in any way credible (only one point of view is represented - the accusatory one). It's very obvious that this article has been created as a POV counterpart - or retaliation - for the corresponding one about Israel. Comments like this one make it obvious what is going on with this article. Prioryman (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - thanks for the shout-out p-man! (truth is, comments like "that" one just show that things do exist, whether you like them or not. there are dozens of examples of those who say that israel apartheid is nonsense, and there are dozens of examples of those who say that arab apartheid is quite real. they are not "separate but equal", rather, they are intertwined, with both being validly (nice word!) sourced and referenced. Soosim (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think you need to look at Knowledge:Other stuff exists. The existence of one article doesn't justify the existence of another article. Each article has to stand or fall on its own merits. The problem with the article we're discussing is that it so clearly fails on multiple grounds, most obviously original research by synthesis - as others have pointed out, it's merely a coatrack for a collection of quotes which someone has dug up from Google Books to support a novel argument for a general phenomenon of "Arab apartheid". That is an absurdly broad-brush term anyway - the Arab world covers 21 countries and territories inhabited by 360 million people; it's as absurdly general as "South American apartheid" or "Slavic apartheid". The whole premise of the article appears to be to highlight claims of discrimination in individual countries and extrapolate them to an entire region and ethnic group. That is not only original research, it strikes me as bordering on racism as well. Imagine an antithetical article about Israel, "Accusations of Jewish Apartheid" - that would be equally problematic (I'd vote for its deletion in a heartbeat) and I suspect that those voting to keep this article would not hesitate to call for its speedy deletion. Prioryman (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Question to Prioryman. Don't you see anything wrong with the article Israel and the apartheid analogy, and, if you do not what exactly is wrong with the discussed article in your opinion? Maybe, if it is renamed to Arab countries and the apartheid analogy or Arab world and the apartheid analogy, you'd like it better? See, I might agree with you that naming article Accusations of Arab apartheid could look like it is all Arab people who are accused in apartheid, but what is a good name. There's only one Jewish state - Israel, and there are 22 Arab countries that all have apartheid - kind of hard to come up with generic name.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, the existence of one article doesn't justify the existence of another. But let's compare the two anyway (though I should clarify it's not a topic I know much about - I'm commenting only on their quality as articles). Israel and the apartheid analogy describes an issue that has been the subject of high-profile debate among academics and politicians, including entire books on the subject. It discusses arguments pro and con in what looks to me like a fairly neutral way.

Accusations of Arab Apartheid takes a completely different approach. It assumes (as you appear to do as well) that all instances of discrimination in Arab counties constitute a generic form of "apartheid". However, it never actually makes that case. No source is cited to support that argument, hence the original research problem. Nor is there any indication of a general debate about "apartheid" in the Arab world. Instead, it cobbles together quotes from people using the term "apartheid" rhetorically to refer to discrimination in different countries, arising in different circumstances and involving many different groups in many different countries. It is completely one-sided - it never presents alternative points of view, which fundamentally ignores the NPOV principle. The whole premise of the article, as a quote-mined list of accusations, is incompatible with NPOV.

To illustrate how silly the premise of the article is, I could quite easily create an article called "Accusations of Slavic Apartheid" covering discrimination by Czechs and Slovaks against Gypsies, Serbs against Albanians, Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians against Caucasians, and so on. There are plenty of sources that use "apartheid" rhetorically to refer to such discrimination. However, it would plainly be absurd to quote-mine such sources to support an unpublished argument about the existence of a general pattern of "Slavic apartheid". Yes, discrimination exists in various counties and yes, some people have rhetorically called it "apartheid", but those two facts can't be used to present a novel argument that separate issues in different counties can all be described as a general system of "apartheid", as this article tries to do. Prioryman (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

a) arab apartheid as a term is used in reliable verifiable sources and references. not made up, no original synthetic research, etc.... b) i promise you, if there were reliable verifiable sources and references for jewish apartheid, it would most certainly be a wiki article (regardless of your personal preference to delete it). Soosim (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• matters of fact

someone asserted above that the article accusing Israel of practicing apartheid was only written after Jimmy Carter's book was published. I checked the dates, Cater published in the fall of 2006, the article was written in the spring.

someone asserted that the series of articles on Arab Apartheid by Khaled Abu Toameh were not reliable because they were published by a think tank. All three in fact appeared in a national newspaper, the Jerusalem Post. They were reprinted widely. I linked to the articles on the Hudson Insititute website since Hudson runs a stable website and despite Israel's prowess in all things computer, the Jerusalem Post has a lousy website. A case of the cobbler's children going barefoot.

it has also been asserted that the concept of Arab apartheid has not been asserted reliably, only instances in specific countries. I added two sentences with sources making clear that reliable people have asserted that "Arab apartheid" in the sense that major public intellectuals have made claims of apartheid or apartheid-like policies being practiced by Arabs against disadvantaged gorups in many countries.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't say that Israel and the Apartheid Analogy predated Carter's book; I said that Carter's book brought the debate concerning "apartheid and Israel" into a broader public discourse. I could add that the publicity accorded to the book finally settled the question of whether or not the article currently titled Israel and the Apartheid Analogy dealt with an encyclopedic subject.

I hope whoever closes this discussion will realize that most of the "votes" to keep this article (which aren't really votes in the proper sense, but anyway ...) are wide of the mark. The question we should concern ourselves with is not whether "Arab apartheid" or "apartheid in Arab states" exists or does not exist. Likewise, it's not particularly relevant that some authors have used the phrase "Arab apartheid" in published books and articles, and it's certainly not relevant that there's a separate article entitled Israel and the Apartheid Analogy on Knowledge. The only relevant question is whether the specific concept of "apartheid in Arab states" has itself been the subject of serious scrutiny, at least some of which should be scholarly. The answer, quite plainly, is that it has not.

As I've said before, I won't object to the creation of articles such as Sudan and the Apartheid Analogy or Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Analogy (which I see already exists as a redirect), if and only if these concepts have received serious scrutiny, at least some of which must be scholarly. CJCurrie (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School describes "serious problems of real apartheid in Arab and Muslim nations." I.Casaubon (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete It somewhat feels like a case of WP:NeenerNeener in response to Israel and the Apartheid Analogy. Not the best basis for creating a new article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as per I.Casaubon. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note - this account was only created yesterday and has only three previous edits. Prioryman (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note Umm... so... what? And actually, I joined Knowledge over a week ago.... so... yeah.... AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• The list of "Articles for deletion" above is almost completely irrelevant, since so much of the discussion of this topic has taken place in 2010 and 2011. I created the article because Apartheid in the Arab world is a topic that is being widely discussed now. This was not so much the case when these old discussions were held.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's highly relevant. CJCurrie highlighted above a previous AfD discussion which resulted in the deletion of an article which - though I can't now see it - sounds from the description like it was very similar to this one. The arguments put forward in that discussion are certainly highly relevant. In particular, I'd like to draw your attention to comments of the closing administrator in that discussion:

The core contention of the delete side is, as I understand it, that a large number of disparate uses of the word "apartheid" in reliable sources do not make the single subject "Allegations of apartheid" a valid subject, and that the collection of these uses into one article linked only by word choice is a violation of WP:OR (and, more specifically, WP:SYNTH). In response, the keep side argues that a great many incidents of allegations of apartheid have been covered by reliable sources, and that there is nothing WP:OR-violating about grouping these worldwide incidences of a phenomenon together in one article. I believe that the delete side did a better job of making its case - one particularly strong question that I believe went unanswered was posted by User:Ceedjee, when he wrote "who are the scholars (here sociologists or political scientists are expected) who studied, as a whole, the allegations of apartheid carried against the different countries or regime around the world ?" This strikes me as an enormously salient issue. Moreover, in going through the references in the article, I was unable to find one whose topic was "Allegations of apartheid". I think this has to be a litmus test: if there isn't a single source (broadly defined to include chapters of larger works and the like) that has its primary subject a topic on which somebody wants to make a Knowledge article, there have to be alarm bells. It may well be so that the collection of these various allegations together is eminently reasonable, but if that is so why has nobody else, to all evidence, ever so-collected them?

The same is very much true for this article. It seems to me, on reading that earlier discussion, that you have managed to create a new version of a very controversial article that was ultimately deleted - but unfortunately your version has the same fundamental flaws as the deleted version. Prioryman (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Prioryman, I clicked on the deletion discussion that you linked to, and I am frankly puzzled that you think them relevant. The topic of those articles was "Accusations of apartheid" or "Apartheid outside South Africa" There was nothing to indicate that they were about Arab Apartheid Why did you bring them up?I.Casaubon (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the box because the articles you had linked to werre actually about topics like "Tourist apartheid in Brazil" Not relevant to the topic of Arab Apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I can only assume that you didn't click on any of the links in the box, otherwise you would have seen that almost all concerned AfDs on a now-deleted article called "Allegations of apartheid". Your article essentially seems to be that old article minus all the non-Arab countries. The arguments against that article are identical, as the quote above shows, to those being made here. Please do not delete others' contributions simply because you do not agree with them. That is not acceptable at all and will get you into trouble. Prioryman (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a brand new article about Apartheid in the Arab world. It was provoked by a Kahled abu Toameh article that ran this month. Much of the material is very recent, postdating the articles you link to. You have not answered my question. I have raed the discussions (Not the articles, can they still be accessed?) Question? Why are these old articles relevant, reading the discussions about the articles, I see a great deal of material about accusations of Apartheid in Brazil and France. Not about Arab Apartheid. What do accusations of apartheid in Brazil or France have to do with Arab apartheid?

It seems the old articles can't be accessed - presumably if they're deleted they go completely and we can't see their histories? I can't comment about Brazil or France, but the descriptions of the article at the centre of the previous AfDs - "Allegations of Apartheid" - make it clear that that article was constructed the same way as this one, i.e. as a collection of quotations to support an original contention of a worldwide phenomenon of "apartheid" in various countries. You have cast the scope of this article more narrowly to cover just the Arab world but it suffers from the same problems identified in the 2008 AfD. When CJCurrie posted a link to that AfD I was struck by how very similar the comments were to those on this article. While this article might not be a direct descendent of the earlier one, it's clear that Knowledge has faced a very similar issue before, so the previous discussions are highly relevant. Prioryman (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So you are making assertions about how these old articles were "constructed" without having read them.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

One of them survives as Social apartheid in Brazil and appears to be a reasonable article. It could be a useful model for the improvement of this article on Arab apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• The facts here are very simple.

Several ancient articles existed on topics more or less (often far less) similar to this. They were deleted 3 years ago and up. Political conversations change.

A large number of Arab regimes (Sudan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the palestinian Authority, Mauritania, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and probably others not yet in the article) have been accused of practicing forms of apartheid.

The use of the term apartheid has been applied increasingly to these Arab governments in the last 2 years.

Political conversations frequently discuss the Arab world in much the same way they discuss the West or the Nordic countries The reason is that these culturally coherent areas are often swept by political trends that happen in tandem across a culturally similar area. So we have sentences such as "the wave of pro-democracy protests now sweeping the Arab World." and we have Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School writing about "serious problems of real apartheid in Arab and Muslim nations."

A growing number of journalists, statesmen and scholars have, in recent years, discussed the concept of apartheid in the Arab world It is a concept, not a phrase. I chose the title to state simply that these accusations are being made because I understood wikipedia to require an objective approach to information. it is the concept that is significant. As proven by the fact that it is being widely and increasingly used.

American University economist George Ayittey: "In Sudan and Mauritania, the Arabs monopolized power and excluded blacks - Arab apartheid."

Ayittey accused Sudan of "deftly manipulat(ing) Arab solidarity" to carry out policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing against non-Arabs in Darfur."

And this month journalist Kahled Abu Toameh published a widely circulated and cited article asking "Where’s the international outcry against Arab apartheid?"

There is more in the article, and more that I have not had time ot add to the article yet, but you cannot google a phrase Accusations of Arab Apartheid to delegitimize a concept.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• rename to Arab Apartheid The core concept. This will satisfy the objections expressed by Prioryman and CJCurrie.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it doesn't answer my objections. The objection is not to the title of the article, it's to the basic conception of the article. To borrow from the administrator's comments in italics above, a large number of disparate uses of the word "apartheid" in reliable sources do not make the single subject "Allegations of apartheid" a valid subject, and ... the collection of these uses into one article linked only by word choice is a violation of WP:OR (and, more specifically, WP:SYNTH). That objection is valid whatever the article is called. Prioryman (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• compromise my fella wiki-wikis...deleting the article is not any sort of compromise. there is sufficiently clear material, well sourced by well known people to have this article exist. i understand someone might not like it, but that is not what this is about. 'just the facts', please. put up the information, source it reliably and let it be. i still don't see any reason for all of this hesitation to let it stand. the time spent twisting and turning every WP:this and that could've been used to just editing the article and making it WP:PERFECT.Soosim (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm still waiting for someone on the "keep" side to address the core issue: that this article is simply a coatrack for a series of disparate sources that use the words "Arab apartheid" (or the words "Arab" and "apartheid" close together) in passing. There appear to be few, if any, sources that actually consider the subject in any detail -- there's certainly not a significant body of credible secondary sources (at least some of which must be scholarly) that address the issue of "apartheid in Arab states."

On another matter, I'd like to request that whoever closes this discussion be someone who's (i) familiar with past "apartheid" debates on Knowledge, and (ii) not aligned with either side in those discussions. CJCurrie (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am continuing to add material on Arab apartheid from Arab commentators, Arab academics, think tanks, and more. A lot of ink is being spilled on this topic.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are not addressing the fundamental flaws that have been pointed out on this page - you are merely adding to the pile of cherry-picked quotations, from a very biased starting point (I mean, "Apartheid road in Saudi Arabia"? - come on). Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources discussing the specific concept of Arab apartheid are very solid. As are the many descriptions of countries such at Saudi Arabia where Shia, Christians or some other despised group live under a separate set of laws. Legal Christian residents of Saudi Arabia cannot hold public services of worship or build a church. I find the idea of a highway system that directs non-Muslims to a separate road offensive in the extreme. And an exact parallel to the buses, schools and drinking fountains that America used to have for blacks.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevent to the present discussion. As I've said before, I'm not opposed to the creation of a Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Analogy page (beyond the current redirect) if there are enough valid sources to back it up, but that's not the present issue. I'd ask you to read my objections again more carefully, please. CJCurrie (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep Per I.Casaubon. Comment As you can see in the following Arab apartheid was already charged in the 1980s by a Mauritanian Organization FLAM and publicized a leaflet about it.

Africa after the Cold War: the changing perspectives on security - Pages 126-127
 Adebayo Oyebade, Abiodun Alao - 1998 - 228 pages - Preview
This ethnic crisis is invariably between the Arabs and the black population. Although the conflict had been on for some time, it was only in the late 1980s that it came into the open. In 1984, the Force de Liberation Africaine de Mauritanians (FLAM) was formed, and in June 1986, it published the "Manifesto of the Oppressed Black Mauritanians."
The manifesto denounced what it called "Mauritanian apartheid" and the " Arabization of the Mauritanian society."... The Black/Arab ethnic conflict inside Mauritania has influenced the neighboring states of Mali and Senegal. The largely black state of Senegal

Sudan: Volume 3, Issue 3 - Pax Sudani Network - 1993
Moreover, they have committed to a program of de-Africanization through forced Arabization and Isalmization of the people in South Sudan, the Nuba Mountains and southern Blue Nile regions.
Had the African Sudanese succumbed to this policy of Arabism and Islamism, Islamic apartheid would have prevailed in the Dusan said Elias N. Wakoson. In 1955, a group of Southern Sudanese revolted against the system... they have maintained a passive stance on the Arab apartheid and enslavement of black Africans.

Negative ethnicity: from bias to genocide - Page 152
 Koigi wa Wamwere - 2003 - 207 pages
When racial apartheid fell in South Africa, Arab apartheid against the black southerners did not in Sudan. Arab insen- sitivity to the suffering of Africans in the South has led to an ongoing war that sends Arab militias from Khartoum ...By 1997 Moorish apartheid in Mauritania had driven 55000 black Africans into Senegal, Mali, and surrounding countries. Judging by the numbers slaughtered, black, Arab, and Moorish apartheids have killed more Africans than white.

Africa betrayed - Page 124
 George B. N. Ayittey - 1992 - 412 pages
ARAB APARTHEID In some parts of Africa there is a dominant Islam which allows practically no room for other ... by Arabs against black Africans has become a growing problem in Africa, especially in Mauritania, Sudan, and Tanzania.

Indigenous African institutions
 George B. N. Ayittey - Transnational Publishers, 1991 - 547 pages - Page 29
Arab apartheid reigns supreme in Mauritania and Sudan. In Mauritania, blacks have no political power and cannot vote. Like their counterparts in South Africa , they are persecuted and discriminated against by Arab masters.

Africa in chaos - Page 50
 George B. N. Ayittey - 1999 - 416 pages - Preview
In Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs held power and blacks were excluded (Arab apartheid).. Suggestion Maybe merge with accusation on Israel by creating a page "Accusations of apartheid in the Middle East."--Doogielien (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh ... this account has fewer than ten edits. CJCurrie (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Pere Cheney, Michigan (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, barely defined allegedly haunted area WuhWuzDat 15:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, clean up, expand. This place gets a substantial number of Google Books hits, indicating sources from which notability can be verified. bd2412 T 15:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Formerly a temporary county seat, according to a footnote, which indicates that this town existed at one time. That's all that's necessary for notability as far as I'm concerned. Article needs greater specificity and the form of the footnotes need to be fixed. I've gotta go to work pretty quick here or I'd do that myself... Carrite (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Nominator is probably not familiar with the usual outcome on populated communities, but far less notable inhabited places than this have been kept, merely on proof of having existed. In this instance, it's been the subject of coverage by multiple sources. And yes, it was the county seat at one time . Mandsford 18:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In the nominator's defense, the article was in much worse shape at the time of its nomination. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And I commend you for all the improvements made, acknowledging also that the nomination brought something to your attention that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. Still, we don't know for sure that User:Perecheney2011 was finished with working on the article, and the simplest of Google searches would have shown that the town was genuine. I've never really understood the concept of waiting for new articles to be posted and then instantly nominating them for deletion. Mandsford 13:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• See WP:NPP. WuhWuzDat 15:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with it. There's a specific section in WP:NPP about dealing with new editors that's worth reading. A service like Knowledge, which stays up because of public support rather than advertising, depends on continuing to attract and keep new participants. And within the page on nominating, there's that WP:BEFORE thing that says "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." I'll throw in some italics here: I've never really understood the concept of waiting for new articles to be posted and then instantly nominating them for deletion. Mandsford 16:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep While article clearly needs improvement, long-standing consensus is that real towns are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was MERGE. Last in time wins; I'm dumping the content into NRL Rugby League 2, and then normal editing can dictate from there. postdlf (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Rugby League 2 World Cup Edition (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 article on non notable video game WuhWuzDat 14:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Weak keep - found one review at NZGamer, and a bunch of less-useful press releases. Alternatively merge with Rugby League 2. Marasmusine (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to Rugby League (video game).--Sloane (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge as appropriate. I believe NRL Rugby League 2 would be the better target. We can't keep this without more sourcing. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And, that's up for deletion as well. Hrm. I guess we should merge/redirect to the entirely unsourced NRL Rugby League (series). UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep the topic is notable. LunarLander // talk // 19:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment With more references it would be a keep but for now maybe merge it to NRL Rugby League 2? Kante4 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

NRL Rugby League 2 (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 article on non notable video game WuhWuzDat 14:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: The article can easily be referenced, what defines if it's a notable videogame? Chopper Dave (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Merge this and Rugby League 2 World Cup Edition to NRL Rugby League - I found one or two reviews for the latter two, but not this version, so I suggest merging them all into one article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Mergeto Rugby League (video game).--Sloane (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Keep Enough sources have been found.--Sloane (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and add references. If the game is notable then I don't see why the sequel isn't. Mattlore (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability isn't inherited.--Sloane (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Well whats notable and whats not when it comes to video games? I think its odd that RL1 and RL3 would have pages while RL2 is deemed unnotable? There seem to be plenty of reviews on the game out there, so what more do you need? The answer to the original question "what defines if it's a notable videogame" by Chopper Dave hasn't yet been answered. Mattlore (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I answered Dave's question on the 22 March (but oops, I forgot to sign it). Marasmusine (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Can you answer it on this page please? What defines a notable video game? Mattlore (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Sure, we normally use WP:GNG, and for videogames this is normally reviews in reliable sources, which you have adequately demonstrated. Marasmusine (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks, it just seems to be a little frustrating, as when compared to Athletes it is a lot more grey rather than black and white. Mattlore (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep See Mattlore's reasoning - I agree Kiwichix0r (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - This game seems notable, there is a lot of stuff about it online. Also, Wuhwuzdat hasn't clearly justified his nomination so it's a bit difficult to engage in this discussion. LunarLander // talk // 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Rugby League (video game). (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

NRL Rugby League (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 article on non notable video game WuhWuzDat 14:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: The article can easily be referenced, what defines if it's a notable videogame? Chopper Dave (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Significant coverage from reliable sources - for example the reviews listed at metacritic, linked to in the article's external links.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - reviewed in several publications including Official Xbox Magazine. Marasmusine (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  Changing !vote to merge per everyone below. One article for all three games is a good idea. Marasmusine (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - and merge into Rugby League (video game), which I seems to be about the same thing. I believe this to be a notable topic anyway, but Rugby League (video game) mentions that "Rugby League broke the global record for most pre-orders at one game retailer (EBGames Eastgardens in Sydney) that was previously set by Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.". Not a total sales record, but it's not something to sniff at. LunarLander // talk // 18:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to Rugby League (video game) per above.--Sloane (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to Rugby League (video game) as above Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with Rugby League (video game) as they are the same game. Mattlore (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with Rugby League (video game) as above Kiwichix0r (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Everywhere I Go (Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This song doesn't appear to be notable as per WP:SONGS. The article itself (excluding the infobox) is pretty much one sentence, so I'm not sure it justifies keeping. Bennydigital (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added more info to the song. Please keep the song on Knowledge, other people can also edit it to give more info. monkeylegend (talk) 16:49, 21 March 1011 (UTC)

Don't worry, this process allows a week to get an article up to scratch before anything's done to it, and allows many editors to review it. My personal suggestion would be either find more notability (did it chart highly? Lots of usage in other media? Any other good reason?), or even if the article doesn't stay, my suggestion would be to merge your hard work with the main album article, so either way, don't see your time as misspent! Really do have a look over at WP:SONGS where there's tons of good advice on how to put together a single entry. Alternatively, feel free to hit me, or any other editor up for assistance. We've all been here, and we all want to help (mostly...) Bennydigital (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NSONGS is clear that individual songs should not have articles unless they are in some way notable, such as having charted. This one does not appear to be notable so at best there should be only a redirect to the artist or album article. The content added to the article since nomination is an unreferenced review of its content and style which, as WP:OR, is actually a degradation rather than improvement. Several other songs from the same album with apparently similar lack of notability have also been given articles and I will review them and consider reducing them to redirects; that could have happened here without discussion. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete; exist purely as advertising for the band. WTF (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral; As the article is right now, it clearly has no business staying on wikipedia. However, with proper editing, I know I can bring the article up to standards. I have almost entirely edited the articles for Hear Me Now (song) and Been To Hell, both quality articles. I will edit this article and get it to be a keeper before the week is over. GroundZ3R0 002 19:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not about the quality of the writing, it is about whether inclusion criteria for the subject are met. The song has not been on any of Billboard's charts , which would have been a good start. Unless some other demonstration of notability as suggested by WP:NSONG can be provided you'd probably be wasting your time. (While we're at it, Been To Hell is a nice article about a song that appears to have no business here either.) RichardOSmith (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Been to Hell as it is, is very borderline notable because it is a single and has a music video as well as has been covered in many reliable third party sources. However I do see that it should chart to be entirely notable, and the single was only released last week. I am quite sure the track will chart somewhere in the following weeks. For this article, I do not believe it has charted and there's no chance of it charting so late after it's release so I will go ahead and endorse deleting and check to see if there's sufficient coverage for it. GroundZ3R0 002 23:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If not notable enough to keep it's own page, I still think it would be worth merging into the album article, especially if GroundZ3Ro puts in some work on it. Bennydigital (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to album article, per WP:NSONGS treatment of non-notable songs. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, after extensive research on the song I have not found a single reason to keep this article. There is not sufficient coverage anywhere, even on blogs or other unreliable sources. There is no single cover. There is no chart history. There is not even an indication this really was a single for the album. There was a music video released, but I believe this was simply a promotional single and was not a lead single. This is definitely not notable and there is no merit for an article here, possibly not even a spot on the album page and band tab showing it is a single, I don't believe it is and there's no evidence it is.GroundZ3R0 002 20:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Your Birthday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod, but I don't think being played on Radio Disney and having a video makes this song particularly notable. It fails every aspect of WP:NSONGS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep the band sounds awful for sure, but we do keep singles from notable bands, which they (unfortunately) are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't inherited. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not the guidance given by WP:NSONG. Your (Stablind) rationale seems to apply to albums, but not individual songs. RichardOSmith (talk)

• Delete. Fails to establish notability per the guideline at WP:NSONG. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable as per WP:NSONG. "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." - SudoGhost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC).
• Delete. Whatever was in that article could be summarized into one line on the band article itself. - Mailer Diablo 20:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Textbook example of a BLP that shouldn't be on Knowledge. This individual made the news, such as he did, for exactly one thing: getting arrested. The arrest was bandied about on several pro-life blogs and personal websites, but the only actual news article I could find discussing it in detail was this from Politics Daily. Literally every other reference I found for him was from pro-life websites, and no source suggests that he was notable prior to his arrest. Knowledge is NOTNEWS, and this isn't newsworthy to begin with. Cúchullain /c 13:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete His notability seems to be only as a figure of hate. I gather that some people do not like him or his reported views, and he may or not have committed a criminal offence, but I agree with the nominator that this should not be a criterion for inclusion and I do not think that he would have qualified otherwise. AJHingston (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. A simple case of GNG. There is only one source, so it fails multiple independent sourcing guidelines. Perhaps the trial and sentencing could bring notability to this case. But it's premature now, given the current sourcing situation. More specifically WP:CRIME applies. And while I clearly accept that the idea of a pro-choice terrorist IS notable in that "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual", it falls short of the rest of the criteria, where this is NOT something (yet) to be significantly documented in the historical record, nor "historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage". I'll repeat what has been said: Knowledge is not news.-Andrew c  23:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. One reliable source does not notability create. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I dont see any reason to why we shouldnt keep this article for now. Who knows what the charges could be.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No one knows - that's the issue. There aren't sufficient sources for the topic, so we shouldn't have an article on it, especially since the subject is a living person.--Cúchullain /c 18:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. I still don't think it's notable, but I am clearly in a minority of one, and I accept consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Gremlins (Atari 2600) (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 of notability, either in the article or elsewhere that I can find. PROD was contested with the edit summary "uh the game is rare but still notable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bur3oMpkJqg". However, a YouTube video of the game being played does nothing whatsoever to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• If someone can expand it and add reliable sources fine, but I think for now this just needs a redirect to List of Atari 2600 games. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Take into account, this game came out in 1984, which pre-dates the internet. Reviews are mostly hard copy from that time. However, I was able to find a few of them online , (1 removed due to blacklist?) are a few. That these are even online tells you something. The game is still being talked about decades later. The computer game magazines of the time should have additional reviews. Not sure where to get copies of them. However, I think there are plenty of reviews out there now discussing this game. Actually, it should be games - there are two very different games by Atari, both by the same name (2600, 5200 platforms). The article can be greatly expanded. Since there is no article for the 5200, I also suggest a name change to be more inclusive - since a lot of the reviews also contrast the two different games. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. On a whim I did a search for sources and expanded the article. It should easily pass the notability criteria now.--Cúchullain /c 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, due to Cuchullain's excellent rescue job. With the new sources (The Video Game Critic review and the review in Brett Weiss' classic gaming book), the expanded article solidly meets the requirements of WP:GNG. 28bytes (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've added to the article some information about the game's debut from a 1984 InfoWorld article. 28bytes (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per significant coverage in multiple sources. I added an additional reference just now as well. Paul Erik 03:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The article is now much more substantial than it was when I created the nomination, and so if the outcome turns out to be "keep" then the nomination will have served a very useful purpose. However, looking at the references cited, I see fairly insubstantial mentions. While the lack of sources is not as severe as I described in the nomination, they still do not seem to me to come near to establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per the improvement. While it is true that the article is not in the best of shape yet, I think that it's good enough that the AfD should be closed for now; if it doesn't improve enough outside of these admittedly insubstantial mentions, a second AfD may be appropriate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough with new references.--Sloane (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Snow keep per everybody else. 69.136.6.110 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Snowball close and keep. Per everyone else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Church of God International (USA) (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 not asserted, and article treats three separate organizations, as well as commenting on doctrines they may or may not share. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I am aware that it was founded by Garner Ted Armstrong, Herbert W. Armstrong's son, as was pointed out in the previous AfD, but that's not actually an assertion of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Religious denominations/organizations are entirely encyclopedia worthy. In addition, scholarly and even media interest in this and similar groups is quite strong. Tchicken7 (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep  This church was famous before the dawn of the internet age.  Nominator has not stated a reason for deletion.  There is plenty of material available on the internet now for the nominator to improve the article, including a quote that this is one of two "notable" spin-offs from the WCG.  The church also is a publisher, of a news magazine, and on radio and TV.  I agree with Tchicken7.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Subject not sufficiently notable - fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER, lack of reliable sources. Pol430 talk to me 13:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep A little research finds this individual meeting WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE The article will benefit from cleanup and the addition of available sources, but the need for regular editing is rarely a cause for deletion. Schmidt, 06:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Michael Q. Schmidt. The article has POV issues, but plenty of coverage exists in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Language in Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Class essay. Mostly original research with only one citation outside of the lede. Coffeepusher (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

• Delete. This page was constructed by a group of first-year honors students in their communications studies class, which just so happens to be their favorite class. Nothing here that isn't covered better elsewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect as redundant. —Tamfang (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom 14:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Alex Seibert (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 claim to notability is present, but a search found no reliable sources that can verify this notability. Generic "many prizes" claim could not be verified, thus no indication of the extend of the notability. Excirial 11:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The entire content reads like utter nonsense. Trying to decide whether this is an attempt at being promotional, or an attempt at sarcastic commentary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Old Jock Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails the general notability guideline, the guideline for corporations and that for radio stations. No coverage anywhere to suggest that this a notable internet radio station. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete internet radio "station" that runs for all of 2 hours every week according to the article. No claim of notabiliy in the article or anywhere else that I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11 as unambiguous advertising with no fallback and no chance of being replaced with a conforming article beyond a stub (see Knowledge:Permastub). Also fails WP:ENT (if you consider it a biography), WP:ORG (if you consider it some kind of operation), WP:RADIO (currently an essay), and WP:GNG in any case. Presuming it is named after the dog Old Jock rather than after an aged disc jockey, which doesn't help its cause as far as a biography much. --Closeapple (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

List of hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Incomplete List of hotels in only some countries, could never be complete. Mtking (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I assume it's some sort of work-in-progress, listing a notable topic that would go hand-in-hand with the hotel's category (per WP:CLN). It can become a top-level page, and have say, a link to Lists of hotels in Africia, Lists of Hotels in Europe, etc. And where a country has lots of hotels, a link to the country's page instead. Lugnuts (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion given, obviously a problem with content if anything. Bob House 884 (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment nom clearly hasn't viewed the page history or he would realise that User:Dr. Blofeld, who appears to be a subject expert or enthusiast has been working on a redraft of the old page which was simply a directory of redlinks to lower level lists. The intention of the page is to create a list of hotels which either have, or should have, coverage on wikipedia and, in doing so, to organise Knowledge's coverage of hotels in some reasonable way. The primary concern for now is content, obviously once hes finished there will be some attempt to streamline things by perhaps arranging by continent, breaking off sub articles and grouping together smaller countries. Bob House 884 (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Its not supposed to be a "complete" list. Its supposed to be a summary of the top hotels by country which are notable buildings and will gradually all be added to wikipedia. Try giving me a bloody week or two to complete it. I hid B-Z which I aim to complete. This article is searched for see the page view history. One could argue that we should delete all wikipedia articles and give up because "it will never be complete".♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy keep — this is not a valid reason for deletion, most of Knowledge is "incomplete". — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I know "List of hotels" seems very open and vague but this is intended to be a fairly strict list of hotels by country which have multiple coverage in books and have enough information to constitute full articles, whether of historical importance or architecturally as prominent landmarks or luxury hotels. It is not intended to list every hotel in every country, only the top hotels. Every country has a few hotels which are very notable buildings, whether it is the Windsor Melbourne, Ritz Paris or The Savoy London, Raffles, Singapore or The Peninsula, Hong Kong. I think a ist like this when completed and fully sourced will be a comprehensive and very useful page. The page view history shows that multiple people search for this page on a daily basis. might not get the views that Justin Bieber or Jacko get but its still in demand. 894 views this month. An average 30 or so wikipedia users search for this on a daily basis.

This list cannot be fulfilled in one day. It will be built up gradually, much like the rest of wikipedia... I will try to get most of the countries with content, I can always hide the empty sections again until I can attend to them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I would support allowing more time for this page to be edited and improved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to rush it though. Lists such as this take a lot of time to build up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Knowledge has {{Dynamic list}}s (such as List of bus routes in London) and I see therefore no problems with that.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - being incomplete is not a valid reason to delete. Onthegogo (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Not a valid reason to delete. List do not have to be completed, ever. There are sources listing all the four star hotels, or whatever the rating is to indicate which are most notable. Also those with historical importance are surely notable. I'd think the number of notable hotels in some countries is long enough to warrant its own article of course. If this article gets too long, it can always split out into separate ones. Dream Focus 04:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Aleph One (game engine) (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 reference, Inside Mac Games, is a reiteration of the update notes from the Aleph website. I haven't found any significant coverage from a reliable source. Maybe there's some magazine coverage somewhere, but this has been tagged with WP:Notability concerns over a year now. Marasmusine (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Marathon 2: Durandal, where it's already mentioned. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect, per above.--Sloane (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge (disambiguation) (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 No articles link to this page, none of the pages listed are directly confusable with the Knowledge article, and the Knowledge article already links to all of them anyway. Cybercobra (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not what disambiguation pages are for. The articles linked are related to Knowledge, not different things named "Knowledge". The links should go to the Knowledge article. JIP | Talk 06:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as this is not a valid disambig page, doesnt serve a useful purpose. all these links will exist on the main page and at the article on WP (mercurywoodrose)76.234.120.238 (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as an invalid disambig page. All the links in the disambig are sub-articles of Knowledge. Goodvac (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, not a disambiguation page. Could be moved to List of articles about Knowledge, but I don't think that's encyclopedic either (WP:Source list). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Improper use of the disambiguation tag. bd2412 T 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PTM. I am Pac-Man (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JJ98 (Talk) 05:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The subject of this autobiography is a person whose claim to fame is that he is the artistic director of a non-notable theatre. —teb728 t c 05:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Since his name is common, I threw the theater name into a Google News search to reduce false positives. What do you know? The theater is notable and the director is notable. Both have had in-depth coverage in reliable sources for a quarter of a century.Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep — well referenced, notable. I recommend that the proposer follows WP:BEFORE more closely in future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete A lot of talk about alleged references by the two users above me, but as so many times, not an actual single reference is provided. Delete as I can't find anything of note.--Sloane (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually a reference to a reliable source was added to the article several hours before Sloane commented. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep They do mention him as the director of everything they review at . He is also interviewed and quoted at . Other mentions of him are about, but it a lot of results to search through. I'm convinced of his notability by what has been found thus far. Dream Focus 21:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete (by proposer). Cullen328’s search strategy returns about 30 mentions of Craig but little or no significant coverage (which is the standard of notability). A possible exception is this review where he is quoted extensively; it is difficult, however, to see how the review could be cited in the article other than to show that he directed the reviewed show. As written the article is just a resume, with no indication of importance other than saying that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts; although that sounds impressive, FRSA says qualifications include potential (not necessarily achievement) in the subject fields. (I don’t have access to the book cited in the article, but judging from how the citation is used, it mentions that he directed an Off-Broadway production in 1980.) —teb728 t c 00:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep the director of a notable theatre company is ipso facto a notable chap.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What section of Knowledge:Notability (people) says that? —teb728 t c 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The subject of this promotional article is a small theatre whose claim to fame seems to be that it hosts a non-notable playwriting festival —teb728 t c 05:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Simply adding "Croydon" to the Google search terms eliminates references to other Warehouse Theaters around the world, and shows that this small theater has received coverage in reliable sources for decades. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep It's a producing house with some history of significant, new stagings. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I guess it was a mistake for me to rely on the article’s almost total lack of references. Rather than withdrawing the nomination I would like to let it stand in hope that someone will rewrite this promotional article with decent references. That’s not something I would be good at. —teb728 t c 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fair comment: there's a lot wrong with the article, including poor referencing and a promotional tone. I'd give it a try, but I had a good look for better sources last year, but didn't find much.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

—• Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep — given the comment from the proposer and the reliable references available. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Events there get coverage, so its a notable theater. Dream Focus 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

International Playwriting Festival (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 about a non-notable annual event was written by the subject’s founder/producer. —teb728 t c 05:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep If this festival is "non-notable", then why has it been covered by the BBC, The Independent, and many newspapers worldwide? Nominator seems not to have followed the simple procedure WP:BEFORE Point 4. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per the above points by Cullen328. Google "International Playwriting Festival London" and see for yourself whether it is non-notable.--Hokeman (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I guess it was a mistake for me to rely on the article’s total lack of independent references. Rather than withdrawing the nomination I would like to let it stand in hope that someone will improve the references. That’s not something I would be good at. —teb728 t c 19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete (by proposer). The news search returns about 20 mentions of the IPF but little or no significant coverage (which is the standard of notability). The only exception is this story. —teb728 t c 01:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC) The BBC, Independent 1 and Independent 2 pages barely mention the IPF. —teb728 t c 02:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep I typed it into Books google. Theatre Record describes it as "keenly competitive." There are sources. they just need ot be added to the article.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I also searched News Google for : "International Playwriting Festival" warehouse theatre. I found quite a lot. Certainly enough to establish notability.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. What significant coverage did you find in Google news (beside the one I cited above)? My search, which was essentially the same as yours, found only mentions of the IPF in articles on plays, and brief notices that the IPF was seeking entries. If sources exist, why has nobody added even one in the week since the article was nominated? —teb728 t c 20:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was USERFY, pending actual notability achieved. postdlf (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons he is notable have been given in the edit summary when removing the contested PROD and on Onthegogo's talk page. They include:

• 4th in scoring for the current OHL season, even a notch above Ryan Ellis
• He has been OHL Rookie of the Month thrice (here are two, January and February)
• Shoo-in for OHL or even CHL Rookie of the Year (not announced yet and thus WP:CRYSTAL right now)
• Critical commentary by commentators that he may be a #1 NHL draft pick (not just fans, which would run smack into WP:CRYSTAL)
• He has participated in international competitions (including the 2009 World Junior A Challenge); I forget the name of another he took part in near the start of the season that received Sportsnet coverage (I remember now, and it's in the article; the 2010 Subway Super Series)
• He has broken the Sting rookie scoring records previously held by Steven Stamkos, in particular the 42 goal mark (Yakupov had 49, here's proof of 43) and the 92 point total (Yakupov had 101)

With the reasons given above, I do not know how anyone can suggest that this player is not notable. He's the most notable rookie in the OHL right now, has been the subject of articles such as "The Russians are coming" (which also features Alex Galchenyuk, don't have the link at the moment) and he's being noticed by hockey scouts. I am avoiding the crystal ball argument that he will be a #1 draft pick in 2012, because anything can happen in a year, but he is the most notable CHL rookie of the season, I believe. CycloneGU (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete for now as he hasn't met any of the requirements of WP:NHOCKEY, incidently winning rookie of the year would still not do that. As far as international competitions go, only the senior world championships or the olympics meet the bar on that note. As for draft picks, when/if he is picked in the first round then he would be good to go. Single team records just don't measure up either. Right now its crystal balling. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am avoiding the crystal-balling as I stated earlier, but I must ask: how would CHL Rookie of the Year - if he were to win that - not be a major award? Also, I didn't note in the article because I don't know a good reference for it, but he was selected for the Russian team at the World Juniors (the one that beat Canada this year in fact), but decided not to accept the role because he decided he wouldn't get ice time (which would go to the older and more experienced players). If I were to crystal-ball, I'd say he'll be on next year's team for sure, but I won't do that. I also have not said anything about him being a KHL territorial pick as I do not know how that contributes to the discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Major awards in the past has generally been considered to be the MVP, Top D-man & Top Goalie awards. ie basically the 3 best players in the league. That being said there can be a case for rookie of the year being one, something that will probably have to be argued once he has won it. The world juniors aren't the senior level so wouldn't enter into it. But by all means if he does play in them in a few weeks then thats great, however its pretty rare for junior aged players to play in the senior world championships. -DJSasso (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't foresee him on anything but an under-18 ATM myself. But I agree, at his skill level already displaying the skill he has, I would not be surprised to see him on a senior team - albeit with little ice time perhaps. And I will see if I can find when the awards are handed out, and find out if he wins one. I don't think it will be for a couple of weeks, or maybe even after the playoffs. I'll find out! CycloneGU (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This is one of those cases where there would have been no harm waiting out the season before AfD, as he is virtually assured to win the OHL ROY, and likely CHL as well. As such, we are wasting our time for the sake of process here, as he will certainly generate the necessary coverage in a matter of weeks. Resolute 22:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah I probably wouldn't have nominated it myself. But now that it is nominated have to go delete. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm with Resolute and delay this Afd. I'm a bit more inclined to include first team all-stars and rookie of the year award winners in addition to best player, defender, and goaltender. Not sure this is too much wp:crystal since he is likely to be named Emms Family Award, given that he won the monthly award three times. I haven't checked, but what how does he meet GNG? Patken4 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do they name a player of the month for March? Yes they do, I found archived news from April 1, 2010 so they announce for March. Either way, you are correct; Nick Ebert and Eric Locke, both of the Spits, each got the title once (November and December). Yakupov swept the 2011 honours and that includes when he got suspended for a game over what a ref. later admitted was a bad call. (Hate when that happens.) CycloneGU (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As a further note, I have been checking the OHL news archives. Way back on page 48 is an April 8 headline, "Petes Matt Puempel named OHL Rookie of the Year". Unfortunately, I cannot seem to read the article there, but I searched on Google for it and found a mirrored version. It also notes that he was Player of the Month three consecutive times, so if I were to invoke WP:CRYSTAL I'd say Yakupov IS going to win it. Heck, I'll make the call right now from my crystal ball (ooh, shiny). Regardless of my (I agree) useless opinion, April 8 is only 18 days away. It would be silly to delete this out of procedure and recreate it 11 days after it's deleted. I say delay the AfD even if he is not considered notable right now; if my prediction is correct, he'll be worthy of the article on April 8 or whenever they announce the rewards. CycloneGU (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Incubate until the awards are announced. There will still be debate about notability of ROY if only OHL or both OHL and CHL, but it is best to have in a couple of weeks once we have some coverage to argue against. Ravendrop 18:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• That is a very good solution. I'd suggest moving to User:CycloneGU/Nail Yakupov once this AfD closes, so that Cyclone's work is not lost, and they can easily return it to mainspace when the appropriate time passes. Resolute 22:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• So userfy it when there is a good potential of notability in 12 days or so? Personally, I'd rather hold everything as it is until the announcements (which seem to be in April), and if for some ghostly offshoot reason he does not get the Rookie of the Year award, and deletion is endorsed, then I'd want it userfied because I think he will be notable within a year. Userfying now would give a chance for someone else to create a new article after the announcement and then the current edit history is no longer relevant since I can't move it back (unless you can move a page on top of another one?). Off-topic, was just hearing stories about how players don't want to play in Sarnia with the bad record, but there will be so many scouts watching Yakupov and Galchenyuk - who may also be notable next year, we'll see - that it would be SMART to play there. CycloneGU (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Fixing redlinked discussion in log for User:Mercurywoodrose. Stick around for deletion rationale. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

References provided are mostly subject related, others show extremely low level of notability, even within the evangelical community (one incident involving removal from a radio station connected with Calvary Chapel, no mention there). I tried gsearch, and he has 800 ghits in reality, no significant news hits. the only new link i found was , from Internet Monk, which itself has marginal notability, is mentioned in our article Post-evangelical, itself not a highly notable subject. he apparently has an orphanage connected with his ministry, but its not clear if its just a "save the children" sponsorship charity, which i think would be less notable than an actual brick and mortar orphanage. problems exist with it being promotional, etc, but those are irrelevant to this AFD. thanks for fixing my afd, twinkle seemed to have failed, and i find the "normal" process too difficult.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Hard to find any evidence of notability. Google News hits for "Roger Oakland" are mostly not about him. Google News Archive hits for "Roger Oakland" together with "understand the times" are mostly calendar announcements (when he is giving a talk somewhere). No in-depth coverage found. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, lack of reliable sources. As what Mercury says, the notability of the published references are at best, flimsy. - Mailer Diablo 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oswaldo Sosa (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 minor league baseball pitcher. A minor leaguer needs to have quite a notable career to be worthy of an article, and Sosa does not have that. He spent only six seasons in the minors and never even rose above AA. His All-Star Game nods are of minimal notability, as they were took place while he was in the low minors. Similarly, his Baseball America ranking is not very notable, as he was ranked among players in the Midwest League, not the minors as a whole. He wasn't even a top-10 prospect in that single league. Alex (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I see this was one of Johnny Spasm's famous Twins' prospect pages. He ended up blocked for his ownership of those. Not to mention, he recreated it after it had been made a redirect, and the user who initially created the page has the same username as the player, indicating COI. All that is to say those two individuals do not present with the best judgment, and as Alex says this person doesn't meet notability guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you check the article history.. the creator with the same name made the page about a different individual than the baseball player... this was one of Johnny's creations. Spanneraol (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral: one of the references in the article seems good quality. I found which is not substantive enough, but I'll bet based on what I've seen so far that there is. And let's not be distracted about who created the page, only whether it is now notable. Ma_chups 03:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable minor leaguer--Yankees10 15:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough reliable sources exist to meet notability guidelines WP:WPBB/N. All the article does is recite stats, so we are not losing anything of value from losing the lone two reference in the article. Bagumba (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Blatant self promotion. None of the non-self published references mention this person. VQuakr (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete No credible indication of notability; relevant guidelines here are WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER, since he is a director and an actor. Neither of these seems to be met. Note that of the TV shows, TV series and films he has produced/is currently producing, none actually has a Knowledge article, so there is no indication that his work is notable as yet. --bonadea contributions talk 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Per the above, and egregious self promotion. Pol430 talk to me 13:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - impressive-looking filmography, but the lack of coverage in reliable sources suggests he hasn't yet achieved notability. Robofish (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Val d'Aran regional football team (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 article on an unnotable team that has played one match Stu.W UK (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - some guys who all happened to be from the same part of Spain once played a match together? Nonono, definitely non-notable. GiantSnowman 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - This article appears to be about a team that has played only a single match, and that has done nothing of note. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable football team and completely unreferenced. Argyle 4 Life 10:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Concerns were addressed with new refs. Renominate later if notability of new article is in question again. Dcoetzee 23:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Back Through Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. this album isn't even released yet and only gets 1 gnews hit. . LibStar (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think, that these 1 gnews hit merits at least a redirect to Alestorm. Armbrust _{Undertaker 19–0} 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  "back through time" is a common phrase and should not redirect to a band article. LibStar (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  Then move article to Back Through Time (album), redirect this to Alestorm and covert Back Through Time to a dab page. Armbrust _{Undertaker 19–0} 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: The album isn't released but its notable and there are a lot of unreleased albums on wikipedia, do delete this one would be stupid --Caskaholic (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Caskaholic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This user has only made 2 edits outside their userspace. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:38pm • 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to Alestorm per Armbrust. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:38pm • 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: References have been added. As soon as Napalm Records puts out a press release/product page and Amazon or some other notable online store lists it those will be added as well. But, if my vote fails to persuade any of you, keep in mind that this page will probably be recreated in a few months time. --Hybrid196 (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient references have been found and track listing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

you haven't explained how it meets WP:NALBUMS. The sources merely verify its existence. LibStar (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:NALBUMS states 'generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label' and all of that information has been provided and sourced. I also agree with Hybrid196 that if this article is deleted it would only need to be recreated again closer to the release. Oh, and there are now 2 results for the Google News search. NRTurner (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Family tree of the Egyptian gods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are major inaccuracies in this genealogy, but they are only symptoms of a greater problem: that the relationships between Egyptian deities were too numerous and too changeable to attempt to represent in a single chart. Just to name a few examples: at least four gods are called the father of Anubis, and four goddesses called his mother; in different sources Horus' mother may be Hathor, Nut, or Isis, and his father may be Geb or Osiris—not to mention that the child form of Horus may be the son of many more deities, including the adult form of Horus; the creation of the world was variously credited to Nun, Neith, Khnum, Atum, Ptah, Amun, Thoth, or Horus; and Thoth might be the son of Ra or the product of Set's impregnation with Horus' semen. The Egyptologist Erik Hornung put it this way: "It is evidently unnatural for Egyptian gods to be strictly defined. Their being remains a fluid state to which we are not accustomed… The combinations gods form with other gods are in many respects transitory and may be dissolved at any time."