Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 29

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< 28 November	30 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 05:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Chieftains' concert tours

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

Contested prod and prod2 without an edit summary or talk page discussion. Original prod: "Knowledge is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and the article contravenes WP:ADVERT and WP:CONCERT TOUR since there are no reliable sources." Aspects (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, not sufficiently notable for an independent article. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CONCERT TOUR and nomination. Unfortunately the creator of this article has a history of creating tour articles with this exact same problem. --Escape Orbit 10:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Article makes no claim to notability at all. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge Into the band's main article. Beyond495 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CONCERT TOUR jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Very close to an outright keep but some continuing concerns about the sources indicate a lack of clear consensus to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peter Bos

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete See above Eta-theta 02:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete Judging from the available sources, there's some Peter Boses that might be notable, but not this one. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Found RS (1983 article from De Waarheid, a Dutch national communist newspaper). This actor hasn't been active in the internet era (stopped acting in 1993 according to IMDB) ~~so there are no online RS.~~ S_peakF_ree _(contribs) 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Found another article from De Waarheid and a cast mention on the site of the Netherlands Film Festival. S_peakF_ree _(contribs) 21:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Even with his alter ego "Peter Noland" (not Norland as stated above) he still fails WP:NACTOR. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He played the leading part in the 1982 children's TV series De Zevensprong, which was shown on NCRV television and was also shown in Germany in 1984. There is an article about this series on German wiki and also on Italian and Hungarian wiki implying that the series was also shown in those countries (I can't read those languages). He also played a memorable part in the childrens film Knokken voor twee (as is shown in one of the newspaper clippings). That he was interviewed in a national newspaper also goes to show that he was notable in the Netherlands at one time and that's enough for NACTOR. We don't delete articles because someone is not popular anymore. S_peakF_ree _(contribs) 17:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He was interviewed for the youthpage of a national newspaper. And that fails as reliable source. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

He was interviewed by two interns of De Waarheid, named Monique and Linda. There is no policy on English WP that interviews by interns or even by children reporters, which were published in a major newspaper are non-notable. The arbitrary NE qualifications of the Dutch WP don't apply here. S_peakF_ree _(contribs) 03:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philosopher 23:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep per the sources found by SpeakFree. Notability is not temporay. Lugnuts (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Covered in reliable sources. Even if the interviews were conducted by interns or children, there is editorial oversight in the selection of what to publish. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Not giving much weight to Marvinpan's keep !vote; discussion is pretty much stale at this point. 3 to 1, and policy-based arguments by !delete voters seem like consensus enough for me. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tooth Meridian Chart

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

I found this article on fringe medicine in New Pages. I think it's essentially a promotion of this technique, but possibly someone thinks it can be rescued. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

- Keep I am the author of this page. A tooth meridian chart is not a technique (therefore it cannot be a promotion of a technique, as suggested), but a tool used in diagnoses for over two thousand years in Chinese medicine and today in holistic dentistry (which has a Knowledge page currently) as well as chiropractic care and in naturopathy, which is considered a medical discipline. Further, referring to eastern medicine as "fringe medicine" seems to be personal opinion, not grounds for deletion. If the article is lacking something, please let me know and I would be happy to edit, But if Reflexology is considered a valid topic for Knowledge, I would hope that the dental equivalent would also be consider for inclusion. Youngje13 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)— Youngje13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete The problem is that this stuff is so WP:FRINGE that WP:MEDRS haven't critiqued it. So, we've the choice between uncritical adulation in violation of WP:NPOV, and original research debunking. Since neither is compliant with our content policies, removing the article is the only remaining option. This case is distinguished from reflexology by the fact that the latter has been studied by MEDRS , and debunked. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- ~~Keep~~ Calling it "uncritical adulation" is a far stretch, as I am neither advocating nor promoting it, simply writing about a tool used for thousands of years. It can be edited to include cited criticisms if it is in violation of WP:NPOV. However, I do not believe it is considered original research, as I have cited multiple published books and a medical journal. If it is still in violation, can someone please further explain, as I would like to avoid that issue in the future and/or may be able to edit this article to solve that issue if it indeed exists. As for WP:MEDRS, I don't believe it applies as a tooth chart is neither a healing modality nor a medical discipline, but a physical map of body parts. Deleting this page does not remove the fact that these charts exist, are utilized in multiple disciplines, and are searched for online. A neutral article on the topic needs to be created. Deleting it would be the equivalent of Knowledge denying its existence. If the article needs to be edit to be in compliance, then I encourage others to do just that, but deleting the page will just force people to other resources for information on meridian charts, which will most likely not provide the neutral point of view you are seeking.Youngje13 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Youngje, I am striking out the word "keep" at the start of this comment and one below. You can comment as much as you like, but you only get to "vote" (keep or delete) once. Your later comments can simply be indented under the comment you are replying to, without a bold "vote" to begin your input. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete Alessandra Napolitano explained it better than I can. Reliable sources are a good indication of notability, and I was unable to find a WP:MEDRS. Wasbeer 04:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- ~~Keep~~Thank you. I guess I assumed that the medical journals and books referenced were okay (Meinig was a founding member of the American Association of Endodontists, for example). I have since edited the article to cite more sources (both pro and con) including university studies. I still don't understand why an object is subjected to WP:MEDRS as it isn't a medical discipline, modality, or type of treatment. That being said, dental meridians come up repeatedly in a pubmed search, some results of which I have cited. If the sources cited and the research provided are not enough, then leave the article and request more research (as many articles currently do) to allow for further edits. Deleting it doesn't change the fact that these charts (WP:FRINGE or not) exist, are used in Alternative medicine, and are being searched for online. Deleting the page doesn't seem to accomplish anything other than attempting to deny it's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngje13 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I exist. If someone wanted proof of my existence it would not be hard to find a couple of reliable sources about me (I've been on the local news for example). There is no article in Knowledge about me. Is Knowledge denying my existence? We have a page (Knowledge:Notability) that tries to explain why some things are included in Knowledge, and others are not, but I admit it is far from perfect. Maybe the charts are not notable, but holistic dentistry is. Wasbeer 23:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Point well made (and well taken) about existence. My apologies for that. And thank you for the article on Knowledge:Notability, as that helped explain it. If you read my edited article, you will see that I have referenced reliable sources that deny the merit of the meridians based on university studies, so I believe it does meet the notability requirement. Further, I am trying to find the research done by Dr. Thomas Rau, the reputable and notable medical director of the Paracelsus Klinik, which he used in developing the modern version of the chart. Unfortunately, I don't have access to all the foreign journal articles I would like, so for the time being, the sources cited and referenced in the article will hopefully suffice as to proving its notability. The original complaints were that it was in violation of WP:NPOV and original research, neither of which I believe it violates. Further, I have cited sources from WP:MEDRS. Not sure how many more things it can be denied for, but I hope that the hot button the topic has obviously struck will be further proof that it is a notable topic worthy of inclusion (if it wasn't notable, no one would care, right? ) Youngje13 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

- Keep The article cites noted sources, including criticisms,from reputable institutions and publications. Therefore, it does not seem to violate WP:NPOV, original research, or WP:MEDRS. It appears notable as independent studies have been done compilation reviews on the subject (plus, the all-important QuackWatch lists it, so it does have written detractors). I didn't read the original versions mentioned, but I don't see any violations in the version that is up now. Marvinpan (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Marvinpan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually, nccam.nih.gov and the British dental journal and Oral diseases do not contain the words "tooth" or "meridian" or "chart" in the abstract. I do not have access to the full text unfortunately. @Youngje13: Would you be so kind to send them to me? Holistic dentistry is notable, the charts are not imho. The article contains dangerous nonsense, for instance: "Recent studies involving 60 women with breast cancer showed 57 of these women had a root canal on a tooth related to the breast meridian."<ref>{{cite book|last=Ewing|first=Dr. Dawn|title=Let the Tooth Be Known|year=1998|publisher=Holistic Health Alternatives|isbn=0-9669404-1-5|pages=40}}</ref>"
This belief is quite old. Weston A. Price, D.D.S. (1870-1948), performed poorly designed studies that led him to conclude that teeth treated with root canal therapy leaked bacteria or bacterial toxins into the body, causing arthritis and many other diseases. This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid. (Easlick K. An evaluation of the effect of dental foci of infection on health. Journal of the American Dental Association 42:615-97, 1951. & Grossman L. Pulpless teeth and focal infection. Journal of Endodontics 8:S18-S24, 1982.). Quackwatch link. Wasbeer 14:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

At what point did this article become about focal infection theory? You can argue the merits of Focal infection theory at the appropriate page (as well as the research validity of Quack Watch). I understand that your "honest opinion" doesn't think the topic is notable. I obviously disagree and believe that this is a worthwhile topic and that the research should stand on its own. I also have emails into Dr. Thomas Rau and Dr. Klinghardt to provide more sources for me, but it obviously won't matter to some people. I have read the requirements to keep an article on Knowledge. As I have shown already, this article meets and exceeds all those requirements... More so than many other articles currently listed, yet this article is marked for deletion. No amount of sources or research will change our mind about the fact that it clearly meets all Knowledge requirements, even if you disagree with the validity of the topic.Youngje13 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to Thomas Rau. A glance at that article shows that it may need to be evaluated for deletion as well. It contains absolutely no reference links and thus is an "unreferenced biography of a living person"; such articles are supposed to be tagged so that they either get references added or get deleted. There are some external links provided at that article, but all of them are self-referential to Thomas Rau himself and thus are not acceptable as "independent reliable sources" per Knowledge requirements. I am tagging it right now. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you send me the full text of the references via email? At the moment the article does not meet all Knowledge requirements (e.g. notability = significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). If you want to use references that confirm "Tooth Meridian Charts" are notable I expect them to contain the words "Tooth Meridian Chart". Wasbeer 17:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Relisting comment: Since there's an outstanding request for more information, let's relist this and see if it's provided.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philosopher 23:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not yet received an email; but if I do I will post a comment here. Wasbeer 14:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked my inbox and spamfolder, and I still have not received the information I was asking for. Youngje13's most recent edit is from 24 November 2011. Wasbeer 00:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Should reliable sources at some point become available, try using WP:Articles for creation so that others can evaluate the sources before trying to make it go live. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AlHajjar

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

Declined PROD. PROD nomination was the following:

No assertion of this family's notability. Existing sources are unreliable or primary documents, not independent sources.

Previously declined speedy was contested with the following:

it depicts the lineage of an important and well-known family and references have now been included. It is also a growing article with more references forthcoming

Current references continue to be unreliable-- they are two forums and and one religious website (which I have concluded based on google translate). It's not clear to me how to begin searching for sources about this family name, because the title of the article (AlHajjar) and the lead (Hajjar AlOmari) call it different things, and the name is not given in the native language. In any case, there are no reliable sources supporting the notability of this family. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 05:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"more references are now included some are direct and some are in English. It is still growing article with more references forthcoming" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moh32 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Moh32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability. Knowledge is not the place for people to post their family histories. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete I agree with JamesBWatson. There is no place for this page. Vincelord (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep In the Middle East family history and lineage is very important. This particular family has a history of over 500 years and the article describes two periods (Ottoman and Saudi) with political, religious, and social perspectives. It also provides a starting point for other notable members of this family to document even more historical, political, religious, and social relevance. It provides important links to these past eras and has insight for the general public into the inter-workings and relations between families and tribes and how they relate to the history and evolution of the society. The references are relevant to persons of this region as the linking of family and society are of great importance. These references, although mostly in the native Arabic language, do provide support for the notability of this issue for all readers. Over time, this particular article will have more details and references and connections to other articles, other articles will also link back to this article for historical support, which will increase its relevance. This building of references and linking of data is what Knowledge is all about. I believe the article should be accepted. Moh32 (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Moh32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philosopher 22:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

'Keep’ I am American and live in Saudi Arabia. I can understand why American reviewers may not appreciate this article. But lineage and family/tribal history is a matter of great importance in the Middle East. So much so that people’s daily lives are affected by who their ancestors were. This article traces lineage back to a very important figure in Islamic history. It also illustrates the family’s experience during very notable eras in history. The family itself was and is of great influence in the region and has made notable contributions to what is now known as Saudi Arabia. This is an important piece of history for this region that should have it’s storage place on Wiki.Natural mom (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Natural mom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The result was delete; there's no need to "disambiguate" a subject which is not in fact notable. sorry Martin Random Shii (tock) 01:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Davis

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

Delete. While I can find an overwhelming amount of non-trivial, third party coverage for Occupy UC Davis, I cannot say the same for this subject. I'm afraid some editors/viewers are conflating the two. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge into larger Occupy articles. Recreate again if neeeded, but it can't exist on its own right now. Beyond495 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Unsure. It's important people not conflate or confuse the university movement with the city movement-- I'm told they're two entirely different groups of people with different circumstances, different backgrounds, and different aims, and most importantly, different websites & social media accounts. But of course, the two movements do have huge overlap.

My instinct is that confusion of the two is sufficiently common that we should make separate article with cross-links at the tops. In this sense, the primary fact that needs to be documents about OccupyDavis is merely its unique existence apart from the University movement where the police violence occurred. That's a very humble fact to document, but perhaps the best way to document it is to keep this article on as a stub that may grow.

That's my thinking at least-- OccupyDavis isn't especially notable, but enough note has been taken that it's certain not non-notable. In my eyes, much of the OccupyDavis notability comes from its mere from its superficial similarities to OccupyUCDavis (and of course, its repeated conflation with OccupyUCDavis is cause for us to highlight it).

That said, it's a pretty lousy read, admittedly. In my eyes, an article on OccupyDavis need only mention its existence, comment on its distinction from the university movement, have a link to a reference and a link to their website and I'd call it good. In writing this little stub, I tried to add a little more detail than that-- but its pretty barebones-with no one having yet updated it, (and indeed, I have no special eagerness to update it).

Perhaps reducing it to just a disambiguation page? I worry because #Redirect conveys "equals" to our readers-- they ask for X, we redirect them to Y, and they unconsciously infer that X = Y. (even though we writers know a redirect means something far more subtle that this, we are in the minority).

So, my response is just do whatever you think is best, but try to avoid a redirect. Consider "OccupyDavis" as a 'minorly notable person with the same name as a highly notable person' -- so, Bill Murray (footballer) and Bill Murray. An early 20th century football player isn't especially notable, but there's a tiny something to be said in keeping a stub on him around-- if only to avoid confusion and conflation.

) Maybe. I defer to your wisdom on how to serve our readers best. --Tangledorange (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. All of the verified, relevant info is already in the father's article, so there's not really anything to merge. Editors can has out exactly what is WP:DUE on the father's article's talk page and add info per normal editing practices. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Louis, Duke of Burgundy (b. 2010)

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

One-year old baby whose only claim to notability is that his father is a member of nobility and a ninth-generation (contested) claimant to a long-defunct European throne. Notability in Knowledge is not inherited. This goes for nobility like for everybody else. This child has no notability independent of his parents (whose own notability is marginal); there has been no particular amount of media coverage of him apart from the usual celebrity family gossip news of his birth; he is unlikely to do or be anything noteworthy for the next two decades at least, and the article currently has little to say about him apart from the dates of his birth and baptism (and his weight and size at birth). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect and Merge to father’s article. Current information is useful to keep on record for a future article when he gets a bit older.- dwc lr (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge to the article about his notable Pa. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep I hate pointless AfD nominations like this. As for the nominator's comment that "Notability in Knowledge is not inherited", we'll see how long he sticks by that comment when Prince William and Kate have their first child. OakWoodDoor (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC) vote by block-evading sockpuppet struck. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your vote contains no argument. "Not inherited" is long-standing policy, see WP:BASIC. A child in the Windsor family would be fairly quick to attract genuine coverage in "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". This child hasn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep Notability might not be inherited, but nobility is, and nobility is notable. This child has inherited an aristocratic position that has notability, per our policies. There are sources included to support this. If the nominator thinks that nobility should not be inherited (a political standpoint outside WP, but not that unusual), then he'll be wanting the Jacobinpedia instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- An "aristocratic position", in the abstract, doesn't attract notability. Only people can attract notability. And that notability is not something that attaches to them a priori; it is only conveyed through "coverage in published sources". That's our long-standing policy, and we have multiple precedents of deleting articles on children with these kinds of aristocratic titles. (BTW, I hope your removal of my last posting was unintentional. And I'd encourage you to not speculate about my political positions.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  - Only people can attract notability. Agreed. And if you're in the succession to the throne of France, you can achieve this merely by being born. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for accidentally deleting your previous post - I think I came here through a link to an old version and didn't notice the banner. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"you can achieve this merely by being born": No. You can achieve it only, ever, by having people talk about you, in reliable sources. That is the one and only criterion of what notability means in Knowledge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and as potential royalty (however implausible), that happens from birth. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect and Merge to father’s article. WP:NOTDIR is quite explicit saying "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles", and this article is exactly that: a genealogical entry. Andy's argument that "nobility is notable" has no ground in our practice thus far, and it's unlikely that it ever will. No such user (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep:As the son of the pretender to the French throne, and (de jure) second in line to said throne himself, he is notable. 41.133.1.188 (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — 41.133.1.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, although I suppose you could redirect it to the page of his equally unimportant father, the so-called Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. If you want to know how irrelevant this family is, just read his father's Knowledge page: he is "one of the current pretenders to the defunct crown of France" and "He is styled 'Duke of Anjou', although the French courts have ruled that this is an abolished title." (Strictly speaking his father's article should be moved to "Louis Alphonse de Bourbon" and the baby's should be retitled "Louis de Bourbon", using their real names instead of their abolished titles.) Quite aside from my lack of reverence for imaginary titles, I have a sound policy reason for arguing delete/redirect: the kid has not received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. As one would expect of a one-year-old baby. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW the family is barely even French. The father has dual French-Spanish citizenship, and the baby is an American citizen by right of his having been born in New York. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

'Merge into his father's article, per precedent. We've re-hashed this dozens of times. The kids of nobility and claimants belong in their (notable) parents' articles. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. m.o.p 05:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Minnesota State High School League Section Assignments

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

unclear sport thingy. Not notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - it's just some qualifier for Minnesota State High School League. Doesn't even seem worthwhile to redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Worthless article. Are there any more like this? If so let's delete them too. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. If someone wants to create a redirect later, go ahead, but deletion is much more efficent than editing in copyright amending details just to leave a redirect behind. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Florida state international programs

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

non-notable program of a university. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep notable. Askadaleia (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Florida State University#International Programs where this entire article appears in its entirety. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment It's been copied without attribution from that page is therefore a copyright violation. Edgepedia (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Reply - That's fixable by adding in the appropriate split notices in the article talk pages to maintain attribution. However, considering this is the exact same text that already exists, there's no good reason for a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete without a redirect. All the information is already at Florida State University, and that's where someone would start if they want information about these programs. BTW I don't think it is a copyright violation to copy information from one Knowledge page into another Knowledge page, is it? --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - It is a copyright violation when done without attribution as was done in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-life

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

There are four items on this DAB page: one is a partial title match, one is a nickname for a one-episode non-notable character, one is an unencyclopedic POV term, and one is a non-notable song. Existence of this page is unnecessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, disambiguates ambiguous topics covered in Knowledge. Not sure what else it needs to do to be kept, but the navigational function needs to be served. If the song and term are unencyclopedic, they should be removed from the encyclopedia before removing the navigational function for them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The song and the term are already absent from the encyclopedia. That's why the page up for deletion links to an article about an album and an article about the abortion debate - it's a DAB page for nonexistent articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
They are present in the encyclopedia, in the articles linked in the dab entries, which meet WP:DABMENTION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we would include them if the dab page was in other respects useful or necessary (the example in your link is "Tail," which has many uses), but a dab page composed solely of non-articles (and one PTM, which isn't supposed to appear on a dab page) doesn't seem to serve any purpose. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The articles that mention the topic are articles, and would be valid targets for a redirect at the title. Since there are multiple possible target articles for a single title, there is ambiguity to be resolved. That is the purpose this disambiguation page serves. If the disambiguation page is deleted, an editor could create a redirect to any one of the possible "mentioning" articles, to the detriment of readers who are looking for one of the other ones. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep - it may not be the most essential dab page we have, but it's not causing any harm as it stands, and it means that if somebody searches for or links to anti-life, they are taken to a neutral page. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
What reason would someone have to do so? (Also, WP:NOHARM.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Eh? What reason would someone have for searching for "anti-life"? I can't look into the mind of a hypothetical person, but I think we can safely assume that people do search for anything and everything, wanting to know the meaning of the term. And since this term has multiple meanings, a dab page is the best place to take them. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. The readership is a very large set. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep while the dab page not might generate much hits it may still serve some people searching for the term. S_peakF_ree _(contribs) 14:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. m.o.p 05:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Morpheus Capital Advisors

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

No real notability and no assertion of any notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH . Refs are mostly own site and, of the remainder, one is clearly a posted advert and the other simply a passing quote from the CEO. Velella 21:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I've removed swaths of material from the article that were copied from the company website. -- Whpq (talk)

Delete - I see them mentioned but I don't see any coverage specifically about them. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dominik Knoll

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

Mr. Knoll has a nice job, a good education and some potential useful contact, but has not done anything remarkable himself, according to the article. It is more then likely that he was invited for the two named conferences due to his job, not his own merits. Being named as "2010 People to Watch" in a local monthly lifestyle magazin is of a questionable value. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep His opinions were featured last weak in the Wall Street Journal, for whatever that's worth. I think it may be worth keeping in particular in light of the recent strong interest about Wall Street and those associated with it. 216.163.247.1 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete; commentators are not automatically notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Marketown, Newcastle

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

Local and non-notable shopping centre in Newcastle. Shopping centres are usually considered notable if they are super-regional or regional (i.e. gross leasable area of more than 60,000 square metres and containing well over 200 specialty stores, along with supermarkets, discount department stores and department stores). Till I Go Home (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Google News finds only passing mentions. Article contains almost no content, and no references except the centre's own website. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirected to McLeod's Daughters (season 8), as an editorial solution. This article was nothing but an infobox. None of the other episodes in this season have pages outside the season list. The redirect follows a fairly standard Knowledge format for episode titles, so is not implausible (and redirects are cheap). There wasn't much discussion here, but there's really no need to let thing hang around another week. Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Show Must Go on (McLeod's Daughters)

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

No independent notability. Or content. Was refused speedy delete. Only finding torrent and imdb references to this particular episode. Series is obviously notable but not every episode is. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to McLeod's Daughters (season 8). This episode is non-notable, but redirects are cheap. Jenks24 (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm fine with redirects when they are at least plausible (and I'm generous in how I define plausible), but how many people would search "the show must go on" in any combination and instead be looking for this episode, rather than the song by Queen, or more likely the expression itself? I know that redirects are cheap, and use them liberally myself, but is this really a case where it actually would make Knowledge "better"? Maybe it is a lack of imagination, but I can't see how, and think the opposite is true if you create redirects that only muddy the waters when someone is searching the site. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently it gets a couple of views per day, so presumably there are at least some people who are interested enough to search for it. I agree that the large majority of people searching for just "The Show Must Go on" won't be looking for this episode, but anyone who actually searches for "The Show Must Go on (McLeod's Daughters)" will be. As it appears that a few people do this each day, it seems sensible to redirect them to a relevant article, rather than just saying that an article of that title does not exist. Jenks24 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Train Benching

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

Non-notable term with a low number of hits. Might by better off in the dictionary. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - smells WP:MADEUP to me; WP:NEO at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: how is this allowed to be here? Till I Go Home (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete -- Even if it is a genuine term, it should be in a dictionary, not here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. This is a dictionary definition but I can't find any evidence that it would meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, so a transwiki would be pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. However, I do implore editors here to actually add those sources that pass WP:RS so that the notability is established in the article, rather than just this AfD page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Rage comic

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

Through three pages of Google, I could not find enough sources to show that this article passed GNG, and that the sources passed V and RS. The sources I did find were mostly blog posts, forums, etc. that do not demonstrate notability. I did find some other sources, such as the following:

Josh Wolford (2 November 2011). "Teaching The English Language With Rage (Comics)". WebProNews. Retrieved 18 November 2011.

is not reliable. People can contact WebProNews "with credentials and examples of what might write here. The content is user-generated, and therefore unreliable. Furthermore, in WebProNews' ToS, they state that "WEBPRONEWS MAKES NO WARRANTY ... THAT THE SERVICE WILL BE ... ERROR-FREE...". Because the website does not assert that the content it publishes is accurate, it fails WP:V.

Laura Hudson (1 November 2011). "Rage Comics Face Found in Testicular Ultrasound". ComicsAlliance. Retrieved 18 November 2011.

Andy Khouri (11 November 2011). "86-Year-Old Veteran Chronicles His Life in Heartwarming Rage Comic". ComicsAlliance. Retrieved 18 November 2011.http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/11/11/86-year-old-veteran-rage-comic/

is not reliable either. According to the site-specific ToS, there are no terms of service at all. According to the ToS for the owner, AOL, "For general information, discussion, and entertainment purposes only and make no representations or guarantees about the truth, accuracy, or quality of any content". Because the website does not assert that content it publishes is accurate, it fails WP:V.

Know Your Meme: "Rage Comics". Retrieved June 14, 2011.

is user-contributed. A discussion here has a general agreement that it is mostly not reliable. Masem (talk · contribs) said " is far from the editoral site we would expect. Yes, there are paid moderators that improve entries to valid them as memes, but because 90% of the content is from users (effectively a stricter wiki but a wiki nevertheless), its hard to draw the line between the editors and the users on that site. It should be avoided as a source if possible". User-generated content fails WP:RS. However, the reference leads to a video, which is supposedly "made by the actual employees". There was a general agreement in the discussion that the videos were reliable enough to be used as references for "for basic facts about a meme". At most, this is one source, which is not "multiple" as expected by the GNG.

Because the article does not pass the GNG and is not supported by verifiable and reliable sources, it should be deleted. →Σ τ c. 03:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Essentially no RS will ever provide a warranty that their content is accurate. If they did, they could be sued into bankruptcy by hundreds of people claiming reliance interests if they ever made a mistake. The sources may have other problems, but their disclaimers are no indication of inaccuracy per se. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, although I commend the nominator on his diligence. About the sources you have contested,

Know Your Meme videos which are produced by paid know your meme staff have been vetted as RS by the RSN.
ComicsAlliance alliance has an editorial staff and paid contributors. That is a RS to me. It is used in at least 50 other mainspace articles (see link search). That attempt to go to the AOL terms of service is an interesting attempt to discredit the source, I have never seen it before and Σ should be complimented on his ingenuity, but I don't buy it. That argument would seemingly disqualify AOL news.

I would also like to present the following reliable sources:

Brenna Ehrlich. "Get Out Your Rage With the Cheezburger Network’s fffuuuuu Rage Guy Site". Mashable, 7/20/2011.
Robert Quigley. "Hot Topic Pulls FFFUUUUUUU T-Shirts Following Devious 4chan Ploy (Update)". Geekosystem, 11/18/2011.
Kim LaCapria. "4chan cows Hot Topic into pulling ‘Rage Guy’ shirt in record time". The Inquisitr, 11/18/2011.
Kim LaCapria. "Update: Hot Topic changes mind, will continue to sell ‘Rage Guy/Race Guy’ shirts". The Inquisitr, 11/20/2011.
"Tambrahm humour goes virtual". Indian Express, 7/27/2011.
Kevin Morris. "Making rage comics? Just fine with this English teacher". The Daily Dot, October 2011.
Kevin Morris. "Forever Alone? Not with rage comics on Reddit". The Daily Dot, October 2011.
Kevin Morris. "Redditors riot over rage comic fiasco". The Daily Dot, August 2011.
Kevin Morris. "Rage animations are all the rage on Reddit". The Daily Dot, November 2011.
Kevin Morris. "Like rage comics? You'll love rage novels". The Daily Dot, September 2011.
Elise Moreau. "Rage Faces: Internet Meme Faces and Funny Memes". About.com.
Colin McGann. "Geekin’ It: Rage Guy Faces". State Press Magazine, 3/7/2011.
Ann Hoevel. "The Know Your Meme team gets all scientific on teh intarwebs". CNN, 10/11/2011. (minor mention).
Christina Caldwell. "Big Business: Comic books and fantasy emerge as the pop culture epicenter of the internet age". Colledge Times, 5/27/2011. (minor mention)
James Twigg. "Upvoting UB". The Spectrum, 9/15/2011. (minor mention)
"Je pátek, čas na... NAVŽDY SÁM!". Reflex Magazine, 5/20/2011.
"Revue du web #97". Les Inrockuptibles, 5/10/2010 . (minor mention)

Let me just say that the quality of this article has degraded some since I left it. JORGENEV 08:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Excellent work. I too must commend you on your diligence. However, I would like to point out the following:

Five of the links above were written by one person for one organisation. If those alone were used, I do not think one person repeatedly covering the same thing would demonstrate notability.
Two of the same links above were written by one person for one organisation. If those alone were used, I do not think one person repeatedly covering the same thing would demonstrate notability.
From the Geekosystem disclaimer, Geekosystem publishes news, information, gossip, rumors, conjecture, opinions, analysis and commentary. Geekosystem includes original, created, fictional, reported and edited content as well as unmoderated reader posts and/or comments containing the personal opinions of readers on a wide range of topics. The information set forth herein may not necessarily be accurate or current. This is a far worse source than the ones I assessed above, as Geekosystem does not routinely moderate, screen, or edit content contributed by readers. That Geekosystem states that it does not check user-contributed content at all strongly shows that if fails RS.
There are no Mashable terms of use, which is something very unprofessional. Based on that, it is impossible to assess its reliability, and as such, it is a questionable source. Thus, it does not pass V. Furthermore, Mashable accepts user-generated content. That and the fact that it is impossible to assess for reliability, makes the Mashable link fail RS.
From what I could see, the Indian Express article above was about a specific website that distributed rage comics. I also discovered, that in the disclaimer, THE CONTENTS, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, FEATURES AND SERVICES PUBLISHED ON MAY INCLUDE INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. If the site does not have the editorial oversight to even copyedit their content, or even check that it is completely accurate, it does not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as seen in RS.
I could find nothing regarding editorial oversight for The Inquisitr.

→Σ τ c. 02:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

CNN also makes no warranty that its content will be "error free" (see 6.A). I don't think you method for determining if a source is reliable or not is a good one. JORGENEV 02:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how looking up the terms of service is the final arbiter for the usefulness of a source. Jorgenev points out a perfect flaw in this thinking. The sources certainly vary in quality, but not according to what their lawyers wrote in the ToC. --Qwerty0 (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, about geekosystem, the phrase from their disclaimer that you use to discredit it is talking about their comments section! Geekosystem is used in many articles, and has previously been used successfully as an RS for notability in Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Pioneer One. JORGENEV 03:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Jorgenev. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
See my response to Jorgenev. →Σ τ c. 02:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete Okay, you found some more sources. But nothing in those I looked at make me feel this is anything more than a passing non-notable fad-like thing. Eeekster (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call something that has been popular for four years 'passing'. As for your conclusion that reliable sources are irrelevant to the issue, I am not sure what to say. JORGENEV 02:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have assessed the above links, and for the most part, do not believe they are reliable. →Σ τ c. 02:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have assessed your method of assessing reliable sources and concluded that your method also disqualifies CNN. JORGENEV 03:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete WP:42 WP:NN Eta-theta 02:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete I have to agree with Σ all the way. The credibility of these sources are questionable. I commend your excellent work, Σ! Rotorcowboy (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Some of those sources cover Hot Topic, a massive retailer, had shirts of this meme. The Hindu mentions this as a notable internet meme . Dream Focus 00:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Σ, at a certain point it starts to look like we're searching for reasons to ignore a multitude of references to this phenomenon. What is all this terms-of-service-trawling? Look through the terms of service for all the major news organizations. See if they don't disclaim responsibility for inaccurate information. I'm sorry this is a thing from the internet. Sometimes internet things become significant. --Qwerty0 (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete A non-notable Internet meme and subculture. As Σ pointed out, none of the given sources are reliable enough. The Hot Topic debacle is rather irrelevant, as they sell all kinds of pop culture junk and memes one time or another. If rage comics deserve an article, why not advice animals, Philosoraptor, etc? Even our image macro article is up to debate. — Kieff | Talk 08:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit of a slippery slope argument, isn't it? Advice animals, philosoraptor, etc aren't such a significant, widely circulated and noted phenomenon. Maybe they will be some day, but right now they aren't. So we don't include them. --Qwerty0 (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep — So-called 'poor references' or not, rage comics are at least as notable as many of the other things on Category:Internet_memes ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Good amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Jorgenev. CallawayRox (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Per Jorgenev's list of sources that do not assert notability? →Σ τ c. 05:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted by User:Fluffernutter per CSD A7. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Harris (programmer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep How does it fail WP:N? I think he's a perfectly notable man who has done programming, and with expansion, a lot of expansion, this has potential to become an article with some status and I think it could. Rcsprinter (yak) 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete I hope Rcsprinter was joking above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Causation and association

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

Research paper comparing and contrasting causation and association, which both have their own articles already SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as essay; creator is welcome to contribute sourced information to the existing articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - not only do we already have articles on Causality and Association, there's also one on Correlation does not imply causation, so all bases are well covered. If there is anything to add to these three (I suspect it's mainly an issue of differences of culture and language, statistician-speak may not be scientist-speak or medic-speak) then it can certainly go into one of the existing articles. In other words, it's a WP:CONTENTFORK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it may be worth adding hatnotes and 'See also's to help stop this happening again. Quite so often. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Essay. Content fork. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Muthu Mudalige Nissanka

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

Obvious autobiography, no reliable sources found to indicate any sort of notability. Kinu /_c 18:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Even if refs could be found, the assertions of notability per WP:CREATIVE are very weak. Filing Flunky (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - No reliable sources for a biography of a living person. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete No evidence given for the success of this person's film. Peridon (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete promotional autobiography. No credible claim of notability. Pichpich (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources and as the original nom of WP:BLPPROD for this article. Enfcer (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alex Nestoropolous

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

Deprodded without explanation. A Google News search for "Alex Nestoropolous" yields zero hits. Current references are a mix of non-working links and Wiki mirror sites. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG at this time, nor WP:ATHLETE#Boxing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Zero matches on Google News archives. If I'm overlooking some Greek publications that somehow Google fails to index, by all means leave me a note on my talk page and I will reconsider. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- And for that matter, if there's Greek-language RS I'll happily withdraw this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. As a boxer, there is no evidence of meeting or even coming close to meeting WP:NSPORT#Boxing. And seeing as he is currently based out of Toronto, in Canada in boxing, I doubt the arrival of enough Greek language sources that would be able to establish notability. However, if they do show up, i will evaluate them with an open mind. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. If its unsourced then its OR and not mergable Spartaz 07:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lost in Hollywood

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lost in Hollywood

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

No Sources, nonnotable song. Fails WP:MUSIC. SKATER 16:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge - with Mesmerize. Some of it can be backed; see Billboard, The rhetorical power of popular culture: considering mediated texts, Sound and Vision (call the song "heartbreaking"). PopMatters "venomous mini-epic “Lost in Hollywood”, which comes close to matching the seething misanthropy of Tool’s masterful “Ænima”" Enough to talk about, but in the album page. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
delete just another song, nothing sourced, nothing to merge. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was merge to Stevenage. Spartaz 07:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Shephalbury Park Primary School

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

Non-notable primary school. No indication in the article of any notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Stevenage per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete or Merge if anything notable can be found to merge. There's no claim of notability that I can see. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge to place - as we normally do. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Stevenage. IJA (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Seattle Mariners minor league players. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Jarrett Grube

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

Non-notable minor league player. Yes he is active, but he fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. A Google News search shows he was All-CUSA, but that, to me, seems to be too low a bar to set. All-American is one thing, but All-Conference opens up the floodgates. Creating a stub or entry on a minor league page for every active minor leaguer would also be cumbersome. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Seattle Mariners minor league players, since he's still active and in the organization. -Hit bull, win steak 16:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge/redirect per HBWS. I'm not sure why you unmerged this one to begin with. Spanneraol (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Because I don't think he's notable enough even for a sentence at the minor league page. A line has to be drawn somewhere, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  - Why dont you think he belongs? He plays at AAA.. he's not some Rookie league guy. Spanneraol (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    - Because he simply isn't notable. He's an organizational guy, just a Rookie league guy who didn't quit. These pages are meant to be a holding area for people who aren't quite notable yet, but might become soon. This guy doesn't fit that. There's no reason that I can see to keep him, since otherwise these pages would include every single minor leaguer in the organization. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Revert to redirect. Jarrett Grube is already included in Seattle Mariners minor league players (in the Tacoma Rainiers roster). I do not understand this nomination. This page was a redirect to that target article, as of 11 November. Yesterday, the nominator tagged the redirect for speedy deletion as G8; this was (correctly) declined as inapplicable. The nominator then restored the article to its pre-redirect state, initially tagging it BLPPROD, then settling on standard PROD; this was declined. Now we're at AFD. Procedurally, efforts to delete a redirect (which this was) belong at RFD, but I cannot imagine RFD would be sympathetic as this player is mentioned in the target article. Why was the 11 November status quo problematic? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Re-revert to redirect. As I have already done in the past couple days when the nominator keeps changing it. (I was the involved admin on the speedy and removed the PROD as well.) The nominator keeps removing the player from the list page as well on similar thin arguments (Why is this one player different from the others on that list?). Rmhermen (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Because those at least have some sourcing, and some possibility of notability. This one has none. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a long-running dispute between the nominator and User:Alexsautographs, who initially merged/redirected the page to the list. It may be connected to that, in some way? -Hit bull, win steak 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I assure you its not related. Alex was right to merge it rather than let it stand, but I don't think he's notable enough even for a short blurb on that page. Alex has nothing to do with this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was just something that had occurred to me. -Hit bull, win steak 16:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's fair given what's happened to consider it a possibility. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy Trinity Catholic Church (Los Angeles, California)

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

Non-notable church (as organisation) Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No indication that the article satisfies WP:CHURCH. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Unremarkable church, not notable for age or architecture, with absolutely no coverage at Google News that I could find. The church's own website describes it simply as a "smaller, neighborhood parish" .
Merge with Atwater Village, Los Angeles, California, where it is situated. This is the best solution for local churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice to recreation With a church size as a large congregation, there is a presumption of notability. This is consistent with a Google news archive search for . And nominator's claim of "non-notable" is a drive-by nomination unsupported by evidence. However, the article has no references, so the issue of notability is only of academic interest, and there is no need to further analyze it. For the same reason, there is nothing to merge. Overcoming this problem is the same as writing the article from scratch, which as an encyclopedia, we should encourage, while also noting that it might be a good idea to start the new work at Atwater Village, Los Angeles, California as suggested above. Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Shii (tock) 01:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Christian Paris

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

non-notable DJ with a lot of namedropping and unreliable sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I am also nominating the following related pages because it seems obviously related, shares the same issues with notability and unreliable sources, and the fates of the two articles probably should be shared:

- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete both. There is a "Christian Paris" whose name appears in sources as a spokesperson for a French pilot's union. Doesn't seem to be this guy. "Alice in Wonderland nightclub" finds a single news source, an incidental mention in a story about Doctor and the Medics, in what appears to be a user submission site. The text of both articles reads like self promotion and would require a complete do-over to turn either of them into encyclopedia articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. No-one has adduced proper sourcing and since there is a clear element of promotion here we are clearly better off without this Spartaz 07:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

School of Homeopathy

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

Promotional, non-neutral and highly misleading article (e.g. "knowledgeable", "wide-ranging skills", "considerable expertise", "professional"). Falsely states that the School offers an "undergraduate programme" i.e. a degree course, when in fact it's simply a diploma course. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE/PS. Prod contested on the bizarre basis that there are reliable sources: yes, the School exists but there's no reliable source to demonstrate its "expertise" nor that its patrons include "leading" homeopaths because there is no publicly accepted definition of expertise in homeopathy. See Homeopathy#Regulation_and_prevalence which reports that "the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious". This article should either be deleted because it is misleading and supports a fringe theory or stubbed to simply state basic information about the school. andy (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC) andy (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Homeopathy is nonsense, but I can't see why that equates to deletion. I've also just removed your prod on Misha Norland, for much the same reason. Take a chainsaw to the weasel words and puffery by all means, but if pseudoscience achieves coverage per WP:GNG, it warrants a neutral, encyclopedic, article just as much as do superluminal neutrinos.

Lack of acceptable RS coverage would be reason to delete, but I'm not seeing that. There is independent coverage that homeopaths operate a school in Stroud (where else!) and that it is seen as a significant school for such a subject. The Madness of Prince Charles isn't within our remit to make judgements upon. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Question: You cited independent coverage showing that this institution exists. Is evidence that something exists a sufficient reason for it to have an article at Knowledge? Does the coverage amount to notability? --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Change to delete The independent coverage here just isn't strong enough. Likewise Misha Norland (which I'll AfD in just a moment). With no prejudice as to the value of magic fairy dust-based healthcare, if these two players in the field are really that important, they still need to get themselves noticed by real-world WP:RS before we have to worry about taking notice of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm conflicted. I don't like taking a chainsaw to a bad article - for a start it tends to grow back! andy (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment It really is important to maintain a neutral point of view on these things. Exactly the same arguments can and will be made about other branches of medicine, conventional medical techniques which are no longer regarded as effective, religions and so on. If there is an established body of practice or knowledge taught and people willing to receive it the issue here really is whether the school is notable in WP terms. I will let others more familiar with possible sources argue that but I agree that it is likley to pass. I do not personally like the tone either, but I do not think it can simply be dismissed as spam without addressing notability; it may just be a matter of improvement rather than deletion. And before anyone asks, I have never sought, nor do I ever expect to seek, the services of a homeopathist. --AJHingston (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable - or else redirect to the page of its founder/guru, Misha Norland. (I would argue against a redirect because the name is so generic.) Knowledge has broad acceptance criteria for schools, meaning degree-granting institutions, but this is not such a school. It is more in the style of a trade school and thus must prove notability through significant third-party coverage as per WP:CORP. I'm not finding such coverage. Google News finds almost nothing except verification that it exists and acknowledgement of its anniversary. The references at the article are no better. In any case the article name is bad - there are innumerable schools of homeopathy in the world - and if kept the article should be renamed to something like School of Homeopathy (U.K.) or School of Homeopathy (Stroud). BTW this "school" is supposedly located at Hawkwood College and proudly provides an external link to that college - but the college's website does not even acknowledge the existence of the School of Homeopathy as far as I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW let's be careful, in evaluating this article, to keep in mind that we are evaluating an article about a particular institution - not about homeopathy in general, or whether the topic of homeopathy is worthy of coverage. Homeopathy already has a detailed article at Knowledge. This discussion is about a particular school of homeopathy, and whether or not that school meets Knowledge's criteria for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation should generally be done when it's needed, not usually beforehand, although I'd have no objection to School of Homeopathy (UK) or School of Homeopathy (Stroud).

The lack of linkage from Hawkwood is indeed strange. The most I could find was this corker of a link (put your coffee down before reading) . Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me that Hawkwood offers a course on homeopathy; Hawkwood seems like that kind of "college". What does surprise me is that the homeopathy course offered by Hawkwood doesn't mention the School of Homeopathy, which is supposedly "at" Hawkwood. I have a feeling that there is no real connection between Hawkwood and the School of Homeopathy except possibly a space-renting arrangement. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. This story says that Hawkwood "also provides a home for the School of Homeopathy", while the link on the Hawkwood website here says the school is one of "many organisations and people whose activities are linked or in some way allied to those of Hawkwood". So yet another misleading piece of information in the article. They don't run undergraduate degree courses at a "College" in the Cotswolds, they rent space there and run their own diploma courses. andy (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Week Keep - Per coverage: , , . Northamerica1000 05:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but those references don't even come close to significant coverage in reliable sources. andy (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Google news archive search has a vast number of hits to sort through. I don't see anything too notable yet though. Do they have any physical locations? Is this just an online course? If they had an actual school building built in 60 different nations. But I'm thinking its probably just having their online course translated and no way of telling if it was just one person from those nations, or a significant number. How many people total have taken this course? Dream Focus 15:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on discussion above, it appears that they have only one physical location (which may consist of rented space on the campus of another college) plus their online courses. --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It all comes back to reliable sources that prove notability. The article says there's an international distance learning course but there are no references to show that it's in any way notable. The same is of course true of the school as a whole. Goodness know there are plenty of "schools" out there that would never make it into wikipedia. andy (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. andy (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. andy (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of Beano comic strips. merge has already happened Spartaz 07:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Space Kidette

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

One of a vast and seemingly growing number of articles on the most minor of Beano comic strips. Whilst not disputing the value of an article with references to meet WP:N, there are lots of these that are little more than one-liners, unreferenced, and often on strips that only appeared once. Despite these being raised in the past at AfD, WP:AN and others, the situation seems to be getting worse, not better.

Merging to a single list article seems reasonable, but that needs to be a merge, not just tagging the article and then leaving it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added all the information not already on the List of Beano comic strips about this strip onto the notes section on the relevant part of list of comic idol runners up. I think a redirect is preferable to a delete, but as of now this article really now just duplicates List of Beano comic strips but that article doesnt state the issue Space Kidette started. This is probably the least worthy of all the Beano comic strips that have articles in that the strip only ever appeared once. Phone-a-Fiend also only appeared once but that article does briefly talk about a similiar strip that appeared in an annual. Eopsid (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also the situation isn't getting worse it is simply stagnant no new articles on Beano comic strips have been created since Dangerous Dan. Id even say its even getting better, I recently cleaned up some of the articles merging numerous articles about strips related to Gnasher and Dennis the Menace (UK) which previously had their own short and stubby articles. Once all the articles with merger notices get merged then the situation will be greatly improved. Eopsid (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dangerous Dan is unusual in that it has some sources, however it's typical in that these are all primary-sourced from the comic itself. That approach to editing probably works on the Beano wikia, where these articles belong, but it's a clear fail here at WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be relevant to right on here that I have merged both the Johnny Hawk and Phone-a-Fiend articles to the list of Beano comic strips. Both articles were very short (especially johnny hawk which was just one line) and unreferenced and in Phone-a-fiend's case on a strip which only appeared once. Eopsid (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Florida Winter Baseball League

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

WP:CORP Lack of notability for league that never operated, and that does not appear to currently exist NYCRuss ☎ 13:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. League appears to have actually operated for a brief period. Spanneraol (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep, per Spanneraol. Nominator's rationale is incorrect, as a portion of the season was completed before the league folded. -Hit bull, win steak 16:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep League operated and played games. It existed, that's rationale enough to keep in my book.--JOJ 00:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted per G7 (author explicitly requested deletion) by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri 16:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Una pethavan una pethana

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

Would Fail Notability.Just because Why this Kolaveri di exists doesnt mean every other song in the album needs an article. Recreate the article if this too becomes a rage. Srikanth (Logic) 12:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in Knowledge. I welcome and value your suggestion. You may delete the article. ChinnZ 12:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinnz (talk • contribs)

Tagged for speedy deletion under G7. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 12:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was Delete. The arguments concerning the article's inherent subjectiveness are convincing. fish&karate 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

List of auteurs

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

To define which director meets the criteria of "auter" is subjective, and can never be definitive. By the article's own admission it "is supposed to be a list of directors whose status as an auteur is supported by published studies of their body of work. However, most entries on the list do not cite any published studies and reflect little more than the opinions of the individual editors who added them." In view of the problematic nature of this article, original research, and point of view issues, it should be deleted, or at best redirected to List of film directors or the article on Auteur theory. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong Delete: Per nom, the inclusion (or exclusion) to this category does not respond to objective criteria, it is absolutely subjective. Taking a look at the specific list, names as Stanley Kubrick or Akira Kurosawa could be widely recognized as "auteur", John Hughes or Tony Scott probably not, James Marcus Haney and Steven HAuse (?) surely not.--Cavarrone (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Nom hits it on the nose. Someone has gone to a lot of work here. Unhappily it is not suitable for wikipedia because there's not a shred of objectivity in the selections. Elsewhere perhaps. --Lockley (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete- As pointed out by the others, this list is inherently subjective. Inclusion appears to depend entirely on personal opinion and original research. Reyk _YO! 07:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep* - a) Any view or review of artists' body of work is always subjective. For any set of people who find Stanley Kubrick is objectively an auteur, you might find others who don't think so. And vice versa with John Hughes. b) The list is helpful for people who are interested in the work of great film directors, which an alphabetical list will not indicate. c) How would anyone decide objective evaluations of the works of film directors in other languages and cultures?

NarasMG (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But that's exactly the problem with this list and why I've nominated it for deletion - Who sets the criteria for considering whether a director is an auteur or not and therefore inclusion or exclusion on this list? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your A and C arguments are strong arguments for a Delete vote, not for a Keep... how could be considered encyclopedic a list compiled without any criteria of inclusion/exclusion? And the criteria B is contradicted by criteria A and C: who established that these film directors are great, and that are consequently greater than other not-mentioned-directors? Who established that McG is an "Auteur" and Ettore Scola not? Who established that "Manny Torres" is worthy of inclusion and John Huston is not? And so on... --Cavarrone (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep* - 1.) I think this article should be kept, but changed. I think it should be modified with sources/citations wherein substantial critics and directors within the film give input on the matter. For example, my knowledge of ~~film making precludes~~ technical aspects film-making at the time indicate to me that the director of Citizen Cane is an auteur, merely because of the circumstances of the films creation and the nature of other films at the time, in addition to the history associated with the film and the known facts involved with the making of the film. I don't believe these things are subjective at all, and purely historical. I think that any professional film critic, or modern director, would agree. 3.) I think the main problem with this article is, as previously mentioned, is lack of criteria. I think that could be easily fixed. 4.) The value of this article cannot be overstated. I found it via a google search looking for a list of auteurs, for my own research into the films that I need to view to refine and define my own cinematic style. I think this article, for all it's flaws, is very valuable, and should be kept. I think that it should be heavily modified, but kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyiwillremain (talk • contribs) 13:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1) Your claim that Orson Welles isn't an auteur is a perfect example of how subjective this list is, when he has been described as "the ultimate auteur"! The problem is that this list will always remain unencyclopedic because of its subjectivity. It is not historical at all, as different people would have different criteria for what constitutes an auteur. 2) ? 3) And whose criteria would we use for defining this? Yours? 4) This article has no value as far as I am concerned. It is just a list of directors that some people think are auteurs.

Incidentally, and without wanting to seem to be assuming bad faith, is there any chance that Onlyiwillremain is the same user as NarasMG? Just their style seems similar and there are not many edits) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

2) *I originally used the word 'preclude' incorrectly, because I was half-asleep when I responded to this. It should be further stated, I guess, that I believe Orson Welles WAS an auteur. I think that he is a classic case of auteurism, and I think to say so is a matter of historical accuracy, given any understanding of the medium. I've edited my comment/vote to change the language to indicate as such. I will also state that I am not the person you have suggest that I am; and that I find your assumption to be a bit paranoid. I am new to wikipedia (in regards to editing) and copied the format of others here because I thought it was the standard for discourse. I have no investment in the matter other than thinking this article has value and not wanting it to be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address (talk)

Apologies for thinking that - the editing style seemed similar and you only had one previous edit against your account (which incidentally you don't seem to be logged into). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Much of the discussion here seems beside the point. It doesn't matter whether Knowledge editors have subjective opinions or bad opinions or differing opinions about who is or isn't an auteur. What do reliable sources say? If we can cite to respected film critics and scholars going into substantive discussions about why a director is an auteur as that term is used in film theory, then we can include them in the list. Even if there is disagreement between sources, lists can annotate that. If we can only find mere use of the label in a magazine puff piece about someone, then maybe they're not worth including. I don't see any hint here that anyone has done such research about anyone, nor is there any recent discussion on the talk page about how to develop the list. Nor is there even any discussion here about the sources that are in the list. So I think we're a far way off from being able to say, "yep, this is unsalvageable, we tried." Keep. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget of course, that the case can be argued that all film directors are, to some extent or other, "auteurs". This is another reason why this list is so problematic. It's not an exact science. The fact that a critic has or hasn't called a director an auteur, doesn't meen that they should or shouldn't be included when another critic of equal standing may have a differing opinion as to what constitutes an "auteur". Like I said, subjective. Inclusion on this list would be based on an editor's judgement looking at all available sources and weighing up an answer to the question: "Is XX an auteur?" The answer will always be: "Maybe". Again - too subjective. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're just speculating without actually doing any research. I don't believe for a second that all film directors are equally likely of being called auteurs by film critics and scholars, particularly if you're contrasting film history before and after the French New Wave and New Hollywood. Nor do I think that there is such disagreement about all argued auteurs that we can only throw up our hands in despair instead of doing the work of analyzing and weighing sources. No one will force you to work on it. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

what sources? The included names (at least from letter D) are mainly unsourced (ie letter F, 12 names, 1 citation, letter G, 26 directors, 6 supported by citations, 20 unsupported etc.etc.), other are supported from blog-sites, other are supported by vague book-titles (ie Hal Hashby's authorship source is the book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls,without any indication of pages, sentences or any further indication)...the reliable source for Madhur Bhandarkar is an anonymous review in the site "Sify Movies", the one for Jean-Jacques Beineix is a dead link, for Shyam Benegal is the book Shyam Benegal (BFI World Directors) without any further indication, one another dead link on the not-so-reliable site "Focus Feautures" support the "auteur"-ship of five directors and so on...--Cavarrone (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"What sources"? Even disregarding all of the web cites, I count well over thirty cites to what appear to be academic books. So you're rather losing credibility here by disregarding those out of hand, when you simply seem to be unfamiliar with the topic and references ("BFI World Directors" is a series by the British Film Institute, FYI, so what "further indication" do you need?). Page citations are nice to have, even preferred, but it's simply not true that something is unsourced because a page cite is not given. You mean someone might have to do some work, track down a copy of Easy Riders, Raging Bulls (a "vague book title"? do you simply mean you haven't heard of that seminal book on New Hollywood?), and look in the index for Hal Ashby (not "Hashby")? Heavens to Betsy. It's just too hard, isn't it? (page 15 is pretty clear re: Ashby as an auteur, btw). postdlf (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol! So,1) How can I check what these books say? A reference without pages or indications fails WP:V. With your method I can easily argue that Dwight H. Little and David DeCoteau are "auteurs" and that my source is "Il Mereghetti: dizionario dei film 2011" by Paolo Mereghetti... 2) your assumption that any director that is the subject of a monography is automatically an auteur is clearly a POV 3) even theoretically accepting monographies as "automatic" proof of auteur-ship, your own words confirm that the article is mainly unsourced: 30 acceptable sources for more than 400 names of directors... is that acceptable? P.S. I said "vague titles" related to the objective fact that the citations are vague, not the book-contents. I'm Italian so it could happen something I write is not so clear, I apologize. --Cavarrone (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1) Sorry, you simply don't understand WP:Verifiability policy: "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything." (emphasis added) Only an article that cannot be referenced fails WP:V; an article that has references without pages is verifiable, just not cited as well as it could be. So...yes, you need to check the book cited to see what it says; many articles in fact just have a general list of references at the bottom rather than inline citations with pinpoint page cites. All that is required of a reference, at a minimum, is enough information that a reader can locate the source themselves to verify where the information came from, which a book title and author readily provide (particularly when the book has an index, as the Biskind book does). Having more specific page cites is a goal that we work towards. See also WP:PRESERVE, part of editing policy that tells us to tag statements as needing citations or to do the research ourselves rather than deleting content that can be fixed. 2) I never made that assumption. 3) As I said, 30 good sources (there are more, that's just a quick estimate) is a good start, and it certainly isn't reasonable to delete a list of 30 well-sourced entries just because other entries are not sourced. The rest need to be researched and then cites added or entries removed if they can't be confirmed sufficiently. Think of it as a rough draft, and one that no one will ever force you to work on. postdlf (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1) Sorry, I wrote a silly thing about WP:V. I don't remember in what discussion I had heard that sort of argument, and I was convinced it was so. Still, in WP:NLIST and WP:Sourcelist is explicitly said that Veriafibility and adequate references are required for every element of the list. It is also required on a Neutral Point of View and here basically lacks, as the inclusion in the list is based on individual opinions(=point of views) of some authors/critics/people (the authors of the books/articles referenced) and not consider these authors/critics/people have different and opposing ideas. If "isn't reasonable to delete a list of 30 well-sourced entries just because other entries are not sourced" (I agree) I don't think that is reasonable to keep an article that is for - at least - 90% unsourced, at least partially original research, and that consider only these sources that are "convenient" not properly meeting WP:NPOV. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are the principal policies of WP and this article actually does not really respects any of them (with the partial exception of some elements), nor consequently respect WP:Source list.--Cavarrone (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While I think it would be appropriate on each individual film-maker's article to note the opinion and esteem by which they are regarded by critics, I just don't think this is appropriate for a list, which could be seen by readers to be something approacing definitive. Look at some of the arguments here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep - a) The list per se is a treasure-trove and needs to be kept. I don't have a strong view on who or who is not an auteur. The definition itself is subjective. There is no way for any expert to decide whether something is a director's personal vision, a collective effort of the team, or even just a product of a system. Where would I go to if I want to know (and add to) the works of great film directors? b) Is subjectivity totally banned here? I see that there are lists of cultural icons by country, society-related lists, philosophy-related lists, etiquette lists and so on. Can Knowledge editors define things to exclude or include entries in such lists? c) What are "reliable" sources? That term would also need inclusion/exclusion criteria, would'nt it? I could say that Newton should be considered an alchemist, many reliable sources would not support this view. But it is fairly well-known that he practised alchemy. d) To avoid arguing over the term "Auteur", we could rename it something like "List of great film directors" or introduce a term which does not demand a physics-like definition. d) Lastly, thanks for clarifying that you are not NarasMG, OnlyiwillRemain :-). I share your feelings regarding the value of this list. NarasMG (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - User:NarasMG has already stated a "keep" vote above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

a) WP is an encyclopedia, not a forum or a blog. Being that a list, the correct procedure for building such a list is described is WP:Source list b) you are true, but however those lists still are less problematic than this one c) The correct way of insert such a controversial information in WP is reporting the information as controversial, citing both the positions and reporting both the sources d) this is definitely a little step towards the right direction. The concept of "auteur" is too much complex and controversial for being so easily treated. It's not enough that a single critic or a single book defines a filmmaker "auteur" to ensure that the director is generally (or just mainly) recognized as auteur. The concept of Great directors is still vague and subjective, but I have any prejudice in constructing a list (or more lists) with the same inner "spirit" if they incorporate something objective in the title, ie "Directors awared in more than a Festival/Award competition", or "Directors that have been subject of monographies". PS. How many times you want to vote?--Cavarrone (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

NarasMG - your suggestion of changing it to "great" film directors is a good illustration at how subjective this list is, and your argument of "There is no way for any expert to decide whether something is a director's personal vision, a collective effort of the team, or even just a product of a system." supports my reasoning for nominating it in the first place. Would also suggest you have a look at WP:USEFUL - the content in list format is not encyclopedic because of its subjectivity. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Auteur theory. A list of auteurs makes sense, but since the notion of auteur is a subjective creation of critical discourse, it makes more sense to include such a list in the discussion of the critics and their theory. One can easily get citations for a list of auteurs because the auteurist critics, especially in the 1960s, loved to make lists (Andrew Sarris's pantheon is the most famous one). But since the critics fought over who to include all the time, whatever list you would make would reflect less who was an auteur than the debate over who was an auteur. And that's what makes it better to include in the auteur theory article. (Note that if you make having an article or a monograph on the director the criteria of being an auteur, you would not only end up with an enormous list, but also a lot of people, such as niche B-movie directors, that most would not call an auteur.) If you think that a list would be too bulky to include in the auteur theory article, the only solution I can think of for saving this list would be this: select about 10 historically significant selections of auteurs or great directors (Sarris's pantheon, BFI lists, etc.) and then just list who appears in those lists in alphabetical order, with marks denoting who appears on which list. I still worry about the biases in such a list (it would not include many recent or non-Western auteurs), but as long as it is explained as a collation of historical artifacts, it can be helpful. It would also be finite (as long as one of the sources does not change), and prevent anyone from adding anyone they liked. Michitaro (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good solution. It has definition and objectivity. Reading the section on the Andrew Sarris article, I wonder whether it needs to be in list format or whether it would actually be better off as a discussion. The tone and content on that page and on your post here seem like a good starting point. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete, subjective/marketing term. It's reasonable to mention a few filmmakers used as examples in fundamental texts in the auteur theory article, but Knowledge should not point out who is an auteur or not. A list is wrong regardless of if it's a standalone article or part of another article. Smetanahue (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep and improve. My initial feeling was that this was an obvious delete, but I've changed my mind. It does need a lot of work and trimming, but I think it's viable. References would be needed which don't just describe x is an auteur (I've seen it used sarcastically!), but explain why x is considered an auteur. Granted, this might end up being a much shorter list, in which case merge to Auteur theory would be the best outcome. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try NOT begging for mercy here, since I saw that in the list of arguments not to use ;-) I thought that each discussion entry needed a Keep or Delete starting phrase. A discussion is not a vote, but apparently these words indicate voting. As I am a Knowledge:Newbie, I take it for granted that you'll all be kind :-) a) We could change the title to "Award-winning film directors" which would be objective. But it will not be the same level of "greatness" that the current list seems to have. Too many "ordinary" directors can be included under that criterion, since awards are not difficult to get. b) If adding objectivity by citing reliable sources is acceptable/possible, then this list can be improved upon. The baby is kept, and the bathwater removed. c) I continue to feel that there are other lists where there is a good deal of subjectivity, like Unusual Deaths, Unusual software bugs, miraculous births, eBay listings, etiquette lists (with a skimpy entry for Africa) etc. These are sometimes useful, interesting, valuable etc but not encyclopedic, in my view. d) Perfect Objectivity may be an enemy of the Good.NarasMG (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

a) is David Gordon Green an "extra-ordinary" author? are McG's Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle "art films"? may just two films be enough to make of anyone an auteur? and could just one short movie make of S. Mckay Stevens something more than a semi-novice? who the hell is Sarah Lewen?! b)sources add objectivity just if all the sources are converging, but if (as almost always happens in this case) there are some sources that recognize a director as an auteur and other ones that not, that clearly violates Knowledge:NPOV and WP:SourceList--Cavarrone (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure I understand your point in relation to b). Are you saying that if there is an article on x which doesn't mention that x is considered an auteur, then the inclusion of x in a list of auteurs would be POV? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a question of mentions not saying "an article on x which doesn't mention that x is considered an auteur", but saying an article that explicitly does not consider him an auteur. It's remarkably simple finding an article that consider x an author, is equally simple find one another that find him just a good "artisan", or mediocre, decent, overrated, underrated, an "unfulfilled promise", a bluff, a good "metteur en scène"... and so on. Who is responsible for determining who is right? WP is not made to make judgments, otherwise we could start, with the same arguments, lists of "good restaurants", "most talented chefs", "most talented singers" or "smartest politicians"--Cavarrone (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point, well put! I like your comparison to "most talented chefs". Just because a food critic says that a certain chef is "an artist", doesn't justify inclusion on a list here on Knowledge. "List of chefs" is acceptable as it is factual and objective. "List of most talented chefs" is subjective and unencyclopedic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"most talented chefs" is not a fair comparison. An Auteur is a particular kind of film-maker. It's not about how good they are. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well we differ on this point. An argument could be made that any film-maker could be considered an "auteur" to a greater or lesser degree. Hence the subjectivity of the topic. However, most of the arguments for "keep" (not yours) are along the lines of "how else am I going to find out who the great film directors are", and it appears that this is how this list is perceived. A well written and well sourced discussion on the Auteur theory article explaining who considers who an auteur and why would be useful (as per Michitaro's suggestion), so I am not against a merge although I don't really think it should be in list form, as I think after a time, we'll be back here again! --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Feel free to request a merge on the article's talk page. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2005 by party

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

We already have Party lists in the New Zealand general election, 2005 and Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2005 by electorate. This seems to be a duplicate that is not replicated in any other New Zealand election. Mattlore (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Useful parsing of encyclopedic material which does not directly duplicate either Party lists in the New Zealand general election, 2005 or Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2005 by electorate. If one were going after any of these three on the basis of lowest utility, the former of these two unchallenged lists would seem the one to go... But Knowledge Is Not Paper, so why? Carrite (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment if kept the tables should have the sorting functionality enabled. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep or merge I'm scratching my head over this one. I would certainly like to achieve consistency across the various general elections, so this being the odd one out doesn't sit right. It is, however, hardly possible to gain what is happening on a party basis from the '2005 by electorate' article, and not every party candidate appears on a list, as the 'party lists, 2005' does not list all the contenders. So we either keep this article, or else we could merge it with the 'party lists, 2005' article, and list those who did not appear on a list underneath the respective table. Good to bring this up, Mattlore! Schwede 66 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

CommentI would be keen to merge it into the 'party lists, 2005' article by listing those who did not appear on the list underneath. Perhaps we could add such a table to the 08 and 11 articles as well. Mattlore (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Intercepter (software)

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

Non notable software. No discussion of importance found anywhere, a couple of reviews from geekshops but no significance asserted. fails Knowledge:Notability (software). Earlier version CSD'd yesterday under Intercepter as promotional, since recreated as a redirect to Interceptor and subsequently modified to here ClubOranje 08:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

if you don't know other languages (russian at least) it doesn't mean that the program is not discussed or 'noted' on different sources. http://www.xakep.ru/magazine/xa/115/060/1.asp this magazine is very popular and is read by thousands ppl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intuserwiki (talk • contribs) 11:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources required by WP:GNG. The original Russian version of the article also lacks sources and Googling suggests that the necessary sources simply don't exist. Also, I note that the "features" section is an obvious cut-and-paste from the support site; WP is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Another non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was merging into Blackwells Mills Canal House seems reasonable for now. Shii (tock) 01:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandor Fekete

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

Fails WP:BIO. Redirect to Blackwells Mills Canal House (where he worked) rejected by article creator. The article lacks reliable, independent indepth sources. The only indepth source, , was written by the Meadows Foundation, a barely notable society that has restored the house. The other sources, mainly local ones, only contain passing mentions like this one in sections that are about the home, not about this person. Fram (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

~~Delete~~Merge into Blackwells Mills Canal House and redirect. mmm, I don't like to have to undo careful and enthusiastic work, but the subject of this article is not notable: the citations (per nom) are minor mentions that fail to establish . A redirect would be a sensible way out here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep 7 references including an entry in Brahms encyclopedia and a two page biography here. I think you are confusing the snippets used to verify a fact quoted in the citations with the entire reference. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It doesn't say unless that source is the Meadows Foundation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am not confusing anything, thank you. The 2 page biography is the one I gave as "the only indepth source", and it clearly isn't independent of the subject (or really a very reliable source), a local historian interviewing the family of the owner of a building his local historical society has restored. The "Brahms encyclopedia" is the book "Franklin Township", published by the Franklin Township Public Library... and the entry is this. I am not looking at snippets, I look at the actual sources used in the article. Fram (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  - The subject is Sandor Fekete, so a self-published autobiography would not be independent of him. The Meadows Foundation is independent of him as are the other sources. If I gather 10 facts from 7 sources they have the same depth as 10 facts from a single source and that depth would be 10 facts. Mathematically they have the same depth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    - That's not really how it works. You don't even have "ten facts from seven sources", you have one or two facts from six sources (name, year of death, occupation at time of death), all in passing, and a biography from one single source, the Meadows Foundation one. Considering that all sources but that one are really only interested in the house, not in the last occupant, a redirect to the house is the logical and normal solution. Fram (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge into Blackwells Mills Canal House and redirect. If reliable information about other past occupants is found, that could be also be added to the house article. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Richard Arthur Norton has merged the whole article into the Blackwells Mills Canal House during this AfD. This creates a rather strange article there, with more info on the last inhabitant than on the actual house, and also goes against Knowledge:Merging, "While mergers are generally not proposed (as well as discouraged) from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions". Fram (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks a bit strange, and it was jumping the gun. I suggest we edit the merged section down to:

"Sandor Fekete (1879-1970) was the last bridge tender. He was born in Hungary, emigrating via Antwerp, Belgium to New York City, and joining the Hungarian community in New Brunswick, New Jersey. His son Sandor Fekete II (1906-1983) lived in Princeton and worked as a bridge tender also. Fekete's first job was laying brick and breaking up rocks along the Delaware and Raritan Canal. Later he was promoted to a supervisor for a work boats that made repairs along the canal. He was promoted to foreman of a twenty-eight-man work crew, living in an apartment on Conduct Street in New Brunswick, New Jersey. In 1916 he was promoted to locktender in Griggstown, New Jersey." (leaving in the existing citations, however). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Fram (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Regarding going against Knowledge:Merging, it links to Knowledge:Articles for deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion which then takes us to AFDHOW. That seems to say that merge proposals should be kept apart from deletion proposals, not that deletion proposals should avoid discussing mergers until later in the process. I agree, though, that the edit was jumping the gun. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. m.o.p 04:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Military Mortality

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

Contested prod. Although noble in intention this article is original research explaining and promoting a particular point of view - fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH andy (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with nom, a nice essay that seems to be original research as a synthesis of published material. EricSerge (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Do Not Delete This article is not original research, every statistic was obtained through the U.S. Census Bureau or other Government data collection agency. The point of view promoted is none other than what the statistics present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyrose16 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Statistics do not present a point of view, people do. In this case it's you. If you can find reliable independent sources that make this point of view and you can demonstrate that it's widely accepted, and then you re-write the article around these sources, then that's fine. andy (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete I think it is trying to make a point but it has to much SYNTH and OR it actually makes no sense. MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Not counting IPs. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Kraftwurx

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

Article is in my view promotional only, and does not assert notability. And was deleted as such trough CSD. A user has expressed concern however that my judgement is biased because I live in the same country as one of the offices of one of the companies competitors, and may therefor not be neutral on the matter. Community discussion can't do any harm. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete the current article is clearly promotional - the only link provided is to the company's "sell" page. How much more blatantly promotional can you get? Leaving that aside, the lack of independent, published sources means there is no way for readers to verify the article and it clearly does not meet either of the applicable criteria for notability: WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Indeed, the article does not even assert notability. I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion under CSD:A7 and G11. Both of these still apply. Full disclosure: like the nominator, I too live in a country. Sparthorse (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge Policy allows for several "layers" notability tests including the addition of the hangon tag to ask or request additional credible references. This was not allowed.

Additionally: According to Wikipedi's own terms in A7 & G11 is as follows:

A7 States - The A7 "criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Knowledge's notability guidelines.

If at least 5 unbiased referenced can be provided is that sufficient to satisfy this requirement? How many must be provided? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5??? What exact (non arbitrary) "credibility factor" is being used? Something concrete, quantifiable perhaps?

G11 states that "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

Under the argument of A7 for deletion justificsation: Compare the content of Kraftwurx against say... shapeways and then explain the argument that the content on shapeways is not advertising while the content on kraftwurx is advertising?

If the argument under A7 holds true then the argument for G11 also holds true. Under the argument that G11 was grounds for speedy deletion, Kraftwurx holds as little content as Shapeways and are fundamentally indifferent. if so, what argument are you actually using to qualify the deletion?

Additionally: A request was made to add the "Hangon" tag to give time to add references to the article. This was denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcn0209 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge's notability standards are clearly laid out in WP:N. That guideline says "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". These are the non-arbitrary standards you are looking for. Has Kraftwerk been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent, published sources? Multiple means at least two, preferably more.If you can provide these, the subject will likely be deemed notable. For further details see both WP:GNG and WP:CORP which deal, respectively, with how to show notability in general and for companies specifically. As for the promotional aspects, as Martijn Hoekstra already clearly explained to you, just because another article does not meet Knowledge's standards, does not mean this article does not have to meet the standards. The only question that bears on whether this article should be deleted is if this article is promotional or not. In its current state, it clearly is promotional, in my opinion. But, even if it was rewritten to be neutrally worded it would still not be notable. Sparthorse (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I did a pretty thorough search and couldn't really find anything that would count as a reliable source. What I did find would be considered promotional pieces put out by the company. There's only one sole article that might be considered reliable , but as Sparthorse said, we need more than just one source. It doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP at this time, although I think that Bcn0209 should look into whether or not he could potentially userfy the article until the time comes if/when the company has enough reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Keep I expect to see this deleted, and perhaps rightly so, for lack of 3rd party coverage. However this business sector, outsourced 3D print, is a growing and important one. I expect to see Kraftwurx as a very obviously notable player in this field before long, even if article is currently premature. Once again Knowledge seems to be making itself ridiculous with repeated calls to delete Makerbot, Thingiverse, Shapeways et al and it would be a shame to act over-hastily on Kraftwurx too, just to satisfy WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As you yourself note, the deletion proposal is based on lack of 3rd. party coverage, so where do you get the impression its being deleted to "satisfy WP:IDONTLIKEIT"? Sparthorse (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily this article, but recent comments on anything related to 3d printing (mostly favouring rolling a whole bunch of unrelated topics up into one mish-mash article) have been based on equal parts ignorance and bias. We should be careful not to jump on another article for the same reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for the explanation. That context is very helpful. I'm a big fan a 3D printing and want to see it covered properly on Knowledge. I just don't think this article fits with our standards. If that's not the case (i.e. if there are indeed good reliable sources about Kraftwurx) I'd be delighted for it to stay and will change my !vote. I don't think anyone here is saying that the article should be deleted on anything except clear policy grounds. Sparthorse (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete Plain advertisement. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep I don't think the page should be deleted. A7 does not apply to this article: "criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Knowledge's notability guidelines." Regardless, I still believe this article is noteworthy, as the expansion of the 3D printing market is intriguing to me. Although the Kraftwurx website is new, there is still evidence of publications and press releases months and even years ago. I may just be wrong, but I believe there is a following of Kraftwurx and there are definitely publications of Kraftwurx from outside sources.

In addition, I don't view this page as a promotional article. The Kraftwurx page simply states that it is a 3D printing company, elaborates on what it does more specifically, then follows up on the system it is ran on. I may not be right, but I believe that this page isn't promotional, and I don't think A7 has effect on this page. In my opinion, I think this page shouldn’t be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.44.234 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — 99.34.44.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this deletion discussion is not based on CSD:A7 (even though I believe this applies). CSD:A7 is only for obvious cases of deletion. Since this article's previous speedy deletion was challenged, we are here to discuss whether Kraftwurx meets Knowledge's standards for notability of companies, which is WP:CORP. I am glad, however, that there "are definitely publications of Kraftwurx from outside sources." Could you give us linkes/references to those publications? That is exactly the evidence we need to demonstrate that Kraftwurx meet's WP:CORP and therefore the aricle should not be deleted. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting to know that user BCN0209 is not only the author of the article, but also the owner and founder of Kraftwurx. Conflict of Interest, anyone?? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

POLICY VIOLATION Knowledge policy is very clear. Internet privacy law violations are a serious matter. When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Comment removed. User reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.42.204 (talk • contribs)

Incorrect, there has been no policy violation. WP:PRIVACY reads the following:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Knowledge.

Bcn0209 posted that information voluntarily, so it is fair game. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 06:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. No policy based reason for a merge and this appears to have no sourcing so the delete side wins Spartaz 07:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My Paper Kingdom

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

I am nominating

6 releases from non notable band, Eyeshine, who's article was recently deleted at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Eyeshine (band) (2nd nomination). None establish any independent notability. Campus Music Fest's competition is not major. IAIRA is not a good chart and Twitter is not a reliable source. Bostonbastardbrigade.com is not a reliable source. Other sourcing is shop links, listings and passing mentions, nothing significant. Nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Johnny Yong Bosch#Eyeshine opposed to deletion. FallenWings47 (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete all: Non notable albums from a non notable band, fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Could not verify IAIRA certification as website isn't working and could not see website through wayback machine, due to robots exclusion text file. An IAIRA certification does not infer notability in the same way an RIAA certification would. Article still fails WP:GNG anyway. Mattg82 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Thanks to everyone who participated in this debate; it was certainly very informative to weigh everyone's arguments and check out the subject matter. m.o.p 04:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

CETI Patterson Power Cell

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable electrolysis device. No Significant coverage outside of this on-line review which does not seem to be from a reliable source. Fails GNG. Appealcourt (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Despite the enthusiastic claims to the contrary from the cold-fusion boosters, this device has led to absolutely zero response in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific sources. It seems only to have survived a previous AfD because of media attention(back in the mid 1990s) - and the media doesn't seem to be showing an interest any more. As an article about anything of scientific merit, it is singularly lacking evidence. As a magnet for POV-pushers, it seems to be highly attractive - but Knowledge isn't here to publicise their contraptions, or their wild claims. If and when 'cold fusion' is recognised by mainstream science, Knowledge can discuss it - but we aren't here to provide hype, speculation, and opportunities for dubious characters to flog magic teapots to the gullible. And no, www.padrak.com isn't a reliable source for anything remotely science-based (or reality-based, I suspect) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Invalid argument per Knowledge:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary Notability was assessed in the last AfD with the result to keep --POVbrigand (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

HOLD ON I'm working on this article. The version on the page doesn't really reflect the real content. There are many more sources.

this is the actual article at this moment

this is the one you nominated for deletion

84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — 84.106.26.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. This article isn't new. It isn't a developing situation. If there were any remotely-useful sources (as opposed to the usual junk) they would have been found. they don't exist... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep The article was greatly improved by 84.106.26.81, but his additions were reverted by AndyTheGrump. I have reverted to his old revision which seems to explain the article in detail. »εϻαdιν _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 06:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - WAY better sourced than when the AfD was started. There was a brief edit war over the additions but that appears to have been resolved. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 07:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The foremost reason to keep "CETI Patterson Power Cell" is that Knowledge will make itself look utterly foolish if it deletes the article.

The short version of the article needs two or three paragraphs which explain, in very simple terms, why the PPC has been the topic of dozens of scientific and mass-media reports. Who alleges "excess heat", and how much, and what tests have been performed. And who alleges nuclear transmutations, and what tests have been performed. And were any of the tests conducted in accordance with scientific standards? These questions can be answered in a few paragraphs, giving the average reader (Knowledge customers) the information they need to understand the PPC and the controversy about it.

The PPC produces hydrogen gas, which readily diffuses into solid nickel (see hydrogen embrittlement). Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer depends on this kind of diffusion. The PPC and the E-Cat are two peas in the same pod, so if you delete one of those articles you should delete the other article too.

Don't make yourselves look foolish. AnnaBennett (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Change to Neutral ~~Delete~~ I finished checking source 8 when I figured that the rest were just as poor quality and gave up. Websites like the New Energy times are not enough to establish notability outside of a small fringe circle. CETI is specific is mentioned recently in passing but not substantially outside of fringe publications, including their press releases. Furthermore, WP does WP:NOT exist to host "the next big thing," we create articles after something becomes big. If this device truly does what it says it does, then it will be featured in every science journal in the world soon enough, and when it is we will have an article on it. If it doesn't (and it's been 15 years), then it was just a minor blip in the history of impossible perpetual motion machines and nothing to write home about. Looks like the article sourcing has been cleaned up a bit. I'm still not convinced that it's notable but I'm on the fence that it isn't. Nformation 08:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
delete - per nom; NN fringery William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What is NN fringery ? --POVbrigand (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)

("NN" means "Non-Notable", as in not passing the general notability guide). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - The article attempts to make exceptional claims based on non-reliable sources and is a classic violation of WP:REDFLAG - see Talk:CETI Patterson Power Cell#Importance of reliable sourcing and verifiability for a partial list. The cell itself is the subject to patents and garnered a little interest about 15 years ago by making unsubstantiated claims of output power 4,000 times the power input and that's about all that can be said. The rest of the article is pure fringe and demonstrates that it is being used as a COATRACK to hang wild claims of cold fusion on. We already have a properly written, sourced and developed article on that topic. This article is attempting to revive all of the issues that quack sources brought to the field and deserves no place on Knowledge. The article was not "greatly improved" by stuffing it with garbage cites and I reject Barts1a's assertion that it is better sourced. Masses of non-reliable sources do not equal better sourcing, they simply create an illusion of sourcing for those who do not examine them. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Strong Keep, improve The nominator is wrong in stating that there is no RS. Read these RS: , , and . Please note that this device is not a current ongoing topic, it is history in the field of cold fusion and the CETI patterson power cell has its importance in the history of cold fusion. George H. Miley from University of Illinios Urbana-Champaign has spent considerable time investigating this device. FWIW, it even got a patent. As long as the article represents the device as not scientifically proven, there is nothing wrong with having an article on this notable cold fusion device. Just because Rossi is currently stirring up the media coverage with his Energy Catalyzer (which article survived a AfD), doesn't mean that the few articles about other noteworthy cold fusion devices should be suddenly up for deletion. Deletion would be an overreaction to the last edits, the best solution is to just revert back to an older version that doesn't depend non-RS.

- It is mentioned on page 36 of this book on cold fusion published in 2009 by ENEA (Italy), so it still is notable. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC) Please note that before this AfD I have made no edits to this article. I have already outed myself as single purpose, please note as per WP:SPA to have my comment given full weight regardless of any tag.

- The device is mentioned in the book "The science of the cold fusion phenomenon" By Hideo Kozima published by Elsevier, Sep 26, 2006

- The device is mentioned in the book "Excess heat: why cold fusion research prevailed" by Charles G. Beaudette 2002

And according to Google Books it is mentioned in several other books. Deleting this for Notabilty would be a grave mistake, which would call for immediate deletion review. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)

On February 7, 1996, ABC News shows Good Morning America and Nightline featured stories about the Patterson Power Cell. Good Morning America followed up the story one year later, on June 11, 1997

Comment Nomimator's editing behaviour raises some eyebrows for me. He/she has made almost no edits in the past and starting today has made a barrage of AfDs in little more than 1 hour time. I just wonder how he/she gained all this AfD knowhow during the dormant period. And how the nominator stumbled upon this page. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — POVbrigand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable fringe topic. I've looked through the sources, and almost all of them are unreliable and fringe, and the remaining one is questionable. No significant independent coverage to establish notability. Obvious promotional WP:COATRACK for fringe "cold-fusion" theory. Can be deleted in its entirety. There is nothing worth saving here. The article can never be brought up to WP standards. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
That is just not true. Please explain why you think that physicsworld.com, www.wired.com, New scientists (www.sciam.com) and ieeexplore.ieee.org are unreliable and fringe. Notability was already established in 2007. Please explain why you think that "Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion" - by Bart Simon is fringe and unreliable. Please explain why you think that Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications published by Wiley is fringe and unreliable. The patterson power cell is a notable cold fusion device, which doesn't mean that is accepted to work. It is not a coatrack for cold fusion theory. The article was fair enough up to WP standard for the last 4 years. Yes it is a fringe topic, but there is no reason to delete it and certainly not for such uninformed reasoning. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Because consensus can change and notability is a judgement call depending on consensus. 2007 is not now and we don't have be ruled by the dead hand of a 4 year old AfD. I do see a value in your reasoning, but when you look at the passing mention of this device in the reliable sources, it is very borderline for "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". You could sum up this article thus: "James A. Patterson developed and patented an electrolytic cell in the mid-1990s. The cell was used to attempt to create cold fusion. Some claims of success were made and received some media attention. Subsequently none of the claims have been substantiated by any mainstream research." - and to be honest that deserves possibly half a paragraph in a section in the Cold fusion article. By the way, a Google search on "patterson power cell" (the phrase) returns 187 results, not 32,000 and you probably already know that ghits are a poor indicator of notability - RexxS is more notable than "patterson power cell" by that standard (about 21,800 ghits) and I don't see anyone queueing up to complain about the absence of my article! --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes concensus can change, but notability is still given. It has even gained notability, as a few newer RS have also mentioned it. Now I am with you when you say the article could be much smaller. Since the AfD has started already a lot of the unnecessary non-RS bloat has been deleted. Regarding the google search, I already found that out myself and corrected the comment :-) But there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding about this device and I lately note that there is a lot of "hatred" for anything that is cold fusion. This device was part of the research of a very well respected scientists (Miley being a Fellow APS, fellow ANS, fello IEEE and fellow NATO) Now that doesn't mean this device works, but it also shouldn't be dismissed as is currently done here in this AfD. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not a given; it must be shown to be notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it has been shown to be notable. The device is mentioned in enough reliable sources. If you would count them you would run out of fingers on both your hands. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of speculating it is better if you list the sources that have significant coverage of the device. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I already did that, just read my comments here on this page --POVbrigand (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I think, unless someone can convince me otherwise based on policy. I spotted Wired, and a US Patent among the sources. That's pretty dang solid sourcing if you ask me. Could someone explain why something that is sourced from Wired could possibly be NN? It can be a lot of other things, but NN and RS aren't among them. I'm not saying it works or doesn't work (though I have my suspicions ;-) ), but rather, it has been reported on, those reports are in the archives, and thus anyone can check that yes, at some time, someone proposed this concept. Whether or not the concept sucks is a different matter, irrelevant to Knowledge. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Patents are primary sources. I wouldn't rely on primary sources for reliability. Are you claiming a mention in Wired confers notability? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wired is a reasonably reliable source, as far as mainstream magazine coverage is ever going to go, and perfectly adequate here. What's wrong with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The patent bureau is a reliable (canonical) source wrt the existence of a patent. The content of the patent is not necessarily relevant qua notability (qua reliability is another question entirely).

From my own (n=1) experience with a wired journalist, they may not exactly always be equally accurate, but they do spell people's names right afaik, and thus are also a reliable source wrt actual existence of this project, and probably have at least the general gist of things right too. But that aside, they're a 3rd party source, so we can write what they said. We don't need to agree with them for NPOV purposes. Whether the project was successful or not, or fraudulent or honest, or whatever else we might think of them personally is not relevant. We have sufficient sources to build an article. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, fringe science, coat rack, unreliable sources. Crackpot science. Yworo (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should being a non-functional device excelude it from coverage? Our goal here is to explain things. Explaining frauds and crackpot devices is a valuable part of that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment, there are too few reliable sources to have an article on it. Creating an article on something mentioned in a handful of reliable sources sounds inherently problematic. In the last deletion discussion there was also promises on how the article would be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The reductions made by Yworo and IRWolfie have made the article into a better source of information about the device, far less promotional and a little more skeptical. I think the article should be retained so that readers can be informed about the device's fraudulent nature. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep This is a notable device: it's covered in Voodoo Science and in Wired. Whether it works or not is just not on our radar. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep, there are now enough reliable sources to justify keeping the article. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Enough notability to justify an article on the subject.--Insilvis
Keep. There is a story of interest beyond the science due to the publicly surrounding it at the time, as has been stated here already. I believe that it is notable as an interesting news story for that time period if nothing else. Regarding Mr. Patterson's claims, those who actually examined the device, namely Dr. Miley and Dr. Cravens, both gave the claims credence after their respective examinations. As mentioned in the previous deletion attempt, Dr. Miley was a winner of the Edward Teller Medal in 1995. On the to the other hand, Huizeinga and Park are both better known for their criticisms than their scientific achievements. Huizeinga's statement that he "bet" it wouldn't work is conjecture, not science. As for peer-review, the PPC was never submitted for such. That fact in and of itself does not make claims invalid. To argue otherwise would be a logical fallacy. As a matter of record, there are NO logical arguments to delete this article. The fact that it was nominated for deletion a second time in such a short time span, for reasons that have no logical basis, is bothersome.Badhillbili (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 00:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep: The sourcing isn't impeccable, but it appears to have been mentioned in sufficient reliable sourcing to justify a Knowledge article. On a related note, I'm not sure why a small group of editors take it so personally that there might be articles in Knowledge related to cold fusion. My advice to them...it's not about you, it's about presenting the information and letting the reader decide. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, the sourcing is a disgrace. A few reliable sources are being used to coatrack multiple unreliable sources and unsubstantiated claims into this article. There's nothing personal about the topic, but it defies belief that "presenting the information" should include such sourcing as these that appeared recently:
Forrest Sawyer (1996-01-07). Nightline (Television Show). United States: ABC News. - how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything?

Calorimetric Study of Pd/Ni Beads From the CETI RIFEX Kit, Scott Little and Hal Puthoff - what makes earthtech a RS?

http://www.worldgreenenergysymposium.us/newsroom.html - how can this be considered a RS?

Good Morning America (Television Show). United States: ABC News. 1996-01-07. - how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything?

Cravens, Dennis (May 1, 1995). "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry". Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1995, page 79.(archive) - what makes newenergytimes.com a RS?

Jet Rothwell, Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusion Technology Magazine, One Kilowatt Cold Fusion Reactor Demonstrated December 7, 1995 - what makes Cold Fusion mag a RS (it's self-published, not an MIT-reviewed source)?

Transcript of ABC-TV "Good Morning America" Program on Cold Fusion Excess Energy and Radioactivity Reduction, June 11, 1997. Transcribed by Infinite Energy magazine. - what makes Infinite Energy mag a reliable source?

Bill Jenkins (1997-06-16). Free Energy - The race to zero point (VHS). United States: Lightworks Audio Video. - what makes Lightworks Audio Video a RS?

Notable or not, the subject is simply not worth an article in Knowledge and the chronic appallingly low ratio of decent sources to garbage sources amply demonstrates that. Notability is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for an article to exist. --RexxS (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem are the edits from IP 84.106. I have reverted them. It seems that editor is not capable to understand what he is causing and keeps on pushing stuff in as if he is desperately trying to get this article deleted. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a requirement that all refs meet WP:RS - it depends on the use to which individual cites are put, and on the claims made. It's a requirement that there are refs to WP:RS, so as to demonstrate notability - we have those. As to the rest, then unfortunately it's a matter for copyediting on a cite by cite basis (and the work this entails). A ref to "Good Morning America" is a reasonable cite for it having appeared on national TV, but not for a claim "the machine was demonstrated working on TV" (it's not a competently controlled experiment), or that "national TV figures applauded the machine and agreed that it worked" (we no longer trust people's competence, just because they're on TV). I'm sorry, but this means some hard copyediting work by unbiased editors (who can be brutal if they have to) - that's the price of a quality encyclopedia. What we can't do is let unreliable claims slip past, but nor are we really allowed to simply delete refs without analysing their context. Nor can we delete an article because it contains weak refs as well as string ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes Andy, I fully agree with you. Some sources are rock solid RS, some are never RS and for the others it depends on how you use them. We can go through them one by one and see if and how we can add them. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - This page is interesting. Gravitoweak (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Finding it WP:INTERESTING is not a valid argument for a keep. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie, please don't WP:BITE the newcomers. It might well be the first AfD for this editor.

@Gravitoweak, if you feel that this article should stay, then maybe you can look at what other editors who want this article deleted say about it and respond to that. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete WP:ONEEVENT. I'd recommend looking into the histories of the keep votes where you will find dedicated cold-fusion-promotion accounts. It is a not very-well kept secret that cold fusion promoters routinely ask their friends to start Knowledge accounts to help them POV-push here. That's what's going on here. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- So how do you explain my 'keep' comment? I have made many tens of thousands of Knowledge edits, very very few in cold fusion. You may be right about a few editors but the generalization falls down in the face of people like me. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  - You misinterpreted me. Not every 'keep' comment is the provenance of a cold-fusion-promoter. But looking into the histories of the keep voters will reveal some who are, and that should be considered when evaluating the "consensus" of this discussion. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh? At the moment, the article pretty much suggests the device is a fraud (based on reliable sources). If anything, those of the opinion that we should delete must be the cold fusion proponents! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Also, to reach consensus: attack the argument, not the arguer.

I think you'll find that in that cold fusion community they think that any external notice, no matter how critical, is something for which to strive. Short of writing in big letters, "Cold fusion is bunk, nothing to see here" on top of every article, they're going to be in favor of keeping as much in the hopper as possible. The ostensible goal of the cold fusion community is to obtain serious consideration of their various approaches and ideas. They are 100% convinced that if the relevant epistemic communities just paid attention to them, they will win the battle. This in spite of the fact that the periodic reviews of their field that have occurred have all turned up nothing new. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we won't quite do that, because AFD is not a vote to begin with ;-) . If people's arguments are valid, they will be taken into account. WP is nice that way. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What I see with this vote for deletion is inappropriate use of Wiki criteria and appeals to prejudice but no rational arguments. The use of WP:ONEEVENT is not appropriate. That tag, according to the definition, regards INDIVIDUALS notable for one event. The PPC is not an individual or an event. The voter also makes several generalizations about the nature of those who vote for Keep without addressing the main issue, which is the criteria for which this article should be deleted based on the merits or lack thereof. In addition, repeated and sweeping generalizations about any group of people are prejudicial in nature and I object to the repeated use of such in regards to this discussion.Badhillbili (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And out of the woodwork they come! 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Though I still think I said it more nicely. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC) And AFD is not -in fact- a vote. We deliberately renamed it to emphasize that fact. :-P

You indicated that Knowledge doesn't care if it's being misused as a propaganda piece as long as the arguments being twisted can trick the regulars. I'm just pointing out what's going on. You guys can take it or leave it. Claiming that this non-notable device has had more than notice for a singular event is unreasonable. Oh, WP:ONEEVENT only applies to people does it? Well, guess what: There is a particular person to whom I'm referring: James A. Patterson. This is subbing as a biography for him, and inappropriately so. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your ideas do not correspond with WP policies. It appears to me you are trolling. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Another classic maneuver. Just because the so-called "WP policies" can be interpreted and reinterpreted to salve the wounds of cold fusion proponents is a nice tactic, but I have a feeling that a checkuser would reveal you to be a banned editor, POVbrigand, probably someone like Pcarbonn or LossIsNotMore or Abd or one of the dozens of other haunting figures that dominate cold fusion talk archives. Oh wait, we aren't supposed to engage in such personal attacks? Except, you just did by calling me a "troll". Nice. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You did start with the name-calling ;-) . Seeing some of the other comments, I get a feeling that maybe you have a bit of a point ("as long as one spells the name right"). Nevertheless, if we can NPOVly say that some folks made a device, but apparently it never really worked; that's fine by me. The readers can draw their own conclusions. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahem*, I pointed out that there was an ulterior motive. The word "troll" was when the name-calling began. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"The readers can draw their own conclusions"... I disagree with this concept wholeheartedly. This stance is the argument of minor and fringe viewpoints who hope to see an article that has an artificial parity set between mainstream viewpoints and non-mainstream. We do not do that: we show the reader that the mainstream viewpoint is, uh, the main viewpoint, and then we describe the minor viewpoint giving it proper weight. Under those conditions, this article should be primarily telling the reader the device is complete bollocks even though some very hopeful folks are working on it. In other words, we do not let the reader draw their own conclusion inasmuch as we guide the reader to see what is the mainstream viewpoint. If after all that they draw a non-mainstream conclusion, so be it... But foremost is the mainstream view. Binksternet (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. WP is not about right or wrong. The problem we do have with cold fusion topics is "the mainstream view". The "mainstream view" is actually not known. The mainstream view is a black box. There is no yearly poll of what most scientists think about cold fusion. What we do know however is the "assumed mainstream view". Do "Science" or "Nature" dictate the mainstream view or define the assumption of it, is the mainstream view pegged due to a 1989/2004 DOE review ? "cold fusion" is dogma and dogma is the mainstream view. There are loads of scientists working in "condensed matter science" or "laser science" or "surface science" or other "adjacent" or "connected" mainstream science fields, who are performing experiments that are definitely not "cold fusion", but if you were to ask those scientists if "strange stuff" is thinkable on the edge of hydrogenated metals I am sure you won't find any deniers amongst them. But we don't know, because there is no poll and there is no journalist writing up an article discussing that. When/if the big enlightenment comes, suddenly, over night, the "old mainstream view scientists" will never have existed.

There are numerous renowned research institutions (ENEA, SRI, SPAWAR, NASA for some name dropping) investigating cold fusion/LENR and you don't hear any negative results from them. On the contrary ! As a matter of fact, you don't hear any negative scientific assessment on the phenomenon, because the ones propagating the debunking point of view are the ones who don't do any experiments, don't even investigate the evidence, a blatant perversion of scientific principle.

In wikipedia we must report the mainstream view as the majority viewpoint, but at the same time we should leave ample room for the evidence that propagates the non mainstream view AND we must take into consideration that the perceived mainstream view might not correspond with real mainstream view AND that the real mainstream view might be flawed by years of ridicule and contempt. A scientist will believe in those topics that his grant money wants him to believe in. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Classic rhetoric: much heat and little light. The claim is "we don't know what the 'mainstream view' is", "scientists don't know, so they can't comment on cold fusion", "if anyone is engaging in debunking, they are crazy". etc. etc. etc. It should be a general rule that people who make these kinds of arguments supporting the fringe and pathological science flavor-of-the-month ought to be shown the door as this kind of attitude is inimical to the way an independent expert would write an article on these subjects. Incredulity is the essence of WP:NPOV when it comes to WP:FRINGE in spite of the attempts to move the Overton Window. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand, Knowledge doesn't change the rules to make an exception for cold fusion. The mainstream view stays the mainstream view until great, slow, conservative forces acknowledge a new body of evidence as fact. We do not have to "leave ample room" for the possibility that the minor viewpoint might be proved right... that would be undue weight given to the minor view. Knowledge by nature frequently gives the little guy a bigger voice than otherwise; there is no need to amplify this tendency for all articles related to the cold fusion topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, I am completely satisfied with the WP-policies as they currently are, because they are workable for this platform. They do have weaknesses, but that doesn't mean editors can start to make wild interpretations of them to suit their POV. And that counts for both sides of the divide, thus also for the name calling IP 128.59. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I will bite. Your feeling is completely wrong. The only fanatics I have seen since I started editing cold fusion topics this year are the anti CF crowd, who appear to be driven by the sole motivation that any mention of cold fusion must be deleted from wikipedia. Maybe that anti CF editing behaviour was nurtured by some dubious actions from other editors in the past, but the Rossi spectacle has drawn in a fresh batch of sincere inquisitive WP-editors who are looking into the subject and apparently have come to the conclusion that the resentment and contempt which is so loudly propagated by the anti CF crowd is not in line with WP policies.

Surely, there is the occasional overenthusiastic editor pushing things a bit too far, but they are nowhere near the level of annoyance that the constant griefing of the anti-CF crowd causes in their pitiful quest of deleting any mention of cold fusion from wikipedia.

Go create your pristine-pedia somewhere else. And before you make anymore insinuations about my intentions, first log into your account and then attack me. It will look so much more credible that this anon IP drivel. -POVbrigand (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ho ho! High horse on the low road. It's the best combination! Isn't it exciting that NASA is endorsing cold fusion? Isn't it? Spare me the histrionics. The fact of the matter is that you are a cold fusion fan, you are not this middle-ground person trying to claim some sort of "balanced approach". So either your deluded into thinking that you have no bias or your lying about your motivations. Either way, you are the problematic one and attacking me is not a very good deflection tactic. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep it coming. Your comments are clearly showing your own motivation, which evidently isn't middle-ground. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Middle-ground" between the ignored and the ignorers on Knowledge is, essentially, to the exclusion of the ignored. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. (I know, I know, you're convinced that cold fusion/LENR/CANR/perpetual motion is not "FRINGE" but you've been spectacularly unsuccessful in convincing anyone outside of your own little group of cold fusion compatriots of this.) Good luck with your continued activism. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The only appropriate way to report this story is to report the facts as they are taken from reliable sources. An accounting of the mainstream viewpoint also certainly should be given. I do not think it is appropriate to give the mainstream POV more weight just because it is the majority opinion. That is akin to saying the truth is determined by mob rule, regardless of any facts that may be contrary to it. That notion violates the spirit and mission of Knowledge, or any reliable reference for that matter. In that same regard, the opinion of Robert Park should not be given more weight than that of Dr. George Miley or Dr. Dennis Cravens just because Parks views were more widely reported and better-known by means of a popular book. Parks views are not based on a first-hand examination of the device, while the views of Miley and Cravens are. Again, this story should be based on factual evidence not popular opinion, although the majority opinion obviously needs to be given. It IS indeed then up to the reader to make their own decision on how to process the information given and what conclusions to draw. Pushing of any POV, majority or not, is inappropriate.Badhillbili (talk)

You guys are simply classic fringe POV-pushers. Keep up this activism and you'll find yourself topic banned. It's all throughout the archives that this is your fate. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody called you a troll (noun, pejorative). The implication was that your behavior resembled trolling (adjective), which describes a well-defined set of behaviors often seen in Internet forums, user-groups, blogs and the like. The behavior is defined by frequent off-topic comments, prolific posting and inflammatory statements. Those behaviors are seen in your posts on this topic and it is why you were called on it. Those behaviors are neither appropriate for this forum or from someone using an IP from an esteemed institution like Columbia University.Badhillbili (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badhillbili (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Distinction without a difference. You can try to continue your character assassination, but I stand by my critique and notice that your account has all the glorious features of a WP:SPA. Hmm. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Troll (Internet)"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." (BTW, is Wiki considered a RS? Is it accepted in the mainstream as such? If not, please forgive me for citing it here). Even though troll as used in this context is not necessarily a pejorative and its use would be appropriate to describe your behavior here, the term was not used to apply to you. The term used was "trolling," with the implication being that your behavior RESEMBLED activity that an Internet troll would engage in. End of story. It is up for the rest of the community to decide for themselves if your remarks here are appropriate.Badhillbili (talk)

End of story? Okay. I wonder which banned user you are, or, at least, at which cold fusion forum you read about this discussion. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I think it's low-notability, but low notability is not the only reason why articles get deleted; it's simply the most common one. A more pressing concern is that any article on this topic will be, by definition, a magnet for fringe beliefs, OR, and synthesis. With the more well-known conspiracy theory articles &c we have enough watchers; but with the really obscure topics it can be impossible to maintain encyclopædic quality. bobrayner (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Saying something is a magnet for OR is not a reason for deletion. Silver seren 04:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history this article has not been a magnet for any of those. To me it seems Bobrayner is expressing unsubstantiated fears. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that quality was an issue at the last AfD and it still seems to be an issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is way better than last year's version. What aspect of it do you think is still an issue ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history over the last week alone you will see a number of very dubius additions being attempted (and usaully removed again). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I added a reliable source (Bart Simon) to the article. His book contains many additional facts about the PPC that might be worked into the article. Please take a look at it. AnnaBennett (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

An additional reliable source should be available very soon. NASA's Dennis Bushnell gave a slide show at NASA Glenn Research Center on September 22. It is reported a slide used in the presentation stated: "The many Rossi demonstrations in 2011 suggest LENR may produce"useful" quantities of heat . Watts-to-Kilowatts also produced in Piantelli and Patterson Experiments." . Admittedly currently this information does not come from a RS so it cannot be used yet. However, at the NASA Glenn Research Center site, at the bottom on the page, it says "Download presentation given at a LENR Workshop at NASA GRC in 2011 . . I do not know what "soon" in NASA language means exactly but since the presentation was given in September one could reasonably expect that it will not be long. The presentation would allow additional RS for this article should it survive the current process. The holding of the workshop itself, as well additional statements on said web site (right above the previous statement cited), do give credence to LENR in general and I think it reasonable to consider the PPC in that light.Badhillbili (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) have been taboo science for 22 years, since Pons and Fleischman. Currently several groups are offering a variety of devices as functioning, verifiable LENR phenomenon. One of the goals of Knowledge is to provide an open, honest source if important information, not subject to censorship, or special interest management. Currently a very active worldwide debate regarding the credibility of LENR is underway, and these efforts to delete the article are consistent with other efforts to stifle acurate historical knowledge of LENR history. To delete it at this point in time would appear to serve the purpose of those wishing to destroy relevant historical information, and that would damage the impartial image Knowledge cultivates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.184.243 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I've read some of the biased comments here and I'm shocked. Some obviously don't realize the intended purpose of this online repository. The information contained in this article is an historical fact - not necessarily the truth, but nonetheless, a fact. There was a person/company/thing that performed some action. The burden of proving the validity of the claims made by these individuals is not to be determined in this forum. This forum exists to disseminate information - nothing more. To erase this article is a blatant attempt to erase the information contained in it, and thereby stifle the ongoing debate over Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), cold fusion, or whatever applicable term. Perhaps the claims regarding LENR are false, and if so, then an addendum can be added to this article stating such. Ewarf (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with the above poster. The information contained in this article is an historical fact - not necessarily the truth, but nonetheless, a fact. There was a person/company/thing that performed some action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.132.47 (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

keep as cold fusion has promise as professors like George Miley, ahern have shown it to work...People that don't even want a article about it are trying to hide the realities of it. Knowledge should be about telling about things and there history. Who knows people like Rossi maybe true. Unless you have something to hide of course, which wouldn't suprise me. """" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthurricane (talk • contribs) 01:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep Perhaps a case of pathological science, and I'm not holding my breath for it to ever be an energy source, but it had mainstream media coverage in the 1990s and satisfies WP:N, since notability is not temporary. Edison (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is verifiability, not truth.--Salix (talk): 01:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep I apparently never added a vote. The sources appear to be significant enough to prove this article subject notable, especially considering the sources that were found during the course of this AfD. A number of the delete votes up above seem to be taking a "fringe is bad, thus non-notable" or "it doesn't work, thus non-notable", neither of which are proper reasons for deletion. Silver seren 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep, big and well-covered company. Shii (tock) 01:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Shakarganj Mills Limited

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

Non-notable company. Fails GNG. Appealcourt (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Appears to be a major Pakistani company. Coverage about their venture into biogas. Stories like this are numerous indicating they are a major company under consideration for large contract tenders. Apparently the largest (then) producer of cane sugar in the country. At one time it was one of the companies used to calculate the KSE 100 index. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Per Whpq. Mar4d (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was SNOW Keep. Notable products are, like other topics, important on Knowledge and consensus confirms that this is one of them. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 06:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Big Bertha (golf club)

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. There are various sources cited and others exist. According to this book, the Big Bertha driver was in 1997 the most used driver on each of the five top golf tours. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge - where you can create an article on almost any product no matter how little value it has in an encyclopaedia. And it does not matter how little you know about the project as a whole - just write an article and leave it there for editors to argue over. You can almost guarantee that it will stay there. It is real easy to get the articles on to Knowledge and impossible to rid of them. That will help to promote your favourite product and improve the sales volumes for your company. The backlog of maintenance tasks can wait, and the list of requested articles can be ignored. Editors would rather fight each other in the AfDs, and sometimes expend huge amounts of emotional energy rather than build an encyclopaedia that is useful to readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Very rude and immature of you to say. The problem is people like you arguing over articles like this. The encyclopedia is useful by having topics on everything. You gain nothing by deleting content some might want to read. Anyone who doesn't like it, won't even know it exist, since they aren't likely to ever find there way there unless they just go looking for something to complain about. Dream Focus 15:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think it was rude or immature. I was just venting my spleen with a bit of satire. Even though WP is not paper there is no way that it can have an article on everything. We therefore have to draw a line in the cyber-sand somewhere and I think it has to be pretty close to the inclusion of articles on products. There is simply too many products, and too much danger of SPAM making the articles too hard to maintain. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Please consider basing nominations for deletion upon Knowledge policies, listed here: WP:DEL#REASON, rather than upon opinion of articles about products. Also, please consider following the suggested procedures located at WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. It appears that you simply typed in the rationale for the nomination without actually checking for topic notability, which, if the case, is very poor form. This topic obviously surpasses WP:GNG, as has been thoroughly delineated in this AfD. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 11:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep Alan, you are a really useful editor and I am glad that you help maintain the quality of this encyclopedia. However, your comments here, while interesting, are off-topic and belong at another venue. This is the place to discuss whether or not Big Bertha golf clubs are notable. Here is a quote from a a 2002 book: "A classic case is Callaway's Big Bertha golf club. Ely Callaway intentionally jacked up the price of this club when he first introduced it years ago, setting it far above the industry standard and far above what he needed to make a good profit. As a marketing man. he understood that at a lower price, the Big Bertha would have been just another golf club, and the well-heeled target market wouldn't have been able to see the value. But the $400 driver (initially: even more now) caught the attention of golfers, who then searched for value — and found it, as any golfer who has tried the club will attest. The Big Bertha changed the industry" Or this 2007 book: "Callaway Golf's Big Bertha golf club, for instance, wasn't the first oversized golf club when it came on the market, but it contained several improvements in materials and composition that could be patented. The club also had a unique design that eliminated most of the weight from the club shaft and, most important, was instantly identifiable." And then four more sentences on the golf club follow. The golf club was introduced to the market in 1991, 10 years before Knowledge was thought of, and was a big success back then. As for articles being "impossible" to delete, that is simply not true on the face of it. We delete articles here in massive numbers every single day. I recommend deleting about 50% of the articles I review and about 90% of those end up being deleted. I've never played a round of golf and I have heard of the Big Bertha club. It has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. That's how I heard of it. So, Alan, do you really think that the Big Bertha golf club isn't notable? If not, precisely why not? Cullen Let's discuss it 06:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment. The Big Bertha didn't need Knowledge to be promoted or improve its sales volume. It was being described as "the most popular driver ever made" and manufactured by "the biggest equiment manufacturer in the world" in 2000 -- before Knowledge was even created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Per Cullen328. One of the most famous golf clubs ever made. Just because something is a commercial product is not grounds for deletion, if there is substantial independent coverage, and such coverage certainly exists here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep – A well-sourced article, which surpasses WP:GNG. Northamerica1000 11:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep This doesn't just seem to be a golf club, or a label stuck to a range of golf clubs, but a deliberate shift in their design to one with a signifficantly larger volume. A long production history and 3rd party discussion suggests that that's an innovation that made some difference to its performance. It's notable for the innovation, not just the brand name. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - As usual, Cullen is on target. I won't spend any time digging around to see if the glossy golf mags have anything online, but rest assured that Callaway is one of the biggest club makers and the Big Bertha series are one of their flagship products. There is undoubtedly substantial and independently published coverage out there dealing with the subject of this article. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Per Cullen's detailed response. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Snow Keep per Cullen. CallawayRox (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep: I know very little about golf, but I would be evidencing absolute ignorance if I were to nominate this notable product for deletion. Its one thing to claim that the article was in bad shape when nominated and notability was not evident (though googling would show it was), its another to actually claim its non-notable. That would go down on my permanent record forever and I would have to hide my face around town for a while.--Milowent • 16:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment - This article was originally proposed for deletion (prodded) by the nominator of this AfD. I removed the tag and added references. Then the article was sent to AfD. Perhaps editors should consider checking in at Category:All articles proposed for deletion every now and then, as it appears that notable topics are unfortunately routinely being nominated for deletion and listed there. After seven days, the article may be deleted. If I hadn't removed the tag, the article may have already been gone by now, based upon one user's opinion, rather than the consensus existent here. Northamerica1000 04:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep Bad nomination. At the time of the article's nomination, it already had references in it, providing this was a notable topic. Click on the first link in the reference section, and you could read an article in the LA Times covering it in detail. Dream Focus 15:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Snow Keep —SW— 01:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Igor Kenk

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. Fails GNG. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Appealcourt (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - "special article" yes but he is a noted bicycle thief so its a definite keep. Also per previous AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The subject receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, primarily in Canada but also in the US and UK. I also found mentions in sources from Pakistan and Slovenia. Location (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - His antics have garnered him significant coverage that takes him beyond the average perp. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hanukkah bush

AfDs for this article:

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

Page is an offensive depiction of what is pretty much considered a joke to most people of Jewish faith. Page lacks importances and citations. Dfnj123 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The article seems to pass WP:GNG Just to let you know, Knowledge is not censored and the page being offensive is not considered a valid reason for deletion. There is WP:PROFANE, but that only comes in if the article is written in a manner that is non-encyclopedic. WP:NOTCENSORED Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Keep. To quote myself from the prior AfD in 2005, "The fact that some people may be offended by the existence of Hanukkah bushes does not mean that they would necessarily be offended by an article about them provided it is written in a fair and factual way ...." Contrary to the nom, the article does have citations, although I haven't been able to look most of them up because they are not online. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with the above, that the subject is offensive does not mean the article is offensive. Racism is offensive, but we won't go around deleting the article racism just because of that. JIP | Talk 05:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge. Completely understand how my points above are invalid now looking back at what I typed (got to get better versed in wiki guidelines). Regardless this article is about a topic which is commonly thought of as a inside joke, and very few people practice it seriously. Even the article itself admits this. Also the "Anecdotes" section, which takes up the majority of the article, adds little to the actually content of the page. A condensed form of this page inserted under the "Hanukkah rituals" subsection on the Hanukkah page may be a better place to serve this information.Dfnj123 (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep accurate and well-cited article on not unnotable subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - some people may find this a lamentable, trivial, and even offensive subject, but as Tokyogirl79 rightly observes, that is not our criterion. On the straight question, is this subject Notable, the answer is clearly Yes. It was discussed directly in the New York Times as long ago as December 12, 1960 Jewish Families Puzzled by Problem of Christmas, and has been so discussed many times since in that publication and numerous others. Keep is the only option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep A notable part of American culture. Google News archive has 352 results for "Hanukkah bush" exclusive of Knowledge, many of which cover the subject of this article. They date back to the NY Times (1960) which said "For many years, some Jewish children who have longed for a Christmas tree have been permitted by their parents to have a "Hanukkah Bush"..." It notes the pagan (not Christian) origins of the Christmas tree. A 1970 Evening Independent article also notes the non-Christian origin of the Christmas tree as a reason for Jews to allow their children a Hanukkah bush. See also, , , , , . I regret very much that any readers find it offensive or don't like it, but that is not a valid deletion argument. Edison (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment There are also some results at Google Books, such as "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jewish History" page 110 and :Jewish-gentile couples:Trends, Challenges and hopes, page 86. Edison (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Meh. Nominator's rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is unacceptable, but all the (reliable, ie. children's books not included) references in the article are trivial. It's possible that better references could be found for what is indeed a phenomenon (some of Edison's may be good), but a lot of the "keep" arguments are really WP:EVERYONE arguments, which are also unacceptable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This is a classic example of OR and SYNTH. There is no story here, so let's cobble together a bunch of examples to prove the point. Yoninah (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for any OR or SYNTH here. There is no doubt from the hundreds of reliable references available (only a few are in the article today, but that is not the criterion) that both the term and the actual practice exist, and have been in use since 1959, however deplorable this may seem to some people. If it's any help, many Christians feel much the same about the (pagan) 'Christmas Tree', but we aren't likely to delete that, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This is not an actual thing in Judaism and does not really serve any religious purpose in Judaism. It is a joke related to a Christmas tree. Maybe can be merged into Christmas tree article.71.225.233.158 (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep While a joke in Judaism, valid concept under what is and is not Jewish Culture.Naraht (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bad Seed (rapper)

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

Article fails to meet notability criteria; lack of multiple reliable sourcing. In one year since creation in 2010, no such sourcing has materialized. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) 00:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete source 1-3 aren't independent. ~~4 & 6 don't mention the artist. 5 & 7 are trivial.~~ The others are trivial. The wikilinks just circle back to the article so pointless. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete bad sourcing for some time. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep album review in Rap Reviews, feature in YoRaps magazine . !votes so far seem to me to illustrate a misunderstanding of AFD, being as they are based on the article rather than the subject. 86.44.39.133 (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)— 86.44.39.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Having looked at the article, not only do sources 4 & 6 mention the subject, paragraphs nine and ten of 4 are entirely about the subject... 86.44.39.133 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)— 86.44.39.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment thanks for pointing this out I was looking for "THE Bad Seed"- amending comment accordingly.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - he hasn't done anything obviously notable per WP:GNG or WP:BAND, so the reliability of the sources matter here. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

but you haven't addressed the sources. rap reviews is accepted as an RS throughout en.wikipedia. Cited by the International Herald Tribune , The Herald , founder interviewed on NPR . it's the only online review source recommended in Peter Shapiro's Rough Guide to Hip Hop, 2nd. ed., London: Rough Guides, 2005. ISBN 978-1843532637 (p. 403). Yo!Raps is a much newer, therefore weaker source - its About page lists industry testimonials but also has a clear staff listing; claims to be europe's biggest "urban" online magazine, has been cited by L'Express, Spex & the London Free Press. hiphopdx is cited by the Boston Globe, LA Times, MTV, The Sunday Times ("respected site HipHopDX"), cited by NPR for its part in debunking an LA Times investigation, senior editor featured on NPR. Contributors have covered hip hop for outlets like the Washington Post and NPR. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)— 86.44.31.213 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Have looked through sources again. 1,2,3,6, & 7 simply prove that he exists and makes records. 5 has one sentence noting that he is "doing his thing". 6 says that MIMS likes working with him, and that he is an "incredible lyricist" but also that he is a "really good friend" which is a COI problem. There really isn't enough here. If the subject is notable, there should be much more. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mandingo_Theory

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Entropy (T/C) 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mandingo Theory

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

Content is dubious and relies on a single source. It should be re-merged into Stereotypes_of_African_Americans or removed entirely. —Entropy (T/C) 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep. Maybe. I can find other references to Mandingo Theory. This book, p.59-60. And this one, p.48-49, for example. I'm not sure how much value I place on those sources, or how "nontrivial" their mention is. But more importantly, the context is different. In those sources, "Mandingo Theory" is the idea that African-American slaves were bred for physical prowess and capacity for labor, resulting in genetic selection that contributes to the stereotypical success of black athletes in modern sports. Richeson's work appears to be unique in calling out the sexual equivalent (although clearly a better-written, appropriately-cited article could cover both related uses). Are those sources enough to carry an article, though? Tentatively, I think so. But I could probably be convinced otherwise, too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I can find no shortage of critical responses to a 1991 Village Voice cover story (I believe title "The Invisible Man") which cited the "Mandingo factor" as a possible explanation for a purported under-representation of black males as news anchors, but the original article itself does not appear to be available online. Does anyone have access to it? Does it have anything substantive to add to a potential rewrite of this article? I'm not even a little excited about this topic, but I think I've got enough material to attempt a rewrite, although I'm not happy with the idea that I'd only be able to report on that 1991 piece's claims via its rebuttals. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 18. Snotbot t • c » 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep, sufficient coverage in multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete/merge - the sources are iffy as they don't discussion the subject much. This is a short and fairly weak article, it probably deserves mention somewhere but not its own article. - Haymaker (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. It is a racist attack page masquerading as a theory. Author was permanently blocked for similar troublemaking. Szzuk (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - while WP is Not Censored, the simple problem with this article is that it is virtually unsourced - all the citations are from a single, primary source, which does not establish Notability; and it appears that the relationship between the source and the claims made is weak at best, i.e. the article consists largely of WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. If you don't agree with WP:AIRCRASH, try to get it changed. WP:CSD#G5 does not apply here as multiple people have made substantial edits to the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tawang Town Mil Mi-17 crash

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

Reasonably disputed PROD. This was a tragic accident, but, while it meets WP:AIRCRASH's (the revlevant notability essay) standards for inclusion in the type article's accident section, I believe it fails notability for a stand-alone article, as there does not appear to have been significant enduring coverage of the accident beyond the initial spurt of news coverage following the crash (WP:PERSISTENCE) and there are, as far as I can determine, been no changes to aviation regulations or procedures as a result of the crash (WP:EFFECT). (As a footnote, this article was also created by a confirmed sockpuppet of community banned User:Ryan kirkpatrick, and has had little significant contribution from other editors, but a G5 at the time of creation was declined with reason "Deleting this article really won't help the encyclopedia"). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Mil Mi-17#Accidents and notable incidents, where it already has a suitable mention. If it is kept it needs a strong copy edit as it looks like English wasn't the author's first language. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oddly, based on evidence, it is - he's from the UK. Ryan's grammar is just that bad. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Could find no reference to crash on Skybrary in any form. (User:Chuckla) 23:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Seventeen people died. That meets the notability threshhold for accidents as far as I'm concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- It trumps the WP:GNG? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  - How many times exactly does it need to be said that Knowledge isn't a bureaucracy (a policy, as opposed to a guideline as is GNG)? Talk of not being allowed to "trump GNG" suggests that AfD discussions are utterly pointless, which is clearly not the case or we wouldn't have them! If guidelines are applied to the letter we may as well just let administrators delete any article which does not slavishly meet their criteria without discussion. Incidents in countries such as India are never going to be so well-covered online as incidents in countries such as the UK or USA; deleting them because of their lower coverage leads to systemic bias. Would an article about a similar crash in the USA or UK be kept? Of course it would. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    - Actually, I think that while there probably are cases of systematic bias in coverage of air accident articles, I don't see this as an example of it - I'm fairly sure that this event would not be covered in an individual article wherever it happened. While there hasn't always been complete agreement about what the criteria of WP:AIRCRASH should be, I remember from when I was actively trying to coordinate a rewrite that there was consensus that the number of fatalities wasn't a good guide to notability. See also WP:BIGNUMBER. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    - "Would an article about a similar crash in the USA or UK be kept?" No, actually, it wouldn't, not without continuing coverage which this accident lacks. I'm a strong supporter of WP:CSB, but if there's a lack of notability there's a lack of notability, whether the event occured in Kalamazoo or Timbuktu. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      - I completely disagree. I'm having trouble finding a single aircraft crash with this level of death toll in the last ten years that does not have an article on Knowledge. Many crashes with much lower death tolls have articles, many of them with far less notability than this one. I know OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, but even so... -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
        If those other articles don't have continuing coverage per WP:PERSISTENCE or repercussions in the aviation world per WP:EFFECT, then they should be deleted as well - assuming that they aren't scheduled-airliner crashes, which only generally require one of the "fatalities/hull loss/procedure change" troika, not all three. Now then, that said, after further digging this appears this may fall under the "one" criterion, in which case I would withdraw the AfD - were this not a creation of a banned user, in which case it should be deleted without prejustice for recreation by an editor in good standing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment As a creation of a banned user, the article should be deleted. Such deletion should be without prejudice to an editor in good standing creating their own version of the article in accordance with the normal Knowledge rules including (but not limited to) WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH, which the accident meets as the Mi-17 is well in excess of 5,700kg MTOW. I'd be happy to facilitate the creation of a new version of the article at this title if any editor wants to take it on. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree - and would have simply G5'd it myself, had a G5 not been previously declined. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, clearly notable based on references. Everyking (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Mjroots that this article's subject appears to meet WP:AIRCRASH essay guidelines for inclusion. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Student Radio Association

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TM 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 15. Snotbot t • c » 20:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge , selectively to Student Radio Awards which does receive reasonable coverage in 3rd party sources, unlike this one RadioFan (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep or keep WP:SK#1 Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states at WP:JUSTAPOLICY, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." Besides there being no explanation for how this article fails both WP:ORG and WP:GNG, there are three sources already in the article, and one click on the "books" link above shows more. Unscintillating (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a valid speedy keep rationale. You may find the nominator's argument underwhelming, but there is no doubt that they, at the very least, gave at least some argument for deletion. Your frequent overly bureaucratic attempts to put unproductive roadblocks into discussions can be kind of disruptive; it would be lovely if you would stop.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a personal attack, accusing me of disruption for quoting a respected essay for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The nomination could certainly be a bit less linky. Let's stick to the merits of the article shall we?.--RadioFan (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. I'd like to remind everyone that assertions of notability are only good enough to prevent A7 deletion; an AfD necessitates cold, hard sources, which don't seem to be around. m.o.p 05:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

16 June Movement

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

After a bit of research, I can't find any evidence that this movement is notable enough for inclusion. There are some vague mentions on various forums and books, but nothing concrete. Nolelover 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, the passage "Eight members of the organization known as the 16 June Movement , which is responsible for several bombings at Istanbul trade union offices and business centers, the raid on the police station in the Siteler quarter", at would constitute notability. If you google the Turkish name, you get 26,200 hits. --Soman (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll leave it for others to decide, but one small mention in that report doesn't quite strike me as "multiple reliable sources". That said, I think someone might be able to find some stuff in Turkish, but since I don't speak and can't translate it... Nolelover 17:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep, great job on the research by Soman (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure qhat research you are referring to, since I don't see anything upon clicking that link. Am I missing something? Nolelover 14:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible bars to inclusion for political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders regardless of ideology — because this is the sort of material that SHOULD be in encyclopedias. I'm also gonna argue that if it's good enough for the Turkish Knowledge and the Russian Knowledge, it's good enough for the English Knowledge. Now, both of those are stubs, to be sure, as is this piece. Sometimes that's what it takes until someone with specialist knowledge comes along, however — stubs as placefillers. The group was headed by Sarp Kurai, published a paper called Partizan Yolu, and had about a 12 year existence, it would seem. Those are facts that belong in an encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh, I don't mean to be hounding the opposes, but it seems I've had something to say to everyone of them. While I respect you opinion, it just sounds like you are saying that you like it. Yes, this article may need expert knoledge, or it might just have been a movement based in someones basement that got together for potluck suppers twice a month for twelve years. I really don't know, and in the seeming absence of any real sources, its a little hard to tell. Nolelover 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to view my perspective. Here's another: we are here to make sure that challenged subjects are encylopedia-worthy. Does a topic belong in an encyclopedia? Is the information therein verifiable? In this case, a strong YES to the former and a weak YES to the latter. Room for improvement? Sure. Carrite (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, I just don't see where the weak yes is coming from. =/ Nolelover 03:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not rely only on google searches. There is a historical event on 15-16 June 1970. This group took the name from this 15-16 June on Turkish Knowledge. The event was one of the biggest worker movement in Turkish history. The group might not be notable but the event is. --Tacci2023 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Never mind notability, the article is entirely unsourced even after a week at AfD, making it fail WP:V. Sandstein 07:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Albeit with regret and resignation to a future filled with bullshit. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

SMART criteria

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

This article appears to be little more than an overblown dictionary definition of the sort of useless management-speak that people use when they have nothing relevant to say. The article tells us that "There is no clear consensus about precisely what the five or seven keywords mean", which seems to be borne out by the editing history, which seems to consist largely of unsourced addition and deletion of keywords. The only references are to a couple of management-speak manuals. Not notable. Not encyclopaedic material. Not worth keeping... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

keep. Very commonly used term. A number of references were deleted in May 2011. If anything, the article should be improved, but definitely kept. -- Dandv 04:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A "very commonly used term" it might possibly be (though you offer no evidence) - but why does it merit an article? See WP:NOTDICTIONARY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Yes, it's management speak. However it's also notable management speak, and worthy of an article. It's widely used and long-established. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Keep" Worthy of an article because it is still in use and these guidelines are helpful. Just ask a nursing student... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdxmomazon (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This is just the kind of management bollocks-speak that makes me happy that I no longer work for a corporation, but it is, unfortunately, notable bollocks-speak that many people have to suffer. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Keep" Our company (publicly traded Fortune 500) has actually been citing this Knowledge article regularly over the past couple weeks as we build out GTM plans. I can see how there may be a sentiment around it being "useless management speak", but I would argue that the intent of this model is to move away from goals and objectives that are unattainable or unintelligible and move towards a more execution oriented framework. There is some debate over the terminology, but believe the edits are still directionally correct and the article is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.224.36 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though while you "move towards a more execution oriented framework" I've got work to do. ;-)

If this article is going to be kept, can I at least ask those supporting its retention to do something about the sourcing - with the endless revisions to the 'terms', it may no longer actually correspond at all to what they say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep I found the article a useful alternative to a web search that gave me a variety of sources wanting to sell me their version. In my case, I plan to use the information to help people set individual fitness and weight loss goals. It may be a cliche management term but it is easy to teach and learn, and is therefore a usefull tool for many applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreys (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Dragonlance#Fictional history. If anyone sees anything worth merging, feel free to pull it out the history and move it over. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dwarfgate Wars

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in a mass group nomination here, but the discussion was muddled with so many varying articles. The closing administrator suggested that the articles should be nominated individually, which is what I am doing now. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Knowledge's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, or merge and/or redirect to Dragonlance#Fictional history or maybe War of the Twins. BOZ (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge or redirect per BOZ. It appears to be a uniquely named fictional element, no reason a search on it should come up empty, but I don't see the justification for keeping it as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect for now. It will be there if commentary is found later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge into the Dragonlance fictional history. Doesn't seem to have enough coverage on its own, but could be a search term. —Torchiest _edits 14:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era

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

All the references come from the official web site of from discussions at internet forums. There is no mention in independent secondary sources to confirm notability. Remember that this is not an official expansion of the famed Age of Empires game, but a mod made by random users in the internet, so existence, forums and an official site are not enough to confirm notability. Cambalachero (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This article uses the unfree file File:The Napoleonic Era.png, which is not used at other articles Cambalachero (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the first claim is complete nonsense. Out of 9 sources, there are only two forum threads (5th and 6th). All the other pages link to download pages or detailed information about the mod. Also there ARE independent secondary sources mentioned. The only primary source is ne.elpea.net, as you can see at the end of the page. All the other pages are independent. To be exact I count 7 sources not linking to the primary source. Also I don't quite get the hang of your last sentence, saying that existence, forums and official site are not enough to confirm notability. There are downloadable products offered on different sites, references and a notable fan scene on other Age Of Empires sites, references on Youtube.com and much more. I wonder what else would it take? Tilanus (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

*:Weak Keep (If more sources are found) - Although I'd hardly call Youtube a primary source, Tilanus, I do agree that the page is already well written and if we can find more independent sources, I think it should stay. Most of the sources on the page now are created by the makers of the mod themselves. Skullbird11 (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC) . Skullbird11 (talk)

The point of mentioning youtube videos was to emphasize the notability and relevance of the article's subject - which was questioned by Cambalachero - not to call them primary sources. In fact, Youtube is a secondary source and as far as I have understood the source policy on Knowledge (and there is way too much to read in this letter jungle), secondary sources are somehow considered to be the best. Just having a look on google with the given keywords will bring up plenty of pages, whose huge amount underlines the notability again and again. Tilanus (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: References 2, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are all from the official site. References 1 and 3 are mere press releases, and do not denote notability. References 4 and 6 are internet forums. The youtube videos are just recorded gameplay. It all fails the 4º item of the General notability guideline, none of them is independent from the subject. Cambalachero (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, what do you expect. Napoleonic Era is one of the most anticipated mods for the game and you just have nothing better to do than questioning its notability. I really really dislike that nitpicking on wikipedia. It's just anything but user-friendly.
6 is the official website of Ensemble Studios, so it's not "just an internet forum", same counts for 6, it's a real community that covers many aspects, the forum is just an additional platform to the site's contents. But in spite of that fact, what's the matter with "just being an internet forum"? These are valid secondary sources if the threads have not been started by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. Each time an independent fan speaks about a product, the product he raises the notability of this product for the public. Forum threads and youtube videos don't do anything else than this! They confirm the product's existence, prove its relevance and increase the notability. Otherwise there'd be no reason for these things to exist. Comments don't show up if there is nothing to comment, right?

Except the references to the mod's website and reference 1, no one from the team was involved in making any of the other posts, articles or other submissions. They're independent of the subject and let me even repeat this one: the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Neither forum threads nor youtube videos do fit into this description.

The links to the mod's page are only there to prove that the content of the wikipedia article is not made up. If Mercedes would come up with a new car and write something about the technical details, I guess linking to the Mercedes page would be accepted? Just wondering.

Last question: Why are you trying so hard to destroy this article? Tilanus (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest reading Knowledge's notability policy (WP:N), as this will help elucidate an essential policy of Knowledge. In general, forum posts are not reliable sources (WP:RS), and a forum post does not become reliable merely because it is posted on a discussion forum, open to the public, on an official website. There is a difference between static webpages and official blogs, which are under the editorial control of the site, and forum posts which are not editorially controlled by the site.

With regard to your Mercedes scenario, once notability of the subject is established by third-party, independent, reliable sources, primary sources (such as an official publication technical details) are definitely appropriate as sources. However, an article that has no third-party, independent, reliable sources fails notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still shaking my head, but, whatever, it seems I really have to suit these over-rationalized laws. Laws, because "guidelines" would be an understatement regarding the practised rigidity. Knowledge really has become its own science. I'm sorry for not speaking wikipedianish, I really just look for a way to keep this article alive as I'm convinced that it has a right to exist here. Tilanus (talk) 02:04, 30 November 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) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. With apologies to Tilanus, Cambalachero's analysis of the references to show that the article appears to fail notability is spot-on. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. If significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject cannot be established, then an article has no place on wikipedia. Indrian (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. This is a very impressive mod, something I say as a fan of the Age of Empires series (except Online) and as someone who's played the mod. And I found out about it through Knowledge. I'd love to see it stay. However... there are zero reliable sources that have mentioned it. I've tried searching for you as I'd like to keep the article personally. However, without reliable sources, the game is not notable, and the article must be eliminated in compliance with Knowledge guidelines. I'm sorry, that's just the way things are. By the way, just because it exists doesn't mean it gets an article, nor does it inherit fame from Age of Empires. Even if there are lots of sources, if none are independent of the subject, it doesn't matter much. Emmy Altava 04:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- And speaking of independence... it seems that you're affiliated with the game. How curious. Emmy Altava 04:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  - Emmy Altava 06:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    - Uhm, I said I'm owner of these files, so it's pretty obvious I'm involved, right? I'm sorry for not feeling "discovered". I don't even see what's wrong with these links. Every project has a promotion section, the difference is just that this one is public and that fans help us. I think everyone who wrote on this article has been trying to stay as unbiased as possible, trying to look for links that confirm the asserted pieces of information. Considering the dimension of the mod, we thought there should be enough good reasons to be and stay in the Knowledge, but obviously people here prefer stones over medicine. Tilanus (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
      - What's obvious is that wikipedia has been an excellent source of publicity for your mod and you want to keep it that way. I am sure your product is shaping up to be a great mod and am not knocking all your hard work, but you do not have a right to free advertising on this site. If reliable third-party sources cover your work in the future, then maybe your mod will deserve a page here, but right now it is just not ready for prime time so to speak. Indrian (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Lack of reliable sources, fails to establish notability, seems to have some sort of WP:COI as well now... Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: A google search of "Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era" at IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, GameInformer, NextGen, 1UP, GameDaily, GamesRadar, and Eurogamer turned up nothing. Plenty without the quotes, but I'm sure most of those are for AoE3. Sorry, but I don't believe that this meets Knowledge's criteria for inclusion. (Guyinblack25 19:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC))
Comment - On said forum, there's been a request for a list of sources considered 'reliable'. Here's a good place to start: WP:VG/S 98.194.143.132 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Go ahead. If you find and include reliable sources independent of the subject, the deletion may be reconsidered. Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the tips, Guyinblack25. I'm still looking for better sources, the article however, is a lil outdated and seeing the votes it's unlikely that it will be kept. So it's most probably gonna be restarted by anyone in the future.
    
    I need to object to one statement though: Napoleonic Era can be found through IGN and Gamespy. The files and articles have not directly been hosted or published on the main page, but on affiliate sites of them.
    For example, if you press "Mods" in the menu on the Gamespy page, you'll be directed to FilePlanet.com, which is also powered by IGN. This site then again contains mod-related files, even Napoleonic Era.
    
    Also, you can read in the article that the mod has once been rewarded by Gamespy for a picture. The URL ( which starts with http://planetageofempires.gamespy.com ) and even the favicon of that linked page reveal that it belongs to Gamespy. The IGN page, however, doesn't even report about mods, but it has affilitates that do. It's just that little point, I know it won't change that much for you.
    It's impossible to fulfill the wiki guidelines if sites that would count as valid sources in the gaming area do not host or report mods in the first, but only in the second or third instance. That's just my point. The mod is just not as irrelevant and unknown as you guys believe it is. Tilanus (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete - After looking at the evidence before me, I change my consensus to delete. Skullbird11 (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was Userfied - The page was moved to userspace while this AfD was open , and the redirect was deleted as R2 . Whilst that is outside AfD procedures, it was at the apparent behest of the author; there's no point in continuing this discussion, as there is no longer a live page. I note here that, apart from the article creator (Ckduk (talk · contribs), all comments suggested deletion. NAC Chzz ► 16:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheongye Kwan

AfDs for this article:

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

I found this article after removing a couple of links planted in articles on martial arts. The previous AfD decision was to delete it, and even though 2 years have passed, nothing much has changed since then. While this organization probably does exist indeed, the article lacks reliable sources, or they are difficult to verify. Also, the organization/style may fail notability criteria. Quick Google search does not bring any promising independent publications on this organization/style, it only proves that it exists. If anybody could help to straighten this up, that's great. Otherwise, the article may not meet our criteria. Pundit|utter 01:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This artacle has been worked on alongside several wiki operators who have all contributed and made the page accetable for inclussion on wikipedia. Granted more work is needed and people will update and edit over time, but it has been granted as ok for now which is why it was uploaded by chzz.

As for the planted links comment... I was asked to seek out and attach links back to my page, as well as addind categories. Complience has been maintained and advice taken on board, and I believe this article can stand as is, ready for future edits and add ons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 15:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from adding verifiable and notable sources, while the discussion goes here. I'm afraid that the main problem is that there are none, though. Pundit|utter 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but these things can be added by working with the page creators and assisting them to make things better over time once a solid base page has been set up, rather than just issuing blanket delete submissions without first helping the writers, thats just unhelpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I honestly don't believe this article satisfies our criteria for reliability, verifiability, and foremostly notability. There is plenty of time to prove me wrong, I will be more than happy to see this article straighten up, really! It is just that for now it seems as if it didn't qualify and I, personally, don't see where I could assist to make it better. If you believe that this article satisfies the notability criteria, tell us how. Btw, please make sure that you avoid a conflict of interest - I'm not saying you are in it, I'm just observing that beginners, especially if they have single purpose accounts, may unknowingly fall into one. In any case, please make this article better as soon as possible, it will definitely help to persuade the others (and me, too). Pundit|utter 16:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

On occassions when one of you dissagrees with another (since this page was made live by one of you) why didnt you simply request that I move this page back to the fixing it/work on it area rather than just the over-use of authoruty and blanket delete. It seems a harsh and unhelpful action from people whos role seems to be one of assistance, which is looking more like of a role a disproval. As mentioned, several operators looked, worked and helped me on this and then THEY made it live. If you (or another) disagrees, then surely a more prudent action is moving it so as to facilitate fixing it rather than suggesting delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The only problem is that I don't see how it can be fixed. I think it does not meet the notability criteria (reason for deletion 1). Also, it lacks verifiable, reliable sources (reason 2). If you know how 1&2 can be fixed: go ahead, and I encourage anyone else to do the same. Please, keep in mind that even if the page gets deleted you will be able to request moving its deleted content to your sandbox. For your convenience I also made a current copy of the article here, in your namespace. Pundit|utter 17:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No assertion of notability has been made in the article, and on a brief search for sources I have been unable to find any reliable sources that demonstrate notability. The subject does not appear to meet any of the following Knowledge martial arts criteria supporting inclusion: 1 (subject of an independent article), 2 (long, externally verifiable history), 3 (multiple notable practitioners), 4 (large number of students), or 5 (competitive successes in large, inter-style tournaments). The subject does appear to meet both of the following Knowledge martial arts criteria supporting deletion: 1 (short history), and 2 (single/few schools that teach the art). The subject's status on some of these points might change if reliable sources come to light contesting the apparent status as noted at this time. Apart from those points, the article is substantially a reproduction of the previously deleted version from 3 November 2009. The only significant changes since then appear to be the addition of a list of 'celebrity friends' and a small section on the founder, neither of which demonstrate the subject's notability. A copy of the article has been moved to the primary author's user pages by another contributor, as requested, so work is able to continue on the article if desired. The primary author requested advice on the article on 26 November 2011 and received a response regarding notability (from me); had I been aware at the time that the article had previously been deleted, I would have provided more extensive feedback. Given the timeframes involved (advice requested on 26 November, advice provided on 27 November, article moved from user pages on 28 November, article nominated for deletion on 29 November), it does not appear that the primary author has had time to address the notability concerns—but it should be noted that notability was already very clearly raised as an issue two years ago. In good faith, the best advice I could give to the primary author is to do a bit of reading (at the links I provided in my feedback) and gain a better understanding of notability before continuing to work on the article. Janggeom (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This page meets most of the basic criteria for a Martial Arts page including references, newspaper articles, websites, and checkable points. User:ckduk 17:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, which of these references are both reliable and verifiable to you? Also, could you possibly comment on the fundamental notability issue raised here, as well as Janggeom's point above? I don't want to be pushy, I am really curious in finding out how you see these particular problems. Pundit|utter 18:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete I've just checked - the only "independent" reference looks like a sponsored article, encouraging to call or check the website to sign up. Other "references" include yellowbook-like entries. Pundit|utter 18:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the section "Other sources" lists five other articles in newspapers and magazines that could very well be independent reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete I found nothing that shows notability or reliable sources. I agree with the comments by Pundit and Janggeom. Astudent0 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I Google for "Lancashire Evening Post" and "Cheongye Kwan" and I don't see the referenced article anywhere. I searched the newspaper's website also, but found nothing. Dream Focus 10:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Something not being in Google does not make it unacceptable as a source - see comment by User:John of Reading below. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted the newspaper myself who told me that articles from that far back are not kept online digitally, although I do have the article, which is why I was able to add the details to this wiki page. Their is also an article on this page from another newspaper The Preston Citizen, so that makes 2 independant newspapers on their! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
yes, but since nobody can access these easily, they fail the verifiability criterion. Btw, out of curiosity, perhaps you can put it somewhere? Pundit|utter 21:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability does not require easy access. See WP:V#Access to sources and Knowledge:Offline sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, and I respect that. Yet, if THE ONLY source the article relies on is the one all who may be skeptical about the content are unable to get, it just does not appease my concerns. Since the main author claims s/he has the article, I thought it would not be preposterous to ask for a copy for my own use. Pundit|utter 01:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete I have searched appropriate databases and Google News archive for coverage of this school but to no avail. All the article located in the "Other sources" section would establish notability not for Cheongye Kwan but for Barry since they are about him. Cheongye Kwan fails the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily follow - since we only know the titles of ~~almost all~~ most of those articles, it's plausible that, despite their titles, their actual content could go on to discuss Cheongye Kwan at length. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is plausible, but so long as the creator, Ckduk (talk · contribs), does not comment on the content of these articles, there is nothing to go on except their titles, which suggest they are primarily about Barry. Let's look at each article/title:

"Barry hunting for Taekwondo talent" from Lancashire Evening Post — unsure
"Barry to coach GB Taekwondo Team" from Lancashire Evening Post — article does not mention Cheongye Kwan.
"GB role for Barry" from Bristol Evening Post — primarily about Barry because the title suggests that the subject of the article is the same as that of the article immediately above.
"BTA National Poomse Coach" from Taekwondo & Korean Martial Arts Magazine — since Barry is a British Taekwondo Aliance (BTA) coach, it is unlikely this article would discuss Cheongye Kwan.
"At the height of power" from Rochdale Observer — title tells me nothing.

So there are two articles that could contain coverage of Cheongye Kwan—"Barry hunting for Taekwondo talent" and "At the height of power". Goodvac (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The article ~~"Barry hunting for Taekwondo talent"~~ "Barry to coach GB taekwondo team" you linked (thanks!) actually looks pretty much like a paid ad: it links to the schools website, advices to contact the secretary, and gives praise to the one-year old club (then). It also speaks of Barry Peake in a way, which may imply he was in the Olympics (weasel/clever wording), while it seems he wasn't. Pundit|utter 19:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I agree with your analysis of the source, which is actually "Barry to coach GB taekwondo team" rather than "Barry hunting for Taekwondo talent". I haven't found the latter anywhere on the web. Goodvac (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Right! Pundit|utter 21:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Cheongye Kwan Daehando is a remarkable Korean Martial Arts association helping countless people to be better and stronger individuals. It has Government backing via local council support (link on article) and has the full support of a National Taekwondo Governing Body (The BTA) under the Kukkiwon in Korea. Whilst some of you may find it difficult to use the word Notable because of the wiki guidlines, this association is very well know and respected around the world by many famous Martial Arts actors and celebrities (photos here http://www.cheongye.co.uk/photos4.html and http://www.cheongye.co.uk/photos5.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
All this is important and if it indeed is so, I'm sure that you will easily find reliable sources to prove it. Pictures themselves, unfortunately, are not enough - after all non-notable people also take pictures with celebrities, etc. Pundit|utter 01:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Question for creator Would you either upload scans of the articles in the "Other sources" section onto the Internet somewhere (like Flickr) so we can view the content or comment on the content of each article? Goodvac (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes of course. But I dont see that this alone will cancel the delete request making it a pointless exercise. If this is all that is needed to save the page, then yes by all means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot guarantee that your uploading the articles for viewing will prevent deletion. However, if the articles contain in-depth coverage of Cheongye Kwan and appear to be independent (written with a neutral point of view), I will change my delete opinion to support retention. Goodvac (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that Pundit has taken a personal effort to ensure that this page not be used (which I am sure he will dispute in his next comment), and the association, staff and instructors of the Cheongye Kwan deserve far more respect and courtesy for what they have achieved and become than is being shown here. With this said, we believe that no amount of effort will save the article, and therefore nolonger wish to persue inclussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ckduk, I really have NOTHING personal against Cheongye Kwan. I have huge respect to people dedicating their life to perfecting martial arts. The only thing is that in MA environment there are really many, many non-notable schools, fractions, or styles. Notability and respect are two different things. For example, I am quite convinced that Cheongye Kwan is a no-nonsense, no bullshido, real MA school. I do have my doubts, however, if this school satisfies our criteria for inclusion into encyclopedia. I gave you links to verifiability, notability, and independent sources rules - so far you have decided not to address these particular points. Believe me, if the sources are available, I will be glad to see this school covered in Knowledge. For now I am just convinced (possibly wrongly) that this school is too small, and too non-notable to be described, and that Knowledge article may serve its self-promotion. Pundit|utter 16:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment The article is now at User:Ckduk/Cheongye Kwan -- John of Reading (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Epiphenomenon

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

Knowledge is not a dictionary (WP:NOT) JC _{My contributions} 01:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - while I agree we should not create quasi-dictionary entries, this one seems to be more than that. It explains the meaning and usage of this term in philosophy and medicine in a manner typical for encyclopedia. Just as we have paradigm or strategy, we may need this article, too (as long as it is factually correct, verifiable, etc.). Pundit|utter 01:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Agree. Roger (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - I would call this a fairly important article within the context of philosophy of mind. Not a Dictionary? That seems like a pretty weak reason to me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Sometimes a topic justifies more coverage than a dictionary can provide, and that's where an encyclopedia steps in. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Let's not rush to judgement here. The entry is distinctly dictionary-like, as is what you get if you Google the term. The example applications could help to rescue the article, but they are dangerously close to being WP:OR with 5 of 7 paragraphs without citations. If we can have some decent citations, listed here if not in the article itself, then I'd be persuaded to vote to keep: if not, we could send it to Wiktionary... Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is already on Wiktionary. JC _{My contributions} 23:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, like most words are (or should be). Still, the fact that there is a definition of the word strategy on wiktionary does not mean that we should delete the article on it from Knowledge. The determining factors are a) whether there is a need for an article beyond a simple definition of the word b) whether the article is written in an encyclopedic manner. In my view clearly the discussed article on Knowledge is written in a style of encyclopedic entry, and I incline to think that there is a need for covering this notion here (even if to distinguish and fully explain different uses in academic fields, which is impossible in wiktionary). Pundit|utter 23:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 03:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ray William Johnson

AfDs for this article:

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

First Note, this article was previously requested possibly more than four times under speedy deletion (WP:CSD A7). Several undoing edits of the tagging for speedy deletion were probably done by bias fans. Second Note, I do not believe there is a need for such pages of YouTube personalities, except for List of YouTube personalities. This man may be the "most subscribed" on YouTube, but YouTube is just a video sharing website. No indication of importance is shown. Also, the man's YouTube page reads, "I'm just a regular guy with an entertaining hobby." Plus, the article is referenced and true, but there probably is no need of such an article. I'm not bias, I'm stating facts. JC _{My contributions} 00:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction, the man is quite important, but that is only on YouTube. JC _{My contributions} 00:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The nomination gives no valid reason for deletion, there is no reference to any reason based in a policy or guideline that could justify deletion. The prior deletions are irrelevant - speedy deletion is about an assertion of importance, which is easily passed now, and the previous AfDs were done in the absence of the reliable sources that we know now have covered him in detail. Notability on Knowledge is not about "importance" - I don't think he is particularly important, but our opinions matter little in the face of the fact that he meets our general notability criterion. If one does consider "importance" to be relevant, then I can point out that the Guinness World Records team obviously think he deserves a mention for being the most subscribed channel on Youtube. I'd advise withdrawing this nomination now to avoid wasting more editors' time and averting drama. Fences&Windows 07:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Despite the arguments of the nominator, the subject still fulfills WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I agree that the current sources are not exactly ideal:

This Forbes article is exclusively about Johnson, and is essentially a bio of how he began his career. This is certainly in-depth coverage from a reputable news blog. This is likely the best current source, IMO.
This student media article provides some content, but the source itself is not high on the reliability scale, as it is student-run.
There are a number of articles focused on particular viral videos by the subject: ,
There are several brief descriptions or mentions of Johnson across several articles, usually noting his status as most-subscribed or having a high subscriber count on YouTube:
There are several links to specific videos to note the fact that celebrities have appeared on his show.

However, looking around for other sources substantiating the notability of the subject did prove fruitful:

This article from Myona News discussing the income made by Johnson (and another YouTuber), noting that Johnson is a "successful YouTube celebrity."
This article from The Australian about Johnson as popular young comedian and his show, Equals Three.
This French article from L'Express magazine about Johnson's work with viral videos and his success.

I realize there is a reluctance to have innumerable WP pages on famous YouTubers, but in this particular case, there seems to be sufficient evidence that the subject is notable based on in-depth coverage in independent sources. The subject seems to be well-known for his performing style, his subscriber count and status on YouTube, and the fact that he is known for showing viral videos is all very apparent from the coverage in the above sources. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 07:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, appears notable based on references. Everyking (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Notable as source above show. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Jethrobot, as it seems to meet WP:GNG. -Hit bull, win steak 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep per NackFinch, the article appears to be citing all information and all sources. I see no valid violations , so I choose to let the article be. User:NackFinch 18:50 , 29 November 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
Keep, notability and noteworthiness appears to be covered here based upon secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Snow Keep: I was the original author of the completely revamped version of this article in March 2011.. The subject is clearly notable and this AfD nomination is an abomination. The nominator here should be deleted and banned from Knowledge forever for such foolhardy nominations.--Milowent • 16:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply, Ban me for foolhardy nominations? Some of my nominations were helpful to delete some unnecessary articles! I've made excellent contributions to Knowledge! If you don't like my thoughts of editing Knowledge, that's just your opinion. --JC _{My contributions} 02:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Milowent's suggestions are somewhat extreme, but you would be better off withdrawing your deletion nomination given the unanimous agreement to keep the article given the evidence supporting notability of the subject. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 02:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing Nomination as per discussion --JC _{My contributions} 02:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)