Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 26 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. —SW—  23:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Blatant SEO spamming of Wiki. Wiki is not a directory of every business with a website Stormcreative (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG; coverage seems nonexistent. One can't reasonably expect a film still in principal photography to be written about in books, but Google News and Google News archives searches using the term "we are the freaks" film do not bring up anything having to do with the film, much less significant coverage from independent reliable sources. News and archives searches for "we are the freaks" jamie blackley and "we are the freaks" justin edgar similarly bring up nothing of relevance. Due to lack of coverage (at least that I can find) I think this ought to be deleted, and perhaps recreated if or when this film is written about in the news media. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Juan Antonio Sotillo. Bmusician 01:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Article has been without any real information for years now, and is completely un-referenced. Simply fails notability grounds, he was the son of a notable person but he himself is not just for being his son. Τασουλα (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Assets (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Astrology and/or History of astrology. —SW—  23:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

A fork of Astrology, with no sources to support this as an independent subject. Further, it has been written as if astrology had actual predictive qualities, with no citations for the predictions. In fact, the only citation in the "Historical predictions" section is one pointing out that Nostradamus may not have used astrology. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete: Extremely poorly sourced and largely unsourceable POV fork of Astrology. Google search, Google Books and Google Scholar turn up an impressive number of hits, but extremely few of these meet WP sourcing requirements. I've spent A LOT of time dealing with sourcing on astrology-related articles, and have found that useful reliable sources are extremely difficult to find. In this case, my own search turned up very little, and that was only of very limited usefulness. Contains little, if anything, of encyclopedic value that can be verified using reliable independent sources. Would support Merge and redirect if HIGH-QUALITY reliable sources can be found. Not in-universe claptrap like the sources currently used in the article. However, I highly doubt that such sources exist for anything more than a very brief mention in the main Astrology article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google search throws up lots of evidence that this is a notable field of astrology - just click on the "books" and "scholar" links above, for example. I agree it could do with improving and some better sourcing (and I'm sorry I don't have time to help), but that's not what AFD is for. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Boing! said Zebedee. If I have time in the afternoon, I'll try to work on it a little. ~dee 11:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep While the current article does contain a lot of rubbish this does not mean the article is unfixable. Yes it is stuffed full of unsourced material and original research, but the article can probably be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect (and rewrite for NPOV) as a section of Astrology. It's notable enough that it's necessary to cover this, I think, but it's unnecessary to fork it off at this time. No prejudice to re-fork if the Astrology article gets too long. - Jorgath (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect This page probably doesn't have enough sourcing to support more than a paragraph or three and it's not clear that it is distinct enough from astrology to have its own article. My suggestion is to condense what we can based on the RSs and then create a new section on the main astrology page. SÆdon 22:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good, and then if the sources can be mustered to show notability it can be split off again. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I could go with that too. Whether it should be a separate article or a section in Astrology depends on how much content can be reliably sourced - if there's enough, a separate article (with a summary section in the main article), and if not, a full section in the main article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as per Saedon. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The nomination is a blatant falsehood as it claims "no sources to support this as an independent subject" when the article has an entire book of this title in its list of sources. Warden (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • A book title is not a citation, and I resent the accusation. We have no idea if they're even using the term in the same meaning as portrayed in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The book's subtitle is An introduction to the astrology of nations and groups. This corresponds exactly to the usage of the article and so the source supports it. If you have "no idea" about these matters then you should please follow our deletion policy before starting a discussion of this kind. Warden (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • This article spans everything from "nations and groups" to natural and manmade objects, as well as Nostradamus' predictions. If you want properly define the term and actually cite the book, feel free. But do not keep insinuating I did not follow process. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete* Obvious POV fork. Could be covered in one paragraph on the main article page. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly by merging and redirecting, but the sources are really, really awful, and I doubt actual good sources can be found to justify a full article. 86.** IP (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

*Request for reassessment. Recent changes have been made to the description and citations by several editors. Other editors are asked to re-assess the encyclopedic merits of this article in view of the changes.Hapmano (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see the need for a separate article. From my perspective, the only parts worth using are the lede and the overview section, which would be ok as as subsection on the main page. The other sections don't seem to add anything encyclopedic to the article and seem mostly conjectural. SÆdon 09:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I've reread the article, and my Delete !vote still stands. The sources used are in-universe fringe sources that do not satisfy WP:RS. The only ones that are reliable are Dawkins, which states that the subject of the article is pseuocientific nonsense, and Hartman, which says that there is no evidence for the scientific validity of the subject. The rest are "for-entertainment-purposes-only" in-universe sources of zero encyclopedic value. Sorry, I can't see this article being expanded beyond a basic definition and a statement that it is unsubstantiated pseudoscience supported by the Dawkins and Hartman cites. Everything else that's there, or could be added, is basically nonsense. Move it to Astrowiki . It simply doesn't belong here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
My delete still stands; there don't appear to be reliable sources to talk about it at this lengt A full 2/3rds is cited to wikis (http://www.astro.com) , blogs ( http://iipa.net/IIPA2010DH/usa_chart.htm gives a blogspot page as its source at the bottom), or not cited at all, and the rest appears to be fringe books by non-notable people from what appear to be specialist publishers. At the very least, if you could cite some Greek thinker on it, or notable mediaeval philosophers, or, at the very least, someone qualified as an expert scholar on the subject, I'd need to reconsider; as it stands, no. 86.** IP (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
A reference is made to Ptolemy's Book on Mundane Astrology in the Tetrabiblos as well as the works of noted historians in the field of astrology. Such contributions do not deserve to be branded "in-universe" and thus non reliable. Granted more work is needed to adequately develop the article. A stay of execution is in order.Hapmano (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
For Ptolemy, find a modern reliable REAL academic source to support it. We can't use the primary source itself. However, there are still problems. That section gives the impression that there is some sort of continuity between Greco-Roman, Islamic and modern astrology, when there clearly isn't.
As for "noted historians in the field", I take it you are referring to Nick Campion. You're free to use his REAL peer-reviewed work, but his non-peer reviewed work and pseudo-academic work is just about worthless, particularly on this topic.
The most you'll get out of this, though, is a solid definition of what mundane astrology is, or rather was, or rather was supposed to be. You're also going to run into a practically insurmountable problem when it comes to modern astrology, namely that there are practically no reliable sources on the topic. Very few scholars have been interested enough to write seriously on the topic in reliable independent sources. Sorry, but the in-universe sources are flat out. They do not constitute a part of serious scholarly discourse on the topic, as they are not considered worthy of consideration for any purpose except, perhaps, entertainment by any serious scholars outside of the "astrological community". That's what "in-universe" means.
I don't see any good reason for a stay of execution, as you put it. The article is overwhelmingly blither. If you shave that away, you're left with, at best, a definition and the pseudoscience statements. Nowhere even close enough for a stand-alone article, or for more that a very brief mention in the main Astrology article. There really is no hope of substantially expanding the article using REAL realiable sources, as practically none exist.
There are more productive ways for you to spend your time here on WP than putting lipstick on a donkey, and a dying donkey at that. Or try your luck over at Astrowiki or another "astrology-friendy" site. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Holden's History of Horoscopic Astrology is another source. Clearly, sub-fields of astrology are of interest to 'specialists' within the field. To expect specialists from other disciplines to evaluate this field is a straw man argument. Let's keep the case against astrology out of this discussion, as it is a separate matter and is, in any case, handled in this and the main astrology article. There are likely plenty of other sources, but gathering them takes time.Hapmano (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Holden's history is also completely useless as a source here in WP. I see that most of the blither has already been trimmed away from the article, leaving, as I said it would, an extended definition and a large statement about the pseudoscientific nature of the subject. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Simply insufficient sourcing to justify a separate article - all it merits is a short section in astrology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The assertion of insufficient sourcing utterly ignores the fact that WP policy is to require that articles CAN be sourced, not that they ARE CURRENTLY sourced. Moreover, the Books and Scholar links should have made this a slam-dunk. All objections here proceed from a prejudice, which is that articles on astrology will corrupt the minds of the readers. Because of this prejudice, the most basic of critical thinking falls by the wayside. For example, Astrology is thousands of years old; there are sources available, can you possibly deny it? So I will break with my tradition of taking articles off-site without mention. It is transcribed to http://hippie.wikia.com/Mundane_astrology and should be reintroduced at a later time. Do not expect it to work straight away, though; Knowledge editors have a superstition all their own, which is that articles on astrology are from Da Debil (eyeroll). Anarchangel (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it's reasonable to ask for evidence that it can be sourced. And no such evidence has yet been provided. 86.** IP (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I take back what I said about your denial. Quite obviously, you can deny it. Or at least, ignore it. Perhaps thousands of years of study in an area by proto-scientists in a field that led to that of modern Astronomy only IMPLIES that evidence of their work must exist? But no, I have seen it myself. I do not have the name of the particular author to hand, it was nearly thirty years ago, now. Anarchangel (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Anarchangel, from a brief inspection, it appears that your website is asserting copyright ownership over its content. Is this correct? And if so, on what basis are you "taking articles off-site"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Website? I do not have a website. You mean Wikia? Your inspection was overly brief, perhaps. I put a {{WPN}} template of my own creation on each article that has Knowledge content, that states unequivocally the fact that it contains material from Knowledge. In the case of articles that get deleted, that means I have to also add a list of contributors, to the talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - a mere fork for an obscure new effort to pretend that there is actual evidence for plain ol' astrology. No reliable sources to support the idea that this is anything but a new figleaf on an old superstition. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I suppose people haven't even bothered to look up sources? I would say shame on you, but AfD no longer surprises me. Voters just don't bother doing the due diligence needed. I should really start a proposal to make WP:BEFORE a policy. Anyways, sources:
‘Astrology helps man face vicissitudes of life' - The Hindu
Astrology defined and also defended - Toledo Blade
Astrology: understanding the birth chart : a comprehensive guide to classical interpretation
The limits of influence: Pico, Louvain, and the crisis of Renaissance astrology
That's just a few examples. There are a number of news articles centered on the early 20th century, along with quite a few recent ones. Mundane astrology seems to have taken off in India, with the World Conference on Mundane Astrology taking place there and has been for at least four years. From what i'm reading, mundane astrology is one of the main four types of traditional astrology, so it's rather strange that anyone would say that it's non-notable. Silverseren 21:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You sure do have a bizarre concept of what constitutes a reliable source here on WP, and have given us quite a mixed bag:
  • A local event announcement in a newspaper written entirely by a junior reporter who never left his desk solely on the basis of a press release provided by the organizers of the event, with little, if any, contribution of his/her own;
  • A 100-year-old letter to the editor; old enough to qualify as a primary source by now;
  • A non-scholarly handbook that is at best for entertainment purposes only;
  • A REAL scholarly work! Excellent find! Good enought to provide an extended definition of the topic, but not very much more because of its very narrow scope.
You're going to find the by far most of the sources you'll dig up with Google are as unreliable as your first three examples, and that actual reliable sources like your fourth example are few and far between, are rarely comprehensive, and practically never deal with modern astrology. Don't forget that this is a pseudoscience-related article, and the sourcing policies should be rigidly adhered to. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me see if I can find things more to your liking.
Richard Trewythian and the Uses of Astrology in Late Medieval England - JSTOR
Raphael's Mundane Astrology Or the Effects of the Planets and Signs, Upon the Nations and Countries of the World - by Robert Cross Smith or one of the others using the pseudonym Raphael, good for how mundane astrology was used when it was first created
Mundane Or National Astrology - by Alan Leo, also good for beginning views
There's some, i'm still looking though. I do still think the subject is notable. Silverseren 02:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Trewythian is reliable, but again, it appears to be very limited in scope, as you will find practically all of the academic sources to be. It's going to be quite difficult to find enough sources like that to piece anything together beyond a more or less extended definition.
Raphael and Leo are both primary sources. Anything in them has to have been treated in a reliable secondary source for our purposes. Reliable secondary sources for modern astrology (Leo) are scarce as hen's teeth. You'll probably have better luck finding something on Raphael, but whether it is going to be useful in sourcing this article, I don't know.
In any case, I still don't see enough that calls for a independent article, and still support a merge. If you or anyone else find adequate sourcing, the topic can be expanded in the main Astrology article or the Tetrabiblos article, or spun off again. But right now, there isn't much hope. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, it can still be spun out again once long enough. The two main issues I have though is that 1) the Astrology article doesn't even mention mundane astrology, so when this merged, it'd better be mered properly and actual information put in. I've seen too many "merges" where people just redirected the article and didn't do anything else. And 2) it's clear from the sources i've presented that there is information that can be used, so it rather pisses me off when people (like below) who likely didn't bother looking for sources anyways are saying that there isn't any available information. Silverseren 17:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. No justification for keeping this stub. Either merge any worthwhile content and delete this, or just delete if nothing unique is here. BTW, it was by following this link that popped up on my watchlist (currently 6,979 pages) which led me to this. I didn't even know about this stub! That link led to a talk page discussion in which weird accusations of coordinated voting were made. EagleEye doesn't seem to have a clue how Knowledge works and is imagining things because they are violating a fundamental rule here - AGF. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Which sources? Stuff you've found on Google that was published by who-knows-who, who-knows-when, and which tells us who-knows-what? What do you think the sources you've found can be usefully be cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to The limits of influence written by Steven Vanden Broecke, a history of science researcher and member of The Center for History of Science, and published by BRILL? Or were you referring to Richard Trewythian and the Uses of Astrology in Late Medieval England from the Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, published by The Warburg Institute? Silverseren 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Andy hit the nail on the head: "What do you think the sources you've found can be usefully be cited for?".
How about a description of mundane astrology, it's use throughout history, the examples therein of what constitutes mundane astrology, and also the information therein that discusses how the sun and planets part works. Silverseren 17:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger One ping only 02:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

As far as I can tell, it's a bridge of no particular note. JoelWhy (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, right? I don't even know why it's up for deletion! Sure, it's short, but it has more than 3,500 bytes, so that's a start! HappyWheeler4Life (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)John Weeks
Clearly somebody assumed negative notability... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Same rationale as Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Monmouth Leisure Centre...permastub, unreferenced, etc. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of minor Marvel Comics characters or elsewhere if there's consensus for it Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-notable fictional character. His most significant appearance was in two issues of a C-list title. PROD was declined in favor of a merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: A, but I think merging any of this content into a list of names would be inappropriate. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge - don't see a problem with the requested merge, or at least just redirect the article for now (until a day when, who knows, there may be some sources). BOZ (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sorry Barnabas321 but the consensus here is that this search engine isn't notable yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

No lead section, little context to understand what this company actually does, and all references are from the company itself (plus one externally hosted press release). Cmprince (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a lot of references from foreign sources to the article, because one of the reason why the article should be deleted was that references were only coming from own sites of the company. So this is changed now. Otherwise please let me know, what I can do better on the article before the article will be deleted. I am a newcomer on wikipedia. The article shouldn't be business spam o.s.e. It is a translation of the existing article in another language version of Knowledge. --Barnabas321 (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now I also added links to WIKI pages to get a higher quality of the article and also I added two references more from foreign sources. --Barnabas321 (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there is also a lead section with a little context to understand what the company actually does. This was one of the reasons why Cmprince suggested this article to delete. So now this is corrected. --Barnabas321 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Barnabas, thank you for taking note of the issues with this article and trying to correct them. If this company is notable, then I definitely do not want to see this deleted! Unfortunately, I still see some problems.
  • More third party references would be helpful to check that the company is notable, but the ones that you've provided are all front pages of websites. Do you have actual articles to link to that specifically feature this company?
  • Generally, why is this company notable? The article should explain why in the lead section. I am still having a hard time figuring out what this company actually does, and if it is actually notable.
  • While you include links to other wikipedias, they are all written by you, so those articles in other languages may have the same deficiencies as this one.
  • After reading your user page, you appear to have a conflict of interest. While you aren't forbidden to edit pages with a conflict of interest, it is often frowned upon and your edits will be viewed with more scrutiny.
I am not sure that these problems can be solved, but you may want to get some help with this. I see that there is no German language version of this article; since this company seems to be based in Germany, you may be able to find more help there. I don't know that we can be of much help besides asking you to fix these things. Cmprince (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - I see no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but I do find a bunch of press releases. The sourcing in the article is insufficient as noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

DELETE - This article/company is not notable in any way. Ovr'apint (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is notable. Specially I didn't wrote an article about the company behind the business directory, because the company isn't notable. I wrote an article only about the product (the business directory), because the business directory is notable, because of lots of USPs, innovatice features and special functions against other products in the same range.
Now Cmprince wrote, that a lead section with little context is missing to see what the company actually does. But this is not an article about a company. It is just an article about a product of a company. It is like Google and not like Google - the company. Even because of this the lead section sais enough about the product; what the products is and what it does. I thought, if I would here write more about the comapany, it would be business spam. And this is what I didn't wanted to do.
About the links I set to reference sources yesterday: Cmprince wrote, that I set the links just to the landing pages of the reference giving websites. But this is exactly what I wanted to do! Because in the text where I set the references I wrote about the marketing activities of bailaho. I wrote that appear advertisements of bailaho on several websites. To show this like an evidence I linked to the websites landing pages where the advertisements always exist. So readers can go directly to the landing page of the websites and there they will see an advertisement from bailaho. At once I didn't set these linkes in references, but after Cmprince wrote it would be better to add more references from foreign sources than always from the company itself, I did it.
About the comments of Ovr'apint: Just to say "This article/company is not notable in any way.". How he could know this??? Maybe it is a topic about a range far of his interests and knowledge!? Where are the reasons, that Ovr'apint writes such a comment? I think it is notable for all people with knowledge, passion and profession about search engines, B2B-marketing, online-marketing. Even interesting for people with interests in international marketing or for companies with target groups in Europe - specially in the German spoken areas.
Even it is interesting for the user, who uses the service(s) of bailaho. Even it is interesting for each of the 1,300,000 companies listed in the business directory.
Once more I want to explain, that I didn't wanted to do business spam here. I like Knowledge to much to do this. I only wanted to explain what the product is and what it is able to do. I didn't used slogans, marketing text o.s.e. to catch people or to offer anything or to find customers o.s.e.
Anyway I will work on this article step-by-step to make it better. --Barnabas321 (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday I set also links inside Knowledge. This I did to make the article better. --Barnabas321 (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Proof of notability is the responsibility of the article creator, not the commenters. I think you misunderstand what "notability" in Knowledge means - it is explicit coverage of the subject by (preferably multiple) independent media sources - see Knowledge:Notability. The fact that the article cites absolutely no such coverage is the reason for deletion on the ground of the subject being non-notable. The references that you cited aren't references, because they don't seem to mention Bailaho in any way.
If it isn't blatant advertising, it can still be advertising. Knowledge is one of the most visited websites on the planet and such an article would contribute a lot to the company's reputation if it stayed. There's a lot of websites where you can "explain" what is the service that you represent. Knowledge is not the right place for that, for many reasons. — Yerpo 13:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)



I know, that it is the responsibility of the article creator to proof the notability. This is what I did before creating the article. An appr. 30.000 sign article I don't write just for fun. After my oppinion a notability exists. Reasons enough see above. The commenters here have doubts about an existing notability, so they have to bring an evidence why the article has to be deleted. But nobody brought it. Only everybody wrote, that the article has to be deleted, because it has to be. This no reason!
I don't know what Yerpo wants to create here with his comment!? "Knowledge is not the right place for that, for many reasons" - and even "for many reason" is not enough explained! If there a so many reasons, where is the problem to bring here some of them???
All comments against the article just have the content like "The article has to be deleted, because there is no notability." But where are the reasons? Because of the oppinion of the commenters here it decides, if an article is able to be published or not!?!? I brought reasons, why the article has to exists. I also brought references and evidences. The other commenters here only wrote, that the article has to be deleted, because it is so. That cannot be the way in a discussion???
Once more I want to explain, that it is no marketing entry about a company. It is an article about a product with a lot of USPs and with a lot of users and a lot of registered and recorded companies; a product with a lot of innovative features and functions. So this article is interesting for a lot of people with interests about SEO, search engine, business marketing, online marketing, a.s.o. --Barnabas321 (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, "a lot of users" isn't proof of notability. Only explicit coverage by (preferably multiple) independent media sources is a proof. You have provided no such proof, so it seems that Bailaho is not notable. Knowledge:Notability and Knowledge:Verifiability explain this. Please read and understand those pages before you continue with this discussion. For start, you can then provide at least one article about Bailaho that is not a press release in some other journal or newspaper. Then we can change our opinion.
Other reasons for the inappropriateness of your article are explained on the page Knowledge:Conflict of interest. Yes, this is a marketing entry, because the company's representative wrote it. — Yerpo 08:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have combed through the referencing in the article. I have removed the huge list of references to the front pages of websites. Those do not verify any information and aren't really a source at all. I've tagged references from Bailho's web sites, and from press releases as a primary source. This leaves only one reference that isn't a primary source. It is a business directory listing (Xing) which appears to simply print whatever content was provided by the company so it's really not any better than a primary source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Consensus for its inclusion has become unanimous. (non-admin closure) -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Post-closing note: Sorry, but it wasn't quite unanimous. I still think this has doubtful notability, and the very existence of the season, while very likely, is not certain. Nevertheless, I think this was a WP:SNOWBALL so I won't fight the consensus. Cmprince (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
2012–13 Long Island Blackbirds men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic is not yet ripe for an article. The roster listing is a speculative crystal ball. Cmprince (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional information: WP:NSEASONS is a relevent guideline for this article. Cmprince (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless you are arguing that past seasons do not meet WP:GNG (I'd be surprised with a NCAA Div I program), and therefore next season's article is unlikely to meet it as well, IMO we are quibbling whether this should be deleted now only to have it re-created a few months later.—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I am now requesting this AfD page be closed. --BbJeter (talk) 11:12, 31 Mar 2012 (UTC)
  • IMORTANT INFORMATION FROM Bbjeter: I have deleted the roster and kept the rest of the article as is. I will add a roster as soon as a credible source becomes available, such as the roster being posted on the school website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbjeter (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
— Note to closing admin: Bbjeter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep This school has an existing basketball program, and it's almost certain a season next year will be played. It's reasonable to expect players that have not graduated, dropped out, or announced intention to play professionally are candidates to play next season. No reason to go to the extreme of waiting for the first game to be played to be 100% sure of the roster.—Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a very good reason to do just that. Content in this encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate. Including a roster for a team that has not established a roster yet is blatant speculation, "reasonable" expectations aside, and is as such inappropriate. I have concerns about including this article at all, but the roster absolutely has to go either way unless it can be sourced. It's totally unverifiable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Can anyone supply a single reliable source covering the 2012-2013 team? I've looked and I can't find anything at all. Setting aside significant WP:CRYSTAL concerns, if there is literally no sourcing available for this subject then it pretty plainly fails WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NSEASONS, the last of which looks for "well-sourced prose." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Removing the roster certainly removes most if not all of the speculation I saw when I first looked at the article. And I have belief that the content in the article is verifiable. But until I really get to see firmly that it is, then for now I'm changing my !vote to Neutral. Currently, the debate is centered around the the lack of significant coverage. This may be, this may not. But I think that WP:CRYSTAL has lifted somewhat from the removal of the roster. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The removal of the roster and the added NYT source are both very helpful. The NYT source doesn't necessarily address the subject directly and in significant detail, but it's evidence of already-present discussion of matters relating to the 2012-2013 season in major sources. If I thought it meant anything I'd qualify my keep vote as being "weak," but I've never understood what that actually accomplishes :). I do think we're jumping the gun a bit in having this article, but there is practically no doubt that this article will at some point be necessary and, given that there's already some addressing of the subject in a source as major as the NYT, I now think this ought to be kept. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Fails to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Terence7 (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (unambiguous promotion) by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)

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

I don't believe it is possible to create a properly sourced, neutral article about Corner. A search for relevant sources reveals only self-published sources, or sources highly critical of Corner. There do not appear to be any independent sources that provide neutral information about him. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Bmusician 01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The only evidence of notability (Clinical significance) given is a retracted paper. Now it may be possible that it is still notable, especially if there's some kind of a controversy associated with Xanthosine monophosphate, and dome sources exist on the topic, but I can't tell if they qualify as significant coverage for drugs as I'm no medical expert. This nomination is mostly to ensure the article is properly vetted with regards to WP:N and WP:RS, but in this current version it's hard to justify this article's existence and I would personally support it's deletion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See Knowledge:Notability_(natural_sciences)#Chemistry: "Naturally occurring compounds are notable.". --Arcadian (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Bmusician 01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

No notability/unsourced since 2008 Dalisays (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - This topic clearly passes WP:GNG:
—Northamerica1000 20:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 14:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Most likely advertising, don't mind if it's kept though AndieM13 (Leave a message!) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON, no prejudice against recreation if this (a) happens and (b) achieves notability. The Bushranger One ping only 06:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

This article consist of mostly speculation; fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR and WP:V. Google searches yield no reliable sources apart from the 2019 Sea Games. This article had been WP:PROD in the second edit but removed by the page creator. No pages link to the article apart from the user namespace. Joshua What I've done? 12:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Concerns about the verifiability of this article have been discussed to varying degrees in the previous four AfD's, but it appears that the perception has changed since the last AfD in 2009, and there is significant agreement in this discussion that the article is neither verifiable nor encyclopedic. —SW—  20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOT#JARGON, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:WHIM, ] etc. (this actually falls under nearly all of the listings on WP:NOT). Inherently non-encyclopedic exhaustive listing of names (most that no one's ever heard of, many that don't make any sense, exhaustive listing of breeds and subspecies of cannabis) for various illicit drugs, most probably WP:OR based on attempted Googlings of a few random ones that I'd never heard of. Even if it was encyclopedic (which, by definition, it can not be, according to the subpolicies cited above), it would be unusable due to the uber-thesaurus-dictionary glut, let alone lack of sources. St John Chrysostom τω 10:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - A couple Keep closes, a Merge close, and a No Consensus close in the previous four times this has been haggled over. This is a list, not an article, which means it needs to be focused, limited, and functional — which this seems to be. The footnotes are archaic, it would be nice if a published book or three listing "street names" could be mustered and mined so that we never have to see this topic at AfD again... Still, "street names" are referenced in government sources and this particular list is no more "original research" than any one of thousands of others at WP. The topic is, ultimately, encyclopedic as a LIST — whereas an ARTICLE about any one of these names would be objectionable on NOTURBANDICTIONARY grounds. My opinion, yours may vary. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that if the article is kept - in the previous debates, the "keep" rationale has been shaky - it be substantially stubbed and reduced to those slang terms which have wide currency or can be attributed as being used somewhere (as many of the names for grass are actually breeds of grass, etc.; the names for the long-banned Placidyl are outright incorrect, as most of them were red, etc.) - essentially as a central repository for those names, with maybe a few extras, that are already listed in the articles of a given drug (which tend to have the common slang, e.g. for cannabis, "grass, pot, marijuana, marihuana, honey oil, hash, keef, weed, hydro, sensimilla, bud, herb, ganja", not a list that can only be navigated by CTRL+F). Why not also change scope to "Street drug slang" or something similar, and add all of the various terms for smoking and shooting up? According to a keep rationale given my talk page based on the "usefulness" of this information, such would be immensely increased by a recording of the slang surrounding illicit drugs (and those licit drugs which are abused, such as amphetamines, opiates and opioids, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, etc.). St John Chrysostom τω 00:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply - Actually, one thing does: the section title. "Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information." The specific examples are only relevant as examples, since WP:COMMONSENSE applied to the section title suggests that any indiscriminate collection of information should not be included without good reason. - Jorgath (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep no problem articulated which cannot be solved through regular editing. More specific sourcing would be helpful, of course. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
you have failed to provide any specific sourcing, which is one main reason people are arguing delete. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The claim that this material is not encyclopedic is false. See The A-Z Encyclopedia of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Encyclopedia of Psychopharmacology, Encyclopedia of Drugs and Alcohol, &c. Warden (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
False reasoning. We have articles like that here - cannabis (drug), diacetylmorphine, psilocybin, methamphetamine, etc., which, notably, contain the most pertinent and valuable slang terms - the comparison is false, as no source gives such a ridiculously exhaustive list of every name any man has ever applied to a random assortment of common and uncommon drugs when stoned. "Psychopharmacology" is about the effects of the drugs and technical information, such as receptor binding, dissociation constants, ant/agonism, dosages, t1/2 and other kinetics, etc.; I'm guessing "A-Z" is about addictionology, and "EDA" is probably about both, like the PDR for street drugs. St John Chrysostom τω 17:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete This article, or more correctly list, is not referenced significantly. Of the two refs quoted one is only available to health professionals and the other does not contain data relating to the illegal substances listed. As a health professional myself I am aware of a number of the drug names listed, but only a minority of them. The majority, in the absence of references, are originasl research and hence inadmissable.--Anthony Bradbury 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete- This list is untenable. Most of the content is dubious and unsourced. Its accuracy has been specifically challenged. And, since all attempts to find sources has failed, per WP:BURDEN it ought to be removed. That won't leave enough content behind to stand on its own two feet. Reyk YO! 02:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOT#JARGON and WP:OR, there is insufficient sourcing. only Marijuana seems reasonably referenced. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • delete wikipedia is not a thesaurus and not a collection of jargon. highly-known street names for individual drugs can be found on their individual pages, but there is no need for a massive list like this, esp because it will be difficult to verify sources.--Karl.brown (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to 'List of slang for recreational drugs' --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
But when phrased in that way, it is by definition in contravention of a (core?) policy, WP:NOT#JARGON and WP:WHIM (a major objection to the article in the first place), so I ask thee to reconsider. This article is complete unencyclopedic as is, and your proposed change does one thing very well: it brings to the forefront the unencyclopedic nature of this list. There are few pages here that are such that they do not belong and can not be improved: this is one of them (along with copious references to minor biographies that I CSD/PROD/AFD as soon as I meet them). St John Chrysostom τω 12:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and others. The articles on each individual drug should and—largely—do contain the most common slang names for each drug. Dumping them all here is pointless and completely untenable, in terms of upholding verifiability. This list should be a controlled substance itself for its monstrously mind-melting mediocrity. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and also because this is a clear vandal- and cruft-magnet that will attract drive-by editing to add "something I heard something called by". - The Bushranger One ping only 05:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is mostly dictionary-type content. Even to the extent it is verifiable, it's of questionable usefulness without information when or where these names were in use (it's not even stated in which country they were used).  Sandstein  06:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This list is indiscriminately broad. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —SW—  20:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Deprodded based on the claim of search results establishing notability, but only source that appears to go beyond a trivial or routine mention is an Atlanta-area LGBT magazine interviewing the director due to the film being at an Atlanta LGBT film festival. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: While not offering an !vote (yet), I wish to correct an inadvertant mis-statement by the nominattor. The article was not deprodded for being notable, but was deproded because it was new work, had never been otherwise tagged for concerns for sourcing nor notability, sources were available for possible improvement, it could benefit from expansion and improvement, and had not been given time to be improved through regular editing. See talk page HERE. I do not believe the project is served by being overly impatient with hew articles, nor is it served by not informing an author that his article was prodded when first doing so. Schmidt, 07:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    Actually I did inform the author of the article. Just because it is new does not mean it should be kept nor that there being the possibility for improvement means it should be kept. To your comment about deprodding, you said the film was notable, so if not the sources what is it that makes you claim notability?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    You mis-read the deprod. I stated that the new stub article was improvable (expansion, sourcing, verifibility), and offered for consideration that we do not delete notable topics. However, and to disagree with your misinterpretation, I did not specifically state that this one was notable. I deproded to allow time for its notability (or lack) to be established (or not) through regular editing. A prodders's demand for immediate improvement of possibly improvable topics always makes makes improvement through regular editing a bit difficult. Schmidt, 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I found a review in Variety which I've added to the article. I'm having a difficult time finding additional coverage in reliable sources, although there is certainly no shortage of notices related to the film running in various festivals, as well as a decent amount of blogosphere coverage. This is pretty borderline. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I really can't find anything reliable and significant beyond the Variety source, and even the Variety source is ~75% plot summary rehash and 25% review/editorial. There's enough of what looks like unreliable chatter out there to suggest, to me, some borderline case to be made for notability, but in my opinion this falls short. I'll happily change my vote if someone else can provide better evidence of coverage that is both reliable and significant in scope. I'm finding lots of one or the other, nothing that is both. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good deal of coverage in secondary sources see this search for just one example. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • With the exception of the Fenuxe source, those all appear to be trivial mentions to me (indeed, all but one are literally mentions). I suppose the existence of the Fenuxe piece in addition to the Variety source might push this to the other side of borderline, for me, although TDA's concerns about the scope of that source in his nomination are pretty well-taken. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment We do have additional more-then-trivial coverage in other sources, and as the film has screned in non-US locations, we might expand our searches to include non-English sources. And rather than outright deletion we might at a minimum consider incubating it for a short time per WP:ATD. While the film did in fact screen at the Miami Gay & Lesbian Film Festival in May 2011, Frameline in June 2011, Outfest Film Festival in July 2011, the Iris Prize Festival and Tokoyo International Lesbian & Gay Film Festival in October 2011, the Toulouse Des Images Aux Mots Gay Film Festival in France in February 2012, the article tells us "It will be released in New York City on April 20, 2012." With its ongoing festivals tour and a theatrical release in a major metropolitan area, we can await the expected coverage and the article's content can then benefit from cooperative attention out of mainspace. Schmidt, 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources might seem a bit thin at current, but there is every prospect this will improve in the near future based on the well known actors in it (such as Bruce Vilanch) and the notability of the director (Casper Andreas), on this basis there is a good case to meet Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films criteria. If the cast were a bunch of unknowns I might propose Userfication but it seems excessive here. --Fæ (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It is actually not a "future release" as it has already been out in other areas. That is just referring to a showing in New York City.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. A film which has visited festivals and is slated for imminent thetatrical release in New York City. Revisit the topic in May. Schmidt, 06:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

The topic is an Internet meme concerning nationalist stereotypes about Poland, an Eastern European country. As experienced editors will know, Knowledge has a long history of disruptive conduct related to nationalist disputes in Eastern Europe; compare Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. I therefore disregard all opinions by IP accounts or those with very few contributions and by editors who have block log entries for problematic conduct with respect to Eastern Europe, on the basis that this is the easiest way to filter out (a) opinions and walls-of-text based on nationalist prejudice and (b) some of the canvassing that in my experience takes place in this sort of dispute. I'm also discounting the WP:JUSTAVOTE by Doc9871, as well as the opinions by Night of the Big Wind and Pultusk, who do not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion (i.e. notability and sourcing).

After doing that, the headcount is: delete 16, keep 6. This means I need to decide whether any of the "keep" arguments are so strong, or any of the "delete" arguments so weak, that they prevent me from finding a consensus for deletion. That is not the case. The discussion is mostly about the number and quality of sources that could make the topic pass WP:N. The "keep" opinions argue that reliable sources about the topic exist, while the "delete" side argues that there is too little reliable or significant coverage, or that it is too transient. These are all valid arguments and it is not for me to judge who is right. On that basis, the numbers prevail and I find that there is consensus to delete the article. There is also another consideration, which is not decisive but supports this outcome: The contentious nature and difficult sourcing situation of this article, as seen in this discussion and the resulting WP:AE request, is likely to produce continued disputes and disruption if it is kept.  Sandstein  21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-notable internet injoke or meme. Knowledge is not knowyourmeme. We do not have to document each and every one. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE – This discussion may have been influenced by canvassing on an external Internet forum. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

All I see there is a passing mention of and link to the DYK in broader discussion. No mention of or link to this AfD, no "please come put your input in". Just running commentary. Perhaps a small number of users poked around for a few seconds and found this, but there's really nothing there that indicates clear canvassing. Furthermore, the article has been tagged for days now, so your silly little note just looks like you trying to play news reporter. Sorry, sweetheart, you've been scooped. Run along, now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, consider a similar sudden incoming of editors that the Zhirinovsky's ass article has seen recently (with at least 3 from WF/WR), and note sheer numbers of known EEML editors here (at least 4, and even User:Hodja Nasreddin is here, with more people involved in related discussions), as well as Wikipediaforum or Wikipediareview editors here (at least 4 known), and that most of those are among the most commenting here... GreyHood 14:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, none of the EEML editors should be commenting here at all, as they are all under an interaction ban with the creator of the article, Russavia. It may be that if they did not participate here the outcome might be different, possible less desirable. This is a calculated risk the Arbitration Committee took when it imposed the IBAN. If you do not like it, complain to them. It should also be noted, that as this article was nominated for DYK it would have received all the needed scrutiny, even without the participation of the editors involved in the WP:EEML case. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
If you had paid one whit of attention when you left your ridiculous "me-too!" comment at the current AE request, you will find that the administrative community is not wholly convinced that AfD participation is an iBan® violation. Furthermore, you seem to be making a blatantly dishonest attempt to characterise the iBan® as being directed as those evil EEMLers, when it applies just as equally to R, whose emblazoning of a cartoon lampooning Polish editors across his userpage can only reasonably be interpreted as baiting of those he is under an interaction ban with, your brain-dead defence of that action notwithstanding. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
EEML is dead and gone, unless you have a hell of lot of evidence to back up your seeming insinuations that there is still behind-the-scenes collusion going on there. Former EEML members edit mainly on, well, Eastern European topics. Last I checked, Poland was indeed in Eastern Europe. And if we are to discount editors who have been involved in this topic area in the past, we should probably kick your ass (ha-ha) to the curb as well, given the fact that you have been R's wingman on more than a few occasions. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
EEML here is used not as a reference to the EEML arbitration case itself, but to refer to the specific group of editors who have placed under an interaction ban with Russavia by the Arbitration Committee (in another decision). We could as well call them the RU-IBAN group. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you—of all people—really want to be throwing around ArbCom context? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I was unaware of any DYK nominations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. But did you check any of the sources which show that the meme is notable? It is more than notable, and I have even used the Polish sources to establish this notability. Russavia 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Alternatively, it could fit into List of Internet phenomena with Polandball being a redirect. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Probably not, because there is enough details already for a stand alone article. But thanks for that list, I'll add Polandball to it with a link to the article. Russavia 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. There is not a single reliable source in the article. Just click the " news · books · scholar · JSTOR " links above. News: barely 3 results, which are forum comments or unrelated. Books: zero relevant links. Scholar zero: . JSTOR: zero. The article itself has some sources but none of these are reliable or notable, though that may not be obvious to non-Polish speakers. First source is an essay by a first year undergraduate student at a Polish university or something (I'm not even sure why this stuff is up on the internet) - clearly not a reliable source. Second source is simply a Polish blog. Who the hell cares? Third source (Przeglad) is another blog/opinion piece. Next source is also a blog which mentions the subject in passing. is an opinion piece in a newspaper. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources nor are they sufficient to establish notability.
Now, if Knowledge was oh internet or Encyclopedia Dramatica then yeah, sure, the inclusion of a racist internet memes would be justifiable. But last I checked this is an encyclopedia not a troll site - let the troll sites do what they do, and let the online encyclopedia be an encyclopedia. There's no indication that this particular internet meme has achieved sufficient status to have been picked up by reliable sources, much less any reason why the Knowledge needs to suffer any kind of embarrassment by featuring bigotry on its front page (the article has been nominated for DYK). There's been enough embarrassing SNAFUs with respect to DYK lately. This article should be deleted, never mind being featured on the front page.
(For the sake of clarification: I happen to think that some of the Polandball cartoons are actually pretty funny. At the same time, the few and in between funny versions of the joke are much outnumbered by the fact that it's a kind of medium which easily lends itself to 13 year old internet morons giving vent to their racist and xenophobic stupidity. Unfortunetly most of the cartoons out there reflect that. What's next, racist offensive "Negro jokes" on Knowledge's front page, simply because they may or may not be an "internet meme" some users find them humorous, and because it's "April Fools" so things which are otherwise considered obnoxious and offensive are "ok"? Whole thing is a disgrace.VolunteerMarek 05:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
If opinion pieces can not be reliable sources, why does WP:RSOPINION say the opposite? You're making up the rule that they don't establish notability. Coverage at critical reviews is frequently used as a factor for the notability of films, books and works of art, so why not internet memes? Diego (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment of the lack of notability. However, the content of the jokes should not be relevant. It's simply an issue of lack of notability for me. Knowledge should not document each and every internet injoke out there. There are other sites and Wikis devoted to that. If this joke had reached the level of notability as, say the song "Friday" then I would have no problems with it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure, there's two problems here. One is just the basic non-notability of the article itself. The other is the DYK nomination. Aside from some other issues in the background, it should be mentioned that even the place where this supposed meme supposedly originated is itself not even notable, apparantly. Krautchan.net simply redirects to Imageboard. This is scraping the bottom of some internet barrel for sake of "lulz".VolunteerMarek 06:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment In relation to the above comments about unreliable sources, ignoring irrelevant rants, the following needs to be made known. Gazeta Wyborcza is a leading Polish newspaper, and Wojciech Orliński is one of the newspapers regular columnists. So his article more than means our WP:RS guideline. The article discusses the meme in depth. Cooltura is a weekly Polish cultural magazine published in the UK, and the article in it was republished by numerous other Polish sources, such as Interia.pl (one of Poland's largest web portals), so again is a reliable source. Claims that this source only mentions the subject in passing is totally wrong -- the article is discussing the meme in depth. Przegląd is a weekly Polish magazine, and does meet the threshold of a reliable source. This article is on the subject of internet memes, and has information on Polandball. Hiro appears to be a weekly Polish magazine as well. This article is one the subject of internet memes, and delves a little into two memes which relate to Poland---Polandball being one of those. As to accusations of racism, etc, the Cooltura article starts off with "Ostatnia internetowa moda wyśmiewająca Polskę i naszą flagę narodową, która szerzy się w cyberprzestrzeni to kolejny dowód na stale tlący się w kręgach zachodnich elit i wśród społeczeństw ideologiczny antypolonizm. Albo nie. W każdym razie obrażamy się jako pierwsi, zanim etatowi polonijni moraliści zapłoną świętym ogniem oburzenia. A potem, jak zwykle, spłoną ze wstydu." Translate it for yourselves, and see what is written. It would be great if people didn't mispresent sources like they have above. Russavia 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore If one refers to pl:Wojciech Orliński it states "Od 1997 pracuje w "Gazecie Wyborczej", gdzie pisze głównie na tematy związane z kulturą masową." -- this states that since 1997, Orlinski has been a columnist with Gazeta Wyborcza, where he writes mainly on popular culture. Polandball is clearly popularly culture. His article has been passed off above as just some oped in a newspaper, but rather it is the complete opposite. It is an article on the meme, written by a notable journalist, who's field of expertise is pop culture, and published in one of the largest Polish newspapers. It's also not an opinion piece, it is a detailed article on the actual meme. Sorry, just need to detail the mischaracterisation of sources as was done above. Russavia 07:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The comments above are false and they misrepresent the sources. However, since myself and the author of the comments are subject to an interaction ban I am unable to provide a fully detailed adequate comment in response - bottomline though is that these are in fact just blogs and opinion pieces, not reliable source, and this can be easily verified. The fact that the above comments are explicitly replying to my comments is a direct violation of his interaction ban with me, per WP:IBAN which states that a user under an interaction ban is not allowed to reply to editor Y in discussions or make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Knowledge, whether directly or indirectly;. Note that none of my comments referenced anything but the article itself.
At this point I find myself in an impossible position. If I address the comments made above (which are a clear violation of an interaction ban), then I risk violating the ban myself. If I don't address them then the person who violated an interaction ban "wins". My only recourse at this point would be to file an Arbitration Enforcement request against the user but I hope that it doesn't have to get to that.VolunteerMarek 07:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, you two have stated your views. We can allow for other people to judge the your positions. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup.VolunteerMarek 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
"Named sources" =/ "reliable sources". The "Polish newspaper article" is an opinion piece which merely mentions the thing in passing.VolunteerMarek 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - one of the most notable memes on the Internet. I think it would not be reasonable to expect to have tons of scholarly sources on a meme subject, and otherwise it is well-sourced. GreyHood 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You can "expect" to have tons of scholarly sources all you want, but until they actually exist, it's not notable. See WP:CRYSTAL.VolunteerMarek 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Forgot to answer you before, VM. Apparently you have plainly misunderstood what I wrote. WP:CRYSTAL has no any relevance here. My point is obvious: memes, just as some other categories of subjects (recent events; many products of popular culture, especially modern ones) tend not to be covered by scholarly sources. And that's normal and not making memes less notable - often they remain much more notable than all those hundreds of thousands articles on little-known sportspeople or scientists. At least such is the reality. Then, for the meme which appeared just few years ago, this article has enough sources establishing the notability, and these sources are of decent level considering the kind of topic - and what we have is Polish (sic!) newspaper articles in the top-level Polish newspapers. Opinion pieces or not, does not matter as long as content is approved and edited by notable media. Anyway, it is quite obvious that memes and many other aspects of popular culture would not be covered neither by scholarly sources, nor by recent news. So we remain only with such categories as analysis / educational articles / opinion pieces / entertainment. And the article by Orliński is serious and detailed enough to be considered an educational and informational article, not an opinion piece - it conveys a quality description of what Polandball is and how it originated. GreyHood 20:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The thing is, it actually does matter whether they are opinion pieces or not. Generally, opinion pieces - and it's easy to see that the Orlinski source is in the "Opinie" section of the paper - are not considered reliable sources, nor are they sufficient to establish notability. So we actually DON'T have "Polish (sic!) newspaper articles in the top-level Polish newspapers" here - we have one opinion piece from such a newspaper (Przeglad isn't a "top level Polish newspaper" anyway, it's more comparable, though with different politics, to something like Najwyższy Czas! in terms of circulation and non-mainstreamness (though at a different point in the political spectrum), which is itself probably not a reliable source overall. There's a possibility of confusion here though - before 1999 there was a magazine called Przeglad which was significant, but these are essentially different papers)VolunteerMarek 09:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Opinion pieces at reliable sources are valid for establishing notability, they have always been. The only caveat for their use is that they're identified as such when used to verify information in the article. Diego (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep knowyourmeme is not a sanction for deletion. I see enough sources to assert notability. Inclusion criteria does not require academic sources and also Google scholar is an imperfect search engine and cannot be trusted as a perfect representation of all academic research. PhD thesis coverage for any topic may not necessarily be indexed in Google Scholar particularly if the publication is on paper-only with no internet presence. Also there is one work (in Polish) that is most curious and is prepared by someone from Rzeszów University. -- A Certain White Cat 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    You can't seriously be saying that there are scholarly works on this subject which have somehow been missed by google scholar. There aren't. And like I already pointed out that work from "Rzeszów University" is just some paper some undergrad wrote which happened to get put up on the internet. It's not a scholarly paper at all. There's not a single reliable source in the article.VolunteerMarek 16:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    Yes I can. Not all academic works are archived on Google scholar. Academic works on this topic would more likely be published offline in Polish academic journals. -- A Certain White Cat 18:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Source 1 looks good and there's a reasonable chance that this is being covered as a prototype of an internet meme in Polish language sources cited in the article below that. As for memes: Do we need to have articles for them all? No. Or most of them? No. Or many of them? No. This one? It is at least close enough to give me pause. The article is sufficiently well done that it should get the benefit of the doubt, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Notability as an important cultural phenomenon more than established through news articles, it seems unreasonable to expect there to be many scholarly works covering recent and specific internet culture. --GoldenMew (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:USELESS and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC are not valid arguments for deletion. A topic is deemed worthy of includion in the encyclopedia if third-party reliable sources think that it's important enough to write significant content about it. Diego (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, the sources are badly researched at best. I don't know where the drawball story is from, but it's most probably just made up. I lurk the board in question and used to lurk it when Polandball came up, and there was never any mention of drawball concerning the origins (and allow me to make the unreasonable assumption that I know more about the memes of my home board than some journalist). Also, the scope of countryballs is now much broader, the comics stopped being exclusively about poland after a few months or so. --84.153.90.97 (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The article already mentions the fact that it has generalized to 'countryball', though it is still referred to as 'Polandball'.Estlandia (dialogue) 13:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it's a bit hard to keep up with current usage if you have to cite news items. --84.153.90.97 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment.Delete. Plot thickens. First, it was only Polish ball, then it was Russian ball (which I, as a culturally Russian user, consider highly offensive), and finally, we have a Britball cartoon, but "Britball" is something very different. Honestly, I do not think this has anything to do with creating encyclopedic content. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • "Culturally Russian user" is typically a self-description by non-Russians from the former USSR. So please better clarify what your mean, otherwise your point is misleading. GreyHood 19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, I think this article qualify as an attack page and possibly WP:POINT, given the previous relations between creator(s) of the page and Polish editors. Indeed, the creation of the article evidently cased a lot of disruption on AE and various talk pages, including highly questionable comments with regards to at least three arbitrators. Is it worth it? I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • You have not explained how really you are related to Russia, and that's what I was asking about. Of course you do not have to do this, and even better should not do - bringing in more personal information only tends to disrupt discussions on contentious subjects. However your point that "Culturally Russian user" finds the picture on Russia offensive remains highly dubious. GreyHood 20:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Then, there is WP:NPA: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Knowledge. Comment on content, not on the contributor. We discuss here the notability of the subject of the article as established by the available sources. We should not discuss the article's creator nor his relations with any other editors on wiki. Especially when it most certainly cannot be said that the poor state of those relations was caused by the actions the article's creator alone. GreyHood 20:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Fine, let's quote one of sources currently used in this article. It tells in 1st paragraph: Прежде доставляющая и эпичная скатилась в очередное тинэйджерское говно в 2011 году, что, в общем, было неизбежно после потери модераторами интереса к ней и роста популярности у ололокающего быдла (да, друг мой — это о тебе). That was said about "/INT/ board". "Epic shit"? "ололокающего быдла"? No, this is something we do not want in English wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
              • First, the notability of the article (as well is it appropriateness even for Poles) is established by articles in the top Polish newspapers which were added as sources originally - and nobody disproved the relevance or appropriateness of these sources so far. The source which you site apparently was added later to support the countryball rather than Polandball part, because the fact that currently the article seems to focus mostly on Polandball (while in reality most of the cartoons are about other countries) is irritating some users here and misleading them. This last source indeed does not use encyclopedic language and decorum, though the section on Polandball is written in more neutral way. It could be replaced by knowyourmeme.com with a more neutral description of the same facts, or removed at all, at the risk of leaving viable countryball facts unreferenced. And if you take the point made by the source seriously, you should understand that the countryball cartoons are now hosted and created on multiple sites other than krautchan, so the fate of the krautchan is not really relevant here anymore. GreyHood 22:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
                • I can not judge about Polish sources and leave it to Volunteer Marek and other Polish-speaking contributors, but Russian source is worse than blog. I do not mind when someone creates articles on controversial nationalistic subjects, even such as Georgia for Georgians by the same editor. But that particular page does not qualify as encyclopedic content, not mentioning the struggle at AE, ANI and other pages related to creation of this article. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • 'First, the notability of the article (as well is it appropriateness even for Poles) is established by articles in the top Polish newspapers 'Top Polish newspapers? Where? Only one here is Gazeta Wyborcza, and that's an opinion column. The rest are non-RS and neither top(in fact there is only one, to a local newspaper covering events and life of emigrants) by a very extreme author.

It could be replaced by knowyourmeme.com with a more neutral description of the same facts, or removed at all, at the risk of leaving viable countryball facts unreferenced.You do realize that by confirming that there are no reliable sources to use besides an online user generated Russian Wikimedia platform, you demonstrated pretty strongly how non-notable the subject is?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per Volunteer Marek. Unconvinced by the sourcing here. JN466 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Hello WR/WF user. The sourcing is solid, as has been explained above. Feigning being unconvinced by sourcing is not going to result in deletion of the article, because if it is deleted, I will file a deletion review straight away. Russavia 16:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not feigning being unconvinced, I am unconvinced, as are the guys over in the AfD on German Knowledge, where you created the same nonsense. I saw a post about this on Wikipediocracy days ago and wasn't interested. Today, Fæ linked to Knowledge:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know#Zhirinovsky.27s_ass on Jimbo's talk, in the Zhirinovsky's section, and I saw Polandball on that page again, with your name next to it. In view of your <irony>wonderful work on Zhirinovsky's ass</irony>, I thought I'd have a look, and it's basically more of the same. --JN466 17:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The sourcing isn't solid, it's just the kind of crap journalists come up with when presented with incomplete information. Can't blame them, but they're not an encyclopedic source in this case. --84.153.92.55 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Also Jayen466, were you WP:CANVASS to participate in this discussion? That means did you come here as a result of being asked to, or it being posted on another website? Russavia 16:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • delete internet meme not enough notable sources--Karl.brown (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Notable sources? So the 2nd largest newspaper in Poland isn't notable enough? Another large Polish newspaper isn't notable enough? A UK-published magazine on Polish culture isn't notable enough? And a Polish magazine isn't notable enough? This is just 4 sources I found, and it is independent, in-depth coverage. Please tell us, what is a "notable source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs)
  • -Delete - and indefinitely block User:Russavia for repeated violations of NPOV contributions - Non-notable internet injoke or meme. Youreallycan 19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Your argument is invalid Every article I write on WP is done in an NPOV way. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that I have breached NPOV. In fact, looking at the article right now, you will see that everything is sourced, and there's not a single problem with NPOV. In fact, I took extra care with this article to make it NPOV as it is. It also doesn't help people's causes saying it's non-notable, when I have shown above it is. Russavia 19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • You are a constant NPOV violator - you and anyone who is enabling or supporting you such as User:Greyhood should be thrown out of the project immediately - and good riddance to you, you and your contributions are no better than a disruptive troll. _ Youreallycan 19:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would feel better about this article if it hadn't been created by an editor who has a history of conflict with Eastern European editors (in fact, this article has become cause for Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia arbitration Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba requests relating to prior WP:EEML sanctions). Even if the "countryball" cartoons have become popular within a particular internet community, the choice to write an article about "Polandball" exclusively suggests that there may be a specific agenda at work here. The user has already been chastened for placing cartoons on their userpage that could be interpreted as anti-Polish. Another ArbCom member went so far as to =483716597 remove them, but they were restored and remain there despite the concerns expressed. I would vote to delete the article, but I do not wish to be accused of being canvassed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment A lot of people here seem to be plainly anti-meme. While I myself stand for inclusion of only the more notable memes to Knowledge, the attempts to block one of the most widespread memes, which is all over the Internet, from entering Knowledge, look most worrying, like a kind of censorship of certain topics. GreyHood 19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Racist and clearly offensive given the ruckus over at WP:AE. The handful of opinion pieces cited as sources do not give any in depth coverage beyond a single mention of the term "Polandball" in passing. --Nug (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment This is a blatant misrepresentation of sources, sorry. Two of the articles discuss Polandball in rather extensive detail, and two more give it a prominent enough place relative to the article's size. Then, Poles are not a race, and consider that many Poles are fans of these cartoons, while the authors of at least some of the sources used in the article do not necessarily find the meme offensive. Also, most of the countryball cartoons are actually about other countries, not Poland, and any country could be an object of fun there. This is just a comix style which happened to originate from Poland but then grew into something bigger. GreyHood 20:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I call yet again to discuss the merits of the subject, notability and sources, not the Knowledge users involved. Continuous breaching WP:NPA, arguments ad hominem and trying to bring personal issues on talk is only disrupting discussion. GreyHood 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I have already discussed the sources. I see that the school paper written by some undegrad student which people were claiming was a reliable source from "University of Rzeszow" is no longer in the article. That's a start. However, the remaining sources are not reliable either. Is this a reliable source ? What is it, actually? Or this ? That's a "MediaWiki-powered online encyclopedia focused on Internet subcultures, folklore, and memes". This Knowyourmeme is pretty much along the same lines, another user generated "encyclopedia". Might as well allow Knowledge articles to serve as reliable sources for each other. As far as Polish sources go this and this are essentially blogs/portals with no editorial oversight. Not reliable. There are only two POTENTIALLY reliable sources in the article, Gazeta Wyborcza and Przeglad. Both however are just opinion pieces and the second one only mentions this particular meme in passing.
Some memes are notable some aren't. If this particular one has the staying power of lulzcats or Chuck Norris jokes then in several months or a year there will be actual reliable source to document its notability. But there aren't yet. And keeping the article on the basis of what might happen in the future is simply WP:CRYSTALBALL.
I also wish to note that a lot of the "Keep" notes above appear to be along the lines of "I think it's funny and I personally heard of it, so keep" - i.e. they do not actually address Knowledge policy on notability.VolunteerMarek 06:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable (leaving aside juvenile and racist). VolunteerMarek is correct in saying that the Polish languages sourced cited look more notable than they are, there's really only a 14 month old comment in a column by Wojciech Orliński of which large chunks are reproduced in translation in this "article" - we don't make an en.WP article out of every topic in Wojciech Orliński's GW column, and it isn't as if it featured in the news section of GW or that Wojciech Orliński has returned to the subject. At the most a redirect to a sentence on Wojciech Orliński's bio article would cover it, for those that want a link to his column, to which this translation adds nothing. No evidence of notable German sources in the parallel AfD discussion at de.w either. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment With this you have proven Polandball notability!!]]. Read our article -- it began on Krautchan.net -- Orlinski, is a Polish journalist, with a speciality in pop culture, has written an article (of which the entire article is about Polandball) and which was published by his employer, the second largest newspaper in Poland!!!! This my friend, is called in-depth, independent coverage by a reliable source. The Cooltura article (Cooltura being Polish for CULTURE), is even titled something along the lines of Now they make fun of us with...ballls. And it devotes around half of the lengthy article to the actual meme. The other two articles, both from reliable sources (one another Polish newspaper, and one another magazine) talk of memes relating to Poland, and mention Polandball explicitly as one of the two famous memes (the other being Advice Polack ). And you want to redirect this article to Orlinski's article? Your arguments are invalid. Russavia 05:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per In ictu oculi. I learned of this discussion from Russavia's post on Jimbo's talk page. So, I guess Russavia indirectly canvassed me to come here. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per 'you what?' - I've read the article several times, and still not figured out what the subject is supposed to be, beyond stuff posted on the internet which uses the phrase 'Polandball' Or possibly stuff that doesn't. Is this discussed in a meaningful way in secondary sources? Who knows? Who cares?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I've expanded the lead to make it more descriptive. Now it clearly shows what Polandball is. It is discussed in a meaningful way in secondary sources - they are in the article. GreyHood 12:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete this was a toughie, because the way sources are used tries very hard to make the topic legitimate. But there is barely any content worth having beyond a sentence or two in one of the meme articles. --Errant 08:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FAME and WP:NOENG. If this was sufficiently notable for an English language encyclopaedia there would be reliable, non-transient English language sources for it. As it stands the only sources provided are non-English and even those are highly dubious as described above. Sources aside the only other argument I've seen for keeping it is "I've heard of it". waggers (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOENG does not say that we require English language sources. It says "Because this is the English Knowledge, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." So delete per WP:NOENG is an invalid deletion argument. If the available sources for this article meet the GNG in any language then it meets the GNG. ϢereSpielChequers 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes but the point is they don't really meet the GNG, and if this supposedly notable worldwide phenomenon really was notable there would surely be reliable sources in English (and several other languages) as well as Polish. waggers (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily. For example Dmitry Gennadyevich Medvedev relies only on Russian sources, with the exception of one English source which gives information on the special op. WP:GNG simply states detailed coverage which is independent of the subject, and which are reliable. 2 Polish newspapers, 1 Polish culture magazine and 1 Polish weekly magazine more than meet GNG. Russavia 11:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • keep Does WP do memes? Or is WP just for serious bizniz? This one isn't (yet) well known, but it does seem to have achieved notability for that niche. If we delete this, we ought to go after a whole slew of other meme articles too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Arguments to avoid: WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL--Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete As has been so brilliantly explained above. This is not knowyourmeme, as per WP:CRYSTAL we cannot guess that a meme will become popular. Wiki is not social media. Knowledge is not a guide to the Internet. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not worthy of retention. doktorb words 11:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. I came here expecting to advocate keeping, but the above discussion has changed my mind. When you simultaneously advocate keeping and say that it's not been covered by reliable sources, you make a very good argument for deletion. We need to remember that encyclopedias are for serious business, not fly-by-night things like this. FYI, when you have something exalting Russians and demeaning Poles, your thing definitely isn't racist; the Poles and the Russians are both Slavs. Nyttend (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Nyttend, please refer to this. This is my assessment of the sources. I will also release some information, that I had some assistance in translating from native Polish speakers, who confirmed for me that these are reliable sources. I got this confirmation after doing my own research on the sources. Also note the dates of the articles, in 2010, 2011. This means sustained coverage. There are likely other sources out there, but I am satisfied that there is enough already to meet WP:GNG. Russavia 11:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete articles about memes have really been getting out of control and this is a prime example. This is not knowyourmeme. While some newspapers have been provided as refs here, coverage still does not meet wikipedia standards. Coverage is not in any sort of depth and mentions the concept in passing only. Without signifcant coverage where the topic is the subject the article and covered in some depth, it just doens't meet notability guidelines. The article seems to be here to promote the meme rather than reflect it. The claim that similar doodles using other flags be called "Polandball" regardless of which country they represent is ref'd by a single published opinion piece and seems very jingoistic here. Something that should be avoided in Knowledge. RadioFan (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • There are two articles where "the topic is the subject the article and covered in some depth". The other two devote to the subject a notable parts of the text - certainly it is not mentioning "the concept in passing only". GreyHood 12:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • and . The other two allocate at least one para to the discussion of the meme. GreyHood 20:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete is this some sort of joke? (Apparently.) Fleeting non-notable internet meme with a 5-year olds level of drawing and wit is supposed to be of interest and encyclopaedic. Also, agree about majority of the sources being of dubious reliability (i.e. user-generated tat). Oh come on, lets have an article about Pooing in the bath, sure it happens, lot's of toddlers do it, hey I bet there are even some lolz sites for parents dedicated to worst nappy disasters or whatever, I'm sure paediatricians have even mentioned it in articles somewhere. CaptainScreebo 11:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Umm the sources are of good reliability. The second largest newspaper in Poland; an article on the meme written by one of their staff writers whose expertise is "mass" (or pop) culture. Another newspaper in Poland which discusses the meme. A UK published magazine on Polish culture (the largest in Britain actually). And a Polish publish magazine. Also, calling it "user-generated tat" is covered by the Orlinski article which states "Każdy może zrobić własnego "Polandballa" według następującego przepisu: trzeba mieć coś do powiedzenia na temat historii lub polityki międzynarodowej i przetłumaczyć to na prosty komiks, w którym kuleczki symbolizujące różne kraje (co objawia się pomalowaniem ich na kolor flagi narodowej) rozmawiają ze sobą internetowym slangiem." This basically translates to "anyone can do their own "Polandball" according to the following provisions: you must have something to say about history or international politics, and translate it into a simple comic, in which balls, symbolising the different countries (which maninfests itself in the balls being painted in the colours of their national flag), talk to each other in online slang." If anyone can do their own Polandball, this meets "user-generated", much like the lolcat meme. The difference between your ridiculous nappy disasters is that journalists in reliable sources have actually written in detail about this meme. Russavia 12:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


Section break for small browsers

(This section for edit by small or mobile-phone browsers.)
  • SNOW Delete as attack page. The article is such an obvious insult to people from Poland, as in the phrase "cyberwar between Polish Internet users and the rest of the world" (2nd sentence, revision: rev5358) or "focuses on Polish megalomania" (4th paragraph). Also, sources seem non-WP:RS, but anyone could find sources to write an attack article as "Poland's racial inferiority". Regardless of intent, the article is an attack page, for immediate WP:SNOW deletion. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Negative yes, perhaps even in poor taste. But we are not censored, we delete unsourced attack pages on sight, but this is not unsourced. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
But the attacks are unsourced. Having a ref tag in the article does not grant the article some sort of protective shield against deletion. --RadioFan (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Did you know that editors have been indefinitely banned for using unsourced information in articles? Everything in the article is sourced, and to reliable sources. You would be advised to stop engaging in personal attacks on myself, because accusing other editors of the things you have just done is a bannable offense under WP:DIGWUREN. Russavia 05:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Also, the racist Poland-bashing undercurrent is worrying (e.g. "Russians put a halt to all discussion with Poles on which country is most superior ."). Furthermore, the title is barely justified: "Polandball can also include comics on other countries, but by convention these comics are still referred to as Polandball, although the comics can also be referred to as countryballs." Ref 1 is from 2010, ref 4 is from 2012 it seems. So, surely ref 1 is too old for the fast-changing world of transient memes? Can't the main editors find a reliable source regarding the name of the article from this year? Or do such sources not exist? Oh, and ref 4 is written by someone called "Tomberry". That gives me very little hope in it being a reliable source (though it is honest in mentioning that the meme is "a surefire means to troll" Polish net users).Malick78 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Sources need to be reliable but they do not need to be current, this is not Wikinews. Memes are by their nature transient, some will come and go without leaving sufficient mark to meet the GNG, but if this has met the GNG then it doesn't matter whether the meme is still running or not - so a reference from 2010 is perfectly OK for wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a racist undercurrent here. As the article says, the meme is used to ridicule certain jingoist attitudes and internet personae, not really Poland.Estlandia (dialogue) 16:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Knowledge can be used to propagate memes. Coverage and promotion are often indistinguishable. It's basically the same problem we have with every garage band that has one or two minor press mentions and references in a few blogs. Such articles are not usually created for genuine encyclopedic reasons, but for promotion. We should cover memes when they have unquestionably become part of Internet culture – without Knowledge's help. JN466 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - transient internet meme, lasting notability has not been demonstrated. To be fair, unlike many Internet memes, I recognise that this one actually has been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources. But that coverage was only over a brief period of time in 2010, and there's been basically nothing since then (the 2012 article only mentions it very briefly). As such, in my view it hasn't demonstrated the lasting importance that would mean it should be considered notable by our standards. Robofish (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Notability isn't temporary but even with the references included, I dont see significant coverage here so notability, temporary or otherwise, has not been demonstrated.--RadioFan (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding my delete vote and sources-Contrary to what may seen the sources are not that reliable.
  • I believe that we can't base Wiki articles on other Wiki articles or Wikis-this was always my understanding of how Knowledge works. The article meanwhile is based on Lurkmore.to described as "Russian-language MediaWiki-powered online encyclopedia focused on Internet subcultures, folklore, and memes". This can't be really considered a reliable source. Knowledge never was based on its own articles or on content on other online user generated portals or media-wikis.
  • Point two-the second main source is an article by Zapałowski Radosław from Cooltura magazine. This magazine is very niche, and distributed in UK, it's not a major newspaper, nor is it a scholarly journal. Zapałowski Radosław's credentials are unknown. I searched for this, but he doesn't show up that often and I am unaware if he is a scholar in sociology or social media. What I did find is that he also publishes in Polish magazine "Nie" which is described as "Nie is on the extreme left, not so much in terms of the content of its interventions but in its form. Famous for its satire, hostility toward the church, and vulgar caricatures, the weekly is comparable to the National Lampoon"(The crosses of Auschwitz: nationalism and religion in post-communist Poland, Geneviève Zubrzycki). Indeed the text by Zapałowski contains very strong language and opinions about Poles including "w Londynie Polacy czują się jak w Lublinie, a zachowują się jak w stodole" "Poles in London feel like in Lublin and act like in a barn" "Ze ścieków prasy polonijnej " "From sewage drain of Polish press". The article is a selection of negative stories about Poles in UK. The above suggests a certain bias of the author, that doesn't seem to indicate him being neutral in this issue or suitable for describing memes about Poland in neutral way.
    • At the risk of breaching WP:OTHERSTUFF, many of our articles on subjects, such as Popes of certain time periods, rely on biased sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, which has a pre-Vatican-II Catholic POV. We need to see through the biases in order to come up with a NPOV, and that requires triangulation from multiple sources. — Rickyrab. 19:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Third-intentions. Even when the article uses biased sources, they have been very selectively used. All mentions about the fact that the meme primarily tries to show Poland in negative way have been removed-although even the articles used as sources themselves contain this information in several places and even acknowledge that for some the they represent anti-polish sentiment.Attempts to add this information was removed under very dubious rationale, for example let me quote article is also about countryballs, and Polandball may in fact mean other countryballs, not necessarily Poland, so this is undue weight for the lead to fix on Polan and oversimplification( avery strange claim to make about article itself titled Polandball), which left just a cherry picked sentences to claim the Polandball meme deals with "Polish megalomania", thus justifying it.

All the above seems to indicate that this article has been written not with the intent to inform but to prove a point, and with disregard to neutrality towards the subject or to Reliable Sources. Therefore I am keeping my vote for delete. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    • OK, you've criticized one Polish source (the language of which is not very neutral but not very strong either), but there are other sources. Also, memes is such a topic that is rarely discussed in 100% neutral and serious way. As for the deleted part, it was simply inappropriate and not correct for the lede, because this article is about Polandball/countryball, and the countryball doesn't deal with Poland alone and pokes fun at national stereotypes related to multiple countries. GreyHood 20:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Neither your description of the author seems problematic - in fact you show that he is an established journalist writing in several notable editions. It is not important what is his attitude towards Poles in UK, the church etc - the subject of this article is Polandball/Countryball, not Poles or Poland. It is important only whether the author is correctly covering the meme itself. GreyHood 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I see that you haven't commented on one Wikimedia online user generated project being used to source Knowledge? Which as far as I understand is against WP:RS.

As to the rest Also, memes is such a topic that is rarely discussed in 100% neutral and serious way-sorry we are on Knowledge, not some satirical website of poor quality. Articles here are to be presented in neutral and encyclopaedic way. Since you say that this article is not serious and not neutral, it further supports the view that it should be deleted.

  • As for the deleted part, it was simply inappropriate and not correct for the lede, because this article is about Polandball/countryball, and the countryball

So the article is not about Poland but about countries in general? Than why not a different name? In any case, the article now focuses much on showing the meme against Poland as justified and even when using biased sources, carefully avoids mentioning that even them admit to anti-polish and negative aspects of portrayal of Poland in the meme. Again showing that this article from the start was not fulfilling Wiki criteria. in fact you show that he is an established journalist writing in several notable editions As for Cooltura-it's hardly notable or RS. As for NIE-its hardly RS and certainly can't be used without attribution and explanation. Since the author so clearly demonstrates his specific very non-neutral views, we can't use him as neutral source that is objectively describing a meme whose primarily purpose is spreading a negative image of Poland. In any case the meme is hardly notable nor encyclopaedic to be included in Wiki.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    • I have commented on the usage of the Russian source above in my answer to User:My very best wishes.
    • As for the ways memes are generally discussed, I've just described how they are generally discussed on the Internet. I have not proposed to discuss them in "not serious and not neutral" way on Knowledge, nor I have stated that this article is "not serious and not neutral".
    • The article is named "Polandball" because the term is slightly more popular than "countryball" and can be used even when there is no any Poland around. Personally, however, I could support the move of the article to "Countryball" title as I consider it more descriptive, but the available sources clearly prefer "Polandball" and google gives more hits to "Polandball" too.
    • The text of the article shows well enough how Polandball is shown in the cartoons. Note that national stereotypes are just national stereotypes, and if Polandball is poked fun at, it does not necessarily mean that Poland is shown in a negative light (remember also that a part of cartoons is actually illustrating some particular Poles at imageboards, such as Wojak).
    • Cooltura has its own article, so it is notable in the Knowledge sense. Why it should not be RS I don't know and you have not explained. NIE is not used in the article. And all what we care about is whether the author is neutral and knowledgeable in the description of the subject of the article - whether he is non-neutral in other ways is not important.
    • You are incorrect in stating that the meme's "primarily purpose is spreading a negative image of Poland". The meme is popular among Poles too and its purpose is to poke fun at national stereotypes, it is simply a comics style and by now most of the cartoons are about other countries, not Poland. GreyHood 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 'I have commented on the usage of the Russian source above in my answer to User:My very best wishes'So let me quote you regarding the use of another wiki project to source Knowledge:It could be replaced by knowyourmeme.com with a more neutral description of the same facts, or removed at all, at the risk of leaving viable countryball facts unreferenced.-this actually confirms how non-notable the issue is if sources can't be found. And again- Wikis can't be seriously used as source for other Wikis.

but the available sources clearly prefer "Polandball" and google gives more hits to "Polandball" tooGoogle gives results for thousands of terms and things that aren't on Wiki.

  • it does not necessarily mean that Poland is shown in a negative light Sources used in the article, biased as there, state otherwise. Of course, such information is removed, while parts criticising Poland stay.
  • Cooltura has its own article, so it is notable in the Knowledge sense"

Wiki has many articles on many niche publications. Existence of their articles doesn't make them RS, especially when it is a newspaper about events in UK and life of emigrants.ANd especially when they are written by authors with clearly demonstrated bias.

  • You are incorrect in stating that the meme's "primarily purpose is spreading a negative image of Poland". Except, once again, sources used in the article stated otherwise. The fact that when a source used stated such thing and was used to inform readers about it, the information was removed, while information justifying the meme stayed, does suggest that the article was not written with NPOV in view.

To sum up:out of the sources used, none, besides one are notable. Only one from Gazeta Wyborcza is notable, and it is a opinion piece written by an author with rather strong views. The use of wikis to source a wiki article can't be accepted, neither the use of authors from niche magazines that have very biased views as objective sources of information. Or the deletion of information that informs about negative role of the meme. But as stated, you have only one source to use in this article. That hardly makes the topic notable in the first place. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


  • Keep. The sources in the article check out. Some commentators here have voiced the opinion, that the meme is offensive. However, since the article has Polish sources, including main Polish newspapers such as Gazeta Wyborcza, it shows the topic is appropriate even for Poles, according to the Polish authors. Also, meme subjects do not require extensive coverage in academic sources - media attention is enough, and the subject has clearly received enough of it. Nanobear (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
media attention is enough There is only one editorial piece in major newspaper and that's it. Hardly "media attention".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hardly any coverage, and not notable. Machinarium (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. While the number of google hits is not a very strong argument, it might have more relevance for such topics as memes (especially given that we have some RSs and may need additional considerations to establish the notability). The phrase "Poland cannot into space" gives me 113,000 results. More pages contain this phrase as a part of an image, and more hits will be added if we count such things as "Poland can into space" and other derivatives, as well as translations to other languages. The number of 113,000 is already more than the numbers of hits got for many titles in the Category:Internet memes (where the sourcing is often no more extensive than in this article). That's all not mentioning the hits for such terms as "Polandball", "Countryball", "Russiaball" etc. etc. (including other spellings and translations to other languages). GreyHood 22:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Remembert that Wiki is not a collection of slang words, dictionary, memes etc. Also:there are thousands of words, people, titles that give results in google in thousands but are not covered by Knowledge.

See:

Knowledge:NOT#INFO As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Additional guidelines connected to the issue: Knowledge:NOT#Knowledge is not a dictionary Usage, slang, and/or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. Knowledge:NOT#Knowledge is not a soapbox or means of promotion Knowledge is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Knowledge is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's all good policies, but no point in reminding of them here. Knowledge already has hundreds and thousands articles about memes and phrases. So these are perfectly encyclopedic topics, of course if we have reliable sources. The number of google hits can serve as an additional argument to show that a subject reported by reliable sources is notable and that we need to have an article on it in order to uphold the informational purpose of the encyclopedia. GreyHood 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Knowledge already has hundreds and thousands articles about memes and phrases" And thousands upon thousands remain outside Knowledge. Considering the fact that for this article, we can barely find one opinion piece in RS, this suggests the fate of this article should be the same. The number of google hits can serve as an additional argument As mentioned, you get thousands of phrases, people, words easily googled in thousands but which aren't on Wiki(and for good reasons). that a subject reported by reliable sources Except here we aren't dealing with one. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"So these are perfectly encyclopedic topics, of course if we have reliable sources."
Only the most notable of the notable. As of now, I think we have too many of these articles as it is. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I think WP:NOTPAPER and WP:BELONG are relevant as arguments against that view - the inclusion criteria for articles is the WP:GNG which is applied independently to each article. Diego (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Fellows, let's be reasonable, huh? This is not the time or the place to perform some kind of a half-assed autopsy on a fish... And I'm not going to stand here and see that thing cut open and see that little Kintner boy spill out all over the dock. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Nice Non sequitur (literary device) --RadioFan (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Polandball, also known collectively as countryballs in another words One, also known collectively as numbers.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This is about interchangeable names of a comic style, not about maths definitions. GreyHood 14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • If interchangeable so why this name?. OR or POV?Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Umm, if you read the article, you will see why it is called Polandball, even though it can also be called "countryballs". From the article it states "Polandball can also include comics on other countries, but by convention these comics are usually still referred to as Polandball, although they can also be called countryballs." The first part is verified from the Gazeta Wyborcza article which states "Ten rodzaju humoru nazywany jest "Polandball", nawet gdy Polska w tych historyjkach nie występuje, bo zaczęło się od kpin z Polski i polskiej flagi.", and the countryballs come from KYM which states: "(also known as Countryballs)". The article itself is written by a native English speaker (me), and it is very clearly explained in the article what the article subject is about. Honestly, if one has any doubts as to what the article explains, then take it to Knowledge:Reference desk/Entertainment instead of AfD, because voting to delete something at AfD because one can't understand what is written in plain English is a bit silly in my mind. Russavia 11:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep – Notable Internet meme. Like all Internet phenomena it is difficult to find sources in corporate media, but we still need to cover those subjects. The sourcing exceeds the level required for Tamagotchi characters. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The level of sourcing required is determined by WP:N not WP:OTHERSTUFF.--RadioFan (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Section break 2

  • Comment I came here because Polandball is an obvious example of a Polish joke, and I was wondering whether to include it on that page. However, if there is only one reliable source mentioning it, then inclusion might be problematic. Furthermore, I feel that "Know your Meme" and "Oh Internet" SHOULD be considered reliable sources, given their apparent diligence in researching memes and telling about their history. Just because users contribute to a source, should that make it unreliable? — Rickyrab. 19:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, after having done some research I must agree with you. From description at Knowyourmeme#Website it is clear that Knowyourmeme, while includes some user-generated content, is not similar to Knowledge because it doesn't allow to edit without account and because administrators has much more say there in determining which material is notable and stays and which is not. It is not like Dramatica and other such sites - currently they have just 1202 memes, which is not much more than the number of memes in the Knowledge Category:Internet memes (including subcategories), which means that Knowyourmeme has some standards of notability comparable to Knowledge's standards in effect. From the technical point of view, the Knowyourmeme site is very professional and it has a very good credentials - see Knowyourmeme#Recognition: "among the 50 Best Websites of 2009" (TIME), the best website of 2009 (The Winnipeg Free Press), Streamy Award in 2010 for Best Guest Star in a Web Series, nomination for Best Hosted Web Series. I should agree that Knowyourmeme, as the most professional large collection of memes on the web should be considered reliable source in this area. GreyHood 10:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I disagree. You are fitting your hope in getting this article saved to the facts. KnowYourMeme, like many websites of its kind, deals with fads and fashions. The 'justification' for each entry comes from user generated votes, some of which are generated by Facebook statuses at the bottom of each article. The fact is, Polandball is only notable to a very niche audience. It has not permeated the Internet 'at large'. As Wiki cannot rely on one source, not to mention an unreliable one, this article is still clearly questionable and on the basis of argument, should be deleted. That was my original vote and I keep to it. doktorb words 10:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Nope, firstly there are 4 Polish sources, and they are all quite reliable in fact - the objections such as "opinion piece" etc. are important to question reliability in the context of more serious and disputable things, but not memes. Basically the sources fail criteria for scholarly sources but are OK otherwise. Secondly, Polandball most certainly permeated Internet at large - it has fans across the globe, a large number of sites and blogs and groups in social networks are devoted to the meme, it entered a number of user-generated encyclopedias - and the phrase "a very niche audience" could be applied to 99% of memes and in fact to 99% of all Knowledge articles. Thirdly, the actual meme notability is surely determined by the number of people which know it and use it, so the mechanisms of user voting at Knowyourmeme are only adding to establishing the notability. And that's likely why Knowyourmeme has all these good credentials and awards. It really is considered one of the best sources for memes. GreyHood 11:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I have to agree with doktorb here, this meme isn't as well known as its fans here seem to think. It is has its niche, Knowledge has room for nichey things, but only when there is significant coverage in that niche. This doesn't seem to be the case here. Knowyourmeme is a fine website but it is not the slam dunk of notability being painted in this AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Knowyourmeme is one of the best sources of memes available on the web, and it includes Polandball in the collection of 1200 most popular and recognized memes on the web. The number of 1200 isn't really that large and is comparable to the number of items in the Category:Memes. In addition we have 4 Polish sources. Really, for a meme that's enough, and sorry for the type of argument, but it seems that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST with a similar level of sourcing or with less Google hits than Polandball in the Category:Memes. GreyHood 16:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is one of the strangest AFDs I've read through in a long time. We all need to take a step back and ask ourselves, why are we for or against deleting this article? Is it because we are looking to protect the honor of Poland? Russia? Memes? The discussion needs to be squarely around the subjet of the article and the sources that are available, nothing else. RadioFan (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as an attackpage. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • This is definitely not an attack page, as it accurately describes the meme as written about in independent, reliable sources. It gives history of the meme, explains what the meme is about, gives examples of its usage, and also explains it isn't limited only to "Poland", but other balls, although the meme when discussing other "balls" is still known as Polandball. Saying that this is an attack page, is in effect accusing myself of gross misconduct in the article. If anyone cares to check the sources, they will see that I have taken care to make sure it doesn't attack anyone, but accurately describes what sources say. Polish sources at that! Russavia 11:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Main issue is notability. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
OTOH WP:Knowledge is not censored is a valid argument if the only opposition for the article comes from it making fun of Polish. Diego (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't make fun of the Polish, but rather describes the meme as per the multiple, independent, reliable sources. Also, thank you Pultusk, I noticed you are Polish and can understand that the meme is in effect satirical, yet biting, humour. Russavia 11:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Many editors are saying that WP is not knowyourmeme, and seem to be basing this on KYM being used as a reference in the article, which no-one has challenged either on the article, nor on the talk page.

KYM is only used to reference part of this statement (part referenced to KYM marked in bold):

Krautchan.net is a German-language imageboard whose /INT/ board is frequented by English-speaking netizens. The beginning of the Polandball meme is credited to Falco, a Brit on /INT/, who in September 2009 created the meme using MS Paint in an apolitical way to troll Wojak, a Pole on the same board who contributes in broken English, after which Polandball cartoons were enthusiastically drawn by Russians.

The rest of that sentence is references to two reliable sources (both Polish newspapers).

As to knowyourmeme, it is well regarded as tracking and documenting internet memes -- that is it's business after all -- and is often referred to in media when the subject of internet memes arises. Russavia 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

KYM isn't exactly known for being well researched, at least they seem to have fixed their entry on Spurdo Spärde now. --157.157.160.183 (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
According to other reliable sources KYM is well researched and is notable for tracking memes and writing up on them. But in this case, it is the fact that other reliable sources have independently reported on the subject that makes it notable. KYM is only used to add a couple of facts which weren't stated in the other articles, but which are somewhat needed. I would never have written an article on Argentina is white, because it lacks details, independent coverage by reliable sources; Polandball however does have such coverage. Russavia 11:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

No G-hits to prove notability, but I want to check. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

No reliable sources to prove notability, but I want to make sure by sending this to AfD. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Will userfy to User:Gsender1944/Gilbert S. Sender Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Article written by an editor about his deceased grandfather. While I'm sure Mr Sender was a fine man, he does not appear to meet our requirements for inclusion of biographies and Knowledge is not a memorial site. Pichpich (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete & Userfy; subject does not appear to be notable per WP:ANYBIO or WP:SOLDIER. Content can be userfied if the article creator wants it preserved in some manor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Userfy- Gilbert S. Sender (Jr.), only known valor award , so unable to evaluate if multiple or additional valor awards that would combine to meet WP:SOLDIER (presuming automatic Purple Heart). Findagrave entry no additional help 95th Division G.O. 129 may state if second or subsequent award. Dru of Id (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete & Userfy - Sadly, I'm unable to find anything on the web that says more than that he was awarded a Silver Star. I can't even find the citation. Sadly, this is insufficient to support Knowledge's Notability requirements. If you have some supporting references from reliable sources, (they don't need to be on the web, they just need to exist, and be real), then please add them to the article quickly. Before you do so, please read Knowledge's Notability guidelines in order to maximise the chances that the article will not be deleted. If you want help/advice, drop me a line on my talk page. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete on NOTMEMORIAL grounds. My condolences about Mr. Sender's death to his family and comrades. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 22:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

1918 Vancouver Island earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one may not be significant enough to have a stand-alone article as per WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines. No deaths, ~ 7.0, and minimal damage. Article has had a small expansion in the last few days but wanted to put it before the group before going any further. Dawnseeker2000 01:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - That's a REALLY good source showing, even though it's paywalled. This probably passes GNG between that and contemporary newspaper coverage, regardless of death count or damage tab. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - I do not see how this earthquake is not notable despite WP Earthquake's notability guideline. This is one of Canada's largest earthquakes in the 20th century and from doing a simple Google search there are reliable sources for this earthquake. Furthermore, WP Earthquake's notability guideline states "Intensity of VII or greater on the Mercalli scale or European Macroseismic Scale, or 6.0 or greater on the Shindo scale." This earthquake had a maximum intensity of VII (Very Strong) on the Mercalli intensity scale. Volcanoguy 19:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's somewhat marginal on the guidelines, being 7.2 in magnitude (I need to correct that in the article) VII on the MMI and having a single scientific paper devoted to it, but I would tend to keep in such situations. If anyone would like to see pretty much the same content as the BSSA paper, this is a link to Cassidy's MSc thesis . Mikenorton (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination - OK, thank for the input. Well we probably don't need to keep this thing going, now that I've got the pulse of some of the regulars. Any feathers ruffled unintentional. Dawnseeker2000 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by DGG per G7. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Very questionable notability. Zero GBooks and GNews hits, for example. DePROD-ed without comment by creator. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added sources that were needed. I also don't like how my thread got destroyed by some spammer. UBLiTzN (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As well the reason why I removed the DeProd because I made a copy of source incase someone might edit change it, etc. and i have been fighting it. UBLiTzN (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While you have added sources, we need sources that are independent of the subject to establish notability. I suggest you read WP:GNG. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just Delete it UBLiTzN (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

  • Delete Zero references (the only "references" are links to their own web site.) No indication of wp:notability. There is also zero encyclopedic text in there and nothing directed at the reader. It looks like a cross between a self-absorbed blog post and a page from their web site. What a waste of time to even review it here. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Potbelleez. The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-notable member of pop group. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect, with the possibly arguable exception of this, there is little (that's actually based in RS) about Ilan personally, the nominations and award section contains three references only one of which mentions the subject of this article at all, and then as a name in a list of names. The attempt to inherit notability from short films he's produced material for which have won awards confer notability to the films but not (necessarily) the music creator. --joe decker 00:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Vanispamcruftisement of a non-notable person. Almost all of the sources, which at first glance appear to be reliable media outlets, are in fact, articles that were written by Atroshi, or are self published profiles. Only one of them () appears to have been written by a third party. His award for 'Ambassador of peace' is ambiguous and falls short of the 'Well-known and significant award or honor ' required by WP:BASIC. Pol430 talk to me 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read the references and can confirm that Laween is a notable person and this profile should not be deleted. Perhaps, more references can be made but the profile meets the Wiki Guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbow5689 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Laween Atroshi is a notable person and well known within the Kurdish community. The sources are reliable media outlets whereby he has had press interviews. The self-published profiles relate to his demographics details only. Furthermore, the ambassador of peace is not ambiguous as it is a well-known and significant award, and is within the public domain. The references meet wiki gudielines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bounce5050 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: Rainbow5689 (talk · contribs) and Bounce5050 (talk · contribs) appear to be co-authors of the article. Pol430 talk to me 12:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I checked about 5 of those "references" in that maze of external links and found nosuitable coverage. If someone can point us to a couple that have substantive coverage on him I'd change to keep. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. Notability (Neologism) 2. WP:NOTGUIDE Widefox (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep There aren't enough sources in the article's current form, but numbers one and three suggest notability. I suspect a lot of original research, but it looks like there may be something worthwhile here; the solution is to edit the article and make it better, not nominate it for deletion. The name strikes me as somewhat informal though, so the page may need a rename, though I am not a martial arts expert. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • delete #1 has a one sentence "tricking is a new sport" entry. This entire article is OR, and is an incredible amount of overlap with parkour/freerunning/martial arts. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, I too see the overlap with parkour/freerunning/martial arts. Perhaps we can let this new term/concept sit in those articles until (if ever) it is ready for primetime. Also, add it over at Wiktionary, as the threshold for inclusion is much lower there. Senator2029 (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete This is original research that seems like something for a dictionary (at best). A couple of one page mentions in books fails to show significant independent coverage. The term is very ambiguous since I've heard it used for martial arts, parkour, gymnastics, skateboarding, and even car modifications. Astudent0 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Article appears to be original research, perhaps based on personal experience (conjecture on my part). The article's facts may or may not be correct, but that's the problem--there's no way to verify the statements. Clearly fails WP:V and has questionable notability. Merging it into other articles doesn't solve the problem, it merely spreads it around. Mdtemp (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0  01:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Once the various blog links are stripped away, all the coverage we're left with is a puff piece in a local newspaper. That hardly seems to rise to the level of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - Biruitorul 18:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish, the so called "puff pieces" you are referring to are references from respectable sources like ABC TV in Australia. Of course the links to her own social media presence are irrelevant. What is relevant is the evidence of her invitation and contribution to major events worldwide. In the last year she has become significant enough to be included in Knowledge. Mjspe1 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed a puff piece, a single article in a local newspaper. Phrases tipping one off to puffery include "she looks like a scantily-clad pop star", "outspoken", "sharp-witted", "does not shy away from controversy", with much of the rest of the article occupied by her own quotes. That's hardly objective journalism, and hardly makes for significant coverage.
Now, all this proves is that she once attended a panel discussion. Last I checked, simply appearing on television did not make one notable. Also, how about using print sources, since this encyclopedia is based on them? In particular, reliable print sources attesting the relevance of her discussion appearance would help the article's case.
Other than that, I see zero evidence that reliable sources have commented on these "invitations" and "contributions" at "major events". We have a blog post, we have an opinion piece (where coverage of her is limited to the phrase "Cristina Rad is awesome"), and nothing else. Nothing usable. Simply getting invited to a couple of conferences and a television show is not prima facie evidence of notability; we need significant coverage in reliable sources for that, and it remains sorely lacking. - Biruitorul 13:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I understand. I guess, you gotta do what you gotta do. However I am curious about a new generation of people who are notable for their online contributions. What about numbers of hits on videos? Surely at some point, if someone regularly gets massive numbers of views then that in itself makes them notable. After-all, wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. To the extent that she is notable, Cristina rad is certainly an 'online' personality. She has far more blogs devoted to discussion of her ideas than many officially 'notable people'. Thanks for your time - Mjspe1 (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You must understand that wp:notability is basically a measure of availability of reliable sources with in-depth overage of (material on) the topic to create the article from. When we say "non-notable" we mean that they don't meet this criteria; it is not judging them. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree with the "local" part of this characterization of the Melbourne Leader, while having not reached a decision on the rest of it. The Leader, as I understand it, has a circulation of nearly 2 million readers, which puts it somewhere between USA Today and the New York Times in the United States. --joe decker 01:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete The ABC.au reference would be more likely to evidence notability for the article subject if it mentioned the subject of the article. While I have defended in part the provenance of this article from the Leader, it does have a press-release flavor, and it's the most reliable thing I've seen either mentioned or that I've been able to find. Would absolutely reconsider if more reliable sources (more a matter of history and editorial oversight than on-line vs. offline) were to be evidenced. --joe decker 01:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The "sources" we have are a user-submitted biography, a promotional blurb on a self-published site and a résumé. Hardly enough to demonstrate the subject is worthy of inclusion. - Biruitorul 18:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:FILMMAKER. The nominator is correct that the article is quite poor in its current sourcing. But in looking beyond current state, I look at WP:FILMMAKER and determine that as director, cinematographer, Editor, and writer of certain films which themselves have been the subject of enough coverage to be considered notable per Wikipeida standards, we have the filmmaker notable as their creator. The films may be genre films. The films may be German language films. So what? Helpful toward cleanup and proper sourcing of this article is that the filmmaker has been interviewd about his work in such sources as Dread Central and Out Now (German) allowing current state to be addressable and his projects have been discussed at such disparate sources as Variety Dread Central SFU Frankenpost Horror Magazine and quite a few others, showing them and him to be notable. What we have here is an adddressable issue that does not require deletion, but instead requires regular editing. Schmidt, 04:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. I would argue that the "coverage" mentioned by MichaelQSchmidt does not, in my view, constitute the depth of critical attention to Fetscher's films that could warrant an article about him. The sources he suggests amount to brief plot summaries with cursory critical commentary if any. Terence7 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Does not appear to satisfy the general notability guideline. Also does not satisfy the proposed guidelines for notability of golf courses at Knowledge:WikiProject_Event_Venues/Sports_task_force/Notability#Golf_courses. Terence7 (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication of wp:notability. Zero references. Notability is a possibility, but there is really no material to worry about saving pending that. It is basically all promotional material, like someone pasted in their brochure or web page. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to establish the notability of this entertainer from Hong Kong, but I'm open to the idea that language difficulties are getting in the way--a couple extra eyeballs would be appreciated. I ... may or may not have the correct name translation above, too, I'm basing that off of what I think I'm reading from what I believe to be the fellow's Facebook page. --joe decker 04:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 11:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

This page violates WP:V and WP:N and seems a ready case for deletion. ArturoDan (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. An organisation can be notable without its officers or founder being notable. Notability is not inherited. QU 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sources are few and far between and do not meet multiple published
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks like he is the founder of this significant operation. Someone is going to have to add more suitable references if this article is to survive long term. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Ken Hay is a significant fundamentalist leader, the founder and director of Bob Jones University's now-defunct Institute (now an program granting associate degrees), and the founder and executive director emeritus of The Wilds Christian Camp and Conference Center, the most prominent fundamentalist camp in the US, with sites in both NC and NH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.114.207 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — 71.218.114.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

suburban shopping centre that fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


  • Delete No indication of wp:notability, zero references. No encyclopedic content. It's just a directory of stores in the mall. North8000 (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. Fails general notability guideline. 2. WP:BLP notability not established in 2 years 3. WP:Advert Widefox (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be nice if editors bothered to at least skim through the articles before putting forth nominations like this. The article already mentions five albums released with GMM Grammy, Thailand's largest music label, and this substantiates notability through WP:MUSICBIO #5. Also, WP:GNG refers to a topic having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This subject has been covered by The Nation and the Bangkok Post, and the New York Times has reported on a performance in which she had a leading part. Articles containing advertising are cleaned up, not deleted. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep? Wow, does this article need references. Unless the article is a giant hoax, she has extensive real world notability. But there is practically nothing in the references. North8000 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Topic meets WP:GNG:
—Northamerica1000 01:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe decker 04:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

thus bilateral relationshipn is hardly in-depth. Neither country has resident ambassadors. No significant trade, migration or cultural or military interaction. This article should not be about Czechoslovak - Iceland relations either, for example the 1963 incident, which is barrel scraping for notable incidents. 3 leader visits in almost 20 years if relations says something about this relationship. LibStar (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - Sufficient sourcing showing to sustain an article on this topic. I realize the nominator hates these X-Y Relations pieces with a passion, but I believe there is an ongoing consensus to keep if there are multiple sources present. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
there are no sources showing significant trade, migration or cultural or military interaction. The agreements presented are run of the mill. LibStar (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect to one of the "foreign relations of..." articles (Foreign relations of Iceland is probably better because the country is older, and some non-trivial information on both ČR-Iceland and ČSR-Iceland might be merged in there). The article in its current state is mostly trivial information and mostly off-topic; Czechoslovak-Icelandic and Czech-Icelandic relations should NOT be regarded as the same topic. There don't seem to be any sources cited whose primary focus is "Czech Republic-Iceland relations" so this imo falls under WP:SYN. Might become a notable topic in the future, so I'm fine with preserving the page history in a redirect. - filelakeshoe 20:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Carrite. -- 202.124.73.101 (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.73.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
JUSTAVOTE doesn't apply to the above; "Keep per 's rationale" is perfectly legitimate. JUSTAVOTE is when you say "Keep" with no comment, not when you say "Keep per what someone else said." - Jorgath (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Carrite. The baseless assertion that the references provided are "run of the mill" has no weight in deletion discussions. The references clearly show that these two countries have a relationship and it is suitable to have a Knowledge page to reflect this. While Czech Republic's relations with Iceland is not the same as Czechoslovakia's, the historical context is certainly relevant to the contemporary situation. Cloudz679 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    Reply Doesn't WP:ROUTINE apply here? - Jorgath (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The sources are mainly independent of the subject. Run of the mill is defined there as "common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out". For me this does not apply here. Cloudz679 15:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

    ↑