Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 24

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 29 (Sun) September 28 (Sat) September 27 (Fri) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern.Not-Sorted

< 23 November	25 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete - fails WP:CORP and no arguments presented other than WP:OTHERSTUFF SmartSE (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Shop Direct TV

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

Non-notable corporation (searches for "shop direct tv" on Google News, News archives, and Books only turn up stuff from before its founding). Was previously speedied as G11; re-creator's argument for keeping appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFF based on his edit summary (to his credit, it is now more neutral). CtP (t • c) 22:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks you for your thoughts. I think that it would be odd if not unfair if all the other home shopping networks have pages on Knowledge but Shop Direct does not. They may not have the funding that the larger networks have behind them to have all the publicity you refer to but that does not make them any less worthy of an article. I've watched Shop Direct for nearly 2 years now as I've been fed-up with mall shopping. They are also a local company that supports our economy. The article may need to be improved but I believe it highly unfair for it to be deleted. I am here if you have any questions. Thank you! Categories (++): (+) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRogersJacobs (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC) — JohnRogersJacobs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Lack of publicity could indeed mean that Shop Direct TV fails the general notability guideline (admittedly, I should have to linked to that in my nomination). Basically, topics must have received enough coverage in reliable sources (books, reputable websites, newspapers, etc.) before they can have their own Knowledge articles. In addition, topics are assessed for this without regard to the notability of other similar topics (in this case, QVC and other home shopping networks). CtP (t • c) 17:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

My reaction to the above discussion is that you are saying that an article should only be covered on Knowledge if it has purchased substantial publicity. Yes, purchased because that is actually how it works. If that is this case, Knowledge isn't an encyclopedia on everything, it is only reporting on the big corporations. I believe the debate around this article puts the entire legitimacy of Knowledge in discussion. Does Knowledge exist to give a leg up to the Fortune 500? Does Pepsi deserve an article but Shasta does not because one has substantially more publicity then the other?

And most importantly, is the internet the only source of publicity? How many television stations and trade papers have covered Shop Direct TV? To say that a US cable television network shouldn't be included but all of it's competitors should be makes Knowledge an e-zine not an unbias encyclopedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — 92.5.4.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, if Shop Direct TV has not made an impact, then we are in fact remaining unbiased by excluding it. Shasta, the example you gave, has an article, but the difference between Shasta's article and Shop Direct TV's article is that Shasta's article is substantiated by independent reliable sources such as this, whereas the SDTV article is not. Knowledge was never supposed to be an "encyclopedia on everything", just on topics deemed suitable for inclusion (I refer here to WP:IINFO, a policy, and WP:N, a guideline). Your idea that sources should be considered valid even if they are unavailable on the internet is completely true by the reliable sources guideline. If you can provide citations to print or other offline sources, then you could provide a compelling argument for keeping the article. CtP (t • c) 18:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A note to the closing administrator: comments regarding notability have also been made at Talk:Shop Direct TV and should be taken into account. CtP (t • c) 18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The comment at Talk:Shop Direct TV is a constructive one. What specifically needs to be located as far as substantiating articles in order to save this entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The specific criteria can be read here. If you can locate sources meeting all those requirements, then you have a very good shot at saving the article. CtP (t • c) 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

THe above link provided (thank you) states <<Sources are not required to be available online, >> so if I scan some articles from trade papers, magazines how do I submit them for review? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to scan them, just cite them. Using Template:Cite journal is probably the easiest way; you just copy the template and enter the correct parameters. As for reviewing them, someone at Knowledge:WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help. If you can make citations for those trade papers manually or with the template, I can do the work of asking around the resource exchange. CtP (t • c) 20:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much poster above. I now (think I) understand regarding citing those publications and that is very helpful. I will get started on that now then. I also found an online trade article should I add that right to the main article, here on this page or also using a template like the one mentioned above? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk)

It would be best to link to it here and add it as a reference in the article. CtP (t • c) 21:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the first reference I found -- http://www.rightviewconsultancy.com/?p=1522

I am still searching online and moving onto trade publications/print. Expect results soon.

Do you volume of Twitter followers have value at Knowledge for establishing notoriety? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, a following on Twitter has no bearing on notability. (I'm unsure if Rightview Consultancy is a reliable source.) CtP (t • c) 22:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this company that establishes that it meets Knowledge's gernal inclusion guidelines, or the more specific guidelines for companies. The reference included in the article to rightview consultancy does not represent significant coverage in a reliable source. I will consider any other sources brought forward. The company is literally been in operation for only one year at this point. I have no objections ot recreation in the future if they grow and gain coverage, but at this point, it really does appear that it is too soon to have an article about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please re-read, The Company has not been in business for one year. The Company took the on-air name Shop Direct about one year ago. I have begun the work of ordering trade papers for larger publications to cite. Reliable sources wil be provides hortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  - I did read the article. It states "Shop Direct TV was founded in November 2011..." which makes it one year. Of course, we have no sources so none of the information in the article is verified. -- Whpq (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    - I am not familiar with any article that states that. The article I found from rightview does not state that. It states <<Shop Direct TV Inc. took on the on-air moniker Shop Direct TV late last year in a bid to establish Network identity. >> It does not make reference to the year it was founded. The Knowledge Article states <<Shop Direct TV was founded in November 2011 by Shop Direct Corporation which began leasing television time from local cable systems in 2007 extensively promoting its own in-house programming and products.>> I believe you may be referring to this unless there is some other article I am missing. The Knowledge Entry states the Company was founded in 2007. The confusion may be that prior to November 2011 programs were presented by '"Shop Direct Corporation and in 2011 the programming feed became Shop Direct TV but the broadcasting network is nearly 5 years old.

That is something that can/should be clarified in the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.4.95 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 23:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - would seem to quite clearly fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Worth reconsidering if further reliable sources are found but at the moment it should probably go. Stalwart111 23:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Based on this logic, I will compile other pages that have to be deleted like http://en.wikipedia.org/Bran,_Bra%C5%9Fov since the page has been up almost since the founding of Knowledge and not one single source has been provided all this time. There is no getting around it -- challenging the validity of this article makes Knowledge little more then a service for those who purchase P.R. or the big boys and in doing so demeans the entire concept of the internet and Knowledge. This is certainly not why I donated money during two of Knowledge's appeals. I was told this was a source for UNbiased, full and complete information. Denying part of history because it hasn't paid the press or isn't in articles that appear on the internet means Knowledge doesn't use the same stringent criteria that a traditional encyclopedia does and is therefore less valuable. Shop Direct TV is in almost as many homes as Shop NBC. Why not ask their affiliate relations to send you modified copies of their coverage agreements with these cable systems. SHOP DIRECT TV has MORE followers on Twitter then Shop NBC seeming to indicate greater public following. It exists as surely as Bran in the link I set above exists yet also lacks the publicity. Other then a simple and in my opinion totally out of context quoting of guidelines no reasonable argument for deletion has been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.24.49 (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — 92.85.24.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - You are free to nominate other articles for deletion if they do not meet Knowledge's inclusion criteria. However, you should be aware that doing so just to make a point is frowned upon, and you will need to register an account in order to finish nominations to AFD. As for your other comments, they are way off base. The policies and guidelines that Knowledge use are noted above and have been formed by community consensus. If you believe that they should be changed, you are welcome to propose changes at the Village Pump. I'll also note that the reason for deletion is the lack of coverage in any reliable source, and as such, I doubt any traditional encyclopedia would have included this company either. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
An article shouldn't necessarily be deleted because it has no sources. WP:NRVE, a section of the notability guideline, explains this: "the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable". As can be seen in a quick search, the commune of Bran appears to be notable because of the presence of sources like this one (this is the case with the vast majority of settlements). Assuming that you are the same poster as the IP from last week, it has already been explained to you that:

Knowledge is not an encyclopedia on everything;
Offline sources are perfectly acceptable;
A following on Twitter has no bearing on notability;
Remaining truly unbiased requires the exclusion of some topics which have not made an impact. Although it speaks to this concept in terms of article content, WP:UNDUE is relevant here.

In addition, it needs to be made clear that any purchased publicity is discounted when assessing notability, as noted in the general notability guideline. Even if Shop Direct TV had purchased publicity pieces, this would do nothing to make them any more notable. CtP (t • c) 23:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Response - I think you picked about the worst possible example of an unsourced article as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument for keeping this article. After 10 minutes of looking and with minimal effort I managed to add three sources to Bran, Braşov - all from reliable sources; books about the subject's place in history rather than the normal tourist rubbish we see being used as references for place articles. It was unsourced because Knowledge is a work in progress, not because the home town of "Dracula's" Bran Castle is non-notable. Stalwart111 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC

Response -Yes, I am the same poster as before. I can't help be notice how one of your editors wisely put in a relist for this article but the response immediately to his or her action was Delete That my friend is about as bias as you get. You are telling me about bias but it looks like Shop Direct on the receiving end of it. Though your argument is against Shop Direct's inclusion the context of your comments tends to perfectly support it. Who are you to say the Network hasn't made an impact? A real scholarly approach would be to obtain coverage agreements for the Network, etc to establish it's penetration into the American household. But where your argument is really questionable is about publicity. Everything is paid publicity. How do you think articles end up in trade papers and magazines? You pay a publicist. The publicist in turns spends money, inviting journalists to lunch etc. I can go through Knowledge and delete just about every article based on the no paid publicity clause. Regarding the location example you state Other then a simple and in my opinion totally out of context quoting of guidelines no reasonable argument for deletion has been made. It is exactly the same thing. Bran is a town. Shop Direct TV is a channel. It seems both lack a lot of web site references or as you put it rubbish by other people who also post their own content online just like Knowledge. And it seems like that rubbish for travel locations establishes the location has made an impact. I kind of get the feeling that everything be darned, you just don't like another shopping channel having a page on Knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.24.49 (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply - Rather than accusing other editors of bad faith, perhaps your time could be spent in sourcing the article? Eight days ago, you stated above that you were working on getting more sources. Since then, not a single source has been presented. -- Whpq (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your complaint about the relisting. An administrator relisted the discussion to generate more discussion and get more input, and somebody used the opportunity to post their opinion. I don't see what is wrong with this; regardless of the poster's stance, the goal of relisting, generating more input, was achieved. And yes, perhaps "made an impact" was not the best choice of words on my part, but I keep pointing you to the general notability guideline and adequate sources have not been presented. Again, it's all there; just find some sources meeting all those requirements and you'll save the article. That's all I'm trying to get across. "Everything is paid publicity"—no. Take the references for the article Plant, for example. Next, the "rubbish" Stalwart111 refers to is tourism guides and the like, but the references he added to the Bran article are from published books which show that the commune has historical significance. I have no objection to an article on another shopping network if reliable sources show that it meets Knowledge's notability guideline. This does not appear to be the case with Shop Direct TV. Also, it was you who stated "Other then a simple and in my opinion totally out of context quoting of guidelines no reasonable argument for deletion has been made", making reference to Shop Direct TV; it was not Stalwart111, Whpq, or me making reference to Bran. CtP (t • c) 20:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Not notable, fails WP:CORP. I could not find any of the required significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. In fact I could not find any independent coverage at all. The channel is only 1 year old, and is available to fewer than 40 million households (some of those part time), and that may be why it has not attracted more attention. As it grows it may become more notable. It could be recreated in the future, if (and ONLY if) reliable source coverage becomes available. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 30 November 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 result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of the American Civil War

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Procedural nomination - page was moved. I vote Keep. Vacation 22:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If a page is moved while an AfD is in process, shouldn't the previous AfD history be moved with it?--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I moved the history. Vacation 23:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete or Split - Article is over 100 kB and should be split or deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep The actual Civil War bibliography is vast-- running over 60,000 published books with more appearing every month. This is a highly selective bibliography that includes about 1700 titles or 3% of the total. It is very well organized into over 50 sub-categories. It is based on the standard guides like Woodworth (1996) which runs over 750 pages of bibliography, as well as the book reviews in issues of Civil War History, Journal of American History, Journal of Southern History and the bibliographies in recent books. Razr Nation has given no reason why he thinks the selection is "indiscriminate". The way people study the Civil War is matches to the organization of the article. If someone wants an overview they are given in section one and the local library is likely to have several of them for the reader to use. A specialized topic like "Maps, photographs, environment" has nine selected titles. There are lots of people interested in battles and campaigns and they are well served. Someone interested in the battle of Shiloh, for example, will find nine books (selected from the 25+ given at the Battle of Shiloh article. Se we have a convenient well-selected guide that will be of use to readers and to local librarians helping patrons find useful books. Rjensen (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Highly useful selected bibliography. A multitude of pages should be able to create a See Also link to this to directed interested readers towards the scholarly literature in topics of interest to them. Each and every one of our "Further Reading" sections is necessarily a subjective selection of a sampling of the material on a topic; this is no reason to delete here. The very vastness of the literature related to the subject makes this a valid stand-alone topic, rather than cluttering dozens of articles with dozens of titles... Carrite (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of books is what Knowledge is not for. Statυs (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

it is not "indiscriminate" what nonsense given the immense effort editors put in it! It is a selected, discriminate categorized bibliography regarding an important event. Knowledge has thousands of these and it's one of the great strengths. If you want to see what an indiscriminate list looks like, look at the 48,000 titles at amazon.com: Amazon Civil War list Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Bibliographies are a recognized form of list in Knowledge. There is even a Wikiproject Bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Fits our goals such as in the Special:Cite claim that Knowledge articles should be used as a "starting point for further research". An argument against a bibliographic list could be made, however no such argument has yet been presented (esp. w/Rjensen's counter). Knowledge has featured "list of books"; the contradiction needs elaboration. —Mrwojo (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep, but clarify the inclusion criteria. This list easily passes the notability criteria for stand-alone lists, but does not clearly specify the criteria for inclusion in the list. Without such criteria, it is original research. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Unless I am mistaken we don't have a clear criteria for inclusion or deletion of bibliographies. Perhaps an RfC should be started on the applications of notability guidelines, sources, the place of original research, and criteria for inclusion within bibliographies. But this isn't the place for such a broad discussion. Keep for now, perhaps revisit far down the road. Them From Space 05:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep We seem to have gradually decided over the past year that bibliographies of this sort are appropriate content. Personally, I think we might want to consider a different way of handling them than as mainspace articles--possibly the Citizendium practice of having them as subpages in mainspace. But for now there seems to be consensus for handling them in this fashion, and it is certainly better that we have them somewhere rather than not have them at all. In any case, continuing consensus at AfD is every bit as much a community decision as an rfc. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are clear criteria. Among the reasons for deletion is that the subject fails to meet the relevant notability guide. Bibliographies fall under the criteria for stand-alone lists. Sources need to discuss the list as a list, and such sources are already provided in this bibliography. The main page of WikiProject Bibliographies has a lot of discussion of policies related to bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 18:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

SNOW Keep I sometimes wonder about these AfDs, I really do. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wiki - Knowledge:WikiProject Bibliographies.Moxy (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep - agree with RockMagnetist that the inclusion criteria could do with some clarification and that the list, in general, could do with some cleaning up. But those aren't reasons to delete. Stalwart111 23:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep This is a useful reference source for those who wish to research what is a famous historical event. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This should really have been submitted (if at all) along with its sister articles. They should all be kept for the same reason that I gave at the Confederate one:

Keep - this well-structured list has precise inclusion criteria, to which it conforms absolutely. It's the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". It covers a notable topic, with indeed a large literature to guarantee that notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What are the inclusion criteria? The only restriction I see in the lead is that they have to be on the American Civil War. Does that mean all 60,000 titles meet the criteria? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The title is the master criterion; the section headings clearly name the intended sub-criteria. No doubt it would be advisable for the lead to explain that more clearly, but that's a matter for editing, not AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Considering bibliographies are accepted by a wide consensus, the rationale is nonsense. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Completely agree with Chiswick Chap. The Steve 05:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tai Urban

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

Subject is a 12 year old who doesn't appear to be notable as a martial artist or actor (see WP:MANOTE and WP:NACTOR). The article focuses on his martial arts, but winning some 10 and 11 year old divisions at a minor tournament (NASKA rated 3A on a scale of 1A to 6A) and a junior underbelt board breaking competition does not show notability. There also seems to be a lack of good independent sources. The article lists 4 sources--IMDB, a site similar to IMDB, a broken link, and a link to the aforementioned tournament resuls. None of those show significant coverage by an independent and reliable source. Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Vacation 22:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

delete Isn't notable as an actor or martial artist and the article lacks good sources. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If he continues with his acting career, or martial arts career, he may become notable in the future so no prejudice to recreation when that happens. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Kilmartin

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

Non notable basketball player and martial artist. He scored 3 points last season for Tennessee and has won some junior martial arts events. There's nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for basketball players (WP:NHOOPS) or martial artists (WP:MANOTE). The most notabie thing seems to be playing for a junior Wales team in a tournament (not a world championship one), but that's also not enough to meet the notability crieria for basketball players. Papaursa (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. All references are primary (such as university profile) or non-notable. Vacation 22:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete fails Knowledge:NCOLLATH and GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this person satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH at this time. Gongshow 03:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Diff'rent Strokes and Hello, Larry episodes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Diff'rent Strokes and Hello, Larry episodes

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

Another completely unnecessary crossover list, which doesn't really highlight the crossovers but provides a combined lists of the two shows. Take out the first two seasons and it's a inferior duplicate of List of Diff'rent Strokes episodes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 21:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 21:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Vacation 22:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Crossovers can be discussed within the articles, we don't need a list for this kind of thing on any television show crossover. Pinkadelica 01:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. As a tangential observation, it's typical for fans of your major media franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel Comics, etc.) to be obsessed with fitting all of the disparate works made over the decades into a consistent canon with a single, coherent chronology, but I find it rather bizarre to see that effort expended on the content here. Though they should have gone for broke and added The Facts of Life episodes as well. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Three crossover episodes is no reason to make a repeat of the separate lists for either show. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was merge to Idaho National Laboratory. MBisanz 05:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiphysics Methods Group

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

A small group of 11 people. Article started by an editor working only on the Idaho National Lab and its programs. It is adequately discussed with a single sentence in the main article, and the name is not distinctive enough for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Vacation 22:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom.T R 09:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Idaho National Laboratory. Not much coverage outside institutional/government press releases and academic papers by staff. Redirects are cheap, and "not distinctive enough" is a poor argument against a redirect - are people less likely to search for it because it's not a very exciting name? There's lots of very mundane redirects on Knowledge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Merge per above. Topics without independent notability can still be discussed within the context of another article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Colapeninsula and Whpq. Deltahedron (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Chase Calloway

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

This is an article about a junior amateur boxer. He clearly fails WP:NBOX and there's also a lack of significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Vacation 22:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SNOW. No claim to notability, this boxer is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Lacks notability and sources. Clearly does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:ATHLETE. Mdtemp (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul Miller (founder, Intranet Benchmarking Forum)

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

No citations or references given. My search found press releases and sources related to the subject but no significant reliable secondary sources for a biography WP:GNG. heather walls (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom. In the course of working on articles about other Paul Millers, I tried a couple of times to find sources for this one and have not managed to find anything much that qualifies as substantial independent RS coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Note: I corrected a couple of typos in this comment. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Vacation 22:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, well, I came across this after one of the major contributors posted a question at the Teahouse. I thought they should get at least a day or two to improve the article before I AfD'd it myself. But I agree with the nominator, I can't see anything of any substance online about Miller that is not directly related to him or his businesses. The article pretty much reads like a promotional online curriculum vitae! Sionk (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Arxiloxos. This person hosts a "monthly intranet media show". How is that notable? Sounds very ordinary to me. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment

There is some evidence of notability. Looking at the two primary companies he founded: Intranet Benchmarking Forum and Digital Workplace Group (a roll-up of the first company plus other intranet companies). These appear to be the leading companies in their field (intranet benchmarking). He seems to be a leader and founder of this (small) industry. This could possibly get him in on WP:ANYBIO #2. The sources are the problem. I'll see what I can dig up but any help appreciated. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Vishal Sharma

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

No coverage of this person in independent reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This person is a complete unknown. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see any plausible assertions of notability here; I say delete. And while we're at it, get rid of the images uploaded specifically for this article. DS (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I see no clear assertion of notability. I read through the whole article and it seems he is politically active, but has not attracted coverage, nor run for office. My search for sourcing found many people named "Vishal Sharma", but none that I could match with the subject under discussion here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Dušan Trbojević (soldier)

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

Non-notable individual that fails the notability test. Primary reference used is a local Chicago obituary. The other is a book written by Trbojević himself. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Does not seem notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Vacation 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not notable per WP:BIO. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - There are 23 sources on GBS which mention or exclusively deal with this person if searched using Cyrillic script (link), or 32 sources when searched using Latin script (link) which proves that this person is notable because most of the sources support the request of WP:BIO ("has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."). It is wrong to delete article about notable topic just because it is not enough sourced. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what search results you're looking at (I'll leave aside WP:GHITS for the moment) - the first link you provide has 4 results, two of which list the subject as the author. Certainly not "independent", even if they provide significant coverage. The second link has 2 results but having a look at the books themselves, the first contains no mention of "Dušan Trbojević" (according to the search feature) and the second cannot be searched. While sources are not required to be online, I would imagine we need more than "here's 55 sources" which turn out to in fact be 4 sources and with no indication as to whether or not they provide significant coverage of the topic or whether they are WP:RS. Stalwart111 23:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked the links I provided. The first link shows 23 works and another 32. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what's going on there - probably another reason why listing the number of google hits might not be a good idea - searches from different countries get different results. Perhaps you could list the individual suggested sources instead along with what they say about the subject (if you can translate). Maybe just the best 2-3. If there are a couple of good instances of "significant coverage" then it's a different story. Stalwart111 00:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem might be a result of my deghosting of the search results. Without deghosting the links are Cyrillic and Latin. Before deghosting they show 569 or 170 hits, but after deghosting they show 32 or 23 hits. Nevertheless, I will try to select a couple of sources which deal with this person without relying on GBS only within next couple of days.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be great - look forward to seeing them. I'm still having trouble with those links, particularly the Cyrillic one which is giving me search parameters rather than results. Not your fault, I don't think. Anyway, it's a moot point if you are going to summarise the best ones for us anyway. Cheers, Stalwart111 23:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

Delete - on the basis of my response above. Stalwart111 23:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - the only sources available refer to a pianist.--— ZjarriRrethues — 19:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you produce an English-language source about this subject or an adequate number of reliable Serbian-language ones that treat him an important subject?--— ZjarriRrethues — 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect that "the only sources available refer to a pianist". It was wrong to !vote for deletion based on such incorrect assertion. For the rest see this comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please produce one reliable English-language source or an adequate number of Serbian-language ones. Books written by him and works that can't be verified in any way aren't indicative of any notability.--— ZjarriRrethues — 23:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep/merge to NaiLAB. Spinning Spark 21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sam Gichuru

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

The subject does not meet the WP:GNG for Knowledge H.smith83 (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep Apparently notable in the Africa. Mentioned in quite a fair share of news, including interviews with BBC, thus passing WP:GNG. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Definitely on the borderline of notability, INTERVIEWED HERE by the BBC as a Kenyan tech expert. The piece seems self-promotional but that is ultimately an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per apparent failure to meet WP:BASIC, with no disrespect to Gichuru's achievements. The kenyanentrepreneur.com piece doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and the other pieces don't collectively provide enough biographical information IMO. Content is possibly a merge candidate for NaiLab/NaiLAB (the latter was PRODed) and so could perhaps be restored in the future for merging -- Trevj (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to undertake such a merge? I am prepared to restore the NaiLAB article and close this debate if you are. Spinning Spark 13:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Errr... oh OK, go on then. I'll try to do so within the next week (ideally within the next day or two). If the standard merge result tag could please be placed, then there's always the chance that someone else will even get to it before me!

As a further note, those reading this should please be warned that I'm not volunteering to add any missing refs to the NaiLab article: assuming it still lacks sources demonstrating notability after the merge, then the standard tags will have to do. It would be appreciated if others could please seek out appropriate references (I'm not necessarily claiming that they exist as reliable sources, but it appears likely) and attempt to fix some of the shortcomings rather than hastily nominating it for deletion - that's not a comment directed at the initiator of this discussion, but a general observation on how things sometimes commence at AfD.

Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout 19:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep notable enough. Meets WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

TemaTres

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

Not notable management system. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 05:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I am puzzled about the meaning of, 'not notable management system'. I have read other Knowledge discussions about notability, particularly concerning that concept where it applies to niche concepts. I suggest that TemaTres is indeed notable- 1) It is the only free open source literature database thesaurus construction software that is continuously enhanced through crowd sourced contributions of add-on code (sorry, no reference for this other than personal knowledge and experience). 2) It is the engine behind many of the most important literature and art databases and archives worldwide. 3) While indexing and archiving isn't a topic of broad general interest, the quality thesaurus construction is the essence of what makes any literature database query result in a satisfactory list of relevant material. 4) I would be pleased to follow any guidance for making this article content less likely to be labeled spammy. 5) Perhaps, an alternative article should be written with the title Thesaurus Construction that has a subsection on software tools. Librarians, indexers, fact-checkers, and other knowledge-access professionals are quite interested in this topic.--David Lawrence, Ph.D.; San Diego State University 18:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am also puzzled about the "management system" component of the delete request. I suspect that Razr Nation's use of the phrase could indicate a lack of understanding of the nature of TemaTres, its purpose, its use, and its importance to library and information science. If the problem is that the nature of TemaTres is unclear, it seems that is an argument for making changes to the content of the article and not for its removal. If there has been no misunderstanding, perhaps Razr Nation could expand upon her or his concerns. As it stands, it is difficult to prepare a cogent counter to a telegraphic remark. While the topic of thesaurus construction, development,and implementation may be of interest to no more than one or two hundred thousand people in the English-speaking world, that is more than the number of people who might be interested in some other Knowledge topics.

Another comment about notability or importance. There is a TemaTres page in es.wikipedia (http://es.wikipedia.org/search/?title=TemaTres&action=history).

--David Lawrence, Ph.D.; San Diego State University 22:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidl53 (talk • contribs)

You should not vote keep more than once, as it looks like you are three different users instead of one. Thanks. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 00:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to suggest multiple votes. I have added several citations to articles in peer reviewed journals that discuss TemaTres and its value as an information tool.--David Lawrence, Ph.D.; San Diego State University 04:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidl53 (talk • contribs)

I can't find any information in the sources you've added to the article. Please, if you will provide a link, try to make it the most specific as possible. Do not link only the main domain, give the complete url wre the relevant review is stored. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 05:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There are two kinds of sources in this Knowledge article: 1) articles from peer-reviewed journals that describe the value of open-source software ( and TemaTres in particular ) for literature database management; and 2) connections to the online databases used as examples of the systems that are built from TemaTres-produced thesauri.David Lawrence, Ph.D.; San Diego State University 16:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidl53 (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete or merge into the article on literature database thesaurus construction software, in the free open source section. Notability cannot be found. --05:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Software released less than two weeks ago. Looks like a WP:TOOSOON for me. Given adequate coverage, I encourage re-submission at a later date though. Faustus37 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout 19:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per the comment by Faustus37. Morefoolhim 19:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

4g wifi

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

No standard called "4g wifi" exists, and the term is not used in research papers. Mange01 (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 24. Snotbot t • c » 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Strong Delete I can't find anything on this anywhere. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete As WP:HOAX at best. That's really odd... I wonder what that person was thinking about when they created the article. §FreeRangeFrog 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. This AFD was reopened after the speedy delete was contested, but the deleting admin also renominated the article at that time, so there are now two open AFDs, see Knowledge:Articles for deletion/4g wifi (2nd nomination) — Frankie (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant with 4G (Does not appear to be hoax but rather an honest mistake by someone who doesn't realize that 4G and Wi-Fi are two different things.) —teb728 t c 23:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to 4G, which is what the content is about. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Orbit Magazine

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

This defunct independent publication fails WP:GNG by a landslide, as well as WP:BOOK, regarding publications generally. I'll posit there will be no upcoming coverage, as the publication itself is out of print, and it has received no major coverage since its closing. That said, most of the coverage I found only mentioned the fact that the publication was disestablished. This mention is usually in conjunction with ostensibly living, relatively unknown persons who give local press commentary in stories about other topics entirely. Neither they nor Orbit Magazine are covered with any substance. I don't dispute the independent publication Orbit Magazine existed; I just can't find any evidence the publication was significant within its geographical area or among its peers, or that it had any measurable impact in the field. This goes especially for while it lasted, but the same could be said for its enduring, encyclopedic legacy. Note: this nomination is partly procedural, as it has been tagged for over 2 years regarding notability. JFHJr (㊟) 02:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

C Found a couple sources:

Kevin Lynch. "Metro magazine co-owner sues partner Plaintiff optimistic of settlement, Real Detroit's prospects". Detroit News 17 Nov 2000: D.04.
Wendy Case. "Orbit mag ends with a big bang". Detroit News 19 Nov 1999: D7.

Not enough for notability but in case anyone finds more. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 19:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Even with those references it failsWP:GNG --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete No indication it was ever notable. I found a couple of mentions at the Detroit Free Press about its closing, otherwise nothing. Current searches find only other magazines called Orbit . --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete This magazine is not notable. Morefoolhim 19:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thirdmoon

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

No assertion of notability and no secondary coverage or links. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep. It appears they released two albums on Napalm Records and one on FM Records, meeting WP:MUSICBIO#5. This is unverified though - some independent coverage would strengthen the claim for inclusion. Thanks. — sparklism 09:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep. They definitely released two albums on Napalm Records - this is easily verifiable - but I couldn't find much coverage of the band online other than this. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 19:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep notable enough. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mon cher Mustapha letter

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

This article is about deception in a 2004 local election that has no broader significance. The only reference is not notable and from a website that is not generally recognized as a broad-based news venue. The single reference mentions the letter in passing, i.e. it isn't the subject of the reference. Not all political deception, spin, and outright lies deserve their own article. This newsy item has clearly faded into obscurity. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, you mean 1983, right, not 2004. I wouldn't expect that to show up in the Google. My French isn't great, but I can find reference to it in MRAP (NGO)'s house organ. Which probably doesn't establish notability in its own right. delete without prejudice to recreation based on proper sources? Morwen - Talk

Keep. It could potentially be merged with an article on the local election, if such an article existed. It is perfectly good to have articles on obscure things, if they were notable at one time. Everyking (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - an obscure urban legend. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gwickwire | Leave a message 18:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Unverified incident (the only reference is a highly POV opinion piece), and trivial even if it happened. Sounds like it might be related to Mustafa-letter which recounts a similar incident a few years later in Norway. (One of the characteristics of an urban legend is that similar stories crop up repeatedly in different locations.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Lakshmi Narayana

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

This article does not provide enough good quality references. Most of the edits are done by editors who seems to have a WP:CoI regarding the subject matter. Harishrawat11 (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 2. Snotbot t • c » 09:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It would help if the nominator could expand on the reasons why the references are not of good quality, because, on the face of it, there seem to be many reliable sources among them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

there are good sources among them.the person is not notable and the page is poorly writtem.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC))

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep - surely being the joint director of the main criminal investigation organization in India is enough? The article is a total mess though. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment He is not the main JD but one among the 11..(Harishrawat11 (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC))

I never said anything about him being the main JD, but the JD of the main criminal investigation organization. Even if he's one of 11, holding such a position should make him notable, surely? (I also fixed your formatting mess, by the way.) Lukeno94 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gwickwire | Leave a message 18:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep, although this article could do with some improvements, I believe the current sources are sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Not an article - take it to WP:RfD (non-admin closure) Vacation 22:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

American Civil War bibliography

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete or Split - Article is over 100 kB and should be split or deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Highly useful selected bibliography. A multitude of pages should be able to create a See Also link to this to directed interested readers towards the scholarly literature in topics of interest to them. Each and every one of our "Further Reading" sections is necessarily a subjective selection of a sampling of the material on a topic; this is no reason to delete here. The very vastness of the literature related to the subject makes this a valid stand-alone topic, rather than cluttering dozens of articles with dozens of titles... Carrite (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of books is what Knowledge is not for. Statυs (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Bibliographies are a recognized form of list in Knowledge. There is even a Wikiproject Bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Fits our goals such as in the Special:Cite claim that Knowledge articles should be used as a "starting point for further research". An argument against a bibliographic list could be made, however no such argument has yet been presented (esp. w/Rjensen's counter). Knowledge has featured "list of books"; the contradiction needs elaboration. —Mrwojo (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep, but clarify the inclusion criteria. This list easily passes the notability criteria for stand-alone lists, but does not clearly specify the criteria for inclusion in the list. Without such criteria, it is original research. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Unless I am mistaken we don't have a clear criteria for inclusion or deletion of bibliographies. Perhaps an RfC should be started on the applications of notability guidelines, sources, the place of original research, and criteria for inclusion within bibliographies. But this isn't the place for such a broad discussion. Keep for now, perhaps revisit far down the road. Them From Space 05:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep We seem to have gradually decided over the past year that bibliographies of this sort are appropriate content. Personally, I think we might want to consider a different way of handling them than as mainspace articles--possibly the Citizendium practice of having them as subpages in mainspace. But for now there seems to be consensus for handling them in this fashion, and it is certainly better that we have them somewhere rather than not have them at all. In any case, continuing consensus at AfD is every bit as much a community decision as an rfc. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 18:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

SNOW Keep I sometimes wonder about these AfDs, I really do. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Kunhippalli

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

Although article asserts notability, article cites no sources so does not meet WP:V or WP:RS ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Google News provided two results and Google Books also provided two results, all of which would minimal improvement. The two Google Books results appears to provide something interesting, "It is believed that his holy tomb is situated at the Kunhippalli mosque of Chombal" but the preview never clarifies who this is. Unfortunately, like most India-related topics, it's likely that any useful sources may not be English or Internet-based. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep as per SwisterTwister's comment. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This still does not make it meet WP:V and until it does it has no sources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

KEEP The above place is notable and is meritorious enough to be on wikipedia (Harishrawat11 (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 17:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 18:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

SunBurn

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

A topic about gatherings held in Florida that fails Knowledge:Notability (events). Google News and Books searches are not yielding coverage in reliable sources, nor are customized searches such as , and . Northamerica1000 10:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Could find anything significant. For a gathering of 150-200 people (which seems to be the claim) that isn't surprising. --Michig (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 18:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete not notable at all. Not even a large event. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete as G3. I was actually going to vote myself but while searching, I realized that there is absolutely zero evidence to at least confirm this aired or was scheduled to air. Additionally, a scan through the author's contributions provides minor edits mostly to the same articles, with this article being the only significant edit they made. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Summer of Knobheads and Scones

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

Searching brings up zero results for this TV series except for various wiki-mirrors. I suspect this is a hoax. Fails WP:V. Tassedethe (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

STRONG Delete I can't find anything on this. Agree with above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Any potential merger can follow the procedure at Knowledge:Proposed mergers. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A Profecia

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

Does not meet notability for music recordings per WP:MUSIC. No assertion of importance of this recording. References appear to primary sources and videos. - Mr X 16:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiPuppies _bark 00:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Bonde da Stronda because it doesn't meet the criteria at WP:NALBUMS, but since it have been released by a notable artist, it could be merge with his article. ●Mehran ● 08:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent Software Solutions

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

advert Corporate 05:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete with the suggestion to the 3 Jesse's: start over. The relatively large company, apparently doing interesting work, might deserve an article, but you can't use PR web as your cited publisher, and forget all the product listings and excruciating detail. KISS --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Puff piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Weak delete - A software company serving the government may be significant, Google News found one result here and here (this second link notes they have acquired a New Jersey-based company). Google News archives also provided results but the press releases seem to slightly (or nearly) outweigh the news articles. Two articles here and here list the company among the fastest growing and "among hottest in state" respectively and, in 2011, they also achieved Inc. magazine's "nation’s 5,000 fastest-growing private companies for a seventh time, one of just 59 firms to qualify for the ranking seven or more times" which may suggest significance. I have very mixed feelings with this and I'm seeing several federal contracts, my question is are these many federal contracts notable? Regarding this, I notice they haven't had much work for the past two years aside from this Air Force contract, this and this United Kingdom contract, all 2011, which I suppose is a reasonably busy amount but I would have expected more in a year. 2012 is nearly finished and I'm not aware of any work for this year. As you'll see from the results, it seems their primary customers are government agencies especially military such as the Air Force. This company certainly has potential and has some important customers thus I'm tied between weak delete and weak keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hopelessly promotional SwisterTwister asked me to comment; based on her sources, an article could be written: there seems to be enough information available that someone without COI could write a short article--they are a major specialized contractor. (I note that merely holding government contracts is enough for notability -- I doubt ST meant that -- I think the meaning was that it might be notability if the contracts are sufficiently important. However, this sort of puffery should be very strongly discouraged, and the best way to discourage it is by deleting, not by leaving it in the history and rewriting. (I would have said differently a year or two ago, but the flood of promotionalism requires a more drastic approach than I would have earlier supported, and I think most editors involved in this problem would agree with my current view) I think it might be copyvio as well, but I could not find it on their web site; I doubt nonetheless that they wrote it just for us. The only reason I do not immediately delete it is because I'd rather make this extended comment. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per blatant WP:PROMOTION AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete as unrelenting spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was merge to Jeanne Sauvé. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sauvé Foundation

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

No reliable, secondary sources, and a search on Google does not find any. Article also has some NPOV issues. Cyan Gardevoir 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect and merge To Jeanne Sauvé. No need for a standalone article since it fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog 20:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Several references in this search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge and redirect per FreeRangeFrog. Pburka (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Merge and redirect; not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

HiSilicon

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

This was speedy deleted under A7 but this was contested at DRV and the consensus was to list at AFD to( discuss sources provided during the DRV discussion. The sources mentioned are:- HiSilicon is a division of Huawei, dedicated to ARM SoC they made partnerships with ARM and Linaro to develop last and future ARM technologies IP.

ARM Company Profile
EE Times
Linaro HiSilicon Joins Linaro as Core Member
DigiTimes
TheStreet.com HiSilicon Licenses Range Of ARM Mali Graphics Processors To Drive The Next Generation Of Smart, Connected Devices
New Electronics HiSilicon licenses ARM Mali gpus to drive next gen smart devices
CNET Google's WebM patent pals agree to share
HiSilicon Unveils Quad-Core Cortex A9 K3V2 Processor (Hi3620)
soso.com encyclopedia 海思半导体 (chinese name of the company)
hudong.com encyclopedia (world's largest Chinese encyclopedia) 深圳海思半导体 (HiSilicon, Shenzhen).
windosi.com (a chinese national newspaper about semiconductor industry 海思半导体成长为本土最大的IC设计企业 (Translation : HiSilicon (海思半导体) has grown as the biggest national (in China) integrated circuit conception company).
hc360.com 海思半导体和寰龙技术结成战略合作伙伴 (HiSilicon and Freescale made a strategic partnership)

As the DRV closer I take no position in this discussion an am neutral. Spartaz 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete As the article stands, and I had to go back several revisions to see it, the sources within it are either primary sources or press release material. I can see no independent sources asserting or verifying notability. I think we are at a stage of 'not yet, maybe never' for notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Cnx-software is about embedded devices I addedd a link, that is an analysis using press release and speak a lot of HiSilicon (they search using google.com/cse is blacklisted here) without press release (on exhibition show, and computer/phone makers using their device). The Linaro press release is from Linaro, not from HiSilicon. Some other are from ARM, not from HiSilicon. Digitimes (search on their site, article are for member only), wrote about 20 articles about HiSilicon.Popolon (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: The chinese name of this company gets a lot of ghits. I don't read chinese and I know bugger all about the semiconductor industry, but my sense is that this that the problem here is that the sources are all in chinese rather than english. Can the article be moved to Knowledge:AfC or somewhere to accumulate refs? Stuartyeates (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why for create a new one, if there is already one ? I spent lot of time to get all this informations.Popolon (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep I don't know what the state of the article was when it was CSD'd but there are at least three English-language references there that would put it past WP:CORP. I'd say this company is notable enough. §FreeRangeFrog 03:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak Delete There is some puffery, and the notability of the article is borderline. If there are more (good) sources introduced, i will change my position. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No Respect

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

This band appears to fail WP:BAND. After searches, including custom searches in Google News archive and Google Books such as , , not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000 07:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Detailed searches at Google News provided nothing aside from this possibly relevant or irrelevant result from a 2000 Los Angeles Times article. Another search found a German and English link here which lists their discography, a review here, a German blogger's interview here and another interview here. Considering these links are German, strong chances are any or all links are going to be German. It saddens me to see the German Knowledge article is really no different. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This band is a complete unknown. Fails WP:BAND --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence of this subject meeting WP:GNG or WP:BAND, though it's possible that coverage exists offline and/or in German. Gongshow 10:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. All comments agree that the subject satisfy at least one criteria of WP:BAND. Without any policy/guideline based arguments as to why the page should still be deleted, this defaults to keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The Code (band)

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

A former ska-rock band that fails WP:BAND. Standard and custom searches in Google News archives and Google Books (, , ) are not providing coverage in reliable secondary sources. Northamerica1000 07:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. There's a review at Allmusic, and a staff review at Punknews.org. A bit thin to support an article, but if ayone can add to these we might have a case for keeping. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BAND point 5 - two or more albums on indie label A-F Records, which in itself is notable. Maybe you should read the policy you've cited for deletion before heading to AfD next time. Lugnuts 10:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lugnuts. I have read the WP:BAND guideline page. Therein it states "...may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". I agree that this topic passes criteria #5 of WP:BAND, which qualifies the topic as possibly being notable, but this does not automatically confer notability, particularly due to the manner in which the word "may" is used on the guideline page regarding notability. The topic still appears to fail criteria #1 on the guideline page. From what I've seen in the past, editors have considered Allmusic.com as unreliable as a source to establish topic notability, while Punknews.com has been acceptable to some editors. So, right now there's one source that appears to be usable. Northamerica1000 11:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic is a reliable source, despite some editors' ludicrous claims that it is 'a blog' (it isn't), 'covers everything' (it doesn't, and even if it did that wouldn't make it unreliable), and that the bios and reviews are 'written by the bands' (they aren't). --Michig (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Fails all but item 5 of WP:BAND. It seems clear that the verbiage "may" intends editors to use judgement in applying the guideline. As for Allmusic.com, I don't see how it can be a measure of notability since it accepts virtually all comers (Allmusic.com submissions). Meanwhile the punknews.org review called the band a "speck of dust" that "perhaps" will become notable. Richigi (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic will add all releases to its database as stated in that link - a pretty sensible policy if you're building up a database of releases. That has no bearing on the reliability of what their writers write, and it's equally clear from that link that bios and reviews are from their own writers. It is a reliable source, and per WP:GNG, if we have enough coverage in reliable sources, a subject is considered notable. The punknews review does not say what you state it says, it describes the band as "one of the most exciting ska-punk acts in the scene today" and doesn't use the word 'notable' once. --Michig (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Basically unknown band. It only passes one item in WP:BAND, not enough when it's all said and done to have a wiki article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment. There's also an article on the band from the Pittsburgh City Paper accesible via HighBeam (). --Michig (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Reviews from Allmusic & punknews.org, plus 2 releases on A-F Records - that just scrapes the bar at WP:BAND, as far as I'm concerned. — sparklism 11:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Though barely, I think the links above are enough for notability. There's another staff review from punknews here — Frankie (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I've been mulling over whether to go for this or "weak delete" but I think there's just enough there to satisfy the criteria. Articles need multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG - the AllMusic guide is the only reliable and independent source that's been found so far. But, having two albums released on a significant independent label are enough to meet WP:BAND. The source to A-F is a dead link, but fortunately I have found an alternative source on Amazon which verifies this fact. --Ritchie333 16:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Bulldozer Media

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

A music marketing agency that appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Google News archive and Books searches have not yielded anything except for this article, which has a passing mention. Northamerica1000 10:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - With searches at Google US, Google UK and Google Brazil, I only found this link indicating they were responsible for building MySpace Music. Next, using the founder's name from that article above, I began another search at Google News UK and found additional articles here (although it mentions one of their accounts, there is little evidence of their work aside from this), here (this article notes that Andy McKeon departed in 2007 to start the Australian branch of Bulldozer), here and here (extremely small mentions). I found a link here confirming DJ Marky's relationship with Innerground Records, a record label owned by Bulldozer Media, but it would provide little use for this article especially notability wise. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was Redirect to Temposhark#Early_EPs_and_Collaborations_.282004-2007.29. Both Robert Diament and Temposhark are plausible redirect targets as they both mention the label the same amount but I've chosen Temposhark as it seems more relevant. My searches at Google News and Books provided nothing and this isn't surprising as the label was only used for the band's music. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Paper and Glue

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

A record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Google News archives and Books searches yield no coverage in reliable sources. Customized searches such as and are also yielding no results. Northamerica1000 10:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Don't you think that consideration of merging to Temposhark or Robert Diament would have been appropriate before bringing this to AfD per WP:BEFORE? You're creating a lot of work for other editors with all these AfD nominations. --Michig (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

STRONG MERGE This article should not be up for AfD. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Chaithanya public school

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

Could not trace any existence of the school online. Do not meet WP:GNG. Amartyabag 11:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment I found it in 30 seconds. http://www.chaithanyaschool.com/ Dimspace (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment Although the article is just a straight copy and paste from their site. Either needs site link adding, but probably still falls within criteria for deletion Dimspace (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The article is no longer a copyvio. It's just a stub now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Works fine now. Perfectly acceptable stub to valid school. No reason to delete Dimspace (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment. The school's website indicates this is a PreK–8 school. While existence and copyvio issues have been resolved, is this school notable? Also, please note that there are multiple schools by this name in India in case anyone suggests redirecting. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete No indication that this meets or ever could meet notability guidelines. Elementary and middle schools rarely meet notability guidelines and there is no evidence that this one is any different.--RadioFan (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I was going to suggest a redirect to Katipalla per usual treatment for lower schools, but Gene93k makes a valid point about the name not being unique. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Brough Family Organization

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

Family surname genealogy group; notability not established in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cindy(talk to me) 14:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete No independent sources found for this organization. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Anastasia Blue

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO with just a scene award. Not enough coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines. The one newspaper cited is her father in law's obituary. The lifeinlegacy.com site is of questionable reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to make a case that this meets the rather limited criteria for being listed on Knowledge as a pornographic actor/actress, but this particular life and death is worth documenting in a public record. As someone stated on her general discussion page, anyone who's seen her performances, in the context of when she was performing, would have difficulty disputing her notability. I rather think she fell into the WP:PORNBIO criteria involving changing the nature of performing in such content, although such assertions are definitely hard to qualify in general. I do feel the need to note that I ended up finding this article's endangered status because I was deliberately looking up the story of her life and death, so the fact that Knowledge was there for me, but was trying to delete, it was distressing. Spawn777 (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Frankie (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete this is not a notable person. Fails WP:GNG, rife with inaccuracies and inconsistencies not unlike the non WP:R sites used as references. BO | Talk 08:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This person is a complete unknown. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Nominator is correct. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Supplied references are either unreliable or passing mentions. Searches for RS coverage yield nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Spinning Spark 17:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Caverphone

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

This article is unreferenced and the only good coverage I could find online was this source (in Indonesian). There doesn't seem to be any other significant coverage on Google Books, News, or Scholar, although there are a few mentions. We could probably do with a final decision about whether or not this can be kept, as it has been tagged for notability since 2008. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

weak keep I see references but not a lot; various of these act as if it's something quite well-known, but it doesn't seem to be something that CS texts want to talk about. Mangoe (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

weak Keep this paper talks about it as if it were a standard tool, and this one the other Google Scholar hits likewise list it as one the the standard ways of approaching the problem. Apparently not very much used, but there are 3rd party references. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 14:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

GLOSS FM

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

Wholly unremarkable local radio station that was terminated without achieving anything notable. Bob Re-born (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Licensed radio broadcasters are generally kept. See Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ -- a local broadcaster to whom few people are likely to listen. This is the broadcast equivalent of the locoal free paper, and I do not think we have aritlces on those. If kept Thornbury FM, its predecessor should be merged into it. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 14:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep and merge/redirect Thornbury FM into this article. Some coverage in local media found via Google search, together with the fact that this was a licensed (albeit part-time) broadcast station, justifies keeping this as part of our encyclopedic coverage of radio. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep this, merging in Thornbury FM. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Angelo Renai

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

Notability not established in accordance with WP:NACTORS or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Subject appeared in regional theatre and had minor roles or appearances in films. Award mentioned was a local theatre award. Cindy(talk to me) 14:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This person is almost completly unknown. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NACTORS, WP:GNG --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This person isn't notable per the guidelines. Morefoolhim 18:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead Masks Case

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

This article was originally created to advance the idea that UFOs somehow killed this people. The only references are minor and in foreign language UFO titles. The UFO angle was removed from the article as completely unsupported, and now the article makes no sense. There's no attempt to explain why this is notable and the whole thing makes no sense. To remain as an article here this needs to have multiple, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage in a way that demonstrates notability per Knowledge's policies. DreamGuy (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I've added a few more refs, but nothing too special. I could add a couple more links within the next days, but none of them will be too different from the ones that are already in the text. Actually, the article lacks sense exactly because the UFO parts were removed, although most of the sources cite the ufology angle. But the text still makes it quite clear that two men were murdered in uncommon, unclear circumstances, hence the notability. As I said, the sources won't get much better than this, so we'll have to leave this discussion to other editors' judgment on the verifiability of those refs. Victão Lopes 01:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Simply not notable--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 13:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete A couple of 40-year-old mysterious deaths (the article does not say murders) which have been retold by conspiracy/UFO theorists. There are some references, but none are to Reliable Sources, meaning that pretty much everything about this case is unverified. Verification is one of the WP:PILLARS. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete These cases are definitely not notable. Morefoolhim 18:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 05:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keeping the Kibbutz

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

Advertisement for a non-notable documentary; "sourcing" includes blogs and the like (hate to do this; sounds like an interesting film about a sad development). Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I am new to Knowledge, I have invested considerable time and effort into trying to compile a useful and informative list of films about the kibbutz, a project that I'm a little surprised hasn't already been undertaken and one that I'm sure will interest future readers and hopefully motivate them to add to my work. I believe Keeping the Kibbutz is an important part of that catalog, even though it has not received the critical attention one might have hoped for. And though I am unfamiliar with Knowledge's rules of discourse and etiquette, I take some exception to the article being dismissed as a mere "advertisement". I have no stake in the film, personally or professionally. The remarks by the blogger in question add, I think, a thoughtful contextual dimension to our appreciation of Keeping the Kibbutz and ought not to be too quickly dismissed because his reviews are published on a blog. I'm not sure what the "and the like" comment is supposed to indicate. Expand or revise the article by all means, but I urge you to reconsider and vote to keep it. - ColdNorthWind2 (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Per WP:NF. This film has received a major award and has received several full length reviews by nationally known critics. Marokwitz (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Can you point out the "major award" this film has won? Can you point out the full length reviews from natioanally know critics? -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I have reviewed the sources in the article and conducted my own searches and unable to find the sourcing needed to establish notability. The first reference in the article is a press release which asserts that the film won a Telly Award. There is no coverage about this aside from the press release. The reason is that the Telly awards are not a major award, and in fact, they are handed out willy-nilly like candy. The second source is an interview with director Tessa Moran and not a review of the film. Interviews are weak sources for establishing notability. The third source is a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources with some exceptions; this is not one of those exceptions. Actually, the best reliable source is listed in the external links section in the form of the Washington Jewish Week review of the film. I will note that the person doing the review is a staff writer, and thus would not be one of the nationally known critics asserted by Marokwitz above. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~ A surprising lack of coverage considering the PBS broadcast, including a dearth of Hebrew coverage, to be best of my ability to find it via Google. But I think the article may just squeak past WP:GNG per the Washington Jewish Week review, the Indiewire interview about the film, the Telly Award as well as that DC film honour. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The Telly Award isn't really an award. Just try finding coverage about the award as opposed to the tons for press releases self-congratulating on "winning" the award. There's no fixed number of winners, and in fact, there's generally lots and lots of them. See which is the 2012 Commercial Silver Winners. There are 23 winners that begin with the letter A in this category alone. I think its clear how much recognition this award brings. You pay your money and out pops an award to place into a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  - Good point, yes, it was sloppy of me to not look into the Telly thing further, the Wiki article gives a pretty clear impression. Which brings me down to just 2 RS (imo), including failed efforts at Hebrew refs. I'm down to neutral. Really surprised the PBS airing didn't yield more, even if it was on local affiliates (as appears to be the case) rather than a flagship program such as POV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 13:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep per just meeting WP:NF through coverage in mulitple reliable sources. A "staff writer" writing an article about this film is perfectly acceptable, as theere is no mandate that films can only be notable if reviewed by the (subjective term) of "nationally known" film critic. THAT desire, though nice to have. is not part of guideline's sourcing requirements. We have no realistic expectation nor demand that Roger Ebert or The New York Times could or would review every film ever made. Any film, including indepedent niche films must meet WP:NF, and this one does. Schmidt, 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The note about the staff writer reviewing the movie was specifically addressing Marokwitz's claim of "several full length reviews by nationally known critics." That review is useful for counting towards notability. But is is the sole review that has been provided. The only other usab;e source is the interview. Evaluating sourcing is not simply counting to two and stating the referencing is sufficient automatically. The sourcing for notability is extremely weak in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  - As more is available even if not offered by Marokwitz, the article is on my "to do" list requiring work. Schmidt, 19:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep, looking at current sourcing it does not seem so unnotable. Appears to pass GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Liu Dingshuang

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

I just don't think this village official is notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Not notable IMHO --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 13:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, because the topic is not notable and it relies on an obscure event. --Cold Season (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete This person is a complete unknown. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: A Bibliography

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

Um, is this the kind of thing we want in mainspace? Is it not more suited to a talk subpage for internal use? I'm ambivalent, but I guess it just feels to me that it ought to fall under WP:NOT, though I haven't seen one before and I can't see bibliographies of this sort listed under any of the section headings there. - Jarry1250 13:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC) - Jarry1250 13:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See Knowledge:WikiProject Bibliographies and Category:Bibliographies by subject. In the future, please don't resort to AFD until you're pretty confident you have a valid deletion candidate; it's not there to answer your questions. Try instead to raise questions on policy or guideline discussion pages, on the talk pages of articles, or the user talk pages of contributors. postdlf (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Speedy close, nominator has failed to advance an argument for deletion. postdlf (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed your earlier message. Thank you for providing the links, and using them I was able to find a handful of existing articles with the same intent and a similarly narrow focus (e.g. Bibliography of fly-fishing, List of books about bacon). As such, I am happy for this discussion to be closed. That said, I do not agree with your analysis that AfD is not there to "answer my questions": I was raising one, very specific question, about whether or not the article should be deleted. That quite clearly is the intent of AfD. Indeed, though you may not have liked my grammatical construction, I was in fact sketching an argument for deletion which I thought had a reasonable chance of proceeding (mostly based on my relative difficulty finding any material that differentiated between the various type of bibliography article. In any case, I agree its a moot point. Best, - Jarry1250 13:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  - Sorry if I misunderstood, but you said you were "ambivalent," which to me meant you weren't sure whether this needed to be deleted, and AFDs shouldn't be started unless you have already decided something should be deleted. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. G12 Ronhjones 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Redtone

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

I tagged this article with {{Afd}} for 2 reasons, the article is somewhat promotional and has some sentences in inappropriate tense, and an article of this size cannot be held up by just 2 citations. These issues are borderline enough for me not to put a DB-A7-G11 double-bomb on the article, so I did this instead. Note: This is my first afd nomin., so if I am not right please correct me. Passengerpigeon (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Just for your knowledge, of the two reasons you list, one surely makes no sense. That "the article is somewhat promotional and has some sentences in inappropriate tense" is definitely NOT a reason to go to AfD, let alone speedy deletion. AfD is not cleanup, and our deletion policy tells us that if an article can be fixed by editing, then we must fix it, not delete it. Please remember that. I'll have a look at notability. --Cyclopia 21:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I can find very little on Google Books/News in English language (this is the only significant), but I suspect a Malaysian-language search could give a different result. --Cyclopia 22:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, should I remove the AFD and put a cleanup tag there instead? Passengerpigeon (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if removing the AFD is the right thing to do -after all, there are indeed sourcing/notability problems. I just wanted to make it clear that style issues are never, ever a reason to delete anything. --Cyclopia 10:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. Passengerpigeon (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete G12. The nominator's concerns come from blatant copyright infringement. The article was copied two of the companies websites and a news article. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Bayside, Queens#Education. Redirecting to borough as no article for the school district exists, and I see more of a reason to reidrect there than the Department of Education (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Marie Curie Middle School 158

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

Non-notable middle school, unreferenced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to school district per usual practice for primary and middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Shinobu Kaitani. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Winner's Circle e Youkoso

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

Search for reliable, third-party sources turns up nothing to demonstrate that it passes the inclusion criteria at WP:NOTE or WP:BK. Disputed prod. —Farix (t | c) 11:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Shinobu Kaitani. The creator is notable (although his article needs work), but this individual work is not. Other than sources that prove it exists and one or two brief mentions that it started, there is nothing out there to show notability at this point in time. It may become notable in the future and I have no problem with it being un-redirected at that time, but right now it is just too early for an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Shinobu Kaitani per Tokyogirl79. While the manga isn't notable on its own due to a lack of significant coverage, a mention in its creator's article wouldn't hurt. Narutolovehinata5 09:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Article has been transwikied to http://manga.wikia.com/Winner%27s_Circle_e_Youkoso with full history. Dream Focus 22:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was Snow delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Heraa Hashmi

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

Neither Ms Hashmi nor her book have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I did a search and I was unable to find any sources that show notability for her. I see an article where someone by the same name rescued her sister from a fire (and if this is her, then well done!), but as nice as it'd be to give her an article based solely on her heroics it isn't enough to pass WP:AUTHOR.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Unknown. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Sue Rangell and Tokyogirl. Mediran 00:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, same reasons (WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR; according to birth year 1997, she may indeed be the person involved in the fire, who is reported to have been 13 in 2010). This may all be of interest for an article about her once she attains notability (for ex. in terms of awards, media attention, etc; there do exist Literary awards honouring young writers, and would she be a recipient of one of those it might be a different story). --Chris Howard (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was Snow delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dean Kerr

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

Unnotable association football player. Lead claims he played for a professional team in Australia but according to the article he didn't make an appearance for the first team. Cloudz 679 08:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 08:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country in at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. What has this person actually DONE? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - seems awfully autobiographical to me. Also fails WP:NFOOTY outright. Stalwart111 01:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete.

Numerically, the opinions for keeping or deleting the article are about equally divided. But viewed in the light of our core policies, the "delete" opinions are considerably stronger.

The "delete" opinions argue - in some detail, based on the specifics of the discussion surrounding castes in India - that there are no reliable sources on which this list could be based. If this argument is true, then the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR mandate the list's deletion. As it happens, the "keep" opinions mostly do not address or rebut this argument; at most, they broadly assert that sources must exist, without however naming specific reliable sources that could be used as a basis for this list. The argument for deleting the list as unverifiable is also supported by the fact that three days ago, apparently without opposition, the list was reduced to the one entry (of potentially several thousand) for which a source is cited. Consequently, because the argument of unverifiability appears valid and has not been rebutted, the list is deleted.

There seems to be consensus that this would be in theory a worthwhile subject for an encyclopedic list, if the sourcing issue could be resolved. As such, this deletion discussion does not bar the recreation of a reliably and thoroughly sourced list of this kind, but I suggest that any draft (and the sources used for it) should first be discussed in userspace or in a project forum among knowledgeable contributors. Sandstein 08:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Indian castes

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

It is very rare that I see a list that needs to be replaced by a category or hierarchy of categories. That only happens when the list is so enormous as to be unmaintainable and when a list per se adds no value to the project because of size and maintainability.

So it is with this list. It is incomplete, but who can tell? It is assuredly important. The area is of great encyclopaedic interest. But the list is a woefully inadequate tool to provide the reader with an encyclopaedic view of the topic matter.I do not doubt the excellent motives that drove the creation of this list. It has simply grown into an unmaintainable item.

I am perfectly aware that it is unusual to suggest a list for replacement by categories, Usually I support the existence of both indexing mechanisms. I have given this list a great deal of thought, and cannot see that splitting it into sublists would serve the purpose.

The final nail in its coffin for me is the almost impossible job of validating each entry as being a proper member of the list. The list has few enough references to consider it to be unreferenced. Any set of references would double or treble the length of the list.

With all this in mind I recommend it be deleted and be replaced by a valid scheme of categories and subcategories, a scheme which may already exist. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I opened a discussion at Talk:List of Indian castes#Original research a few hours ago. I am not optimistic that anything will come of it and this AfD rather supersedes the thing. Nonetheless, the points mentioned there might be of interest to anyone reviewing this proposal. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN - see Castes and Tribes of Southern India, for example. The claim that replacing this list with one or more categories would be better is false, as noted by WP:CLN which points out that categories have numerous disadvantages including:

There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion
The category namespace is not included by default in searches using Knowledge's search box. ...
Entries are arranged in alphabetical order only ... They cannot be organized into sections and subsections on a single page, each with its own descriptive introduction.
Does not support other forms of tracking, such as adding red links...
Gives no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration...
Alternative names for the same item can be included only by including redirects in the category.

Our editing policy is to improve content in situ rather than deleting it. By maintaining imperfect work we are able to study and refine it. Deletion of such a large list would disrupt this work by making the content inaccessible to all but admins. Are admins going to do the work of improving this subject? Warden (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the book you link to (Edgar Thurston) is not a reliable source. Also, listing castes was an obsession of the British Raj. It didn't exist before and it has not existed since - I think that a read of H. H. Risley, in particular, would be instructive for those arguing for WP:LISTN and, indeed, most of the other standard "keep list and category" arguments. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

People can read about Edgar Thurston and his work here. This demonstrates the notability of the topic. When he writes, for example, that "The Kabberas are a caste of Canarese fisherman", this seems fine for our purpose. He provides a source (W. Francis) and we see this confirmed in other more recent works such as The Fishing Culture of the World. Warden (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Now do the same for all the other castes that he mentions. There is consensus that he is unreliable. Honestly, there will be very few people here who know more about the subject of caste in India than myself and it is I who wrote articles such as those for Risley, Rose and Thurston. No-one is disputing that there should be articles on notable castes: the issue is whether there should be a list of them. I draw your attention to my comments at Talk:List of Indian castes, referred to above. This is not a straightforward WP:ARS or "I always vote to keep lists and cats" type of situation. The only person who is likely to take on maintaining this list any time soon is me, and the same could be said for any time in the last couple of years. I'm not prepared to do that maintenance because it is a completely hopeless task. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I trust that you are aware that Thurston's book was published in 1909 and that your link is to a 1987 reprint. Francis was c. 1840, which puts him just after the utterly dreadful James Tod (another of "my" articles, if you excuse the claim to ownership). - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
It is quite normal for systems of classification to have difficulties and disputed entries. The issue here is not whether we can have perfection but whether categories are an exclusively better way of doing the job. The standard guidance is that lists and categories are complementary and so we will get the best result by using both. Your claim that you personally should determine this should be dismissed per WP:OWN. The graveyards are full of indispensable people. Warden (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what is normal: there are always exceptions. Equally, I am not so stupid that I seek perfection - I just do not think many people realise just how difficult it is to get even within, say, 70% of perfection here, which would make the list so lacking in authority as to be an embarrassment. If you want to take me on regarding that aspect then put your money where your mouth is, I guess. These Indic caste subjects can always use the help of more people with the sort of experience of Knowledge etc that you have.
Also, I specifically did not claim that I should determine things. Please do not put words into my mouth. I haven't even formally supported or opposed this yet because I am still thinking about it. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about the topic area. Please could you provide some background for those, like myself, who are coming fresh to it. The list seems to have existed since 2005 but this seems to be its first appearance at AFD and it doesn't seem to have much in the way of clean-up tags. My impression is that it has been neglected and so some brisk cleanup would make a big difference. What can you tell us of its history, please? What has provoked this nomination? Warden (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Tbh, I think a lot of experienced contributors see an article about caste and simply run for the hills because, as Malleus says here, it is a misery to deal with. Things have improved over the last couple of years, prior to which probably the only person who was consistently trying to keep things in order was Utcursch. However, the sheer volume of articles cf the number who are interested in cleaning them up is very disproportionate. And as India/Pakistan become more connected with the web & are more encouraged to contribute by the high-profile WMF initiative over there, so the number of problems is rising at an alarming rate.
I will try to come up with a mini-essay in my userspace that explains the problems in the context of this article but, honestly, I am already in the middle of another big clean-up and so it may take me a while. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. In the meantime, editors who want some background might try History of the Indian caste system and, for an article on a comparable topic, Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas. Warden (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As proposer of this list for deletion I would like to confirm that I am wholly in favour of individual articles on notable and verifiable castes. Sitush has summarised the issues with articles in this area far better than anyone I've seen. What I've noticed with articles of this type in this geographic area is an attitude of "Their name appears, so must mine" and the list gets out of any semblance of control very fast. This is the main reason why I suggest that this list is better presented as a category or categories, with all the deficiencies that Warden has enumerated so well of a category scheme. Sometimes one must choose a 'least worst' approach. Usually I favour lists and categories together. Very rarely indeed I feel a list is out of place. This one I feel to be appallingly hard, if not impossible, to maintain. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP This list adds to Knowledge and is important. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably neither of those arguments hold any sway here. The list is not important at all. Simply looking at it shows that in spades. And it cannot add any value to Knowledge. Again just look at it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Backing Tim here, I can't imagine how you found this article useful. In all absolute seriousness and not at all being sarcastic, did you actually look at the article, or are you simply assuming that castes are important topics (they are) and that a list seems like a convenient way to organise it? That would sound logical, but in actuality the list is utter junk, with a bizarre tacked-on sub-article, and generally in a constant state of flux that doesn't indicate lively evolution, but just nobody having any idea what should be here and what shouldn't, and a zillion drive-by IPs with axes to grind. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Castes are important, of course they are, and are verifiable and notable, and should be here. The list of castes, while doubtless a great idea when started, is worse than useless. The list does not add value to Knowledge, nor does it perform a useful function for those researching castes, either fully or casually. We need at times to throw out the trash. It started out well, but has become utter trash. There is no scope for recycling this trash, it is landfill material only. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Being incomplete and unreferenced are not valid reasons for deletion. The list is encyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, Of course it is a valid reason for deletion, per WP:V. So it would help if you go source it, please, and (seriously) be prepared for me to challenge those sources. The last couple of keeps here merely demonstrate the usual piling on that happens when it comes to list articles being proposed for deletion. You need to understand the background and it seems likely that you do not, in the sense that I cannot recall either of you having had any substantive involvement with Indic content. Let's put it this way, there is nothing wrong with anyone supporting or opposing a nomination at Afd ... but it helps if you understand that sometimes the issues run a bit deeper than a mere policy reaction. Yes, any decision in theory has to be based on policy but common sense can apply and, sadly, too few people understand the underlying issues in this particular subject area. Even most of those signed up to WT:INB seem to prefer to keep out of it. I really need to write the mini-essay that I refer to above, I guess, although I'd welcome people to actually do something practical to improve the article rather than just issue platitudes. I have posted a note of this discussion at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

NB: only one reference in that list currently relates to the matter at hand. The rest relates to what amounts to a (presumably well-intentioned) hijacking of the list by a prolific-but-poor creator of caste stubs etc. There is a shedload of difference between castes and the umpteen lists of Other Backward Classes & the contributor knows this very well. That issue, of course, can be fixed merely by deleting the inappropriate content but given that this AfD has superseded the discussion that I opened on the list talk page, I for one am not prepared to do it right now. - Sitush (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Indian government conducted its first caste census in 2011 and recognizes scheduled castes . You yourself admitted the article just needs cleanup, but because you don't have the time, it must be deleted? Seriously? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Where have I admitted that it just needs clean up? I was referring merely to the hijacked element currently towards the bottom end of the list. Have you looked at my critique of it at the talk page? Caste censuses are not new in India. They've never been other than disputed in the past and, frankly, I doubt that the 2011 version will be any different when the final results emerge (if, indeed, they are ever published ... and they may not be for political reasons).
The list that you linked to has nothing to do with that census. It relates to a reservation system introduced following Indian independence, when the constitution had formally (if not practically) abolished the caste concept. Additionally, holding that J&K list up as an example suggests that you are failing to grasp (a) a tribe is not a caste; (b) Scheduled groups are only a small part of the whole and a large number (the so-called Forward Castes) are not enumerated by any government; (c) the names used by the J&K government will not align with those used by other state govts and union territories, etc but can be the same groups - hence WP:OR comes in; and (d) there is no agreed definition of what does constitute a caste beyond the blindingly obvious. This is a very complex area and I rather suspect that you do not fully understand it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, difficulties with classification are quite normal. For example, there's the well-known controversy about whether Pluto is a planet. Many entities such as rivers have no exact definition but we manage to have a list of rivers regardless and we'd be a poor encyclopedia if we didn't. Warden (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, in this instance, resolving classification difficulties seems to be completely unfeasible. Unless you have any suggestions as to how it might be achieved while remaining compliant with our various policies - WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc. Instead of this being some sort of meta-discussion, it should be one of those examples where an article really has to be considered on its own merits. I'd welcome any help in enabling this list to remain but I fear that it will not be forthcoming: what I am seeing is people giving theoretical reasons for retention that bear no relation to the practicalities of maintaining something that is remotely encyclopaedic. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Castes were written into the Indian constitution and there have been multiple censuses. There is a huge amount of scholarship on the issue and so the difficulty seems to be that we have too many sources not too few. This just makes it a matter of hard work. If you're not prepared to roll your sleeves up and do this work then that's ok because this is a volunteer effort and we don't have a deadline. We maintain drafts in mainspace so that editors can inspect and update them and it is policy that we should work in this way. Warden (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that just shows how little you understand. I suggest that you read your own search results. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If we look at the first page listed there then the first caste named in one of the abstracts is Pallar. We have an article about these people and from what can read there and elsewhere, they are recognised officially as a scheduled caste. A further search indicates that there are numerous scholarly sources which recognise these people as a caste and which detail their history and circumstances. How is there any kind of problem or difficulty in including this entry? Warden (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

They are known by numerous other names in numerous other regions - we would have to engage in original research to establish that we are not duplicating them as, say, Mallar (that's an obvious example, by the way, and it is usually beyond tricky). We could also be engaging in synthesis of sources, since no single source will iterate all of the various names. Furthermore, that they are a scheduled caste in one place does not mean that they are a scheduled caste somewhere else: they might not even be classified as a caste at all but rather as a tribe (a completely different thing). - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just removed Scheduled caste from Pallar. That was pure WP:OR. I note that you have included them in the list. Are you aware that untouchables are by definition outside the caste system and that the word "caste" is often used as a synonym for "community" or "group"? - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the first paragraph of Ezhava. That is a fairly uncomplicated example of naming issues, although we frequently get people from the Thiyya community here claiming that they are a distinct caste (but unable to verify it - see the histories in the numerous redirects). - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Then note Chekavar, who are mentioned in the lead of the Ezhava article. We think that they are a sub-caste - or, at least, that is what the Chekavar article currently says. In fact, they may not be even a subcaste but rather a gotra. Multiply this by over 4000 (the last estimate of the number of castes in modern India alone, thus excluding the many extinct groups and the issue of how to define modern-day communities in Pakistan etc that are no longer castes but many once have been prior to partition). Then multiply it by, say, another 1000 (for example, there are over 2700 gotras of the Jats). - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Naming problems are normal. Consider rivers again. You are, like myself, perhaps familiar with the River Cam. Notice that this river has an alternative name — the Granta. Notice also that it has several namesakes such as River Cam, Gloucestershire. Notice also that it flows into the Ouse and so is part of the larger drainage system. There are many thousands of such rivers in the world and yet, despite the difficulties of definition, naming and scope, we endeavour to maintain lists of them. The difficulties here seem no different in principle. And it still does not seem that categories are any better in dealing with these difficulties.Warden (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not said that categories are better. All I've said is that this list is useless. To extend further from your Pallar example, read p. 169 of the source to which you referred. "Scheduled Caste" ~~(more commonly known in Indian govt parlance as "Scheduled Class" because they abhor the idea of caste)~~Struck: it is OBCs that they detest calling "caste" because they are the mostly Hindu elements, whereas SCs are mostly Christians/Buddhists etc. is a "state welfare category". It has nothing to do with the traditional caste system as defined by the Hindu religion and, indeed, as dalits and Christians, the Pallars would be outside the traditional system. Indeed, the precise reason why they will appear in Scheduled Class lists is because as dalits they are deemed to be socially and economically disadvantaged: the true castes have traditionally oppressed them. This has a bearing on one of the points I raised at Talk:List of Indian castes - how the heck do we define this and keep people from warring over it? You may not be aware of the extent to which warring goes on but it is because of that we had to introduce general sanctions for caste/community articles not too long ago. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete: I've been covering Indic topics heavily for about two years now, so while not on Sitush's level I move in similar circles in my smaller way. We fought this same fight at Maratha clan system which was an ungodly sprawl of clans, and then someone would remove clans they didn't like, and someone else would drop in scads of propaganda about their own clan, etc. Fundamentally, list articles are great for things that can be at least generally defined, but the Indian caste system is sufficiently amorphous that any such list is going to be an ongoing nightmare and undue maintenance hassle, and for no real benefit over having a general Category and some good holistic articles like Indian caste system that summarise the general concepts involved. FYI, at Maratha clan system we ended up just citing the RSs which state, simply, that there a zillion opinions as to who is and who isn't a Maratha clan, and no list that suits everyone has ever existed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NPOV. Wait, what, you say? WP:NPOV is a cause for cleanup, not a cause for deletion. Ah, but in this case, the mere existence of an incomplete article will necessarily violate WP:NPOV. This is because there is no definitive source on castes, nor, for that matter, much high quality, modern scholarship on it, primarily because the "official" stance in India is that the system no longer exists so everything would be better if we all just stopped talking about it. But, of course, the castes did "once" exist, and, as a simple examination of modern Indian life and politics will show, still very much do exist. So, we have to talk about them in some way. The problem is, lacking a good, clear list means that we will necessarily be cobbling together a whole variety of sources, each of which will be of varying quality. Furthermore, there will certainly be disagreements among sources (for those not in the know, "caste" is not a term with a universally agreed upon meaning, and Group X might be a "caste" to one author and a "sub-caste" or "tribe" to another). These are disagreements that cannot be adequately accounted for in a list. Further-furthermore, there will necessarily be "missing" groups; these are groups of living people, and their existence or non-existence in a given "grouping" can have significant consequences. Without the ability to provide good, solid sources and examine the details, we will necessarily unbalanced. Categories are fine, because they simply involve a way to organize information on the back end. But a list necessarily carries weight and authority. Since we cannot create the list responsibly (i.e., neutrally), we should not have the list at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The claim that "categories are fine" seems absurd. For example category:Indian castes by profession is tagged as under-populated. If we drill down a little, we find an article such as Arayan. This has multiple categories category:Indian castes and category:Fishing castes. There are no references to support this and so no way of verifying the classification. How is this fine? And if we wanted to keep an eye on these categories to check that they are kept in good shape, how would we do it? Does the "back end" take care of this for us in some magical way? Warden (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the categorisation system is black magic to many people but that is not a reason to keep a completely unencyclopaedic list that hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of being encyclopaedic any time soon. The likes of myself can work on improving the categorisation schema and the verification of its entries should be in the articles itself. It isn't as if the list would do a better job than the cats and, in fact, as I've explained above, it will in most cases fail abysmally even if it were sourced (which it isn't). - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Unfortunately you are using rhetoric regarding the back end, Mediawiki software, which is alarmingly deficient in much of its processing of data anyway. But we use it because it is what we have.

The list is a bizarre and hopeless mess, and is unmaintainable despite efforts to maintain it. Those who police the individual articles police the categories into which the article are entered. In many ways you have it backwards. People do not police categories because the articles are policed. That has always been the case here and will be until the software is enhanced. None of this removes the plain fact that the list is an appalling mess and way past anyone's ability to maintain. It outgrew maintainability a long time ago.

You make a good case for improvement of the underlying software, though, and should propose this in the correct forum. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason why the categories are okay is because there is no requirement that the members of a category meet ] (that is, this has nothing to do with technical issues). The category itself must be neutral, but there is no obligation to make sure it is fully populated with all available topics. Another way of saying this is that categories are not, themselves, encyclopedic entries; rather, they're just a collection of hyperlinks of articles that are similar. The responsibility for making sure that each article belongs in a category falls upon each pages editors. It's fine to have an incomplete category; incomplete lists may be fine if the incompleteness is "neutral", but that is not the case here. If this isn't clear, I can make an analogy, but I don't want to overburden the discussion if it already makes sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me put this a different way: if the article is not deleted, we will be obligated, per WP:NPOV, to blank it until such time as we can find adequate sourcing to ensure that we are covering the topic neutrally. Obviously, it would be ludicrous to have a blank list. But I will do so if necessary. We cannot have unsourced items on this list, we cannot rely on poor sources (like Thurston), and we cannot synthesize multiple lists unless they are absolutely non-contradictory. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Tearing down a list and building it up again with improved sourcing and structure is fine and I have seen this done in several cases. But that's ordinary editing not deletion and deletion would be disruptive to the process because it makes the history inaccessible. The issue here is use of the delete function. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Colonel Warden, I don't think you understand--if the article is kept, now that I am aware of it, I will blank it and keep it blanked--there cannot be an NPOV compliant version of this list given the lack of available high quality sources. As for Dream Focus's comment, again, you're not understanding—listing only some castes and not listing others, or calling something a caste when another source calls it a sub-caste will fundamentally violate NPOV. This is not a case where we can afford to get it kind-of right. I am even willing to argue that BLP applies here if I have to, per the WP:BLPGROUP extension. Having an incomplete list is much much worse than having no list, and is actively harmful to living human beings. So, if you want to preserve a blank article awaiting the day when decent sources become available, go ahead, but this list cannot until such time as things change in the real world. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The threat is an empty one because page blanking is not acceptable. See also WP:PRAM. Warden (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:NPOV override other concerns. It's not a threat--it's making the article compliant with policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll rephrase: I would not, of course, blank a page which met our policies. But it is my belief, based upon what I know about this field, that sources do not exist which would allow us to build a neutral article which does not do harm to living people. If such sources do exist, and have simply not yet been presented, I welcome their addition to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep You don't delete list articles because you prefer categories. There is no NPOV issue, since you can click on any of the links and find the information in those articles. Dream Focus 09:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, obviously, the caste would be listed in some official government documents or a history book. Dream Focus 10:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to read what Sitush has written about this area. While your assumption is reasonable about such a list it seems absent in practice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I did. If you doubt one source, look for another. And if anything is disputed on the list, add a disputed tag to it. If we can call them castes in their main articles, we can put them on list that calls them that here. There is no way possible there isn't a valid government document out there somewhere listing the castes. Check some old census data perhaps. They kept track of it before, and probably still do. Dream Focus 10:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

... And there is where you appear to be wrong. Find that information and you will have done something no-one else has managed to achieve in a very long time. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a case of wishing to delete a list because I (as nominator) prefer categories. I do not generally do so, nor do I nominate a list lightly for deletion. There are a few cases where it is plain as a pikestaff that a list simply does not or can not do the job effectively. Normally I argue strongly for a list to be retained alongside relevant categories. This is not a case where I feel I can make that argument, and I have gone further than not making it and suggested we reach a verdict on the retention or deletion of the list. Sometimes we must take a view that goes counter to instinct that lists always to be preserved. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You do not seem to have provided any evidence, logical argument or policy to support your contention that categories are superior to a list in this case. The standard guidance contradicts you. To make a case, you need to do more than just assert it. Warden (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me to be altogether strange that the evidence of one's own eyes is a thing that can be disregarded here. 'Lists' on Knowledge is a topic that always seems to have those who consider that every list must stay come hell or high water even when use of the mark one eyeball shows in a very few cases that a particular list is not serving the project well as a whole. What I have to do and do not have to do is never set in stone. We are not in a court of law, and even the law is a grey area as lawyers will tell you. All I need to do is to ask the community to look with care at the article and at the arguments presented, and to use reasonable care in coming to a conclusion. I am doing that. Lists are not things that must remain here unless they have a useful purpose. When their usefulness passes so must the list article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It might help if those favouring a keep would define "caste". I am unsure that even after all this discussion they really understand that there is no agreed definition and that if we try to bring some sort of order to the article by use of a contrived definition then all hell will break loose. Yet if we do not contrive a definition then all hell will also break loose eventually because the list will end up containing many tens of thousands of gotras etc and pretty irrelevant stuff such as the OBC and SC/ST lists. Just the single example given by Warden above re: the Pallars already demonstrates this (basically, I am contesting his edit to the list). - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your statement about the need to contrive a definition, together with what will happen if a definition is not contrived suggests very clearly that this list is a list that should not exist, even must not exist.

Do you intend to cast your own !vote in this discussion or will you rely on your statements to others in the discussion and anticipate a thoughtful closure in due course to "count" your !vote"? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be !voting. It is just that, as I said in my first post on the article talk page, I am seeking some compelling reason not to delete the list. So far, I haven't seen one. I am also wondering whether I should copy that opening post over to this discussion! - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You want a definition for something, check the dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caste I think that explains it quite well. There is also a link at the top of this list article for Caste system in India which explains it to you, and the article caste can explain it even farther, it having a section for India. Dream Focus 14:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Those are multiple definitions, not one. Which is precisely my point. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You couldn't figure that out?

1 : one of the hereditary social classes in Hinduism that restrict the occupation of their members and their association with the members of other castes

2a : a division of society based on differences of wealth, inherited rank or privilege, profession, occupation, or race b : the position conferred by caste standing : prestige

3: a system of rigid social stratification characterized by hereditary status, endogamy, and social barriers sanctioned by custom, law, or religion

4: a specialized form (as the worker of an ant or bee) of a polymorphic social insect that carries out a particular function in the colony

Now obviously these aren't ants or bees, so number four you can ignore. The first three are all the same. It is a hereditary social class in Hinduism, and this is used also to do number 2 which as the caste articles explain divides people based on inherited rank, privilege, profession, and occupation. And number 3 fits also into this. Dream Focus 14:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so are the Saint Thomas Christians a caste? Was B. R. Ambedkar a member of a caste? - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Saint Thomas Christians are not in the list in question, nor are they in a caste category. Britannica doesn't call them a caste and neither do we. Not seeing the problem there. B. R. Ambedkar was born a dalit and we have him in various dalit categories. Britannica confirms this saying "...leader of the Dalits (Scheduled Castes; formerly called untouchables) and law minister of the government of India (1947–51). Born of a Dalit Mahar family of western India, he was as a boy humiliated by his high-caste schoolfellows." As neither of these entities is in the list in question, is there a point to these questions? Warden (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, my point is that (a) St Thomas Christians are considered to be a caste by many anthropologists and sociologists, and they have been campaigning (like so many other groups) for a revised scheduling because they feel they are losing out under the reservation laws; and (b) Ambedkar denied that caste existed: he was the architect of the constitutional statement that caste is an invalid construct, and his dalit community appears in the Scheduled Caste lists. He was a Buddhist. Go figure. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw, there are at least two possible reasons why the STCs are not categorised as a caste. One is simply because no-one has bothered to do so yet, and the other is discussed at Saint Thomas Christians#Caste status. I've dealt with STC people on Knowledge and, believe me, they argue strongly that the STCs are a caste and they have produced plenty of evidence to support their POV. That evidence often appears to take a form rather similar to the concept of Sanskritisation, ie: campaigning and adapting to change the perception of how they are seen/treated in order to better themselves. Similarly, the Paravars are mostly Christian and are a caste. There are also many Sikh and Muslim castes, although some of those in Pakistan (formerly India, of course) claim to be tribes but were treated as castes by the Raj. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Btw, the "India" section at Caste is supposed to be my responsibility. Obviously, anyone can have a go but if you check the voluminous talk page threads you will see that I was asked to expand that section ... and I warned that it would take a good long time to do so. When people such as Fowler&fowler defer expansion of a section to me, well, it kind of indicates the level of complexity that exists/degree of knowledge that is required to knock it into shape. (Although the less charitable might question the nominators' sanity, I guess). Similarly, you will see that I have been involved at Caste in India, where the article got taken over by a few people who are now topic banned. As things stand, neither of those articles is much good and, of course, at least one of them is a core article. If you think that they are decent articles, well, all I can say is that you have much to learn and perhaps at some point in the next few months they will be improved in a manner that enables you to learn that muchness :) Sitush (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec here too) Dream Focus, your argument is in such obvious bad faith that it should be stricken. Yes, we all agree that that is the general definition of caste. Did you write a damn thing that Sitush said? You're acting like there is one single way of dividing people in India (and its surrounding areas), as if every definable group is a "caste". That is flat out, unbelievably wrong. It would be like saying every single geographical unit constitutes a "region", no matter how large or small. The caste system is inordinately complex and, more importantly for the present discussion, not even close to agreed upon in any way. Take imaginary group X. In one naming system, they are a caste. But in another naming system, they are a gotra (which is sort-of like a sub-caste, but not exactly). In another naming system, they're neither--they're just a group of people who share a common name. Then, just to make matters worse, there's another source that points out that they were once considered a sub-caste of Group Y, but through political processes formed into an independent Caste, then later attempt to assert that they were actually always a sub-caste of Group Z. And this is normal! In the article on Group X, we have all sorts of time and space to devote to the various theories about what type of unit they are. But do we add them to this list? There is, in fact, no answer to that question--and whichever decision we make, we violate NPOV. You've made several ridiculous assertions, such as the claim that there must be an official list somewhere. My guess is that you're simply transposing what you know about population groups in your home country and transposing them onto India and assuming that there must be equivalencies. But there are not. And this is all complicated by the fact that caste permeates every day life in India, but is simultaneously "officially" non-existant, even though at the same time the government provides support for groups that "used to" be disadvantaged by the system, but, but but but but. There is no NPOV version of this list, and there likely won't be for many dozens of years. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want confirmation that someone is scrambling around a bit, look at this query. Given what I've already said (there is no such list), I was surprised to see DF pose the question at another of the many caste-related articles on my watchlist. You'll not get a positive response there, otherwise I would have fixed the darn issues a long, long time ago. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked people in that relevant article if there was a list since someone there might know. Just because you personally couldn't find something, doesn't mean its not out there. And I did find the census of India once kept records of all of the caste. So it might be possible to find them all listed in some old documents from that. Dream Focus 15:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry but you really do not have a clue, do you? All you have found is a sack of tripe and if you think that I and others who edit this sphere of articles did not already know of it, well, I pity you. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to believe no one else will find something simply because you were unable to, and then act as rude and arrogant as can be. Dream Focus 15:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it offends me that you are treating me as some sort of ill-informed idiot. Honestly, you do not know what you are talking about and everything you are adding to this thread is just making that more obvious. If you think that is arrogance then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (@DF) Let us presuppose those old documents exist. Life in India has moved on since such a document (that may or may not exist) was drafted. One also has to consider by whom it was drafted, if it exists, and where that then sits in the background of flux that has been presented to you with care. I do see with clarity where you are coming from and why you argue as you do, but I think we are in an area where the water is so muddy as to be impenetrable. I'm wholly sympathetic to your argument and would be swayed by it in many other areas, just not this one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

1891 Census of India already shows all the caste. Someone already compiled the data from the census. Even if the numbers or whatever are in dispute anywhere, they should know the names of the various caste in their society to get those right. Dream Focus 15:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is bollocks. Read H. H. Risley for some background please. You are teaching me to suck eggs. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We can rename the article List of Indian castes according to official Indian Census then. You can then make a note above it why you believe that census is "bollocks" and why it was "an exercise in social engineering by a bunch of ill-informed scientific racists." Dream Focus 15:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Herbert Hope Risley's article says "He is notable for the formal application of the caste system to the entire Hindu population of India in the 1901 census, of which he was in charge." So do you doubt the information there, where he list the different caste? Dream Focus 15:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Have you seen who was the major contributor to the HHR article? Have you read it right through rather than just cherry-picking? - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You may also be interested in this from the Nair article (standard disclaimer regarding major contributor):
The 1891 Census of India listed a total of 128 Nair subgroups in the Malabar region and 55 in the Cochin region, as well as a further 10 in the Madras area but outside Malabar. There were 44 listed in Travancore in the census of 1901. These designations were, however, somewhat fluid: the numbers tended to rise and fall, dependent upon which source and which research was employed; it is likely also that the figures were skewed by Nairs claiming a higher status than they actually had, which was a common practice throughout India. Data from the late 19th-century and early 20th-century censuses indicates that ten of these numerous subdivisions accounted for around 90% of all Nairs, that the five highest ranking of these accounted for the majority, and that some of the subdivisions claimed as little as one member. The writer of the official report of the 1891 census, H A Stuart, acknowledged that some of the recorded subdivisions were in fact merely families and not subcastes, and Fuller has speculated that the single-member subdivisions were "Nayars satisfying their vanity, I suppose, through the medium of the census."
- Sitush (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
And, from the same article, "The Nair include several castes and many subdivisions, not all of whom historically bore the name 'Nair'." Then look further down to the collapsed list of those subdivisions: there is no agreement. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete The list doesn't perform any significant function more than a category would do. It is near to impossible to validate the entries and classify them. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitray break for ease of editing number 1

Delete As Anbu121 says, it is impossible to verify entries in this list let alone classify them. No list is better than an unverifiable one. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is it that we cannot verify whether a caste belongs in this list of Indian castes, but we can verify whether a caste belongs in a category of Indian castes? I don't see that explained above. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't explained above. No-one has provided any evidence, policy or reasoning to explain how and why the list is an inferior way of categorising this. Warden (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Individual articles are, as I am sure I have said before, properly policed by those who edit them. Their membership or otherwise of the category is by consensus within the article. They are not the free-for-all that this list is. While the same policing should be applied to the list the calibre of the editors who add to the list is by no means the same as the calibre of those who police the articles. You are expecting miracles which patently do not arrive. If they did the article would not be up for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's blatantly false. For example, see Arayan — an example which I gave earlier. This was picked out from a caste category just because it was the first. The article is a crude draft and has no citation; not one. To claim that categories are fine because they are derived from articles like this is absurd; a fantasy; a falsehood. Warden (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Warden - you can cherry pick anything, of course you can. Flag that article for improvement and move on. At present you are making circular arguments that seem to be based upon a religious zeal either that no article should be deleted, or that lists must never be deleted because they are lists. Both of those arguments are equally false. Sometimes trash is trash. Improve it or lose it. At the moment the article under consideration is this appalling list. DIverting us to random articles that are also poor ins amusing, but does not move the discussion forward. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not cherry-picking; I'm just showing the first examples I come across. Drilling down in the category:Indian castes, I next find Agrawal. This is in a better state but concerning caste, in its lead, it says, "Agrawals are considered to be the highest and most important subdivision of the Vaish caste in northern India." But notice that this is tagged {{citation needed}}. And notice also that User:Sitush seems to watch over this article. Is this trash too? Are we to delete all these impossible-to-maintain articles and categories? Warden (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So fix the examples you find? If they need fixing, fix them Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am content to work upon the list. This is easier than editing hundreds of articles in parallel. That's a big problem with maintaining categories; they are spread out across many articles. Warden (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The article Agrawal is a well referenced article missing some citations. You are employing somewhat empty rhetoric. It's your right to do so, but the exercise is rather bizarre. We are meant to be making an encyclopaedia, not scoring schoolyard style points. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is the caste category which matters. You have claimed that we can rely upon these because they are based upon quality articles. That argument is false - see counter-example. Warden (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing the list here, not some random article which, if it is listed here, patently should not be. It is unreferenced, as is this list. I am not about to go through every last Caste article because the topic doesn't interest me. But you seem to argue every which way. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You know that article fooled me too. I saw a huge mess, and it fooled me into a hasty nomination for its deletion as a strongly suspected copyvio. Then I looked at the article history and reverted it to a decent but unreferenced stub. I have withdrawn the nomination for deletion for it and moved on. And this is what we experienced editors, among whom you number, should be doing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The version of Arayan which Fiddle Faddle has just created still doesn't have any citations and so the claimed caste category is not verified. Is this trash too? Warden (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is getting very silly. (1) I have not created it, I have returned it to that state. (2) It is and was unreferenced. We have the absolute right to propose it for deletion. Why should we not? Please stop diverting the discussing into other articles. Handle them or not as you see fit. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS will always be true. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

These other articles are relevant because they are the basis of the categories which you claim supersede this list. This is the basis of your nomination, remember. Warden (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You may barrack room lawyer as much as you like, Warden. The fact remains that trash is trash. You would need an infinite supply of turd polish to attempt to polish the turd that the list article is. I'm aware that you enjoy the cut and thrust of debate. Boring folk into submission is rather, well, boring, though. Time to improve the article if you believe you can. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Let me give some more reasoning why category is sufficient. The current condition of the article is that it only lists the name of the castes and does not provide any more details or any classification. Let us assume that it is possible to source the list (although I highly doubt it). By sourcing, I meant the names of the castes. A list in wikipedia should have some details about the entries, not just the names of the entries. In this case, the details are the classification of the castes, which is a highly ambiguous and controversial topic and it is impossible to find neutral sources to validate the classification. Even if not for classification, it is almost impossible to source and neutrally present any details about castes in a list. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
...which goes back to my comment above: if it is not possible to properly source a caste for inclusion in this list, it is not possible to properly source a caste for inclusion in a category. Fiddle Faddle's answer is really that it is more difficult to police the list's sourcing than the categorization of many individual articles, which I don't buy anyway because all you have to do is watchlist this single list if you are so concerned about it. The comment that the caliber of editors is somehow worse for this list is also complete bollocks, and really one of the worst deletion arguments I have ever seen, even worse than the examples given at WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. Again, just become one of the editors and improve the quality of that pool.
The list further has the capability to be annotated so you can explain why a particular entry is included: what sources classify it as such, and what disagreements there might be over that classification. Categorization lacks any such potential; articles appear in a category without explanation. So in my mind, this insistence that a category is somehow easier to police than a list is completely backwards. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not of the opinion that category is easier to police. I am just saying that even if you manage to find sources for the names of the castes, a list is much more vulnerable than a category in this case, because the details and classification of castes is highly ambiguous. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying that "a list is much more vulnerable than a category" is the same thing as saying that a category "is easier to police," so if that's not your opinion you need to rethink your whole approach here. You're also missing a premise somewhere in there. "A list is much more vulnerable than a category" does not follow from "The details and classification of castes is highly ambiguous". postdlf (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant that a list is more vulnerable than a category in this case because the list would contain more information than merely the names of the castes and in such a case, it is possible for anyone (even an IP) to add indiscriminate information to the list. And it is impossible to neutrally write such information and maintain them. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Warden (and nominator), the category issue is a red herring. Whether or not the category is acceptable has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. The question is whether or not this article meets our policies. It does not, and cannot, meet WP:NPOV, and it probably can't meet WP:OR (noting, in fairness, that OR is applied a little less stringently for lists than for articles). The question is, given the existence of Group X, can we determine, neutrally, whether or not it belongs on this list? We can't in many cases. And when we have cases such as Sitush has raised w.r.t. Nair, where we actually know for a fact that some data says Nair sub-group X should be on the list while other data says it shouldn't, we have no means for making a determination neutrally, and the nature of a list is sch that we cannot discuss all of the subtle details like we can in the article. WP:BLPGROUP requires very high quality sources for claims about living people (and most of the groups in question still contain living members), and those sources, by and large, do not exist (despite Dream Focus's assumption that they do); those lists which do exist are known to be biased and incomplete, and thus cannot meet our RS standards. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, 100% I've provided loads of detail to support this and I've deliberately avoided the category issue except in so far as the obvious applies: eg: there is scope to add various groups to various traditional occupational categories etc. But even then, not all of them. I really would encourage the doubters to get involved in this subject area. It needs a lot of eyes ... and you'll learn quite a lot from it. I would also encourage you to accept what I and others are saying in good faith. With the possible exception of Tim/FiddleFaddle, we do know what we're talking about re: this particular topic. At least one of us is living through it and the rest have spent probably hundreds of hours at the coalface. Thousands, probably, in my case. - Sitush (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am more than happy to leave the category issue aside. And I confirm that I have no specialist knowledge at all. I edit Knowledge in articles and areas that I come to by serendipidity, and do my best to apply the logic that suits the area at the time. If I have a dogma it is that every fact must be a cited fact, or it has no business here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete I've given all sorts of reasons why this should be deleted above. In return, all I am hearing is a dogmatic reaction from what might be termed inclusionists. What they most certainly are is very ill-informed about the subject matter and that has a huge bearing on the application of policy with regard to the outcome of this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policies here are WP:IMPERFECT and WP:CLN and they do not support the case for deletion. Your position seems to be based upon personal knowledge, which you claim to be superior to that of official government censuses and surveys. When you say that those sources are not reliable, how do we know that you are reliable? If you have access to some more reliable body of knowledge which supports your position then how is it that we cannot summarise or systematise it? Warden (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policies are OR, NPOV, DUE, V ... shall I go on? You are also massively misrepresenting my position and, for example, the Nair and Pallar cases illustrate that. Not to forget your complete misunderstanding of the St Thomas Christians. You are completely misunderstanding caste in India as it is and has historically been treated both by various bureaucracies and by noted anthropologists, sociologists and political scientists, such as the Baylys, Christophe Jaffrelot, William Pinch and numerous others. There is and never has been a consistent listing of castes, nor can there be because the caste system is not really a system in the sense of a logical structure. Probably the closest that there has ever been to contrive a system was the work of Risley, which his successors within a decade admitted to be grossly flawed. Risley was a zealot and, like you, misunderstood what was going on: he thought that he could impose a system in order better to administrate the Raj (read: Knowledge). He failed. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is Susan Bayly in one of her many analyses of the inadequacies of the Raj data collection efforts (there were many all-India efforts other than the census, although like the census they were all done at local level and with local definitions, thus introducing inconsistencies):
These were the bureaucratic operations which made it appear that colonial ethnographers regarded caste as a giant ladder of precedence defined by the logic of the four-varna scheme, with every jati a fixed unit possessing a known place and status which could be measured against that of any other caste group. Actually, not all scholar-officials identified Indians in terms of botanical or zoological specimens, and some at least were well aware that these tabulations were little more than a caricature of the complex and multi-faceted reality of caste
That is on p. 125 of Caste, society and politics in India from the eighteenth century to the modern age, Cambridge University Press (2001), ISBN 9780521798426. Bayly very frequently uses what we would call weasel words to describe the inadequacies, ie: "purported", "supposed" etc. She has written extensively on the subject. This list is itself an attempt to identify Indians in terms of botanical or zoological specimens. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep -BUT we need to have probably split this into a handful of articles and some better scheme than alphabetical (that's what the category can do). As noted, lists and categories can co-exist, so that's not an issue. I am going to assume that we can organize these castes within some larger scheme (region/geography?) that is relevant to the caste system. When you do that, you can have the major organization list and then sublists for that, and now possibly provide some grouping information to expand the lead for each article. (eg "Caste X is the largest in region Y with over XX% of the population...") Better organization, and this would then work well in conjunction with the category. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous castes that exist across regional boundaries and have done for a long time. Sometimes they share the same name and sometimes they do not but claim to be the same caste. Although I've never really looked into this aspect, if we bear in mind that there are many languages in India, literacy rates even today are not particularly good, and transliterations from the various languages to other Indic languages (and to English) are difficult, well, this might go some way to explaining the eponymology issues. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if one caste exists across multiple region, that still gives better structure to the whole list+sub-lists. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete -- This has been a very interesting AfD to read. It seems that the best argument in favor of deletion is a combination of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, with the assertion that castes in India are not a formally defined thing. This is being objected to by several editors who, based on my reading of this AfD, don't appear to be terribly familiar with the subject in that they are suggesting that some source or sources exist -- even "government" sources -- that authoritatively list what castes exist in India. I admit to not being familiar with the subject myself, but the arguments advanced by Sitush, in particular, are very convincing that there is no authoritative, central source for determining which of these entities/organizations truly are "castes." As such, a list that attempts to incorporate every organization that considers itself or names itself a "caste" is a list that inevitably encounters neutral point of view issues and probably contains original research as well. I believe these roll up to fundamental and similarly inevitable verifiability issues. I do not believe conversion to a category solves or addresses either of these problems. For those wishing to study the caste system, we already have what appears to be an exceptionally detailed (if also apparently colored by WP:NPOV concerns) article at Caste system in India. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is the case you have officially recognized castes (per the gov't of India) and then castes that aren't recongized but whose exists is supported by reliable sources, that's still not a reason to delete - that suggests splitting into two lists or if following my sub-list idea above, a "officially recognized" and an "other" section to each sublist to make this distinction. Still not a reason to delete. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no castes officially recognised by the govt of India. Around about 50% of the population are recognised as Other Backward Classes and a further 25% are listed as Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Those lists are produced at sub-national level, they are inconsistent, they have been produced at various times in various places, they use the term "Scheduled Caste" as a social welfare construct, which is nowhere near the generally-accepted meaning of caste, and (IIRC) most SC/ST lists do not distinguish between which are "castes" and which are "tribes". The other 25%, by the way, are called Forward Classes. The latter is a default: if a community (any community, even one that no-one has heard of before because Joe Patel just made a name up for himself) is not listed as SC/ST/OBC then they are FC. There is no list of FCs anywhere. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless the only sources that are classifying these castes are self-published sources, there's no reason some type of breakdown per these classifications can be used - allowing us to avoid OR. If there are self-claimed castes that have no other coverage beyond themselves, we'd never include them in the first place per WP:V. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Scheduled Caste" is a government-sanctioned euphemism for so-called "untouchables" or Dalits - see here ISBN 9780195309218, p. 368. They were once known as Depressed Classes and quite a lot of people nowadays refer to them as the "weaker section". Dalits/untouchables are outside the Hindu caste system, have no place in the varna system, were outside the Raj caste system and are not considered to be castes by the most of the rest of the population: they comprise a significant number of Buddhist, Muslim and non-assimilated Christian communities etc. Since they amount to a portion of the 25% total Indian population covered by the ST/SC lists, we'd be creating a list of communities who are not castes in any traditionally accepted sense and who form a relatively small fraction of the population. Everyone else would have to go in your "Other" section, even though the likelihood is that most of them are in fact traditional castes. Clearly, we'd have to finesse this suggestion. I also think that you really need to understand how jati, gotra,subcastes and subdivisions affect perceptions in lists such as these, and note that there are over 4000 "castes" containing numerous jatis and gotras, quite a lot of which claim actually to be castes in their own right. As I said above, as an example, there are over 2700 gotras of the Jats, spread across much of India but particularly prominent the the north. Can we manage this, evne if we can overcome all the other obstacles? - Sitush (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

They do often have coverage beyond themselves. Again, I refer you to earlier in this long thread, where I noted as an example the situation regarding Nair - there is a collapsed list in that article which serves. There are probably better examples out there but, hey, I'm dealing with around 1000 caste articles at present and it is bloody hard work trying to remember who says what where ;) - Sitush (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitray break for ease of editing number 2

Keep per Masem. All I see arguing for deletion are WP:SUSCEPTIBLE arguments. This is a notable topic and we have numerous articles for which the very first identifying fact about the subject is that it is a caste. Hence, it is normal practice to index those articles by their relationship to that notable topic. There is also a category structure that most, if not all, of the delete !voters above consider appropriate, which rather undercuts their claims that the very indexing that this list represents is unverifiable or POV. I also see some rather condescending comments above by some delete !voters that those !voting "keep" just don't understand the topic; the problem as I see it in this AFD is that the delete !voters have instead failed to put forth a persuasive deletion argument, just ipse dixit. postdlf (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the two prominent people desiring keep here both claim to be involved with ARS, I don't think it at all unreasonable to suggest that they primary motive may be to retain rather than to understand. It is blatantly obvious that they do not understand and numerous examples have been given in support of this. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I can understand your frustration, but it does little good to be condescending. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where am I being rude? I am stating an opinion concerning lack of understanding of the subject matter, and it is one that has been stated by others here also. This is a subject that is immensely complex and takes a lot of work to get one's head round. It is not something that can be understood in a week or a month. Those who have worked in the subject area have (so far) all come out in favour of deletion on pragmatic grounds and with support from policy. It could of course be argued that these people have just as much of a "bent" as anyone from ARS. But if people cannot AGF regarding what amounts to "expert" contributors in this complex area then it is a sad day for Knowledge. Every source document so far given has been shown to be unsatisfactory and there are policies at least as valid as those cited by Warden etc. Actually, more satisfactory because some of them are core policies. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: I see that you changed "rude" to "condescending" when I conflicted. - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably splitting hairs, but I don't think the WP:NPOV argument, at least, in this case equates to saying the article is susceptible to including non-neutral content; it equates to saying the article inevitably includes non-neutral content. As for the rest, clearly, this is a notable topic, and there is precedent. But notability and precedence are not necessarily sufficient grounds for inclusion. Do you dispute the arguments advanced above that there are some fundamentally problematic issues with having this article? I'd be more interested in your thoughts on that, insofar as I don't think the topic's notability is being questioned by anyone. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is almost entirely a SUSCEPTIBLE argument because most comments on that point are directed purely at problems with presenting this information in list form. I'd be more amenable to the inherent lack of neutrality involved in the subject if not for that inconsistency: you can't say that we cannot verify any entries in this list while simultaneously supporting the maintenance of a category or even the mere description within individual articles of the subject as a caste. As long as we have articles like Kalwar (caste), which before anything else describes the subject as "an Indian caste," and categories for those articles like Category:Indian castes, it is ridiculous to me to nevertheless claim that we can't verify those articles' inclusion in a list of Indian castes. So the deletion arguments really prove too much: if the list must be deleted because "caste" is an unverifiable and POV description or classification, then we must also delete the entire caste category structure, and rewrite the intro of every included article to describe the subject as something other than a caste.

So keeping within the deletion arguments purely aimed at the list, I think the only way they go beyond that seems to be based on some perception of the list as necessarily implying completeness or authority: these are all of the Indian castes. Lists on Knowledge do not have that quality, however, unless they expressly claim it: a list of U.S. presidents is a complete list of all people who have held that office, but other lists are merely lists of instances of that grouping we have decided merit articles, and lists sometimes cover groupings for which membership is controversial.

I think there's also a reification problem here, in that there seems to be a concern with the list including entries that aren't "really" castes on the basis of sources that they consider outdated or not authoritative. "Caste" is obviously a cultural construct, and it seems to me that regardless of whatever lack of real basis there might be for defining a certain group of people as a caste or subjectivity inherent in including one person in one caste or another, there are indisputably cultural constructs that are definable only as castes. There may be caste groupings that are as arbitrary and unrelated to real human social groupings as the straight lines European colonizers drew across Africa were unrelated to real cultural and linguistic boundaries among African people, but both should still be listed and described for what they were.

Anyway, all of that is why I'm comfortable not merely deferring to what many of the deletion !voters have invoked as their greater familiarity with the subject. The types of arguments that they raise are familiar ones to me on Knowledge, and they are simply not valid arguments for deletion. All of the problems raised can be dealt with through editing: remove entries that are not verifiable according to any reliable sources, place a {{incomplete list}} note at the top, an intro explaining the history and changes in the concept, organization into subheaders and sublists to group by different historical or government classifications, and/or annotation of each entry to explain its inclusion and whether there is a dispute. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

These are great points. Personally, I don't support conversion to a category, and I don't think that's technically the issue at hand, even if it's been raised by numerous people (and, indeed, the nominator!). To the apparent contradiction you then raise, regarding having it as a "description within individual articles," that's something I'd considered. My thinking is that having a list called "List of Indian castes" essentially calls everything on that list a caste, whereas an article on a group that might be considered by some to be a caste has more room for flexibility in it. In other words, the list paints a black-and-white picture, whereas an article can be grey where appropriate regarding a group that may be considered a caste by some and not by others. That's basically my concern, and I think it's an inevitable WP:NPOV concern. I more or less agree with everything else you write. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Question. If it is too difficult to pigeonhole something as a caste, how is it possible to categorize it? Conversely, if you can categorize something, you can make a list. Lists and categories are two sides of the same coin. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Qwyrxian has explained this above. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Its better to have nothing than to have something wrong. And i believe that if the articles can not be maintained by good editors (Sitush in this case), they should be deleted. All the keep voters always comment "Keep and clean it". But no one shows up. Of course, i know, WP isn't compulsory. But then there is no compulsion on us to keep garbage also, just because someone was bold enough to make it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Terrifyingly ambitious, but a good example of WP:LISTPURP if I ever saw one. Faustus37 (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

LISTPURP is a guideline and, like all guidelines, there are occasional exceptions. "Terribly ambitious" might be considered an understatement ;) However, if it happens then the list(s) will need a lot of eyes on them to counter the influx of upset members of the various communities. There will be a lot of them and it will go on without end, so it would be great if you would watchlist the things. Suggestion for how to achieve the ambition would also be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm a big white guy from Idaho. That said, I wonder if we're talking less about caste and more about Jāti. There's a strong case to be made for categorization. Even so, this page at the very least should exist as a redirect or a disambiguation. Faustus37 (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm a big white guy from Manchester so no need to be concerned! Jati has been mentioned in this thread and it is certainly a part of the problem: there can be considerable overlap and this is one aspect that makes the list so difficult to justify. We can explain nuances in an article that cannot possibly be done in a list, and it is the cited explanation of the nuances that locks down the pov warriors etc. Where would you propose to redirect or disambiguate? I'm not unduly concerned about the categorisation aspect: it can be improved, certainly, but it is indeed a bit of a red herring in terms of this discussion, as Qwryxian has already pointed out. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep I think one of the comments up above that a category isn't any better policed for accurate entries than a list is a very important one to make. I feel that a list is much better, because a lack of referencing will automatically have readers assume that this may be inaccurate. However, if they are looking in a category, they are much more likely to feel that the articles listed there are accurate to be there.

I also don't believe that it's impossible to properly reference the article. I mean, if the argument for a category is that the individual articles can be properly referenced, then why can't this list be? Furthermore, the article is horribly formatted and sectioned, not to mention that it could be set up into multiple columns (3 at max) that would make it look much better. Silver seren 08:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No one here (those who are arguing for delete) is saying that it is possible to properly reference a category. The argument is that the list is more harmful if left unreferenced than a category. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And I completely disagree with that. I feel that a category is more dangerous, because there is a more inherent trust in the reliability of a category. This is largely because it doesn't have references. In a list article, it is clear to see that some parts of it are referenced and other parts aren't, so readers automatically know they shouldn't trust the unreferenced parts without checking the veracity of them for themselves. Silver seren 08:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The general readership of WIkipedia tends to assume that "Because it is on WIkipedia then it must be correct" despite our best efforts to dissuade then of the fact. This list contains bewildering quasi facts and misfacts and non facts all wrapped up in one of our assumedly authoritative lists. It of itself is full of POV and OR and is not verified, nor verifiable. It fails the cirteria by which we ought to keep articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. First off, how is the list POV or OR? Secondly, how is it not verifiable? For any of the entries, you ask, is this an Indian caste, yes/no? Seems like a pretty simple question to me. Silver seren 09:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it does make sense if one takes the trouble to read the arguments, you know. Trash needs to be eliminated in order that the project can thrive. It really is counter productive to rehash all the arguments again for every new contributor to this discussion who arrives and waves the "Keep at all costs" flag. Some articles really must go. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not a good argument. If you're talking about rehashing what you said in the nomination, then i'll go through that.

1. I do not consider this list to be "so enormous as to be unmaintainable". I do consider it to be horrible formatted, which contributes to making it look longer than it needs to, but there's plenty of other list articles that are longer than this that work just fine.

2. Your second argument is that it may be incomplete, but it's impossible to tell. Well, that's why we rely on the sources to tell us what belongs in the article. If it's incomplete, turning it into a category isn't going to change that incompleteness, so this argument doesn't exactly advance the charge that it should be a category.

3. Your last argument is that it is "impossible to validate every entry", to which I respond, in a British sense even though I am not British, that is complete and utter tosh. You validate it by looking for it in the proper references, first in the article that is linked and then in the internet at large (or through books in the library if necessary). If you don't find anything saying that it is a caste, then you remove it. Simple as that. How exactly would changing this to a category suddenly validate the entries?

It seems to me that none of your arguments actually support changing this list into a category. Any direct problems with sourcing or accuracy would exist exactly the same in a category, except be that much more unreferenced. Silver seren 09:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As an example, consider Goud. Yes, it is a dreadful article and one day I'll get round to sorting it out. However, during the British Raj, their so-called ethnologists referred to the Gouds as a caste. This was so even in a survey whose title began The Castes and Tribes of ... However, if you were to look at the Scheduled Tribe list produced by the government of Andhra Pradesh, the Gouds are classified thus. It is a while since, but my notes indicate that the Anthropological Survey of India (a government body) called them a caste in the 1990s and this is around the time that the AP govt listed them as a tribe. In Kerala, they appear in the list of Other Backward Classes. What do we do? How do we get all this into a list? Should they be in the list? - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So the article itself doesn't even know if they qualify as a caste? That seems to me to be an inherent problem with the article, not with the list. The easiest method for the list would be to have a section that includes "Uncertain caste designation" castes. But that certainly isn't a good argument to turn it into a category. Does that mean the article would or would not be included in the category? If the answer is not, then you just answered what we should do with it in the list, remove it. Silver seren 09:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a problem with the list. Have you read what people have said above? And forget categories, please - red herring in the case of this discussion. There are over 4000 "castes", and in the list we would need to source all the variants when the "caste" is of uncertain designation. And then police it against the inevitable and high-volume traffic of dis-satisfied "caste" members (eg: the Gouds' own community website insists that they are a caste and makes no mention of the tribal status). We'd also have to monitor the frequent changes made to the various classifications as the umpteen "castes" put political pressure on the umpteen governments. And deal with the issues of a decent proportion of the - a rough guess - 20,000 gotras who want to be upgraded. In a list? I don't think so. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So your entire argument is "it would be difficult"? If the concern is vandals or POV pushers, that's not that complicated. Permanent semi-protection is an easy option. We can even go to permanent full protection, wherein changes can only be made upon request on the talk page. This has been done in a number of other vandal-prone articles. Saying that you would have to deal with vandals and POV pushers is not a good argument at all. Silver seren 09:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There it is! The classic example of you-do-it-and-i-will-give-free-advice. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying I wouldn't help out with the article? Silver seren 10:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bingo!
Its not just you, others also who are voting to keep with their advices of lets split it, lets lock it, and what not, are not addressing the practicalities of maintaining this list. Of what use is this list? Its just like a category, listed also alphabetically. If at all such list should exist on an encyclopedia, it should be more than a linkfarm. But practically when a linkfarm is difficult to maintain, i doubt an informative list, like a table of some sort, would work out. Hence delete it!
One question, would this list, in it's current form, have passed through WP:AFC? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how AfC normally rates list articles, but i'd say probably not, likely because of the sourcing. But that's true for a number of other articles as well that are perfectly fine. The sourcing is something that's fixable. And if you give me until Thursday, when i'll have free time, i'll get to work on improving the article. Silver seren 10:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not, SS. I mean, you're welcome to improve it but you seem to know nothing about the subject matter and that is precisely why you do not understand the numerous points raised above. I suggest that you propose what you want to do at the article talk page and see if those who are used to dealing with caste articles agree with you. There has been enough "this is how you do its" in this AfD and, so far, every single one has been unworkable in the form presented. You can ignore my advice in this post but if that results in you wasting a lot of your precious time then do not be surprised: the idea of floating yourself into something as you suggest this with (apparently) no background in the subject area is almost certainly going to end in tears. Yopiu haven't even understood the Goud problem, dammit. Now about, say, the Irulas who currently appear in the list? Have you ever heard of the Shanar? The Chamar? The nightmare that is Nayar? Or Ezhava? Or Ezhavathy? Thiyya anyone? Just those articles alone attract a lot of argument. You need to walk before you run and that is likely to take several months even if you can come up with a scheme that has consensus. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and no: my entire argument is not that it will be difficult. That merely goes to show that you still have not read this discussion or, if you have, you have failed to understand the points raised. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Suggestion to Sitush - It would do you and the AfD a loadful of good if you were a bit more neutral and moderate in your dealings with other edits who may not agree with your POV. Yes, we understand that you are very knowledgable about the topic, but some WP: civility would have ensured that this AfD would have passed far sooner and a lot more ease and simplicity. Rather than that, it has evolved into a longstanding tirade of arguments after argument which is nearly as impossible to navigate as the article under question. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, my vote would be a ~~Weak Delete~~ ~~Neutral leaning weak keep~~ See below for changed vote. And no, I do not claim to be knowledgable on the topic nor do I have a lot of experience. But I do have a more working understanding of the topic under question than the average wikipedia editor. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed my vote upon reading all the arguments while trying to summarize them. Even considering all the problems the article has, I think its way too valuable to be outright deleted. It should be rewritten or made into a category but not deleted TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, category already exists: Category:Indian castes --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For the ease of reading, I suggest only the principal arguments and statements be written down pointwise to give a brief summary of everything that has been spoken. I would have been tempted to do the same myself, but laziness has taken over my better half TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. It is difficult not to get frustrated when people appear not read what has been said and thus the same arguments have to be provided umpteen times. It is that which is causing this thing to bloat, imo. Put at its most basic... I've probably forgotten something, but does this help? If not then feel free to delete. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A good summary, but I was wishing to see both sides of the argument here. Unless we see what exactly are the points on both sides, you just cannot help but repeat the points. But I shall nevertheless try to complete it if I can. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There. Done! Phew!! Do edit it if there are other points to be added, or some points which are incorrect/undue TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Some history The list in question has not been at AFD before but there was another AFD bundle earlier this year: WP:Articles for deletion/Central List of Other Backward Classes in Rajasthan. Those lists were official government lists. In that AFD, an editor complained that "the castes stated would not be summarised or known otherwise". Sitush then suggested that we might use this list instead. Now he wants to delete this too. This would be scorched earth and so it seems appropriate to invoke the policy that Knowledge is not censored. Warden (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. (Top of the edit box)

Things would be a lot smoother if you too Warden cease your personal hitting on Sitush and see the article in question. He is obviously acting in good faith and though he has not been the most civil or considerate while speaking, this makes no grounds for you to assume bad faith just because he has voted otherwise in other places.

That being said, its important to note that Scheduled Castes and Other backward Castes are not castes in the strict or even the general sense of the term. Caste almost exclusively refers to Hindus, while these lists contain substantial numbers from other religions too. Also, those included in scheduled caste, even if they can be included in this list, do not completely form this list. There are way too many castes which do not fall under SC or OBC! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This issue of the scope of the word caste seems to be the main stumbling block here. I don't agree that we should interpret this in narrow or strict way. Please see the Britannica entry for caste which states: "Although the term caste has been used loosely to stand for both varna and jati (broadly, “form of existence fixed by birth”), it is jati — the small-scale perspective represented by local village societies — that most scholars have in mind when they write about the caste system of India. Jatis and relations among them have been accessible to observers from ancient times to the present. (Hereafter jati and caste will be used synonymously.) Empirically, the caste system is one of regional or local jatis, each with a history of its own, whether this be Kashmir or Tamil Nadu, Bengal or Gujarat. History may differ, but the form of social organization does not." Here we have a explicit and encyclopedic statement that most scholars refer to caste as a general form of social structure, rather than meaning the narrow and exclusively Hindu varna. Warden (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ummm.. Mind explaining the difference between the two? Its quite synonymous to me being brought up learning them as the same. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitray break for ease of editing number 3

Yes, things have gotten a little more heated than they should, but this is becoming a rather frustrating AfD for those of us who deal with India articles on a near-daily basis. We have a number of editors with good intentions, and more arriving each day, who keep reiterating "this caste issue seems important, a list seems reasonable" with little acknowledgment that it's an incredibly complex issue, and yes it is important to many living people, which is precisely why a bad list is far worse than no list. I realise some of these arguments seem WP:AADD-ish, but this isn't just a matter of "consensus will be difficult and complex but slowly evolve", but literally a "there is no verifiable consensus that will ever develop, and this topic is eternally complex and contentious in a way best addressed by the individual articles, with a broad category structure which has fewer POV issues than a list of 'completeness' however implied."

I find the invocation of Knowledge is not censored particularly odd here: Sitush and the rest of us are not trying to whitewash the caste system, but quite the contrary are trying to remove an article which by its very nature would be a POV tool. A category system allows us to place a given caste in multiple regions/professions/echelons, and within the article caveat "they're fishermen in FooA, tailors in FooB, asserted a claim to warrior status in Raj courts in 1893...". Then those of us who maintain India articles can watch for folks tampering with categories to, say, remove the "pejorative" but cited Category:Fishing castes. In a list, however, you file a given name in a given place with no flex to it, or else you have to duplicate the same name multiple places and yet clarify "but see Foo A fishermen, above...". Add to that the sourcing issues, or an even worse "seriously guys, just check the articles of these 4,000 entries and the sources are in there somewhere".

It's simply a topic that cannot be adequately, reliably, verifiably, and safely covered by a list. The legacy of the caste system has real-world consequences for millions of people, so an inaccurate list risks tangible social harm. And, as noted above, I'm still baffled how editors are looking at the current article and saying "yeah, I could see this becoming something useful with a little effort": expectations of a future "useful" version seem based in a flawed understanding of the topic of caste, and the current version hurts more than it helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas's position seems contradictory because, on the one hand, he says that it is too hard to trawl through 4000 articles for sources, while on the other he says that we should rely upon categories based upon those same 4000 articles which he and others watch over. When one looks to see what he's actually done for the page in question, the history indicates that it has just been one perfunctory edit! I've already done more than that myself since I got involved in this discussion. If editors are unwilling or unable to attend to this page then they should please just leave it to others. See dog in the manger. Warden (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I don't understand the maintenance issue here. A watched list page will immediately show changes that happen that can be used to fix vandals or false claims. You can't do that with category pages; watching those only show when the base text of the category page is changed not when items are added or removed from it. (This in no way says we shouldn't also have the category) --MASEM (t) 17:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You (Warden) are getting a little close to PA here; clearly this is not my first Indian rodeo, and I have hundreds of caste articles on my watchlist. I don't edit this particular article because it's a dang dog's breakfast and a hopeless case, not because I'm some WP:INDIA Johnny-come-lately. I also very, very much doubt that any of the well-intentioned editors here are going to chip in to this "manger", and if they were to do so they would quickly realise the futility of finding any truly authoritative way to list names. Prepare for screams of agony from "wronged" castes no matter what move you make, legal threats based on "India doesn't allow caste anymore", "this will cause communal riots and people will die and it will be Knowledge's fault", etc. I've seen very little to show that much of the "Keep" side is not based largely on "castes are important, a list seems logical, what's the big deal?" with no understanding of the topic and how is is actively damaged by a poor list, and one that is literally not possible to arrange in a satisfactory way.

My positions are not at all contradictory: within a Category structure we can deal with articles on a by-case basis. This is a complex issue that is actively done disservice by a list. A category structure has flex that a list does not have (an article can be in multiple "places" at one time, etc), and thus does not have the dangerous POV issues to anywhere the degree a list creates, again for a topic with real impacts on communities of living people. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of what you say is exemplified by the edit summary in this diff where

Removed was added as a redlink (is it a valid entry?) and was deleted as obvious vandalism (is it vandalism and is it obvious?). Of course those who refuse to understand the scope of the problem or even a tiny part of it will refuse to understand and the remainder will use logic to understand the underlying issues. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a definite vandalism. Its a swear word in Hindi. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for propagating a Hindi swear word. But it does show by this some of the serious issues involved here. Feel free to redact the word here if it is hurtful Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing very hurtful there. But it does show alarmingly how easily vandalism can stay on such an article. Just think what would happen for the controversial caste names, and the subsequent edit warring that shall follow. Without proper patrolling, it has been a huge menace already. I now doubt any work done by the editors will bring the list to a respectable, even if still relatively controversial position.

Delete (Vote rechanged to a full delete) with a proposal of a transition period to transfer some of the major and uncontroversial castes to the category "Indian castes". TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a reason why we have permanent semi-protection and permanent full protection as an option to curb vandalism. How does that not fix any issues of vandals or edit warring when they aren't allowed to edit the page? Silver seren 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of the castes listed here should already fall under Category:Indian castes, or sub-cats thereof (Category:Maratha clans, Category:Nair, etc.), with a few exceptions of some non-caste, tribal, non-Hindu, etc. groups where the people maintaining the full article have consensus to deliberately not file Group X as a caste, but rather under Category:Social groups of Bihar, Category:Tribal communities of Maharashtra, etc. Some spot-checking during this transition couldn't hurt, but if we reach consensus for Delete the deletion should occur pretty easily after that, with either salting, or a redirect-and-protect to Indian caste system so that searchers can encounter the overall, holistic description of the system with all its vagaries and controversies, twisty meanders, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A brief summary of the arguments in context by User:TheOriginalSoni

Before commenting on the issue, all editors are requested to know the topic and issues already raised by the various editors, by reading through the comments or atleast by reading the summary. Any more relevant points already discussed may be added here.

Initial proposal was to have it as a category instead of list, since the list shall remain unsourced, and having it will be a lot more troublesome than having a category. A category on the other hand would not encorporate a majority of these problems.

This proposal was withdrawn following counter-arguments that having a category would be like getting away from the work of sourcing everything, and because the issue regarding pros and cons of a category was diverting the original discussion away.
the issue of how to categorise can be now separated from the existence of this list.

The sheer number of articles in the list (well over 4000) makes it totally unworkable.

The counter-argument says that if articles are not good enough, they must be improved and not deleted. That is exactly what wikipedia's policy is.
The deletion argument calls for a relaxing on the strict interpretation of the rules on this front, calling into context the sheer size of this article. This article shall never be able to have enough editors who can be able to clean it up to meet the quality standards.
On the other hand, wikipedia has no timeline and some better organisation scheme may be able to make it usable. The list is undoubtedly important in terms of its usefulness and because it is required for a place to list all the castes of India.

Point number 2 in contention - Its better to have nothing than to have something wrong

First objection to the deletion was that under WP:LISTN, this article is notable. This is agreed upon universally

Likewise, this article definitely meets WP:LISTPURP.
The other point for both these points here is that even as WP:CLN and WP:IMPERFECT shows that the article should not be deleted, it's a guideline and exceptions are allowed.

The issue of the article has obviously been dealt with in great detail since the time of the British Raj, with a gigantic number of lists available

The argument for deletion says that there is no academic agreement regarding a definition of "caste" in the Indian context and that all sources shall disagree with each other on a very many issues
Context for the same - Several castes are listed as tribes in varied places, while other sub-castes are actually ]s. There is an obvious problem in finding the best possible list, which leads to potential edit wars of its own.

There are plenty of official and other censuses conducted by the govt of India, among others, which give a list of castes in the counry.

Many "sources", especially those by the British Raj are unreliable, according to the deletion side of the argument.
The main problem with the discussion here is the absolute lack of knowledge of the history of the issue for most editors, especially those voting for the motion.

The communities themselves, as claimed by the side against the motion, have, throughout history, renamed castes and created new subcastes at will, further complicating the issue of which ones are actually castes. Some different castes even share the same name.

Therefore the primary deletion argument stands that without engaging in original research, synthesisng sources, breaching WP:NPOV, using sources that fail WP:RS (or having none at all and so failing WP:V), giving undue weight to one marker of caste status over another, this list cannot reasonably be maintained.

Note - Scheduled Castes, and Other Backward Classes are quite different from castes. Likewise, tribes are not the same thing as castes.

Arbitray break for ease of editing number 4

Comment as said above "The sheer number of articles in the list (well over 4000) makes it totally unworkable." Do we REALLY want to delete such a large list??? Break it up, trim it, or organize it, whatever. But this list is important, and adds to Knowledge. I find it a little disturbing that anyone would simply want to wipe out something that has obviously had so much work put into it. I cannot recall a larger list ever being deleted. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The only way to trim THIS particular list is to make it from scratch, or delete it simply. The other arguements are plain invalid. The list may be important but its a dead weight. Its a burden with no scope for improvement. The length of the list and the work put into it are also irrelevant. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The size of an article of any sort is never a valid reason to delete it. Nor do we delete something because some fear it might be hard to manage. No one is realistically going to look at the list, find their caste left out and get offended, or sue. They'll just add it in there. And seriously, people have surely studied this by now, and have a list somewhere we could use as a reference. Is there not one university on the planet which has a complete list compiled by now? You can put a "disputed" tag next to any entry where reliable sources or noted researchers do not agree. And we have reliable sources in the articles linked to calling them Indian caste, and if any few of them don't you can take them off the list after first tagging them with a citation needed tag to see if anyone can find one. Dream Focus 20:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The size of an article is also not a valid reason to Keep it, nor is "all the hard work". For what it's worth, the article was quite small until August 2012, and largely expanded by WALTHAM2 (and I would like to hear his input on this issue). No one is realistically going to look at the list, find their caste left out and get offended - oh, I most certainly beg to differ. It's harder to see on this article because so many drive-by editors don't use edit summaries, but people will regularly get upset about these things. And they don't just add their own caste, they'll remove other castes they don't like, or Caste A believes Caste B is a usurper to the Caste B name and will rename them as C, and B gets offended at this and changes it back, and so on. In an article, we can address all the permutations of Caste B and its various names and differing classifications, but in a list it's rather impractical.

I think there's an element of culture gap here where editors unaccustomed to the topic are simply failing to see that this is not a topic which can be appopriately/constructively summed-up in something so tidy and black-white as a list. And again, since this involves the classifications of entire groups of living people, it's a topic where we don't really want to work with shoddy half-measures. Again, this is not simply "hard to manage" (which it very much is), this is "impossible to manage in any way that properly meets POV/N/V and actually adds to a reader's understanding". I'm still honestly curious what the Keepers are "getting" when they look at this list that they feel is so informative. It's literally a jumble of names alphabetically arranged, absolutely no better than Category:Indian castes and far worse because at least in the cat we can file a given article in multiple places simultaneously, and have room to contextualise why Caste A is filed as both fishermen and tailors, both Goa and Uttar Pradesh states. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In a list, we can also "file a given article in multiple places simultaneously", and can actually "contextualise" that inclusion within the list itself, right next to the entry itself unlike with categories which cannot annotate directly on the category page why an article is or isn't included. Don't judge the list based on its current state, but on its potential. postdlf (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We can easily divide the list into other list article by alphabetical order, with those letters having a small number of entries grouped with the next thing on the list or the one before it. Managing it isn't a problem. Can't do that during an AFD though. And I don't really care if some crazy fool with an ego problem gets upset they aren't on the list, Knowledge doesn't destroy articles because of that. And I agree there should be side columns listing additional information about each one. Knowledge is not libel to get sued by anyone over this. Dream Focus 20:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is risible. One person with an ego problem? The whole SoftFocus people, plus the Out-of-Focus people, plus the FStop fratenrity insist on being in the article despite being classified as inappropriate. Add to those everyone else associated with Focus, some of who delete others of whom add. Oh we'll get chaos, and with that the article becomes unreliable (as it is now, POV, as it is now, OR as it is now, and trash, as it is now. We can do it your way if that is what consensus decides, of course we can Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a case of a few castemembers with an "ego problem", it's that there are unresolvable differences of opinion, sometimes literally physically violent, between castes. Caste A insists his group is a legit caste, a member of Caste B insists they're not and removes them, rinse and repeat. They won't both sourcing it 95% of the time, but even if they can then it just becomes a footnoting match. The length is a red-herring, I don't think any of the Delete crowd much cares that this is too long, so much as that it's simply terribly poor, unlikely to ever be otherwise (not alone a valid reason for delete), and that there is simply no good black-white solution such as a list provides. I'm also frustrated by the sheer number of people discussing "converting" this to a category despite the fact that there is such a category. This is just getting so dang circular, including the endless iterations of "caste is Notable ergo there should be a list of it". MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas has just hit on a good way of saying what I was trying to say. Lists are, by their very nature, black and white. Being on this list means that a group is a caste. But caste is a social construct, subject to significant change over time. There is no way to cover the gray in a list of this time. In some cases, a full discussion could take paragraphs--simply not doable in a list format. Not everything in the world can be easily put into a list. And our policies place very strict rules on lists of living people, rules which simply cannot be met here. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the point I try to make in my post a few miles above in this insanely lengthy but quite interesting AfD. An article on a group, social construct, what-have-you, allows for discussion of whether or not said construct is a "caste." A list does not. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I still do not see where people are addressing the definition of "India" here. I also do not see where those who propose to keep are addressing the definition of "caste". If even the scope of the title cannot be sorted out then there is no logical basis for a list under that title. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The scope of a list is a matter to work out on the list's talk page. I really find it ridiculous the extent to which you and other commenters here are insisting that this is completely unverifiable, but only in the context of this list. As I noted above when I said that your arguments prove too much, if your arguments are correct and "caste" is ultimately meaningless, then the entire subject needs a complete, project-wide overhaul given the existence of not only this list but also Category:Indian castes and its subcategories and the many, many articles that unequivocally define their subjects as Indian castes in the very first sentence. So start an RFC about how to handle all of that, rather than trying to only delete a list that merely tries to index what is already covered in this project in other presentation methods.

And now you introduce the notion that we don't even know what "India" means here as well? Or even worse, suggest that we can't know what it means? That's no different an issue in this context than in any other context involving the people of India past and present, and India also is not unique in having a history consist of successor entities with varying borders and disputed territories. In other words, a completely surmountable problem. Overall, you are continuing to repeat the same claims that this is unworkable (in fact, expanding them to absurd ends) without even addressing the many, many suggestions made above about how to address disputes among sources and contextualize changes in classifications over time. postdlf (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You miss my point, perhaps because you have not seen that I have raised it before on more than one occasion. The definitions determines what sources we can use and have an impact of the dreadful issue of synthesis that is going to emerge should this list be retained. The list does not remotely align with the numerous Indian community articles, nor is it likely that it ever do so because we have no "snapshot" of castes in reliable sources, no point in time to use as a basis.

You are asking that this list is retained on the basis that the systemic problems that define it can be resolved on its talk page; you are being advised by those who have specific knowledge of the subject area, including people who live within the system, that it is not possible to come up with a scheme for this particular list that complies with our policies. If, for example, you want to go create and maintain a multitude of List of Other Backwards Classes in state X and duplicate the widely-available published lists then that is your choice, but a central list of castes is not attainable without breaching a whole load of core policies + "lesser" ones such as WP:SYNTH. - Sitush (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess we could rename to List of communities in India, broadly construed, who have at some point been described as a caste by a reliable source but may or may not have been or presently be considered a caste by their peers or by other reliable sources. Something like that? - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(od) As an aside, whether the list is retained or not, it is a very confused one. Clicking randomly on various links, I see a great deal of confusion between castes, community groups, last names, and ethnic groups. A caste, one assumes, has a religious identification of some sort but that is lacking in most cases in the list. For example, I clicked on Mahali and that doesn't appear to be a caste at all. Then, after a couple of castes, I get Jatt Sikh which is more an ethic identity than a caste. Clicking on, I get Bhagirathi Mali and several other communities (are they the same as castes?). It seems to me that what we're ending up with is a list of every ethnic community in India and a superset of every last name in India. It is as if we listed Smith, Doe, Carpenter, Dylan, Young, Clapton, etc. as castes in the Western ethos. I understand that there is some benefit to such lists but this seems plainly incorrect. --regentspark (comment) 03:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The main question is, can they be reliably sourced as a caste? If Mahali cannot be sourced, then it should be removed. Silver seren 06:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is where you (and many others) may be incorrect. If we can find a reliable source that says they are a caste, then it can go in, unless we can find other reliable sources that say they are something other than a caste. In that caste, it cannot be on the list. WP:BLP does not allow contentious claims without clear explanation, attribution, and due balance. If the article remains, any group for which we cannot find absolute, definitive claims and a lack of non-fringe counter claims will be removed. My suspicion, shared by several others who work in the field, is that there will be almost nothing left. That's fine I guess, but it will just end up being an odd list. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete changed my opinion per WP:V and WP:OR No reliable source exists for this article. Forgot to put name (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if you have read anything that people have written about the absolute and total inability to verify the great majority of what is in this list, and the multiplicity of source, counter-source, claim and counterclaim for being or not being a caste? It's not that you have to read it, but t really does appear that you have not. Please state with clarity how this list can be verified. Indeed, if you are so certain, please verify it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Comment no lomger relevant because of change of opinion by !voter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Put my summary back at the top of the page. There are way too many newcomers supporting the Keep side who do not even see what the arguments already made are. All argue the very same point that the list is important, and none realise that it is actually not possible by even the govt to classify the castes, subcastes etc; having us here at Knowledge do it will be breaking WP:OR.

Anyone who claims that a summary prepared by someone who has already !voted, please feel free to edit my summary to add in your points, provided you can show us a balanced picture. If that does not satisfy you, I shall redact my vote if the summary is to be put at the top. I can bear with not voting here, than to see the whole discourse of the issue being discussed again and again because some guy is too clever to not read up on the issue or the discussion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And my suggestion is that we have all argued our points out here, so we should rather not repeat them. If need be, let us post "discussed above" with a link to the edit; or else we keep adding new points only TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that most of the article is only original research. But some of it can be verified by govt and kept. Remove all the original research and keep the verifiable content. The list is very useful and should not be deleted changed my opinion per comments above. No reliable source exists. Searched in google two times Forgot to put name (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Rereading everything here, I am just not seeing the need to delete, because even as ignorant as an Americian about the Indian caste system, I certainly know the caste system exists, and there are several of them, and so a list of castes is truly an appropriate topic. Refocusing, defining what can go on the list, and requirement of strong source, heck yes. I accept the arguments that there are people with POVs that want to push a caste they have interest in onto the list, or to remove a conflicting caste. But once you set up basic rules for what can and cannot go on the list, these POVs have little to stand on. I point to a completely unrelated list, List of Internet phenomena, which can be the subject of POV pushing to get one's favorite meme on there; to counter this we require strong sourcing that identifies each entry as belonging there. For the castes, there's clearly some official ones, some not-so-official, and so forth. There is a way to break these down, and then demand sourcing for each subset (if they are an officially recognized caste, there should be a way to link to that official statement, for example). When you get to the unofficial or self-titled castes, this is were you start demanding strong sources to avoid POV pushing. It may be tough to maintain but that is never a reason to delete an important cultural topic. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no officially recognised castes. Caste is illegal in India. I know, I know ... but that is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not so. See The New Cambridge History of India, for example: "Even today, though, law and public policy are anything but 'casteless'. ... officials continued to insist on the state's need for 'scientific' data on the names, occupations and regional rank orderings of the country's 'tribal' and caste 'communities'." Warden (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you rebutting? Why do you think I said, "I know, I know ..."? Caste is all over India, at every level, but nonetheless it is illegal. The biggest flip was probably the 2011 census, where they attempted to collect data on caste (as yet unpublished - see much earlier in this thread) for the first time since 1931. Well, they tried in 1941 but gave up due to WW2 being slightly more important. The fact remains, there is no official recognition of castes and it is illegal. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

All sorts of things are extinct or illegal but we catalogue them regardless. As the 2011 census is quite current, this seems ample evidence that the topic remains notable, officially recognised and well-documented. Warden (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, let's empty the list and wait for the 2011 data to be published. Which they've said before now they may not do, presumably because it is illegal. They've already published practically everything else, albeit some of the numbers are provisional. I refer to earlier in the thread: no-one is denying notability. We're going round in circles yet again. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the instruction manual for 2011 census enumerators. Pages 24-26 may be relevant in terms of judging the worthiness of any information that might, just might, be published. Equally, it intimates some of the issues that have previously been discussed. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

To me it seems important to read that document because it effectively negates any verifiable caste (etc) as part of any present day census. If the census cannot and will not do it, then Knowledge is unable to do it either, certainly as a list. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing to "delete an important cultural topic." There is a very detailed article on this topic at Caste system in India. There is also no question of this list's notability. The issue raised is that one can find strong sources on the subject that contradict each other on the simple question of whether or not one group/organization is a caste, and the moment that Knowledge incorporates that group/organization into a "List of Indian castes," citing a reliable source, Knowledge has sided with one of those points of view. We could incorporate a subset entitled "Disputed Castes" or somesuch, but that doesn't really address the fundamental issue IMO. The list's title says what the contents are. Alternate titles include Sitush's previous redlink attempt at comedy well above :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The article Caste system in India has a big banner tag saying The neutrality of this article is disputed and it has been there since April 2011. There are numerous caste article with associated categories and they are routinely disputed too. This list seems comparatively free of dispute because it is clean and simple. There seems to be no case for deletion of the list as a higher priority than deletion of any or all those other articles. But we're not going to delete them because the topic of caste is notable and Knowledge is not censored. Warden (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Lists are clean and simple to look at, aren't they? That does not mean they are free from original research, point of view pushing and unreliability, though. Nobody has every said that the topic of caste is not notable. The discussion here is about this list. Censorship is irrelevant here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That the list is not tagged re: NPOV etc is another red herring. NPOV etc is being discussed now. I wasn't even aware of this list until recently, and as soon as I became aware I queried it. Basically, like a lot of articles relating to caste, it has been left to its own devices and so anyone and everyone has been allowed to add whatever they chose. This entire sphere needs more eyes and that has been said time and again on the drama boards etc. Thankfully, there is now a small group of people - including the very necessary admins - who are making a big attempt to clean up thousands upon thousands of poor articles. Of which this is one. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The nominator tells us above that he has "no specialist knowledge at all" and now Sitush tells us that "wasn't even aware of this list until recently". The claims of the nay-sayers to have some special competence or wisdom in this matter are thus shown to be empty. We should therefore rely upon our standard policies and guidelines: WP:IMPERFECT and WP:CLN. Myself, I'm on the trail of good sources for this topic and, this lunchtime, added Homo Hierarchicus to my reading list. The work of bringing this list up to a high standard seems to have barely started and it is by such research that this will be done. Deletion would be premature in such circumstances. Warden (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Before you coment any further Warden, I suggest that you read this. It might be useful to not make irrelevant Ad Hominem attacks and get straight to the point of the discussion. Which remains that the naysayers have enough competence to deal with the topic and that they've got some solid points to support their case there. The primary point remains that it is not possible to make this into a good list because there are no lists before which agree on what caste means and which castes are castes and which are not. Even the official govt census makes sure not to go into that dreaded territory, because of the outright chaos out there. Why do you think we should exercise our Original Research to even try compiling this list? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. Dumont is not going to help this list and that you think it will merely demonstrates your complete failure to understand the many arguments posed here by people who do know what they're talking about. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I was led to the source by another work which described it as classic and the Independent wrote, "it was for many years almost impossible to write on Indian society without extensive reference to Dumont". I am already well aware that he has critics but this is quite normal in the social sciences. Our job is to summarise all such major contributions and this will not be done by closing our eyes or shirking the task. Warden (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

One needs no specialist knowledge to spot trash, Warden. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed — your contributions to this discussion are WP:RUBBISH. Warden (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Warden, you are mixing apples and oranges here. Sure, you could and should use Dumont in, say, Caste system in India, but as soon as you try to use him in List of Indian castes you will be introducing POV. In order to fix that POV it would be necessary to indicate the alternates, and as soon as you start doing that then the list begins to take on the appearance of an article about each community ... and we have articles for communities. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

~~(ec) Woah woah woah... That was a direct PA, warden. Someone ought to trought you for this~~ TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:RUBBISH is a link to the well-known page of Arguments to avoid. The short cut in this case, is to the section which points out that just complaining about an article's deficiencies is a weak argument for deletion because articles can be improved. The nominator's repeated statement that the page in question is "trash" has this character and so the counter is bang on target. Warden (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Got that. Struck TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It was very cleverly not a personal attack, and one could even say it was not designed to look like one or not indeed intended to look like one. I decided not to consider it to be one, knowing there was sufficient scope for any accusation to be deflected. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We are clearly going in circles here. If nobody has any points to add here, I suggest we close the debate and call upon the attention of a reviewing admin to decide for himself whether or not to delete the article. If any admin is willing to do the needful, please bring them here as soon as possible TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is indeed something of a train wreck but so it goes. You should please just be patient and await closure in the usual way after 7 days has elapsed. In the meantime, readers might amuse themselves by reading WP:LIGHTBULB, for which this is a good example. Warden (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Woah! It isnt 7 days already for the AfD !?? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Obviously valuable, hugely valuable, to have this as a list in Knowledge. Fine to tag as needing sources, and to tear it down and rebuild, and so on. Even the current version accomplishes something valuable, showing at a glance that there exists an incredible-to-me, probably incredible-to-many, long classification system of persons in India by caste. That people have thought this way, that they have such an elaborated system of names and so on to peg persons/families, e.g. by fishing persons, is amazing. Like in U.S. history there have been documented characterizations of persons by race and other type with horrible caricatures of these types. It is embarrassing but part of U.S. history. I imagine this list should be sensitively introduced, as descriptive of the caste nomenclature that has developed in practice in India. Surely this can/should be developed with adequate support for each caste. And surely it can eventually be split as needed when the documentation and description becomes too much. Tag as "incredibly important" to develop. --do ncr am 16:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming immensely frustrating: the article Indian caste system addresses your interest in this, and I certainly agree, fascinating topic. The category system Category:Indian castes allows you to delve into its various complexities. The list itself as it currently stands is nigh-useless (and far less useful than the current extant Category), and cannot ever be made in a satisfactory way, ever. I don't mean this personally, but it is vexing that we're hitting the same arguments over and over, and a steady stream of people who are completely unfamiliar with the subject drop by to browse for a moment and say "Hmm, well, this looks interesting, great list !keep!." Your "I imagine"s are all, as described at length above, incorrect. And further, essentially all the people above who've argued for a "little cleanup" are people that aren't going to do anything to help, nearly entirely people whose names I've never seen helping out at the massive cleanups of India articles a few of us are struggling with, etc.

It's as though a few of us have been building a stone fence at the top of a hill with great labour, and there's a huge boulder at the bottom blocking our fields. We keep suggesting the boulder by dynamited, and the neighbours keep swinging by to glance for a minute and say "oh no, I reckon that boulder would fit great into the fence way up there, wonderful addition, save all kinds of time. You just have to push it up there, that's really all, shouldn't be too much effort to move a few tons of a little old stone. Whelp, off I go, good luck with that!" MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Lest anyone think I'm lazy, this is the kind of work I've been doing on a 17th Century Indian leader who is a subject of massive POV due to his being practically deified by the Maratha caste/clans: Talk:Shivaji#Cleanup_To-Do_list. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is eminently reasonable to say that Castes and the Caste System are important. In many different ways in this discussion we have learned that Castes are individually notable and individually verifiable. The challenge is that the verifiability on one source says "A" in another "B" in a third "Neither A nor B" and in fourth one cannot find that particular Caste at all. The spelling of the same Caste varies hugely and the naming varies. There can be two entirely different castes containing the same name. A simple list is absolutely impossible to create in a uniformly verifiable manner that is not Original Research or Point of View Pushing. A simple list looks attractive until one has spent only a little time learning about the area and then becomes an impossible challenge to conceive, let alone maintain. And that is just a tiny amount of the difficulties that content experts have noted here.

If one then adds the Every List is Sacred attitude about lists "needing to be here" then one compounds the error hugely. A close of "Keep" or even "No Consensus" would be unwise because one expects the closer to use diligence in understanding the arguments and to use the evidence of their own eyes and a strong helping of common sense at the time of closure. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And, if I may add, the reason why the list seems incredible is because it is incredible. A hefty chunk of what is in it is not about castes in the first place. Like I say above, it's somewhat akin to a List of all last names in the United States which, I assume, is meaningless. We'd probably have to attach a cite tag to every entry in the list. I wish there was a better way of constructing this list, but there doesn't seem to be one. --regentspark (comment) 21:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

For similiar information about the USA see:

List of ethnic groups in the United States by household income
Demographics of the United States (which contains lists of classes, cohorts, races and religions)
Category:Demographics of the United States

Warden (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. You'll know all about WP:OSE and so it obviously isn't related to "these exist, so this should". - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing number 5

I was admonished to read the entire AFD and have done so. It is repetitive. All complaints have been well-answered by editors Colonel Warden, Silversen, and Postdlf, including great example of indeterminate nature of Lists of Rivers. "Can't source it", "don't want to", etc., are fine reasons for persons to step away from the article, but not for it to be deleted. Consider it a list of actual castes, or things that have been called castes. All this is manageable. Welcome to my world: List of Masonic buildings, List of Methodist churches, many other lists where editors have had concerns, all easily answered by just doing the work. It is always exagerated that cruft will be added, that the list cannot possibly be managed. I think Knowledge used to be subject to more stuff being added than happens now, so any list is more easily managed now than before. Random additions can and are dealt with harshly, easily, by bots or by bot-like editors. And for a big list in India, there is a different pool of new contributors who need to be conditioned/educated.

My experience is that the biggest problem, requiring far more time to deal with, is the "regular" editors who endlessly insist on their assertions that it will be impossible to deal with the potential cruft-adders. Let's all just shut up and go to work.

I stepped in to begin adding sources from corresponding articles, and was admonished that the first alphabetical item was not a caste. Fine. Created new List of Scheduled Castes and moved it there, which is more easily sourced, because it is a list of official designations of these disadvantaged groups, and is naturally supported by the official designations such as the 1950 constitution. This will help take pressure off this list of castes. I plan next to strike all unsupported items in this list, will do that in a big edit. Please discuss at the Talk page.

I feel bad for those who feel that keeping the article will cause them work or angst...then go away, honestly that is best for you. Or, stop this, and just work on the article. It is important, it is notable, it should stay, and I predict this will be closed Keep. So let's just stop this discussion. I'll plan not respond much here. Please, others, just stop, too. Move discussion to the article's talk page. --do ncr am 23:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, Doncram. It is exactly this type of post that has garnered you so much criticism on NRHP stuff. You think you know what you are doing? You haven;t got a clue. This will probably end as "no consensus". I'm willing to help and the alternate list is something that I proposed & you have adopted - it is NOT a reason to keep this list, which is and always will be useless. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Proving the point that it is easy to manage additions, Sitush and another editor have suppressed the list of castes that I moved to the Talk page of the article. It is extremely easy for one or a few editors to suppress, stop, any addition of suspected cruft to an article. I think it is useful to show the past list at the Talk page for a while, but even if it is suppressed there, that just proves the point that the list-article is manageable. Again, I'll try not to comment further in this AFD. Will participate in development of the list-article, if it not made too difficult and unpleasant. --do ncr am 01:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What has been proven is that your bull-in-a-china-shop approach is making matters worse. I have a feeling of deja-vu. Policies were being violated on that list at the moment I first saw it but happen I opened a discussion rather than apply the policy. Your approach has caused me to harden my position: you have ignored discussion and just gone off on one. Sure, you can be bold even in the face of discussion but when you have admitted to knowing sod-all about the subject & are approaching it on the basis that "surely something must be ok her" (paraphrase) then what do you expect will happen? You and I both have experienced the drama of ANI etc. In my case, it has been in this subject area and always in my favour; in your case it has been neither of those. I suggest that you stick to discussion for now. And, yes, this is personalising things: how else do you expect people to react to your opening statement in this section? - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Don, Vaish redirects to Vaishya, which is not remotely close to being a caste, it is a varna, an overarching social category into which castes fit. To use your Methodist parallel above, that's like listing "Monotheism" among "Branches of Methodism". And, yet again as said many times above, your argument is not valid: "Can't source it", "don't want to", etc., are fine reasons for persons to step away from the article, but not for it to be deleted.. It is not that we, those of us who have been striving to clean up caste articles for more than a year now, are unwilling to put time in. It is that the problem is inherently unsolvable, and the existence of an unsolvable list is inherently damaging to both the credibility of Knowledge (especially to the fast-emerging India audience) and a disservice to communities of living people affected by misinformation about the caste system, such as over-simplified lists. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment The list as it stands now (with only one caste) is even more harmful than the entire list. For an outside reader, it is appears that Knowledge recognizes that only Agarwal caste exists in India. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

From a technical procedural perspective it might be better to revert the example attempt that this editor started with a flurry of enthusiasm that appears to have tailed off to the huge POV and OR mess the list was previously. I have hesitated to do that on the basis that I am assuming good faith that the effort was not just the firing of a starting pistol, but was, instead the running of the race. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

People do sleep. We have a similar problem at List of Scheduled Castes and List of Other Backward Classes, which have also both been initiated with zeal but little thought or knowledge. We could tag as {{under construction}} or blank, but I'd be loathe to see the original content at List of Indian castes reinstated now that Doncram has fired the starting pistol. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's quite normal for lists to be incomplete. We have a template for this purpose: {{expand list}}. I have added it to the current draft. Warden (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, Warden, whether to congratulate you for irony or for understatement :) But it is nice to agree with an edit for a change :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing admin - please take a look at the recent developments on the article and its talk page before closing. Doncram made a well-intentioned attempt to improve the situation but even they seem to be saying that they've hit a brick wall of sorts. At least they had a go, which is more than I expect most of the other contributors !voting keep here will do. This really is not a list that can be dabbled with: it either needs a massive fix now or it needs deletion. Of course, if any of those wishing to keep the thing are prepared to have it userfied and work on it in their own time then that is a possible solution to the immediate issue. My suspicion is that should it become live again in mainspace then it will be shredded pretty quickly for all of the reasons that have already been stated, and this also means that the "massive fix" cannot be done. But that is something that they can ponder and attempt to avoid beforehand. I'm happy to respond to any queries during that process as, I am sure, some of the other people who have favoured deletion would do. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm, the list-article has not encountered any unsurmountable brick walls. After I removed all items not having explicit sources to the Talk page, there has been strident opposition to their appearing even on the Talk page, though. There are many castes in India, as indicated by many thousands of wikipedia articles with corresponding categories. They deserve, need to be listed in a list, if only to bring them under good scrutiny as to whether they qualify or not.

The list-article remains a work in progress, stripped down. Original objections that a list-article cannot be maintained have been disproven by the ease with which some editors manage to remove anything added now. So, all the arguments above, for keeping the list remain. Previous arguments against keeping the list, are weakened, by the development so far. --do ncr am 02:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, it is undue weight. You must be able to realise that? It names one group and the only reason it does that is because I was at 3RR & have since gotten sidetracked. You are also engaging in a non-argument, ie: that we have articles that are categorised means that there is a purpose in the list. You are not considering whether the articles are correctly categorised nor whether the list can do justice to the issues raised in the articles. Basically, your comments are, erm, irrelevant. I repeat what has been said umpteen times here: there is no policy that says categories cannot exist without a list or vice versa.

As for maintenance, well, the sheer stupidity/ignorance/whatever (let's call it the middle one, for AGF) of one person is relatively easy to deal with, especially when they do have a decent grasp of how we do things. Alas, most people that approach that list do not even have that grasp. Why is, do you think, that the community recently agreed to impose general sanctions across all articles concerning Indic communities? It has become difficult to deal with and, right now, the subject area is even more lacking in eyes than it was then. Sanctions are a useful tool but they do not excuse the existence of a list that has no encyclopedic potential and is a time-sink for the very few knowledgeable people that could try to maintain it. No amount of semi-protection or even full protection will stop the aggro.

Nonetheless, and as I say above, if you want to take it on in your userspace then that's fine by me. - Sitush (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Why Pink Floyd...?

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

Mostly redundant to the individual album articles, only merits a sentence or two in Pink Floyd. Once you winnow out the track listings, there is hardly any article left. Considering the obscurity of the name (especially considering the typography), it's an unlikely search term for a redirect. PROD was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep It's part of the band's discography, not redundant, a wholly individual release. The article helps to sort out the rather complex release structure and contents. Jmj713 (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. A Google News search turns up enough relevant hits to establish notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - this really adds nothing to the existing articles, whether on the band or the original albums. Essentially this is a plug for some re-releases, let's hope not commercially motivated in any way. Knowledge readers are quite capable of looking on music sites for track listings - completeness (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) is not a valid keep reason, and remember WP:USEFUL is not a suitable reason for keeping either. Nor does the existence of hits prove anything: a topic may have many trivial hits (or be dismissed as uninteresting by many serious reviewers in many fine newspapers) without being worth covering. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did say relevant hits – implying that I've reviewed them and believe they amount to "significant coverage". DoctorKubla (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Were they to be added to the article then everyone would be able to verify the work done... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This reads like one big advert for the re-released albums. Lugnuts 10:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Jmj713 and DoctorKubla. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep I think there's enough coverage of this subject from reliable secondary sources to meet the general notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 18:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep The article is reliably sourced from Billboard already, and there are sources from The Guardian, and Rolling Stone. That's significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources so passes WP:GNG. "Considering the obscurity of the name" sounds rather like WP:IDONTKNOWIT. --Ritchie333 14:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Response I may not have made myself clear. Sometimes, AfDs are decided with redirect but in this case, I am arguing against redirection, since no one is going to search for "Why Pink Floyd...?" and anyone who does will simply look for the article on Pink Floyd anyway. I am familiar with this marketing campaign and I do not think this is a hoax. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Article subject has notability, but a lot of the content was unencyclopedic. I just removed all portions of the article that violated WP:NOTDIR including the track listings and other detailed release information. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Rhina Espaillat. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Powow River Poets

AfDs for this article:

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

I see no indication that this is a notable group of poets, a brief article in the Boston Globe notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete - plenty of passing mentions on various poetry blogs and mentions of membership in relation to particular poets, but not a lot that could be considered "significant coverage". I suppose we would need it to pass WP:ORGDEPTH, which I don't think it does. There are a few articles like this and this from their local paper. They have also published an anthology (not WP:SELFPUB) but that would be by the subject, not about the subject. On balance, not really enough for me to consider it notable but not so strongly non-notable that I strongly believe it should be deleted. Stalwart111 01:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Rhina Espaillat#Powow River Poets. This is her group she founded, seems like whatever small notability we can find is mostly related to her name recognition. The Boston Globe article is pretty long and in-depth about the group, an interview with her makes up half of it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wouldn't have a strong objection to that. Seems like a reasonable solution to me. Stalwart111 22:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. I think there's a rough consensus at this point that this article should be deleted due to POV and SYNTH/COATRACK concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian incitement

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

Violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE. This is to all intents and purposes propaganda, intended to present Palestinians in a bad light, and no article with a title remotely resembling ' Palestinian incitement' could possibly meet basic WP:NPOV requirements. WE already have articles on the broader subject (e.g. Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict for example), and this is inherently a POV-fork intended to cover the subject solely from a pro-Israeli perspective. It simply doesn't belong in a credible encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This article seems like a WP:COATRACK of the worst kind. Any content that does need to be covered from this article could be handled in a more neutral manner in other articles relating to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; but I don't see this specific article as being a net benefit to Knowledge. --Jayron32 05:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment For the moment I would suggest we could redirect it to another article. The "media coverage" article would not be a good target. I think the information could be used in an article on propaganda and indoctrination in the conflict if it noted the Israeli aspect, but a redirect would preserve the information.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment The article was moved to Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict while being discussed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete content and redirect title to media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict as obvious WP:POVFUNNEL / WP:POVFORK thereof. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the better target as there is an actual section with the same title in that article. As to "delete and redirect", I don't think that is the right vote in this instance. Simply redirecting would suffice.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete as POV-fork. The content seems biased and subjective, so not suitable for merging in its present form. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend taking a closer look at the material. It is all based on reliable sources. If you could list examples of what you deem to be biased and subjective it could help improve the discussion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete or redirect because, looking at the references, a lot of them are from the Jerusalem Post or the Israeli government. CarniCat (meow) 06:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Is The Jerusalem Post' not a reliable source? Did you go to WP:RSN? Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources are rarely de-facto reliable for anything. Reliability is always dependent on what you are using the source for, but I don't think anyone has stated that the comments made are not cited reliably, rather that they are cited to involved sources. Using Israeli newspapers to characterize the Palestinians is clearly problematic; the article is serving as Palestinian bashing from the Israeli government, Israeli newspapers and Pro-Israeli groups, including numerous quotes. The article is clearly acting as a soapbox. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't go to the noticeboard, but I'll do that now; still, the sources aren't exactly unbiased. Here's a quote from the first article:

"The bottom line, Kuperwasser said, is that Palestinian incitement is “going on all the time,” adding that the phenomenon is “worrying and disturbing.” He said that at an institutional level the Palestinian Authority was continuously driving three messages home: that the Palestinians would eventually be the sole sovereign on all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea; that Jews, especially those who live in Israel, were not really human beings but rather “the scum of mankind”; and that all tools were legitimate in the struggle against Israel and the Jews, though the specific tool used at one time or another depended on a cost-benefit analysis."

CarniCat (meow) 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep This subject clearly merits its own page, given the copious references that address the issue directly - and those have barely scratched the surface. I would implore editors not to give into WP:IDONTLIKEIT exhibited by some editors. Please judge the article on its own merits. It is very well-sourced to only reliable sources - Associated Press ("Israel takes aim at Palestinian 'incitement'"), Agence France Presse ("Palestinian PM vows crackdown on arms, incitement, calls for talks with Israel"), The New York Times ("Palestinians Honor a Figure Reviled in Israel as a Terrorist"), BBC , Haaretz, Jerusalem Post ("'Palestinian incitement continuing unabated'"), etc. Addressing Incitement is indubitably a key aspect to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Policy grounds for the wholesale removal of the article are quite tenuous. Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Are editors really arguing that one of the key negotiating concerns in the Israeli–Palestinian peace process does not merit its own Knowledge page? "Incitement" is explicitly mentioned in the 1993 Oslo Accords, 1998 Wye River Memorandum (which led to the establishment of the Trilateral Anti-Incitement Committee) and the 2003 Roadmap for peace. Plot Spoiler (talk)

"key negotiating concerns"? Citation (from a neutral source) needed? Then again, I'd like to see a neutral reliable source that claims that there is a 'peace process' - there's little sign that the propagandists on Knowledge are interested in peace... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:No Personal Attacks. Please. Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no personal attacks - please confine your attacks to an entire nationality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment WP:SARCASM is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Knowledge policy or guideline, especially when dealing on very sensitive matters like wars that ended just three days ago. Please let's try to do our best in refraining from flaming, thanks. M aurice Carbonaro 11:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

While that is no doubt sensible advice, it would mean that an opportunity for a sarcastic and witty response to an editor writing an attack article and then appealing to a policy for personal protection from attack would have been missed. That would be a terrible waste and in some cultures, certainly mine, it borders on criminal neglect. Just as the hasbara-force is strong in Plot Spoiler, the urge to make serious and profound points using witty sarcasm is strong in others. Vive la différence. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

For Sean and others like him, it's WP:Ignore all rules if you want to insult other editors. For him (or her), rules like WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks need not apply. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Cut the personal attacks out, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Having difficulty comprehending that an article like Israel and the apartheid analogy merits a page but an article on Palestinian incitement, a much more well-established phenomenon immediately deserves deletion. It does not appear that uniform standards are being applied to the topic area. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It's conceivable it could be turned into an NPOV article, but to quote the Limelighters quoting God, "Not in My lifetime." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Then salt forever. This is an unwarranted expansion of a topic that should rate nothing more than a few paragraphs in some other article, like Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no way in heaven or hell that this will ever be a viable article, or that it is even an encyclopedic topic at all. §FreeRangeFrog 06:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per nom and Jayron. Among the worst POV forks I have seen. nableezy - 06:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. This is definitely a discrete topic and a longtime Israeli concern, and documented by third party organizations, ie MEMRI's famous translation of Tomorrow's Pioneers, which is an example of Palestinian incitement to anti-Semitism. Witness also the sourced statement within the article that the Israeli government considers Anti-Israel and anti-Semitic messages as "an integral part of the fabric of life inside the PA... heard regularly in the government and private media and in the mosques and are taught in schools books". Much is written about incitement's sub-topics, including Palestinian textbook controversies. I can't consider this article a POV-fork of "media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict", since that covers international news media, while this topic is about inflammatory and defamatory media of a certain bent within Palestine. Shrigley (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually have even the vaguest understanding of what WP:NPOV policy is about? Cherry-picking sources to push one side of an argument is no way to create an encyclopaedic article - and we aren't here to promote 'longtime Israeli concerns'. I think that your comments are possibly the best illustration so far as to why this article needs to be deleted, as the violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE that it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I only say that it is a longtime Israeli concern as evidence that people have been producing sources about the topic from which we can drawn on. Of course we wouldn't only use Israeli sources, but it's pretty intuitive that non-neutral organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, for example, would be most concerned with documenting anti-semitism, or that Amnesty International would be most concerned with documenting human rights violations. A comparable historical topic is Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States, which of course should include Japanese perspectives, but not only that. The existence of anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli propaganda inside and by the Palestinian Authority is an encyclopedic topic. Shrigley (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete I have no interest in the conflict save that it ceases in peace. From Knowledge's standpoint this is a heavily biased article. What is required is a solid and heavyweight impartial treatise on the conflict and its various stages, something I assume exists here anyway, not a diatribe against one or other party in the conflict. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Less an article than an Israeli government press release. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete The article is not neutrally written, and appears to be based around advocating a particular POV. As such WP:TNT is in order on the grounds that this is a POV fork. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Almost every source is Israeli, and not an uninvolved source. An article that can not be written about neutrally because it aims to push a pro-Israeli POV. As one of the main editors has already made clear, he is here to push an Israeli POV in other articles, it comes as no great surprise : . This is an advocacy piece, and has no place on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Blatantly one-sided POV, sourced from blatantly one-sided sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete as a clearly biased POV fork. The article is almost entirely based on pro-Israeli sources and much of it simply lists the opinions of the Israeli government or pro-Israeli organisations. The problem is sufficiently severe that it cannot be addressed through normal editing. The topic might conceivably be worth covering in an article on the media of Israel and Palestine, cultural relations between Israel and Palestine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more generally, but not in this way. I should also note that the fact that something is sourced, or even well sourced, does not mean it is neutral. Hut 8.5 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't think the renaming makes any difference. The entire article is so biased that it would take a fundamental rewrite to bring it into compliance with one of our core content policies. The notability of the subject is irrelevant, as no one is proposing deletion on notability grounds and there are many reasons to delete articles besides notability. Hut 8.5 10:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - as above, 'clearly biased POV - lists the opinions of the Israeli government or pro-israeli organisations.' there could be an interesting and informative article about 'indoctrination and demonisation in the Palestine-Israel conflict 1940s-present times' , looked at in a rounded fashion. But this is just a propaganda leaflet. Sayerslle (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per all the above delete votes. Pass a Method talk 14:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Palestinian incitement per my comments above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete: POV fork, apologetic, polemic advocacy based on extremely biased sources. Nothing of encyclopedic value to save. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - This is the type of "article" that serves as nothing more than a playground for the pro-Israeli Wiki-warriors around here. Delete as a painfully obvious POV fork and sanction those involved in its creation and editing per ARBPIA as warranted. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
As one of the editors who has been accused of being a pro-Israeli Wiki-warriors, I resent the implication that this article was for me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - as per non - ....just read over Israel and the apartheid analogy that was mentioned above - got problems there to.Moxy (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There are no problems with that article. The aforementioned Wiki-warriors have longed tried to create junk like "Palestinian incitement" because they have for years tried and failed to delete, gut, or dilute the Israeli apartheid article to no avail, and see such creations as some sort of counter-point to something they don't like. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A reply of this nature leads me to believe that we have two groups of editors not willing to work things out - not the type of interactions we are looking for here.Moxy (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the reply leads you to believe that. There are 2 sets of editors. One set follows the rules, the other doesn't. The set of editors who don't follow the rules includes people with conflicting real world views about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem name calling - labeling editors "Wiki-warriors" and "non-rule followers". Its very very clear there is 2 groups of editors here that have such a problem with each other that any reasonable conversation is impossible (WP:WIAPA).Moxy (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not correct, but I can understand why you want to make it simple. It really isn't and I would encourage you to edit in the topic area so you see how things really are. The topic area needs more editors who just follow the rules. The illusion that things are "very very clear" will soon go away when you see that things are far more messy than you imagine. Also you have confused name calling with stating facts. There are editors in the topic area who don't follow the rules. That is a fact. Describing them accurately is, of course, not a personal attack. It is no more of a personal attack than describing an editor who follows the rules as an editor who follows the rules. There are also people who can be reasonably described as "Wiki-warriors". See Special:Contributions/EditorInChiefSD for a perfect example. Within that set of "non-rule followers", to quote you, not me, are a diverse collection of individual people (not two nice tidy groups wearing badges or uniforms) who have various degrees of experience, language skills, willingness to collaborate, knowledge of the topic, allegiance to Israeli interests, allegiance to Palestinian interests, all sorts of nationalities, ethnicities, cultural backgrounds etc etc and consequently very complicated impersonal relationships when they bother to use the talk pages. So, no, it is not a toy universe with "2 groups of editors here that have such a problem with each other that any reasonable conversation is impossible". Of course this diversity exists for the people who do follow the rules too, but it doesn't matter because they follow the rules. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)You are drawing parallels where none exist, and are in effect exacerbating the problem at hand. A disruptive editor like this Plot Spoiler person creates an article attacking the POV of his opponent, highlights an article critical of his own POV (Israeli apartheid analogy), and tries to paint the two as being on equal footing, hoping that if "Palestinian incitement" goes down, it'll drag something else down with it. This song and dance has been playing out in this project for years, and is why I rarely set foot into Israel-Palestine topics anymore. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per the comments above. POV, biased, selectively referenced, only possible purpose to slant opinion and attack. But can it be done quickly, or do we need to leave the disgraceful thing up there for a week to be gazed at by the world? Begoon 20:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
SNOW DELETE AND REQUEST TO CLOSE This should have been speedy deleted with all of the Knowledge policies violated. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Seems to me that it was created to be a POV fork. Simple as that. Silver seren 21:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Clearly a POV fork. We don't need to be a conduit for anyone's propaganda. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete This is entirely a presentation of one side of a debate and is clearly intended as such. One of the worst bits of propaganda in one of the most propaganda-strewn corners of Knowledge. Zero 06:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete -- not encyclopedic, in fact basically the opposite of encyclopedic. Perhaps some material on this page could be useful for other articles, but the topic is not suitable for an article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

*Keep and expand. It didn't take long to find a source that told of a FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR study funded by the U.S. State Department on this very topic.

a team of six bilingual researchers -- three Israeli Jews and three Palestinians -- are examining the poems, narrative descriptions, maps, stories, photographs and illustrations in 141 Palestinian and 486 Israeli textbooks used from grades 1 to 12. The researchers log their findings into a computer system, with half of the books analyzed twice by both an Israeli and a Palestinian and the other half split evenly between both sides and analyzed once to counter possible bias.

The study's designer, Yale University psychiatry professor Bruce Wexler, told the Forward that the study's methodologies have never been used for textbook analysis.

"We borrowed techniques in other areas of research to create a more objective, quantitative analysis," Wexler told the paper (Al Haaretz).

The State Department's grant for the study comes from a $4 million fund appropriated by Congress for work pertaining to religious freedom.

~~And please also look at these references: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Palestinian+incitement%22 Yours,~~ GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Based on the statements below, I now have no opinion one way or the other. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but we already have articles Textbooks in Israel and Textbooks in the Palestinian territories. We don't need another on the same subject. Zero 11:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

But it wasn't on this very topic and the approach was entirely different. The Israeli-Palestinian schoolbook project very sensibly covers sources from both belligerents in the conflict, whereas oddly, we only look at one side of the incitement issue in this article. Funny that. The good people who worked on that project used scientific methods to try to figure out the actual state of things, whereas we, a charity with the mission to "Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content" so that "every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge", thanks to the 2 main authors of the article, Plot Spoiler and AnkhMorpork, use the card stacking propaganda technique to manipulate the perception of readers and present one side of an issue. The contrast is quite stark. Incitement in the Arab-Israeli conflict is probably an encyclopedic topic but this article clearly isn't how to deal with it. Ironically, these kind of propagandistic articles in the topic area always seem to be written by, and attract, editors who should not be going anywhere near these kinds of articles, and other people have to clean up the resulting mess. Anosognosia is also an encyclopedic topic but I very much doubt that it was written by people with anosognosia. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for some participants in this discussion to clean up their mouth with a soap and to say Hail Mary, Hare Krishna or any other mantra of their choice to clear up the smelly atmosphere. We just LUV our fellow Knowledge editors, don't we? Anyway, our annual propaganda holiday is over, stuffing my face full of turkey and booze is not as easy as it sounds. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete The topic is covered in other articles a neutral way ; this one is one-sided and sounds like propaganda. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Per Plot Spoiler. The nomination makes no argument for deletion. The article's sources demonstrate the notability of the topic and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, but consider partial merging with antisemitism. The section on antisemitism in the Palestinian Territories is too small. Zaminamina (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Which reminds me that there is already another very low quality article Racism in the Palestinian territories. Zero 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Clear synthesis in support of the same old anti-Palestinian agenda by the same old users. It looks like they literally just googled "Palestine" and "incitement" and threw in everything they could find, but that is not how article writing works, because articles have to be about topics that are identified in reliable sources (and, frankly, the JPost is looking more and more like an opinion page). The fact that the article takes for granted that anything and everything constitutes "Palestinian incitement" is also obviously unacceptable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep The article is a work of art. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wha? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I recall that username from Knowledge past; a Holocaust denier, 9/11 truther. This non-vote won't count for anything in the final tally, no worry. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowball delete. I think consensus has already been achieved. – Richard BB 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - this article is one sided and is a serious violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete The issues probably are and should be covered in the various relevant articles (Oslo, Wye River, Roadmap, etc). (And Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict is already a mess of coatrack attacks on Palestinians, so don't add it there!) There are a lot of articles like this and it gives me hope to see one finally deleted. Maybe I'll start AfDing the worst ones! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Carolmooredc (talk • contribs)
Keep — Wow, yet another example of the huge anti-Semitic bias at Knowledge. All these anti-Israeli activists gang up to delete this neutral and factual article, but they scream bloody murder when someone tries to get the garbage anti-Semitic propaganda articles Israel and the apartheid analogy and Criticism of the Israeli government (notice how that is the only "Criticism of " article on all of Knowledge! Criticism of the Iranian government was unilaterally deleted without a vote.) deleted. Knowledge is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson3930 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Samson3930 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. blocked sock
Keep There are at least 15 articles which could be seen as intended to present Israelis in a bad light, like in the case of "Israel and Apartheid analogy" or "Racism in Israel" with many non factual POV views and written far benith the standards of this artickle. The delation of this tickler would be enormous bias, maybe unprecedented in Knowledge history.--Tritomex (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, each article here stays or goes on its own merits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If there exist "articles which could be seen as intended to present Israelis in a bad light", then the solution is not to try to balance that by adding "articles which could be seen as intended to present Palestinians in a bad light" - the solution is to address any existing problematic articles and ensure they adhere to WP:NPOV policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs) 10:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete — The topic is POV. That aside, it fails WP:GNG as far as encyclopedic concepts go. Examples cobbled together do not support the notion that this is a real concept with serious treatment in reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 06:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I do not have to much time to invest into this, but see for instance the abstract of Incitement in the Mosques: Testing the Limits of Free Speech and Religious Liberty by Kenneth Lasson, University of Baltimore School of Law, Fall 2005, Whittier Law Review, Vol. 27, p. 3, 2005:

In times of terror and tension, civil liberties are at their greatest peril. Nowadays, no individual rights are more in jeopardy than the freedoms of speech and religion. This is true particularly for followers of Islam, whose leaders have become increasingly radical in both their preaching and practice. "Kill the Jews!" and "Kill the Americans!" are chants heard regularly in many Middle Eastern mosques, as frightful echoes of the fatwa are issued by today's quintessential terrorist, Osama bin Laden. The incitement continues unabated to this day. In April of 2004, for example, a Muslim preacher at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem referred to Jews as "sons of monkeys and pigs," and as "murderers of prophets." Loudspeakers boomed across the Old City with his message, in which he condemned Jews to total extinction.

From quick look at Google search Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL it appears that the question is being discussed by the sources and researched in academia. So WP:GNG failure claim appears as baseless. There is no reason why there could not be a neutral article on the matter. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Palestinian incitement" on Google scholar gets 46 results. Hardly evidence of massive academic interest - and does the source you cite specifically refer to Palestinians, or are you just assuming that it does? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename to "Incitement to violence in the Arab-Israel conflict" and expand the article cover both Israeli and Arab incitement. Marokwitz (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep as a notable topic in its own right for numerous reasons:

This issue is an important aspect of the Israeli claims that need to be addressed in the "peace process". It is documented by Israeli government sources, non-Israeli sources and the media. It is specifically addressed in the 1993 Oslo Accords, 1998 Wye River Memorandum and the 2003 Roadmap for Peace. Clearly it is not insignificant if it is mentioned in all 3 of these documents and is a topic worthy of examination and explanation.
It should not be conflated into another article; just as for example, Israeli Settlements, another issue in the conflict/peace process is treated separately. There are a multitude of sources out there and not all of them are going to present the Israeli view. In fact many may dispute whether or to what extent this is an issue - and that is something that can be treated in this article.
While incitement in the media and textbooks are some areas that are already addressed separately, this article covers a broader spectrum, including the phenomenon in media (television, radio, newspapers) and textbooks, but also in sermons, cultural events, naming of public buildings etc., and can and should examine the broader context of these discrete elements.
Many of the "delete" votes are based on POV concerns; however, that is not a reason to delete; that is an opportunity to work at making this into an NPOV article. Yes, it's not a pleasant topic, but the article can be improved to address this real issue in a NPOV way. PopularMax (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Just one more example of a highly visible push by a handful of editors to build up Israel's official case against the Palestinians. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment I've renamed the article to Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict per Marokwitz's constructive suggestion above and tagged the article for NPOV, to encourage editors to improve the balance of opinions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There has been no discussion of this move. Please move it back and establish consensus first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this is highly inappropriate behavior. Zero 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

How is it inappropriate to seek to make improvements to the page? Barely anybody here has expressed any interest in improving the article -- just deleting it outright. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In this case, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that deleting it would be an improvement. Still, if you wish to 'improve' it, can I suggest that to help establish the necessary NPOV for an article under this title, you find material relating to Israeli incitement of violence against Palestinians? I'm sure there is plenty to be found... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A reference is made to "Israeli incitement of violence against Palestinians". There is probably a scarcity of this material. That does not make this article in violation of WP:NPOV. Such material belongs in this article if reliably sourced. The article has an implied scope. The primary indication of the implied scope is the title. It is: Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Your argument boils down to the paucity of reliably sourced instances of Israeli Jewish indoctrination and agitation and incitement to violence in the Middle East conflict. That is not a reason to delete an article. Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I think. I meant exactly what I said - any NPOV article on the subject will cover incitement by Israelis - and I'm sure that there is no shortage of material relating to this. Actually, we already have an article on one such example: Israeli settler violence - not that I'm necessarily endorsing the content of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see where I have told you what you think. You are mentioning an article called Israeli settler violence. That article is not an article on incitement to violence but rather it is an article on violence itself. You say that "any NPOV article on the subject will cover incitement by Israelis". This is correct. Obviously you would need to find sourced instances of such incitement on the part of Israelis, and then you could justifiably add them to the article. Let us bear in mind that the article is presently titled Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Israeli settlers engage in acts of violence with no prior incitement whatsoever? Actually, don't bother to answer that - I'm not interested in engaging in facile debates with you. This article is an NPOV-violating coatrack, regardless of the title, and it is shortly going to be deleted accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The implication by Andy's statement and that of others is that there cannot be an article of this nature unless parity is drawn between Palestinian incitement and Israeli incitement. Of course there are examples that can be pointed to in Israeli society but they don't come close to matching the levels of Palestinian incitement. An article of this nature - "Incitement to violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" - will therefore have more of a focus on acts Palestinian incitement, just like Israeli settlement speaks about the illegalities of Israel's behavior and Israel and the apartheid analogy focuses on charges of Israeli apartheid. The double standards hear are clear. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"The double standards hear are clear". The POV-pushing bullshit here is clear. Given the near-universal consensus from contributors to this AfD that this article grossly violates WP:NPOV, if it isn't outright propaganda, I think your claims for the moral high ground will fall on deaf ears... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You really don't think WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks applies to you? You clearly don't understand what Knowledge is trying to build. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well what Knowledge is trying to build - and it is self-evident from this AfD that we'd rather do it without the 'contributions' of POV-pushers and propagandists like yourself. Given the enthusiasm with which you engage in endless 'personal attacks' on an entire nationality, your ridiculous posturing will get you nowhere. I suggest you find a more amenable forum for your obsessions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy—there is no reason to delete this article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason. There is no violation of NPOV because both Israelis and Palestinians are being subject to the same scrutiny in this article. A closing admin should be aware that on the basis of policy there exists no reason to delete. The article is well-sourced. Many eminently reliable sources speak of the propaganda war that supports the military war. Knowledge does not have to be so timid as to shy away from addressing in an article such as this, the topic of the constant agitating for violence that frustrates and burdens attempts to bring peace to the area. Bus stop (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, if you honestly believe that "both Israelis and Palestinians are being subject to the same scrutiny in this article", I can only assume that you haven't read it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the unilateral move of this article to 'Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

I consider this entirely inappropriate, and liable to lead to unnecessary disruption of the AfD discussion. Any article thus named would necessarily also include incitement to violence against Palestinians by Israelis - and none of the previous contributors to this debate have had the opportunity to comment on the validity of such an article. I have asked that the article be moved back, and wish to make clear that if this is not done by those involved, I will raise the matter elsewhere. Changing the topic of any article half way through an AfD is liable to be problematic, and in a contentious subject area like this can only be more so. Common sense alone suggests that this should have been discussed first, and I have to question the motives of those involved in this unilateral move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

An obvious disruptive and bad-faith move, yes, but it won't change the outcome of this discussion, which will be article deletion in 2 days time. Let him be Nero in Rome if he wishes. Tarc (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just painting a burning house at this point. Won't change the fate of the article, so ignore it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep We have for instance Criticism of Israel (Criticism of the Israeli government), Criticism of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

How is that a policy-based argument? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete as a coatrack, obviously. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There exists an Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There is incitement to violence on both sides. This is an article documenting the reliably sourced instances of this phenomena. I don't understand how this is an instance of WP:COAT. The title of the article addresses both Palestinian as well as Israeli instances of this. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And what, you think the title of an article is the only thing that matters? It's the *content* that's the problem - just sticking a new label on it doesn't change that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Boing! said it best. Blatant POV-pushing. Nightw 01:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:COATRACK and WP:NOTADVOCATE. By it's very nature, it is impossible for this article to meet WP:NPOV. Knowledge is NOT a propaganda repository. Athenean (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment on the notion that "the article can be improved to address this real issue in a NPOV way", the retitle->fix approach. The statement sounds reasonable but there isn't an evidence-based reason to believe that the statement is true. Optimistic statements like this seem to be largely based on the premise that "Knowledge has remedies in place to tackle its policy violation issues", to quote the WP:AADD essay, but that premise simply isn't true in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. The notion that the community can rename and fix articles like this is a belief, an article of faith of the community, an admirable one perhaps, but it isn't supported by the evidence. Knowledge doesn't have remedies in place in the WP:ARBPIA topic area that can ensure and enforce NPOV compliance. Nor does the topic area have the editor resources available to fix article-scale NPOV problems like this article. POV concerns in the ARBPIA topic area aren't an opportunity for something to be fixed and improved in practice, they're a problem, a sign of failure and symptom of more systemic problems that editors and admins active in the topic area haven't managed to solve. Sometimes, it really is just better to blow it up and start again and I think this article is a prime example. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland—thank you for your reasoning presented above. Let me ask you this: We have an article titled Israel and the apartheid analogy, and this is the article titled Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. How are the two articles different vis-a-vis Wiki policy in your opinion? Is the existence of one of these articles more defensible than the other? Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

They aren't fundamentally different to me. There are several articles in the topic area that have been framed in what are probably inherently problematic ways. It's a good way to seed self-assembling article-scale NPOV problems using magic googleable words. As the great philosopher...um...Kevin Costner said in Field of Dreams, "If you build it, he will come". Many have tried and failed to blow it up and start again but usually for the wrong reasons, national pride springs to mind, not something I will pretend to understand. Allow me to quote Harry Hill, "My father used to say: 'Always fight fire with fire' - and that's why he was thrown out of the fire brigade." Sean.hoyland - talk 12:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland—are you not conceding that there are no policy-based reasons for deleting this article? I don't believe there are any policy-based reasons for deleting this article and the 24 sources in the References section of the article support this view. I think they are 24 good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Simply being referenced isn't the final arbiter of what is or is not article-worthy, otherwise that time Obama swatted a fly would still be in article-space. All you're doing her eis making a slanted fork of material that can be addressed somewhere like Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeating "there are no policy-based reasons for deleting this article" like a mantra doesn't make it true. It is obvious from the discussion that there are plenty of (seasoned) editors here who think there are such reasons. It is possible, Bus stop, that you are God and all the others are wrong, but until I see evidence of that I think you should consider that absolute truths, esp. in this area, are hard to come by. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Drmies—I'm not "God". You are presenting reasons for delete in the form of sound bites: "Delete as a coatrack, obviously." I understand that you want the article deleted. What I don't understand is in what way you see this article as an embodiment of the problem described at WP:COAT. It is that reasoning that I am asking you to explain. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep, now that it has been moved to Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and cover individual and institutional incitement in Israel as well. It is an important topic, large enough for its own article. If it's still biased in a month, I'll drag it back here and notify everybody who's commented. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope - it doesn't work like that. We are all quite capable of recognising a coatrack article expressly constructed for propaganda purposes - and also entirely capable of recognising that a token attempt to make it more acceptable by fiddling with the title and adding a couple of words to the lede (which now no longer reflects article content) is nothing but a ruse to avoid deletion - at least one major contributor has made clear that he refuses to recognise that Israeli's have ever engaged in incitement, and we have further weasel-worded statements from others suggesting that rather than a 'neutral' encyclopaedic article, we would instead end up with yet another mud-slinging contest of no merit whatsoever. The new title is no less questionable than the original one, and there had been no effort whatsoever to discuss its appropriateness before it was unilaterally imposed. If such unilateral changes of topic during an AfD aren't prohibited by policy, I'd suggest that maybe policy needs changing - otherwise, the entire AfD process becomes meaningless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll bow to your greater experience of these things, Andy. Incitement is an important issue for Israelis, and having lived in the Middle East (not Palestine) I know it's a real element in the larger conflict. So, it is something well-deserving of neutral treatment here. I'll take it from your comments and those of other experienced editors above and below, though, that going on past form, it's not likely to get neutral treatment here. What a shame. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm particularly 'experienced' in this topic - on the whole I've tended to stay away from it, except where I've noticed the most questionable material, or most obvious slanting of the issues. Many other contributors seem to feel the same way - it is an endless task, with little reward. Personally, as I've argued elsewhere, I think we'd do a greater service to our readers if we had fewer articles on 'I-P' topics and the like, and went for (neutral) quality, rather than quantity. As it stands, existing Knowledge policy encourages the synthesis of 'topics' which can be slanted one way or another, and then filled with Google-mined material of little note, solely for the purposes of making one side or the other look bad. If 'incitement to violence' in this region needs coverage in Knowledge, it needs it in the broader historical and political context - people presumably aren't inciting violence for the fun of it, and we should at least attempt to explain the 'why' as well as the 'what' when our articles discuss such matters - and an article that describes phenomena without context simply cannot do this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Sources needed are scholarly treatments of the topic, not Israeli government press releases, and news reports. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete It still looks horrible. It still is basically the same coatrack as when the AFD started and is certainly not where to start cosntructing any unbiased article on the subject.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this article is still a giant WP:COATRACK on which any mention of incitement can be slung into the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete Soooo, what do we do, in the middle of the 2012 Gaza War...(where 10-20 Palestinian civilians are killed for every single Israeli civilian killed); Ah, yes: start an article about how Palestinians are taught to hate and kill. Eeeh, right. Coincidence? Suuuure. Better kill them while they are young, right? Like the The King's Torah teach us.

This, while every other more objective observer note that there is a shift in the Palestinian protest towards non-violence. Even the normally so pro-Israeli NY Times have noted it.

Though of course articles like this serves one purpose: as long as things like this exits on Knowledge, nobody, but nobody, will take Knowledge to be an ...encyclopedia. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ps: this vote has now gone on for more than a week; how long will it continue?

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 03:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Arun Chaudhary

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

not notable; I understand that there's a little coverage of him including the one article from the NY Times, but I think that that's more coverage of his position rather than on him (e.g., he doesn't inherit notability from being the first W.H. videographer, in my opinion). Thus, I don't think that he's notable, maybe an article on White House Videographer would be, but not an article on him alone. Even WP:BLP1E might apply because since he's all coverage of him is for the role that he created at the beginning of Obama's term; nothing since...it's safe to say he's likely to remain a low-profile individual. Go Phightins! 04:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I created this article and just updated this with more info on his debut book and accompanying reviews. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep The article cites lengthy articles in The Atlantic and the NYTimes. Here's another from the BBC: . I do think that because this is an individual who is traveling constantly with the President, and is involved in an area that is increasingly important (the role of social media in politics) that a biographical article is encyclopedic. GabrielF (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Added sources. Meets notability on WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR #3 "subject of multiple independent reviews". Rutger's University professor says the book First Cameraman "adds to the historical record" of the Obama Presidency (though a "smidgen", it's significant). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, consensus seems to be against me. I withdraw my nomination. Go Phightins! 03:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was Snow delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Santosh Oraon

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

PROD contested by User:Phil Bridger for the following reason "No sources can be found? There's one right there in the article." However there was some confusion because my reasoning for PRODing the article is because the I could not find a source that says that said player has played in the I-League which is a fully-pro league (based on WP:FPL) and the source in the article is for a friendly match which still means that the article is not notable. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 24. Snotbot t • c » 03:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - article about a football player who is not shown to have played a professional match nor is he shown to meet the WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 08:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country in at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete This person never played in any major games, not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - I think contesting the prod was probably appropriate. If there are sources but there is confusion about them, it's best to discuss it here and build a community consensus. That said, the subject seems to fail WP:NFOOTY. Stalwart111 01:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, having never played in a fully pro league. — sparklism 12:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. No arguments in favour of deletion other than the nominator's in a month of discussion. Michig (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Scot D. Ryersson

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

Non notable creative professional. Did a check on some of the awards, and most hits for both "Book of the year selection", "Certificate of Merit in Biographical Writing" and "what we love selection" are from Knowledge or Knowledge mirrors. Doesn't pass Knowledge:AUTHOR#Creative_professionals, and my gut feeling is that most of the awards are not awards in the sense that he competed with others and won something, but more that he sold enough books to end up in a top 100/10/whatever list. I'm not able to check the two references listed, but considering the number of awards and books and how little media attention he seems to have gotten this just doesn't look right. Bjelleklang - talk 00:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep: Seems to be a significant biographer of Luisa Casati. Citations on his poster designs would be most helpful. Faustus37 (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Noted biographer and curator of Luisa Casati material. Books have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (some briefly discuss the author as background). None of the awards alone are "major" but with so many and most from respectable institutions it adds up to a sum greater than the parts. If the article is delete, the book Infinite Variety is certainly notable and needs a dedicated article (should be anyway). It was covered in TLS, Guardian, NYTBR etc. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 24. Snotbot t • c » 02:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Very weak keep just about notable. --Shorthate (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Carmercial

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

This was originally created by an obvious COI editor; only 1 of the sources even seems to use the term "carmercial". Per the article itself, a "carmercial" is nothing more than a "commercial for a car". There is no evidence that professionals or others consider this a special category of information; nothing here is different than general advertising concepts. At best this is an underused neologism. Unless there is clear evidence that this "genre" of commercial is somehow special, this should not have a stand alone article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Nothing notable about the differences between car commercials and other commercials, simply, as Qwyrxian says, a list of general advertising techniques with the word "car" thrown in. Buggie111 (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Terrible WP:ESSAY, and everyone else in the world calls advertising for automobiles "car ads" or "car commercials". Also seems like very obvious WP:SEO bait. Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The word "carmercial" is a pure neologism which can rarely be found with this meaning anywhere else. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete This reminds me of the made-up slang that one finds on the urban Dictionary --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to WBBA-FM. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 03:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WBBA

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

Has the same content as WBBA-FM. XapApp (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. XapApp (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirected: I BOLDly redirected the WBBA page to WBBA-FM as it is a likely search term. Request this be either withdrawn or closed per redirect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to No Secrets (No Secrets album). Michig (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's What Girls Do

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

No third party sources found for a non-notable song. No chart info, etc Tinton5 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Paulthomas2 (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to No Secrets (No Secrets album). The single doesn't appear to have gotten any coverage and it hasn't charted at all. It looks like it's your typical single that never received any big notice. I notice that there are some notability issues with the album for the group and barring someone nominating that for AfD and it getting deleted, this should redirect to the main album. If all else fails, it should redirect to the band itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to No Secrets (No Secrets album) as per above. The song does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS, which suggests that redirection to the parent album is appropriate in such instances. Gongshow 03:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to No Secrets (No Secrets album). Leaving aside notability issues, the miniscule content here is already covered in the album page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to GU (food). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

GU Energy

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

Non-notable topic that fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on Google, a source at Amazon does not indicate significant coverage. Propose deletion. TBr and ley 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Vacation 00:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Delete: A7 and borderline G11. -- Patchy1 00:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7. I already tagged the page. Mediran 00:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge with GU (food) per MERGE. Dakta (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to GU (food). The strings "GU Energy" and "GU Energy Gel" appear in a reasonable amount of coverage to warrant a redirect. Examples include: 1) Hisrich, Robert D. (2012). International Entrepreneurship: Starting, Developing, and Managing a Global Venture (2 ed.). SAGE. p. 196–97. ISBN 1452217394. Because gels did not require any ingredients for solidity (fat, fiber, and protein), they could transport energy to working muscles within minutes without any stomach distress. The perfect food for athletes during workouts, training, and racing was invented. After extensive testing and trial use by all types of athletes, in 1991 GU Energy Gel was perfected. The 1- or 1½-ounce foil packets of gel offered carbohydrates combined with electrolytes, sodium, and/or amino acids that quickly dissolve into the bloodstream (Malik, 2006/n.d.).; 2) Nancy, Clark. "Engineered Sports Foods: A Primer". Rowing News. 14 (April 2007). The Independent Rowing News Inc.: 74. ISSN 1548-694X. PowerBar's debut in the 1980s and GU Energy Gel's debut in the 1990s bolstered the commercial sports food scene.; 3) Dais, Dawn (2008). "3: The Accessories". The Nonrunner's Marathon Guide for Women: Get Off Your Butt and On with Your Training. Seal Press. p. 59. ISBN 1580052800. Vitamin-enriched GU Energy Gel is a goo-like substance that comes in little pouches. You rip one open, squirt it in your mouth, and you are hit with all sorts of energy and spirit. Or something. You aren't going to need GU right away; but you'll need it as the mileage gets longer and you start needing to replenish yourself. Some people call this point "Your body telling you to stop running." Runners call it "Time for GU."; 4) Spafford, Derrick (2010-01-24). "Gear Review: GU Energy Gels". Snowshoe Magazine. Retrieved 2012-11-24.; and 5) Boone, Jenny Kincaid (2006-07-26). "Packing energy for the long haul". The Roanoke Times..

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Genius Inside

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Hu12 (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment The previous reference links are largely dead wood, except for an article by the company principal (primary) and a vendor catalogue listing (mundane). The most recent evidence for the company's ongoing activity that I can find is this feedback/review and this presentation of their SaaS offering (primary) in 2012. AllyD (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete What makes this notable? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete The previous AfD seems to have turned on whether the 2008 IBM Lotus Award Best Mid-Market Solution conferred notability. IBM's pages on these 2008 awards are now dead links, but the ongoing IBM page on the awards says: "This program recognizes IBM Collaboration Solutions Business Partners who have excelled in delivering exceptional business value" This feels like a walled-community award. Aside from that, while the company can be seen to be continuing in operation, I am not finding enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Xystus (band)

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

Contested PROD with This page should not be deleted because they have had several albums released under record labels.They have also preformed with several independently notable musicians, including the Utrechtsch Studenten Concert symphony orchestra, the oldest Dutch one. The question here is whether or not the sparse English ghits I see can establish notability ( ). Other refs I found are actually on the spam blacklist (metal-observer). As far as I can tell, the group does not meet WP:BAND. The band does have an article in the NL Knowledge , although that obviously cannot establish notability. FreeRangeFrog (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2012‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Not Notable. Fails WP:BAND --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Shorthate (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Movenote

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

I did a prod before the concern was:
a google search returns only 4,840 results, and none of them state notability TheChampionMan1234 22:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like most of the article is written by a person who works as an assistant at the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.126.244 (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Appears to fail the notability threshold for a Knowledge article. Several source searches are not providing coverage in reliable sources. GBooks searches are yielding coverage about the movenote parameter used in Javascript development, but not for this topic about a cloud video communication service. Northamerica1000 17:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to The Game Show. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nikole Zivalich

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

No 3rd party sources provided, been tagged for notability issues for months. Fails WP:BIO + WP:GNG. Otterathome (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge: Into The Game Show, apparently now cancelled. Faustus37 (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to The Game Show - Google News archives only found one result confirming her work with Game Pro magazine which is now a defunct magazine so it won't be easy recovering that article. Google Books also provided nothing useful so I performed my own search where I found an examiner.com (I very well known this is not a reliable source but it's the only relevant evidence I've found) link interview here (sixth result from the top). It seems her most significant work is G4TV and The Game Show but redirecting to the latter would probably be more relevant and appropriate. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to The Game Show. She is not notable on her own, and her name is a mildly useful redirect. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Revision3#2007-2009. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Systm

AfDs for this article:

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

No 3rd party sources provided, fails WP:GNG. Not notable, been tagged as such for months. Otterathome (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Revision3. I can find no significant coverage about this podcast. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Revision3#2007-2009 where it is mostly mentioned. This was certainly a useful podcast but it does not meet Knowledge standards. Google News archives provided relevant results here when I searched "Systm podcast" (results briefly continue at the second page) and here when I searched "Systm Revision3" but it provided mostly press releases and several of the same results as my first search. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Aimee Sun

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

I don't believe WP should be a directory for random hot girls' blogs Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment On the face of it this fails even WP:ANYBIO and everything else so my !vote would be a delete, however, since I'm not Taiwanese or otherwise speak the language, I'm not sure if this isn't their equivalent of Paris Hilton or that Kardashian construct. Can we ask someone who is actually familiar with Taiwanese popular culture and/or society to chime in? §FreeRangeFrog 20:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

She appears to be admired not just by men but also by young Chinese women, for her Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian-like entrepreneurial qualities. Is she uniquely outstanding in that respect, or just one of many Taiwanese women doing the Hilton/Kardashian thing? As freerangefrog says, only a Chinese native-speaker hip to the East Asian Chinese-language popular media would know.Haberstr (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This person is a complete unknown. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - clearly meets almost all of the criteria at WP:HOTTIE. LOL. Without getting all WP:GHITS about it, I have reservations about deleting an article with this many Google news results. I think some translation is in order. If all of that coverage is "she opened a shop" sort of crap then by all means, delete away. But sources are not required to be in English and the article does assert notability (as co-founder of a major shopping centre and as an actress). For the record, the Breeze Center is no local 7-11. Stalwart111 03:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep I think the chinese sources show she's notable. Stowonthewolder (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Quantum statistical mechanics. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Quantum thermodynamics

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

This page describes a theory of 'quantum thermodynamics', a subject I have never heard of before. The article is unclear and unconvincing to me, even though I am currently pursuing a PhD in quantum physics. There are no references to peer-reviewed literature. I have been unable to find any reputable sources on the subject. I therefore think that the page should be deleted from Knowledge. Insurrectionist (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep I've been a working physicist (statistical mechanics and condensed matter) for years and still learn of new physics theories from time to time; lack of personal knowledge isn't a reliable guide as to whether an article is notable or verifiable. Reference 7 is a Springer book and Springer is a reputable, reliable publisher. Looking at the external reference http://www.quantumthermodynamics.org/ shows dozens of articles by multiple authors, some in reliable peer-reviewed publications such as Reports on Mathematical Physics, Physical Review E, Modern Physics Letters A, etc. Because of these, I think subject meets notability guidelines. The article could be improved to include multiple reliable sources. Mark viking (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- The argument is fallacious. An article may refer to respectable sources but this does not make the article itself respectable. WP:Notability is not inherited either within Knowledge or outside it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC).
  - You are confused as to both what notability is and what it means when we say that it isn't inherited. You really should read the page that you are waving around. It's nothing to do with the point at issue, and it's quite ironic that you're trying to make out that other people's arguments are the fallacious ones. Not representing what the sources say is a matter of verifiability and original research, not notability. Notability deals in whether the sources themselves exist, and their provenances and depths of coverage. It is not affected by whether a particular article to hand happens to cite or properly represent such sources. AFD is not Cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Strong Keep ~~and Snow Close~~ Entire books have been written on this subject link and major universities are offering courses dedicated to the study of Quantum Thermodynamics link. I could provide more links and countless references from reliable sources, but I don't think there is a need here. The references in the article could use some work, but there is no need for an AfD discussion on this. WP:BEFORE exists for a reason. ~~This article should be kept and this discussion closed per WP:SNOW~~ MisterUnit (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

REDIRECT Strong Keep and Snow Close I have a cousin enrolled in a course. <Keep and close per ~~Huntley~~ MisterUnit above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Riley Huntley has not in fact opined in this discussion. Please revise your rationale so that it is not erroneous on its face. Moreover: Your cousin's course may be History of Art in Germany for all that the world can know. Indeed, the world has no way of knowing that you even have a cousin. Please concentrate upon the existences, provenances, and depths of possible sourcing for an article, as that is the requirement of Knowledge:Deletion policy in an AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

ERROR CORRECTED Keep and Close comment still must stand until I can see proof that this course does not exist. I find the argument that these courses have the same name but are teaching something different to be quite fantastic. It's a wild thing to say without providing proof. Sorry. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

After a lengthy discussion with someone who knows, (my dear cousin), I am changing my opinion to REDIRECT, as that is what is proper. I am a layman (and as a fallable human being) in this field myself, but as you can see with enough research, I eventually come around. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
~~Delete and~~ Redirect to quantum statistical mechanics. Poorly-written WP:POV fork of quantum statistical mechanics designed as a WP:Coatrack on which to hang an arXiv paper and a set of course lectures notes on a non-mainstream treatment of quantum statistical mechanics. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC).
Keep and rewrite: this article was originally written - and has received only limited edits since then - by User:Sadi Carnot, who is now banned indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts to POV-push his own pet fringe theories. As a result, while the subject of the article is clearly notable as indicated by the !votes above, the text of the article is untrustworthy, and needs revision by an expert in the subject matter.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- The point that Xxanthippe is trying to make, albeit so badly, is that if one reads beyond the first two words of the source titles into their actual content, as one really should as a Knowledge editor in an AFD discussion, there's little explicitly cited so far in this discussion that shows that there's a distinct legitimate subject by this name, and rather a lot of vague handwaving and proof by unsupported bare assertion ("I have a cousin.") in place of such reading.
  Reading just the source titles gets one nowhere. Anyone with any experience of reading knows that, even in the realms of academe, titles are chosen more to be catchy than to be strictly and formally descriptive. It's an absurd notion to be basing an argument on the titles of courses and books, without any regards as to their contents and substance; and it's downright silly for encyclopaedists — for whom reading is one of the three basic necessary skills — to not read sources.
  Reading chapter 1 of the book pointed to by MisterUnit above, for example, turns up the fact that nowhere is a field of quantum thermodynamics actually mentioned by the authors. That only comes in the preface by Günter Mahler on page v. Even then, M. Mahler describes it as a "popular keyword" that, as the mode du jour, is attracting people.
  Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment. The arguments advanced by the keepers are spurious. The article appears to be a WP:Coatrack on which to hang an arXiv paper and a set of course lectures notes. Not every arXiv paper or lecture course is notable; we need many hundreds if not thousands of citations to justify an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC).
Comment. My apologies to Uncle G for the poor quality of my editing; I will try to do better in future. The issue here is that the article is a wolf (non-mainsteam) in sheep's (mainstream) clothing. The first section of the article is relatively unexceptional, the second is definitely outside the mainstream and should not be implied to be in it. Some editors have not realized that the emperor has no clothes (I hope this mixture of metaphors is not too much for Uncle G to stomach). Somebody's cousin may well have taken a course with the same name but it is unlikely to have had the same subject matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC).

You raise an interesting point. The article may pass notability and reliable source criteria, but quantum thermodynamics could still be a controversial, contested theory. Given that there are multiple peer reviewed publications about the subject in mainstream physics publications, I don't think one could claim it is patent nonsense or fringe science. But any reliable sources contesting the validity or applicability of the theory would be a valuable addition to the article. Mark viking (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment I agree that the article is a poorly written POV mess, but that is not a reason to delete the article (WP:RUBBISH). The question you need to answer at AfD is whether or not the subject is notable, and this subject most certainly is. If there are POV problems, or other quality problems with the article then the appropriate cleanup templates should be placed on the article and it should be fixed, but not deleted.

Clearly the "cousin argument" is a bit ridiculous, so you should probably give that one a rest. Uncle G's idea that major universities give their courses titles that have nothing to do with the subject matter of the course is equally ridiculous, so let's ignore that as well. Uncle G's statement about the book is just plain not true. The book is about thermodynamic relationships and behavior at a quantum level - i.e. quantum thermodynamics. Just because the authors didn't write "This is a book about quantum thermodynamics" in chapter 1, does not mean that the authors think that the concept does not exist.

The book and the course that I pointed to above are just the first Google Books/Web hits that I came across out of thousands, so you shouldn't be too hung up on those either. Seriously, do some WP:before and look around for sources before you !vote. Even though the article as it is written totally misses the point, you'll find sources relating to quantum thermodynamics all over the place. The article needs to be reduced to a stub and re-written, not deleted. MisterUnit (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to quantum statistical mechanics, unless some clear and sourceable rationale can be given for distinguishing the two things. Anything notable and sourceable can be merged. Don't delete; the "delete and redirect" outcome is for cases where the availability of the content, even in the history, is deemed harmful (primarily defamation, copyvio, and other material that could expose the Foundation to legal risk). --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. If that's the case then just Redirect. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC).

Redirect per Trovatore. The material at Quantum statistical mechanics is mainstream and foundational -- see eg the book by Tolman in print since the 1930s. This new material at Quantum thermodynamics ... isn't. Sure, there's scope for improvement at Quantum statistical mechanics -- for example more chat about why this might be the natural transposition into the quantum world of the understanding and arguments developed in classical statistical mechanics (at the moment the qsm article rather baldly just sets out formulas). There's also long-running discussion, primarily carried on by philosophers, as to what extent it is appropriate to say statistical mechanics "explains" thermodynamics (in fact if you look up either term in say the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, that's what the philosophers of science seem most keen to discuss); our article Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics (which could do itself with quite a lot of attention) probably should be extended to reflect more of that discussion. But the new material in this new article appears not particularly mainstream and more than somewhat flaky. If it's merged to places, I recommend handling it with some considerable care: care to separate what's mainstream and what's not, care about WP:UNDUE, and care not to reflect a possibly garbled account of one lab's position as the story of quantum thermodynamics. In short: at a quick first glance, not at all comfortable with the material in this new article. Jheald (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment I don't generally edit on Knowledge, so this AfD process is fascinating for me so far. I'd like to use this comment to clarify my reasons for marking this article for deletion. It was clear to me when reading the article that this was the work of a crackpot, or crackpots (I don't know of a polite name for this kind of person). The references provided are either disreputable or completely irrelevant to the text on the page. The fact that a Springer book exists with a title of Quantum Thermodynamics (ISBN=3540229116) does not entitle a Knowledge page of the same name. Although I have not read the book, I imagine the contents would be suitable for the Knowledge page on Quantum Statistical Mechanics, so I don't think there's any purpose in reworking this page to discuss legitimate physics. I think that the Quantum Thermodynamics page should just redirect to Quantum Statistical Mechanics. Insurrectionist (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have completely rewritten the article to address some of the concerns above. Most of the prose has been gutted and replaced with a more neutral point of view. I added other approaches to quantum thermodynamics that I knew of and added more reliable references throughout. The article is more stub-like, but hopefully what is there is better founded. Note this is my first Knowledge article rewrite, so be bold in improving my work or suggesting changes. Mark viking (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to quantum statistical mechanics.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - just because it could attract crackpots, does not mean that it is in fact , a coatrack for them. This is a legitimate name of an article. Therefore, it would be O.K., otherwise, merge and redirect to quantum statistical mechanics. Keeping a redirect will do no harm. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to quantum statistical mechanics. I agree with Jheald that when merged it should be noted that it is not the mainstream opinion. Paulthomas2 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to close, per consensus There are no votes to delete. This article should be ~~"Keep", or "Keep and redirect"~~ Redirected, according to consensus. I fail to see how the consensus could be any clearer. This article should be closed.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment. The consensus appears to be to Redirect. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC).
Yes, most definitely REDIRECT. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment Before closing this discussion, perhaps other editors could look at the rewritten article and comment? I tried to create a more neutral point of view, suggest alternative approaches to quantum thermodynamics and cite assertions with more reliable sources. If the consensus is still redirect, so be it, but there has been no comment on the rewrite so far and any feedback would be useful to me. Thanks. Mark viking (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Your rewrite is a great improvement on the original. Far better than, for example, the scandalous Heim theory which is junk science from beginning to end but which is defended by a cabal of fringe activists. The trouble with the present article in its new state is that it is still not clear, or demonstrated by sources, that quantum thermodynamics is significantly different to quantum statistical mechanics, which has a well-established article, and deserves a separate article because of this. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC).

You might be able to incorporate some of your good work into quantum statistical mechanics, although not the Keenan model. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC).

Redirect - the "History" and "Coupling to a macroscopic system" sections are firmly within the domain of quantum statistical mechanics. The "Keenan model" section is not sufficiently notable for wikipedia. --Steve (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect - At least from a physicist's point of view, there is no such thing as "quantum thermodynamics". The topic that would be called that already has a name - it's statistical mechanics. Having an article entitled "quantum thermodynamics" is like having an article titled "quantum classical mechanics". Waleswatcher (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect for all the reasons listed above. If anything valid can be salvaged from this page, it can certainly be included on the Quantum statistical mechanics page. PianoDan (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

David Banks (comedian)

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

Subject has done some commercials and had a band. Lots of name dropping to try to imply notability, but notability is not inherited. Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete As the article history shows, there has been a lot of recent edit reversion/reinstatement of chunks of text, mainly attempting notability-by-contagion (attending same school, appearing in same production as). In all of this, what hasn't been added is anything tangible to address the longstanding issue with lack of substantial references to demonstrate this person's notability. Nor am I finding any. AllyD (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note 1 A previous version of this article was deleted in 2008. I guess this version was recreated from there, hence the reason an article created in Dec 2011 is carrying a Primary-Sources tag from 2008. AllyD (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Note 2 For anyone searching for sources, this is not the David (Francis) Banks who was a comedy writers for Richard Pryor. AllyD (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

delete I agree with AllyD's reasoning. --Shorthate (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO, could have been speedied as a copy. Secret 04:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Cameron Powrie

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

BLP Prod contested with the addition of sources. Unfortunately, these sources are IMDB and Youtube, both of which fail our reliability guidelines. Nothing on GNews. Blanchardb -- timed 01:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep, the credentials speak for themselves. I think a voice actor that does popular ads is notable. –BuickCentury Driver 02:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no notability guideline "credentials speak for themselves" and no notability guideline for voice actors that is simply "does popular ads." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Still, voice actors generally are notable for the most part. Notable doesn't mean the person has to be a household name. –BuickCentury Driver 10:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Generally are notable for the most part?" That's not actually a standard. There's no such thing under WP:ENT, which explicitly includes voice actors. If you have some evidence to back up your assertion that voice actors on Knowledge are a special class that are granted inherent notability, then I'd be happy to change my ultimate vote. I'm talking about a community consensus on inherent notability of voice actors here, not revving up the WP:OSE and finding other voice actors on wikipedia that also fail under WP:GNG and WP:ENT and have yet to be removed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

and yes, there is a VAST quantity of voice actors that have pages and no reliable source coverage. the animae fans are very good at churning out inappropriate content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just a poorly written article. If the stuff written is false that is certainly grounds for deletion. But if the information can be verified then claiming non-notability is a cop-out. –BuickCentury Driver 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I advise you to make your case based on the actual notability guidelines if you wish your position to be given any weight in the discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." that includes notable advertisements, doesn't it? Still if the article is full of lies and the facts about this person contradict the article, then I'll be happy to join the deletion consensus. –BuickCentury Driver 03:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, commercial voice overs are not "significant roles". but even if they were, there are no reliable sources presented to verify that he is in fact providing voice acting or any other participation in multiple commercials. so you are failing twice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically most of this article, before edites were deleted was original research so this article can and will probably be deleted. –BuickCentury Driver 06:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG No evidence of even minor coverage, let alone numerous sources of reliable coverage. Fails WP:ENT as well as there's no evidence of significant roles in multiple notable films, no evidence of a large fan base or significant cult following, no evidence of unique, prolific or innovate contributions to a field of entertainment. This one's not even a particularly close call. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete This might be WP:TOOSOON, but as it stands right now it's not enough to pass WP:NACTOR. §FreeRangeFrog 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please can this page be deleted as it is almost entirely untrue and part of an elaborate prank? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp10111 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A prank so elaborate that PBS was fooled into posting content on its website that verifies it? I find that a bit unlikely. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think they were talking about this version for which the description could very well be completely applicable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

delete - if anyone has access to it looks like there might be a page or so about him/his role, but that would still only be 1 source of significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment I added this PBS reference, but since I'm not familiar with notability guidelines for actors, I won't !vote. First Light (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- PBS talking about him in the promotional website for their broadcast of the series is not a "third party" source so it cannot be used to establish "notability", but could potentially be used for content if other third party material is found. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete, fails to meet GNG, lack of significant coverage about this person. Plus (although not necessarily a policy-based rationale) BLPs of such 'almost notable' people are magnets for very problematic misinformation (ie BLP violating content such as slander, libel, etc.) The 'prank' aspect is irrelevant here; the simple fact is, there isn't enough reliably-sourced info out there to maintain a reasonable article about the individual, so it's basic WP:V. 88.104.4.123 (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. FailsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed Tullett

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

I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow 02:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages: an album, EP, and split single, respectively.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow 02:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow 02:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep There is some third-party coverage out there () however, the artist's work has not charted or otherwise received significant third-party coverage. While I am not familiar with the "moody punk" genre or whatever this is and I can't tell if he is the Jimmy Hendrix of that or whatever, if we follow WP:MUSICBIO#1 to the letter then this would definitely be a keep. §FreeRangeFrog 21:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Getting some blog/webzine coverage but not yet encyclopedia-worthy. --Michig (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep He supported Tegan & Sara very recently. Also, according to WP:MUSICBIO#1 it should not be deleted as his music is released; debut album due for worldwide release soon. He is signed and has a cult fan base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.192.121 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC) — 86.6.192.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:MUSICBIO #1 is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.", not "has released music and has fans". --Michig (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

~~KEEP~~ It seems you've missed the fact that his records have also been released completely independently from him; one by MTV and the other by Equal Vision Records - a big label where over half of its signed artists have Knowledge pages themselves.— 86.6.192.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC).

Please note that editors are free to comment as often as they like, but it is not necessary to !vote more than once (see WP:NOTVOTE). Gongshow 03:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Changing my !vote to delete at this time. I was unable to find anything more on the artist and I don't believe he meets WP:ARTIST at this point. No prejudice to recreation of bio when and if he does - this might be a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. §FreeRangeFrog 18:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep following article rework during the course of the AfD. Spinning Spark

Maria Tash

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

Sorry, not notable, just a promo for her website Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete There are no independent sources and being an "orphan" is also a good clue. I quick Google search turned up no possible reliable, independent sources, further convincing me of the lack of notability. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - anyone looked at the article history? It was created by a... User:MariaTash. Where does her userpage redirect to? This page. Do I need to say much more? (other than what is said above) Lukeno94 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete — This subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ANYBIO spectacularly. JFHJr (㊟) 17:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Clearly promotional; not even close to meeting WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog 20:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Article is being re-sourced; holding out on a !vote for now. §FreeRangeFrog 04:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete There are several news items relating to Britney Spears buying from the subject, for example Washington Post via Highbeam (subscription reqd). However notability is not inherited and I am not finding anything substantial about the subject herself. AllyD (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep/Comment This does look like it will end up being a snow delete, but I would just comment on what I found after searching for her other name, Maria Tashjian. 1 - Mention of her owning one of the "oldest piercing emporiums" in NY in 1999, being consulted re: body piercing. 2 is another mention. 3 Spanish language article where she seems to have a paragraph. Clearly she does have some notability for her piercing salon in New York. I've also come across this 1995 news article which has quite a lot about her and her salon and some biographical information. For these reasons I will not jump on the snow delete bandwagon, and instead venture a keep vote, although with ambivalence. I'd also comment that the "FIT Network Magazine" article scan used as a reference in the article would probably be a valid RS if it were available online anywhere or we had proper publication information for it. I tried searching for the author's names, etc but no joy. Mabalu (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Well, those are certainly more interesting sources. That one Cuban article in Spanish from 2002 seems to grant some notability. Here are he original and translated relevant paragraphs (I'm fluent in Spanish):

Si bien por ahora constituyen una exigua minoría, entre los "primitivos modernos" hay algunos pensadores de vanguardia que exploran los ritos corporales de las culturas procedentes del tercer mundo como una suerte de homenaje a las civilizaciones que los regímenes coloniales trataron de extirpar. En tal sentido, entre las variantes que han captado la atención de los especialistas figura la llamada "estética tribal", enarbolada por Maria Tashjian quien, desde su salón de modificaciones corporales en los Estados Unidos, es una ferviente activista de la idea de educar a la gente para que conserve la memoria de culturas desaparecidas y transmita los antiguos ideales de belleza que prevalecían entre los oriundos moradores de África, Asia y América.

Although for now they constitute a small minority, among the "modern primitives" there are some forward thinkers who explore the corporal rituals of third-world cultures as a sort of homage to the civilizations that the colonial regimes attempted to eliminate. In this sense, among the variants that have caught the attention of specialists are the so-called "tribal aesthetics", headed by Maria Tashjian who, from her body modification parlor in the United States, is a fervent believer in the idea of educating people to preserve the memory of disappeared cultures and of transmitting the ancient ideals of beauty prevalent among the indigenous people of Africa, Asia and America.

So I guess it's a matter of determining the other sources are reliable. The lack of access to out-of print material that was never digitized bothers me, as with so many other topics that don't necessarily have an internet presence. I'm leaning towards keep at this point. §FreeRangeFrog 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SNOW. Non-notable puffery.FailsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment A full rewrite and sourcing has been undertaken. I managed to identify the FIT magazine as the 2004 edition. Although a few of the sources are not as good as I would hope for, I feel that sources such as the FIT magazine article, the Spanish article (thanks to FreeRangeFrog for the translation) and the Becerra article are good enough sources to show that Tashjian is notable. I would suggest that previous votes be stricken as being in relation to the article before it was totally rewritten, and a new round of votes taken on the current article be assessed on its merits. The only thing that bugs me is that I can't find a Wiki-worthy reference for her appearance on the Tyra Banks show but this can be found easily enough on Google. Mabalu (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep The work done by Mabalu to source this bio is more than enough, I think, to merit inclusion under WP:GNG. There are multiple, independent third-party references to this person and her work. To boot, it's no longer blatantly promotional. §FreeRangeFrog 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - per re-worked article (nice work!) and sources provided therein. I'm satisfied they are enough to meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 03:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was Redirect to List_of_Hillsong_albums#S. No need for additional votes as consensus appears to be clear here, like most religious albums, Christian albums will rarely receive significant coverage. Google News (US and Australia) provided nothing but Google Books found one relevant result here but it would, of course, be insufficient. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Simply Worship 3

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

After searches for reliable sources, this topic fails WP:NALBUMS. Northamerica1000 08:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep -- There is a very obvious WP:RS, which is the album itself. Hillsong is effectively a "brand" of worship music, and a prominent one, linked to a church of the same name in Australia. Virtually all their albums are the subject of an article, so why not this? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hillsong is noteworthy, but that would be a reason to put it in a list and redirect the title there - the complete information in this article, including track list, would fit just fine there. There's no reason for a separate article without third-party sources - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Hillsong albums - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect per David Gerard. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy . WP:CSD G7 per v/r - T P 15:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

House of du Souich

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

This article appears to be a complete fabrication. When I came across the article, I assumed that some of the idioms and spellings (fr:Duc for Duke, fr:Picardie for Picardy, and so on) indicated that it was a translation from a French source, and might quite probably have an article the French language Knowledge, analogous to fr:Maison de Savoie, it:Casa Savoia and House of Savoy. There is no such article fr:Maison de Souich/fr:Maison du Souich. Le Souich is in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais région, not Picardy. Then there is this assertion:

"The House of du Souich is an ancient and illustrious French family. Connected by birth or marriage to a great number of the noble houses of France, the du Souich family reigned over northeastern France for hundreds of years as Lords of le Souich and Amiens as well as the surrounding territories."

For such a purportedly important noble family, there is as striking paucity of available online references. While there is a real place of this name, and a number of people with the surname "du Souich" or "de Souich", it would seem to me apparent that there is no such thing as a noble "House of du Souich". Shirt58 (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

~~Analysis of references~~

~~passing mention of family name with no assertion that it is a noble family~~

~~autreches.free.fr/armorial/armorial.htm~~:Comment: The Analysis of references is unsigned. Please add your user reference for identification.

Entirely my own mistake. Stricken, and started again. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of references

Reference 1: this reference from the Bibliothèque nationale de France confirms the existence of a house of du Souich, and its people, such as it is.

Reference 2: this reference is from The National Library of France

Reference 3 might be from a book but appears to have no ISBN for right now.

Reference 4 is from User-generated content

Reference 5 is from User-generated content

"La généologie de la Famille JUDAS, Louis-Edmond-Ernest du Gard, 1890" appears to be a non-existent book.

Comment: Reference #18 links to http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-36624 which is the "Annuaire de la Noblesse de France" published in 1897. Anyone in this chronicle is of Noble lineage. You may find in the summary the reference to the family du Souich (page 382). Interestingly enough, this book explains the variations of the name that occured in the late XIXth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.93.6.149 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

KEEP

I must apologize for removing the two warnings that you posted yesterday. I am new to editing on Wiki and was unaware of how to reply to you about your concerns or what to do about the warnings.

This is not at all a fabrication. I am a member of this family. There are a number of sources related to the history of the du Souich lineage and I have marked as many as I can find online for the moment, as well as the books which have a great deal more information.

As to my use of duc rather than duke, etc, I simply wanted to use the two designations in this article. One is the French way of expressing the title, the other the English translation. If that is an error on Wiki, kindly let me know. My goal was to avoid repetition and to add a little flavor to the writing.

As to your concern that a family such as this would be known, well, that is simply not true in 'post-monarchy' Europe. There are thousands of noble families that have drifted off into the sunset after the abolision of their respective monarchies. I clearly explain the connection between the grand origins of the family and their noble but by no means royal destination in the 20th century. See the section Short History. That is, in fact, part of the interest in the family. A lesser known story.

Deleting this article would amount to cenorship of information for no just cause. Everything written on this page is factual. It took a great deal of research (months) on genelogical sites (which are sited, although in French), books, articles, archives, etc at the Bibliotheque Nationale de France to put all this together. This information is the beginnings of an eventual book on the subject. I wrote the page in English because the book will also be in English.

Le Souich is on the border of Pas de Calais, which if you continued to read a little further down you'd see is also called Picardy (Picardie) in France. And historically the region was always referred to as "Picardie" and not Pas de Calais (Nord or otherwise).

As to the point about the illustrious family, this was the case before the Revolution in what was called the Ancien Régime. From French history we know that many families lost their prominence at this period. That doesn't make the history false. It makes it less known, which is all the more reason it include the page.

There are many books (not digital) referencing the family. And in any ancient archives of the French Noblesse the du Souich family is present. Several of these books are included in the references.

One final thought, the name is properly spelt du Souich, so anytime you see de Souich, it is either false or a typo. The de, de la or du in French mean the same as di or van in other European countries - the family is landed gentry. It means 'of' a certain place. By virtue of the name, then, this page is not, as you say, a "complete fabrication". It is not a fabrication at all.

If you have some factual evidence to dispute my facts, kindly present them. Otherwise, I'd greatly appreciate if you'd remove this rather offense warning which basically states that I'm lying.

Many thanks in advance.--France2007 (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~

My point is more administrative than factual: it seems strange to me that someone who did a quick google search could lodge such a claim against what appears to be a thorough article. The beauty of Knowledge, if I'm not mistaken, is that information that has hitherto been ignored or forgotten can find the light of day. Not every bit of information is on the Internet already. Seems to me like the author knows what he is talking about (full disclosure, I know the author) and it seems contrary to Knowledge principles to call someone a liar or their work a hoax without facts to support the claim. My two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.34.61.48 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC) According to this comment, this IP has already !voted as a logged in user.--v/r - T P 15:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep

Hi, I just saw that this page was created and was set as 'Article for deletion'. So I'm just posting to testify that the article is correct.

Le Souich is in the department of Pas-de-Calais, Region Nord pas-de-calais, administratively. But this is not relevant to the House of du Souich because the family is from Amiens which is in the Picardie. The village is at the border between the Pas de Calais and Somme departments which respectively belong to Nord pas de calais region and Picardie region. Check out Google Maps for geographic position : The du Souich family comes from all of these regions and departments. Also, Nord Pas de Calais is a very recent denomination of the land from the 1789 revolution. The old names of this territory are Flandre, Artois, Picardie, Champagne, Hainaut, Rethel, Ponthieu, Valois, Vermandois. Which back in the days were called Provinces and had their own Counts and Lords. Armorial web site lists all these families :

Interestingly, the actual commune borders (city district border) are common with the Department borders AND Region borders.

Additionally, there are a large number of books at the Bibliothèque de France which are not yet digitised and speak to the origins of this family. Some of those are included, I see, in the references section. As a Frenchman, I can assure you that not even half of our noblesse have wikipedia pages. Only those that were created or continued by the new regime under the Empire and not the ancient régime. You may find some on the internet listing all the relations between families. On the following page they talk about the wedding of Lord Jean du Souich.

The House of du Souich is related as explained in the article to other noble families that already has wikipedia pages like the House of Chatillon : or the House of France back in the middle ages.

The link provided in the reference number 6, shows a lot of the genealogy of the du Souich family. All links to the Royal family can be found through reference number 4.

In addition to this article, we can add to the notable ancestors, "Floridas du Souich", who died in Azincourt Battle on the 25th of October 1415. The name appears in the book "AZINCOURT" of Gérard BACQUET published in 1977 : Somes other noble directory books in the early days talk about the family : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.93.6.149 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Hi, in response to Sue Rangell and Lukeno94, the IP address which you are concern with is a building of the French government. There are 1000s of people who work here, using the internet. More info on private networks here : http://en.wikipedia.org/Private_network. Whether or not some other person had problems with Knowledge from this IP in the past has nothing to do with my comments or the veracity of this article. This has turned into the absurd. If I may, France2007, my advice is to consult the sites http://www.roi-france.com and http://roglo.eu/roglo with your information. They are concerned with the descendants of French Kings for the first website and the second one is concerned with persons with title of nobility. These sites are run by Fench historians who know who will be able to properly and fairly judge your claims, unlike it appears these editors. The majority of the connections to other families in these lines that you describe are already made there. I think it's a more professional way to go.81.93.6.149 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment - This user's talk page on the French Knowledge: Discussion_utilisateur:81.93.6.149 for those researching these IPs. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment - haven't the slightest clue whether this could be notable or not; but the identical formatting of the three keep voters concerns me greatly. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also note that two of the three have only ever edited either this talk page or the nominated page. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment I second Lukeno94's point about the keep !votes here, probable SPAs? Although we should not be assuming bad faith. That said, I think the issue here is not whether the family or surname exists; it clearly does. The issue is that the historiography and claims made in the article are not supported by the given references (as far as I could see, and given my weak French). In a way this is also a very much an essay, even discounting the COI issue. I would recommend stubbing the article and asking the contributor(s) to properly source their claims. "There's a book in French that verifies what I wrote" even if true, is never a valid argument to keep something around. §FreeRangeFrog 20:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
STRONG Delete per wp:snow I suspect hoax, socks, and astroturf. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen evidence that the more prolific of the IPs is a known bad-faith editor. And you and the other IP have very few edits - so I do now suspect this is a hoax and that you're sockpuppeting. I now vote Delete. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the private networks argument above.--France2007 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment -- I think the comments after my own explanation were simply copying my format, much like I am doing now. For those of us who are new to Knowledge these sorts of rules are not self-evident. One of the comments even states that she knows me, the author of the article, so there is no hidden COI. I am a littled confused, however, about the comment that I am a SPA. How do you suppose that someone is to begin editing on Knowledge? This is my first page creation and subsequently my first edits as well. I created my account yesterday. Neither of these points makes what I have written false or a hoax. The other commentor (Rangell) doesn't seem to have anything of value to add and is offensive. Granted, the article does need more references, and as soon as the sources become digital, I'll certainly do so. In the meantime, all I can hope to do is cite the books. Just for clarification, does Knowledge not permit essay style contributions, even well-documented? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by France2007 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be coincidence - if it is proved to be so, then I will happily take back my point. But you all wrote quite a lot of information without really giving much to back it up (apart from the last of the IPs) - I didn't check the sources myself, but perhaps Sue Rangell did. I'm not assuming bad faith or anything like that, just voicing my concerns. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just one other thought. When creating this page, the following page was used as a template to figure out how to structure a Knowledge page: http://en.wikipedia.org/House_of_La_Tour_d'Auvergne. It has just as much information in narrative form and many less sources, in fact none online. Why is there an immediate problem with the current page (harsh to call someones work a hoax!) and not with this other similar page? Thanks.--62.34.61.48 (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I wasn't the one who called this a hoax; I haven't even looked at any sources, hence the lack of a vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment I've asked for help at fr:Wikipédia:Oracle, which is their WP:RD. I'm leaning toward delete, but I'm not completely sure. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Dhatier responded to my request at Wikipédia:Oracle with the following comment: "It doesn't seem that any historical Du Souich family exists. The older Du Souich I found is Charles Amable Alban JUDAS du SOUICH (1812-1888), not living in a period families were still ruling villages or lands." I was already leaning toward delete, and his comment pushes me to the point of deciding that this is surely a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Kindly note that this is the history of Charles Amable Alban Judas du Souich's family. His ancestors. In the article, it is clearly written that the family was far from their status as local rulers at the time of his birth, ever since the Revolution. Have any of you voters actually read the article in question? The source, by the way, to Charles Amable is already listed on this page's references. --France2007 (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Also kindly note that he legally changed his name in 1896 from Judas su Souich back to du Souich. This is clearly sited in the article from a governmental source.--France2007 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at the article beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

- Comment to voters: Given that the claims of "complete fabrication" and "hoax" were cited on this article prematurely, within the hour that it was first written, I was unable to include all the sources. Over the last few days, I have done so. I invite you to read the article before voting taking into account that practically every line written about the connections of this family is supported by other Knowledge pages or other verifiable sources. For those of you who do not speak French, most of the pages have an English version available. Now that I and others have been able to complete (or nearly) the citing, this page has more cites than most other pages of its kind and theme, pages that are not under scrutiny for fabrication.--France2007 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep: I have just read this article on the family of du Souich and I find that there's no evidence of 'complete fabrication'. Actually, I find that the article is well documented - perhaps this was completed recently, perhaps other voters weren't able to read the French sources. It should be noted that this family's crest is found in the "La vraye et parfaite science des armoiries, ou l'indice armorial; augm. (etc.) par Pierre Palliot" which is the official book of the crests of the "Maisons souveraines" (Houses) in France. euraldic.com also has the crest description of this family. The most recent notable member of the family, Charles Amable Alban du Souich, which page is considered as "to be created" in Knowledge http://fr.wikipedia.org/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/Articles_%C3%A0_cr%C3%A9er_en_2012 is very well known in France for his discovery in the coalfield in the Somme/Picardie/Nord-Pas-de-Calais region. One of his ancestor Vincent Judas, Lord du Souich, is mentioned in the Estouvy Branch of the "Annuaire de la noblesse de France et des maisons souveraines de" p.208. This book is an official chronical of French Nobles, plus he is mentioned as Sr, acronym of Seigneur, which means Lord in French. Clearly, the family descends from nobles lines. WP:HASREFS WP:CONTIN Belongs to French History WP:HASPOT by linking it to page of Charles-Amable-Alban Judas du Souich, ingénieur when written and to the fr:Armorial des familles nobles et notables de Picardie.Matt 800 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Matt 800 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to Close It seems that once you take away all of the sock and meat puppetry, and consider actual external sources, there is a unanymous call to delete this article as a WP:Hoax. This discussion should be closed and the article deleted. Also considering the nature of the protests, and the behavior of these single-topic IPs on French Knowledge, it should probably be salted as well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT: Note that the above editor is the only one who continues to call this article a hoax. Even the editor who originally added this page to the delete list has, upon further review, written that the house of du souich exists. The concern is now notability and sources. The votes from this user, therefore, are not constructive. The continued claims of hoax and WP:AOBF are unhelpful and unneccessary. WP:AGF, WP:BITE--France2007 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I am not convinced this article is a complete hoax, the existence of a du Souich coat of arms is clear from the sources for instance. The complaint that this might not be a book because it does not have an ISBN number is quite a foolish statement to make about a book published in 1664. However, I still think we should delete this on grounds of notability even if it is not a hoax for the following reasons.
1. The great majority of the article concerns itself with the descent of the du Souich's from notable forbears like Charlemagne and William the Conquerer. First of all, the du Souich name was not established until many centuries later (a marriage in 1671 according to the article) and notability is not inherited. Secondly, all this notable ancestry is sourced only to an offline family genealogy so we have a big verifiability problem. In any case a family genealogy hardly counts as WP:RS and certainly does not count towards WP:N.
2. No noble title is even claimed for this supposedly noble family. The coat of arms does not really mean anything, those are easy to obtain and held by ranks as low as knights. If the family does, or did, hold a noble title the holders should be easy to find an identify in RS, but nothing like that seems to exist.

Comment: In France, especially during the Middle Ages, the rank of Seigneur (Lord of a territory) was a rank passed down through families. I understand the confusion in English, however, as Lord in Anglo-Saxon culture is a courtesy title given to families with other titles e.g. Baron, Earl (Count in France) etc.--France2007 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

1. For a family to be notable they should hold a notable hereditary title, have done something notable as a family, or have multiple notable members. After discounting all the WP:INHERIT material, we are left with only Charles Amable Alban Judas du Souich as anything like notable. His notability is quite minor (as Inspector of Mines) and I suggest that the authors write an article about him instead. Spinning Spark 12:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Charles Amable was much more than just the Inspector of Mines. There are roads named after him in northern France and church dedications and all kinds of honors. He was a Commandeur in the Légion d'Honneur. But I see that none of that makes any difference because you aren't French nor live here. So that certainly goes to lack of notability in an English context. Good point.--France2007 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - spend some time working on nobility articles and you start to get a sense of what is generally available (in terms of reliable sources) to verify the existence / achievements / heritage of particular families. There are rare exceptions (like families that have been intentionally "wiped" from the record books by a rival family) but I don't think this is one of them (even in those cases, a record of the conflict itself usually remains). I'm not seeing any of that for this article. That doesn't mean it is a hoax, but I can understand how some editors might come to that conclusion. Whether or not it exists or existed is actually irrelevant. We still need reliable independent sources to verify notability and any claims made in the article itself. The long list of fr.wiki "sources" actually hurt claims of notability because Knowledge is not a reliable source. Without WP:RS, this is just another (ironically) noble cause. The SPA vote-spam is particularly unhelpful, especially since few cite any policies to back up their claims. The old "I just happened to be reading this (thus, obviously) important article and noticed it had been nominated for deletion so was persuaded to !vote here" is particularly overused. Stalwart111 03:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure the final sentence is fair. Being completely new to wikipedia and seeing editors voting based on no knowledge of the information nor having read the resources, of course I (the author) appealed to fellow academics here in France who have both. Whether or not that constitutes vote-spam I'm not sure, but it does explain the reason for the single-use accounts/users and lack of cited wikipedia policies.--France2007 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, off-Knowledge canvassing is often frowned upon - the more aggressive form is referred to as "meat-puppetry", where you get a group of otherwise non-editors to come here specifically to vote a particular way. I don't think asking fr.wiki contributors would amount to the same thing, nor would asking non-Wiki contributors to start contributing. It can be a fine line, so just be careful about your motives for doing so. Stalwart111 23:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note from author: The last two voters make some very good points about the sources of the articles and its overall notability. As notability is a subjective point, I understand that for an Anglo-Saxon readership this content is of questionable importance. For the French, however, it is a part of their history and collective, current culture. Ergo the impasse. The reliable, independent sources are exclusively in French, hence the worry by some readers of their verifability. Fair enough. In light of this, I am voluntarily removing the page and it will be written on fr.wiki where greater attention can be given to the sources and cultural/historical knowledge therein.--France2007 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea; fr.wikipedia will be better able to judge the sources. Lectonar (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up the article, that is much more focused on the subject, but I am still in favour of deleting. You are mistaken to believe that we are judging this article harshly because of the French language sources. French sources are worth just as much here as English language sources. It is also incorrect that we reject articles because they are unimportant to Angl-Saxons. In fact "importance" is not a criterion we use at all—our main criterion is notability which is objectively measured by how much it is discussed in reliable sources. Those sources may be in French, but there is the problem, I don't see in the sources presented (although my French is not good) verification that the du Souich's even held the rank of Chevalier or Seigneur (as claimed in the article and here). In any case, these ranks are equivalent in England, I think, to Knight and Squire which are not considered intrinsically notable. There is a good case for the notability of Charles Amable du Souich (and he could have an article), but not for an article on the family based on what we have so far. Spinning Spark 19:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I could not have put it better. An article about Charles Amable du Souich might be a good idea if it could be written objectively, and not make claims that he was head of any houses or any similar outlandish claims. But, the sock and meat puppetry that is sorely apparent in these arguments lends me to believe that such a neutral article is not possible. Indeed, these single-issue editors give every indication that they are attempting to use wikipedia to propagate a piece of fiction. In fact, there is only one single verifiable mention that the last name was ever even used. (a doctor in 1896) What is "La généologie de la Famille JUDAS, Louis-Edmond-Ernest du Gard, 1890", and where can I find a copy? I cannot find this coat of arms independent of the author(s) of this article, and I have tried dearly. The book cited does not appear to exist. This flimsy citation is the ONLY shred of evidence that has been presented and there is no way to confirm it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sue, as I noted and linked above, there is a 17th century book reference in the article to the coat of arms which can be viewed on gbooks. The text is;

SOVICH, porte d'argent a trois Allerions de gueules, escartelé d'or à deux Bandes de gueules.

"Argent" is silver of course, "allerions" is a heraldic term for eagles (of a particular kind) and "gueules" is a heraldic term for red—three red eagles on a silver backround. "Escartele" is a heraldic term for quartered (with). "Bandes" is a heraldic term for right-handed diagonals, in this case two of them ("deux") on a gold ("or") background. The depiction in the article accurately follows the heraldry as far as I can tell. Spinning Spark 22:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Spark, The editor, Rangell, has claimed that the coat of arms is a hoax as well and put the page up for speedy deletion. I appealed by changing it to regular deletion. Regardless of the notabililty of this page, the coat of arms is verified by several different sites. You would be so kind as to add this comment to the following page, please? https://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Blason_de_la_Famille_du_Souich.svg Many thanks.--France2007 (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is helpful, but where is there any evidence that there was ever a HOUSE? Afterall, this article is supposed to be about a House of du Souich, and I have yet to see anyone produce a single shred of evidence that such house ever existed. In fact reliable french sources, cited by other concerned editors, have shown just the opposite. Repeated searches of Official and Unofficial French sources such as this one repeatedly fail to show any such French House or Heraldry. Where is the WP:NOTABILITY of this apparently fictional house? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Proof of peerage: The independent sources listed on this page, and reviewed below, each illustrate that the family is part of the French Noblesse (Peerage), which is an inherited status. People are not named in the Annuaire de Noblesse source if they are not of noble blood. The Annuaire is something akin to Debrett's Peerage in England. "Seigneur" in French means Lord in English, which in the ancient regime was an owner of territory given to his family by the royalty of their time. The title of Seigneur is inherited as was the territory over which the family ruled. A Squire is an écuyer in French, which if it is a person's only title, as mentioned, is not noble.

References proving noble status:

1. Annuaire de la Noblesse, 1897 referencing Edme-Alban du Souich, son of Charles Amable
2. Annuaire de la Noblesse, 1909 referencing the marriage in 1735 between Vincent Judas Seigneur du Souich and Marie Marguerite, daughter of Jean-Bapiste Morgan Seigneur of Warvillers and d'Estouvy - both of noble blood.
4. Les antiquites, histoires et choses plus remarquables de la ville d'Amiens, 1642 (no ISBN) referencing on page 322 the genealogy of the House of du Souich (all marriages, lineage) since 1550s. For instance, Nicolas du Souich Seigneur (Lord) de Tilloy les Arras, de la Ferriere, d'Argiual & de la Motte, Maître des Requêtes de l'Hôtel du Roi Louis XII (Counselor to Louis XII).
5. Ibid, page 355, references additionnally the decription of the coat of arms of the House of du Souich.

All of these official online references evidence the existence of the House of du Souich, part of the French peerage since the middle ages. As do, by the way, the four other books listed in the Further Reading section of this article, which are all available at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.Matt 800 (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seigneur is most definitely not equivalent to English Lord in the sense of a peerage (see for instance). It may literally mean Lord in the sense of a hereditary landowner, but this is no more than an English country squire. Not notable in terms of peerages alone. The lowest rank given the title Lord in the peerage is Baron and Seigneur is well below that, let alone an intrinsically notable title like Duke. Spinning Spark 23:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your reference quotes the meaning of Seigneur as squire or gentry (and that in Canada based on the French system). The rank of French noblesse is a little different than in England (In French, but there is a diagram halfway down the page.): Prince, Duc, Marquis, Comte, Vicomte, Baron, Chevalier (hereditary knight), Ecuyer (a young noble charged with accompanying a knight into war). These are the noble titles in France. The Seigneurs du Souich were (in the ancient regime) at various times in history either chevalier and ecuyer. One example: "Jean du Souich Ecuyer, Seigneur de la Ferrier..., brother of Louys du Souich Chevalier in 1594..." Both of these are noble titles, albeit low ranking ones. But that is all the article ever claims. Finally, other encyclopedias and dictionaries, like Larousse, define Seigneur as "during the ancien régime, a person of noble rank, who occupies the highest position in a territory."France2007 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

'...squire or gentry. The fact is gentry no more confers notability on a family than squire. Such low ranks are not deserving of a Knowledge article merely because of their rank, although it is still open to establish family notability against the GNG. But so far, no such sources have been forthcoming. Spinning Spark 06:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

QUESTION Why isn't there a French article on this "House". I personally would find these arguments much more convincing if this lemon could be slid past the French Wikipedians. Nobody is saying that there ween't a few nobles who may have had this last name, but that is completely different from a House of du Souich. My French is limited but bold statements need to be backed up by bold citations and sources, and there are -0- present. Listings of obscure marriages in the 1800s mean nothing. The entire history of this AfD is filled with sockpuppetry and vote-spam. The article is now a stub of what it was because it's single-issue author has been forced to take down all of the grandiose statements made. Where is the WP:NOTABILITY? Why is there no French Knowledge article? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I find your comments offensive. The only part of this article I removed was a rather long account of the lineage of the family which I am putting on wiki.fr. I was not forced to do so, but chose to because, as you say, most of the voters here cannot read the French sources and that caused reliability problems. The French site is forthcoming. By the way, a family is made up of nothing more than a string of marriages and births (we list them from the 1600s to the 20th century). A family (or a House when the family happens to be noble) is no more than that.France2007 (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry if you find my comments offensive. They are certainly not meant to be. I am merely pointing out the dubious history of this entire AfD objectively and unbiasedly. If you find that to be personally offensive, I am sorry. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You were not forced to take down the material because we cannot read the French sources. Please stop repeating that ridiculous claim. It is disputed that the sources verify that there is a notable House du Souich. It is irrelevant that sources are in French, we can easily find speakers of almost any language on Knowledge if necessary and machine translation will usually confirm the basics. Spinning Spark 06:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say I was forced. To the contrary, I said "I was not forced to do so, but CHOSE to..." Editor Ragnell suggested I was forced. I'm not repeating any such claim. My point is simply that it is more difficult to verify a French source from Bibilo nationale de France in Paris for someone not in France. Valid point and why I took down the parts that did not have sources online.--France2007 (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

More info regarding Notability can be found here: At This Site. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to CLOSE and SALT per WP:SNOW. Since the last request to close this discussion there have been two additional opinions of Delete and no Keeps. Since it's nomination this AfD has been fraught with single issue IP editors, socks, and vote-spam. Nobody seems to feel that there is any WP:NOTABILITY and at least two editors believe that this article is a WP:HOAX --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Sue Rangell above. Qworty (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Unknown Prophets

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

This topic fails WP:BAND. Sources consist of passing mentions, and customized Google News archive searches this as this are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000 08:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep. Significant coverage exists but is mainly local: , , , . --Michig (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete I have to say I'm impressed. Article has existed since 2005 and yet I can't find any truly reliable third-party references that could establish notability. Another case of being under the radar? Certainly willing to reverse my !vote here, if someone can source the article because I sure as heck can't. §FreeRangeFrog 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete This should have been speedy deleted 8 years ago --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This band isn't notable. --Shorthate (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ruthless Blues

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

A topic about a British band that appears to fail WP:BAND. Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources; just passing mentions. Customized searches such as these (, ) are likewise not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000 09:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Not Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment. There's an allmusic bio, a review in High Fidelity News and Record Review, and some local coverage. Probably not enough unless anyone can come up with more. --Michig (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Weak delete - I could not find more than a passing reference of the band in Time Out. I am willing to change my mind if proof is forthcoming. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

TandMProductionCo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFILMS - non-notable films creator with no popular creations. Vacation 00:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

'Comment the earlier AfD was speedy closed & the article deleted for there being no claim of notability. It consisted merely of sections 2 and 3 of the present article, without the company history. This is an expanded version, & can therefore not be deleted as G4, even if the previous AfD counts as the necessary prior deletion discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom + I am still yet to see a reliable source in this article on a supposed film company, as it's current state is WP:OR. It fails WP:CORP too. -- MST☆R 03:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per failing WP:CORP. Though changed from earlier version, this one still lacks any reliable sources... and none are available. Schmidt, 20:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Yep, per MST☆R, no reliable sources and reads more like an advert. Whitewater111 (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep, per WP:BAND#6 argument. Spinning Spark 11:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Savage Circus

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

This band fails WP:BAND. Google News archive searches are only providing passing mentions. Northamerica1000 12:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This is an interesting one. The article has existed since 2005, yet as far as Google is concerned, the band barely exists. I could find a few reviews of the albums but nothing that could be considered WP:RS, a few announcements about concerts in 2007, and a lot of metal site stuff that could probably be dismissed as non-reliable. Very little third-party coverage. I think this is a case of inherited notability that remained under the radar for a long time. I would have considered a redirect to Thomen Stauch but that one is iffy on the notability department as well. All in all, the group certainly fails WP:BAND. I'd say delete, and CSD#A9 the two albums shortly thereafter. §FreeRangeFrog 20:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not Notable, should have been deleted 8 years ago. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep - According to http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=126896, Savage Circus has at least two notable band members.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A single blurb on blabbermouth made back in 2009...but last updated..."Last Updated: November 17, 2012". TODAY! Unless there is some real media coverage on this unknown band, my opinion must stand. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - SC has four notable musicians, Yenz Leonhardt, Thomen Stauch, Piet Sielck and Mike Terrana. If there is only one notable musician in the band, the ensemble's article should redirect to that individual. If we were to redirect the article, to whom would it be redirected, and why? If there is more than one notable musician in the band, how will people know quickly that the other members are/were in the band?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - IMO, if my questions can not be legitimately answered, then the article should be kept. I think the issue at hand is "Does Savage Circus warrant at least a one line article denoting that it exists?" If so, then we should leave all properly referenced information in the article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. In reaching this decision I am strongly influenced by the claims in this debate of COI editing and disruption in the article. I find the issue of the notability of student Academy Awards is undecided, and it will remain an open question until such time as it is addressed explicitly in guidelines or otherwise decided by a wider consensus. This delete is without prejudice to a new, properly referenced, article being created by a neutral editor—this deletion should be seen as helpful to that process, allowing a clean start without the taint of COI material. I will userfy the article on request. Spinning Spark 11:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Marianna Yarovskaya

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

This seems to be a piece of self-promotion. Yarovskaya shoot three documentaries, one of which got a student award. (Obviously a documentary which would get an Academy Award were notable, but for instance athletes can not claim notability for their wins in U-18 or U-23 competitions). There were more awards claimed, unsourced, the notability of these awards is not clear. On top of this, she is claimed to be the head of the research for the An Inconvenient Truth, an undoubtedly notable and much criticized documentary, however, I do not think a head of the research of a notable movie is notable. Note also the discussion on the talk page, which motivated me to AfD this article. Nota also that User:Termiteart was checkused on Russian Knowledge (where the article was also created and AfDed), and found to be identical to User:Y_marianna , as well as to the IP, so that the article was written by the same person. Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is the article seems to have buried the lede with this as yet unsubstantiated claim that she was "head of research" for the Gore doc ~~rather than the fact that she has won arguably the world's most prestigious award for student filmmakers with a student Oscar~~, and appears to have garnered a smattering of significant coverage in reliable sources, which one can find with a Google and Gnews archive search. I've done a bit of rewriting to address some undue weight and peacock concerns. I'd say ~~keep~~ (see below) but reblock the COI editor if she edits her article outside consensus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Right now she is edit-warring removing {{fact}} and replacing it with a link to IMDB. Concerning the Student Academy Award, I believe the recipients are not notable just because of this award, same way as for instance a U-18 World Champion in athletics is not notable just because of this, but can become notable if he participates in the Olympics for instance.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd never considered comparing the WP:CREATIVE criteria (as I've interpreted them) for a student film award-winner to those underage sports competitions, as you've mentioned. It's a valid argument and comparison, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete — This subject's contributions to her field have not had any demonstrable impact according to any reliable sources. She exists. But she does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Nor can she muster WP:BASIC criteria through some sort of contagious notability. Vanity WP:RESUME material supported by junk IMDB cites. JFHJr (㊟) 17:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that for a student filmmaker, the Oscar and IDA award for student film would meet WP:CREATIVE. That said, if she's not going to stop adding unsupported claims for herself, preserving the article may be more trouble than it's worth. But my belief is that what we have here is a notable (imo) emerging documentary filmmaker who is just having trouble grasping some of the unique rules of Knowledge, as she goes about using web based media to help establish her career. There's nothing wrong with that on other sites, no doubt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Too bad there are not junior notability guidelines, or many student-level prizes that make people automatically notable. Wonder why that is. (Removing tongue from cheek now). To be a clearly encyclopedic subject, she would have to be notable as a filmmaker or otherwise fulfill WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. None of those is met; and while having won bronze-level student awards may be additive to the notability of a subject that is squarely notable otherwise, the awards here do not begin to make a case in an automatic sense. A catch-22 for thought: if she uses Knowledge to promote her career, she probably isn't notable enough for inclusion; if she doesn't care particularly much about this user-generated encyclopedia because she's too busy with her career, she has a better chance. Compare another similar AfD discussion. It's perhaps WP:TOOSOON for her now, and this shouldn't be her promotional vehicle. JFHJr (㊟) 22:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep Seems to meet WP:CREATIVE to a certain extent, but this edit warring and removal of criticism is troubling. Hoisted by one's petard? I'd go as far as recommending that she be prevented from editing her article altogether, and let other people add information that is not POV or COI. §FreeRangeFrog 19:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

She seems to have stopped following my latest warning and explanation; I believe we're dealing with a responsible and sensible person, here. We shall see, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you check her talk page history, you will discover that she got over five warnings prior to yours. Some of these she deleted, and she also brought socks to create an impression there is no COI (the article was recreated three times). She is indeed learning and for instance she stopped removing the COI template, but I am afraid it is premature to state that she understands everything. In Russian Knowledge, her article is currently also at AfD, and she basically started to accuse everybody and state that she is a great cinema director, and the nominator is a layman unable to appreciate this. This is clearly not a snowball keep material, so let us wait a bit. I certainly appreciate your intervention and I cope it will lead to improvements.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad. No, I didn't properly check the page history, no. ~~This is really surprising, coming from someone who would seem to have everything to lose by tarnishing her reputation as a documentary filmmaker by behaving so poorly on Knowledge.~~ Well, let's see, with all options on the table including reblocking, for sure. We'll have to keep a longterm watch on the page, too, I guess. ~~Talk about an "inconvenient truth". sheesh.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Okay, I admit to being very sloppy in tossing the 'student Oscar thing' around. It was a "Bronze medal" she received, not the top prize (which arguably could have been considered a major award for a filmmaker at that level -- or maybe not). I don't believe the other prizes do reach the level of what is intended by "well-known and significant award" at WP:ANYBIO. The secondary coverage does not then separately reach the level required for WP:GNG, imo. That said, there seems to be other agendas at work here. The filmmaker had been legitimately removing what I do agree are WP:COATRACK attacks on global warming science, in the Gore film. The more I look into this, the more I see Ms. Yarovskaya's edits are not the only issue here. While a db-author is not possible due to the involvement of other editors, she has wisely asked that we delete the content until such time as it can be recreated neutrally. So let's please assume good faith regarding Ms. Yarovskaya. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, she asked the article to be deleted, and it was courtesy-deleted, only to be recreated by a sock in several days in the same form minus the WP:COATTRACK material (and minus the COI template of course). Indeed there are two sides here both pursuing their own agendas, but I am afraid the best solution for the moment would be just to delete the article. If it does not get deleted, indeed, we would need to edit it by taking into account both the neutrality and WP:BLP.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Can't find any reliable sources myself. Agree with the too soon arguments. heather walls (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Keep, but edit and shorten: she is listed in the New York Times in the credits for the Inconvenient Truth as the first researcher, also a Student Academy Award is a very impressive industry award and according to the research whether Gold, Silver, or Bronze - all these are considered Student Academy Awards since the year 1991, which is also reflected in the Student Academy Award Knowledge page, where Bronze, Silver and Gold are listed as Academy Awards. Which in my opinion definitely meets the "well-known and significant award" at WP:ANYBIO. Agreed that she might have buried the lead with the Al Gore researcher credit as she has other producing and directing credits to her name. Also agreed she probably meets WP:CREATIVE. I would think deletion would be an extreme measure which is ungrounded in this case.Lucyjan (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
First edit of this user--Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of Knowledge articles on filmmakers who won Student Academy Awards as their main achievement, here some examples: Leah Meyerhoff (nomination only), Sarah R, Lotfi (nomination only, Shih-Ting Hung 76.171.97.123 (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong Delete Not notable. FailsWP:BIO And politics do not come into it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Shorthate (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)