Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 8

< 7 October	9 October >

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 keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Long Beach, Long Beach, California

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

Article fails to list a single source to indicate notability or a reason why this neighborhood should be listed separately from Long Beach, California as a whole. NJZombie (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—agreed. the very idea of the place would seem to be a reason for this organization to exist, and the article only to promote it. almost certainly an invention of real estate agents.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's argument is more an assertion that this article could be merged into the one for the city as a whole, but the city article is already quite long. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And this newspaper article is evidence that West Long Beach is recognized as a neighborhood. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody said it isn't a neighborhood. What's questioned is if it's notable enough to warrant having its own article. Just because something exists doesn't mean it automatically deserves an article. NJZombie (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A named populated place with some 35,000 residents is inherently notable. --Lambiam 10:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sure, but the question is "who named it?" it's not uncommon in for real estate agents to make up a neighborhood name and form an association like the one linked to in the article so they can distinguish between houses there and the ones in the main city. long beach has some negative connotations, so they might make up west long beach. can you find sources that discuss the neighborhood qua neighborhood? that one Eastmain found, a good one, but more a mention than a discussion, is the kind of thing needed. if this were e.g. west l.a. or south l.a. or east l.a. we wouldn't be having this discussion, or even east whittier. these are neighborhoods that people have written whole books about, but west long beach doesn't seem to me to even exist as a genuine place beyond just being the west side of long beach.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of official sources mentioning West Long Beach. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those examples provided seem to speak of West Long Beach as an informal title for the West side of Long Beach, as Alf.laylah.wa.laylah suggests. A search for West Side Long Beach, another title it's apparently referred to, results in almost 100% real estate listings. It comes across more like a real estate title or a name gangs refer to it by than an official name or border acknowledged by the city or state. NJZombie (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) i did something very like that search before i wrote delete above (among other such searches). the links must be sifted, because they're almost uniformly false positives. just to go over the first page of results: one doesn't have the words west long beach together anywhere on it. two uses phrase "west Long Beach" twice, but lower case west and context shows that they mean the west side of the city of long beach, rather than a place called West Long Beach. three same thing as two. four this is talking about a parking lot, called the West Long Beach Lot. It isn't clear from the context whether the lot is called that because there is a place called west long beach and the lot is in it or the lot is called that because it's on the west side of long beach. five is in a whole different state, and doesn't use the phrase anyway. the hit comes from "115 Bolstad Avenue West, Long Beach, WA 98631." this is the 5th hit. you can see why i don't think that there is any such place, now, maybe? six another false positive, hits due to "Golden West, Long Beach City." seven this one is more promising as it actually mentions the name of the putative neighborhood, but it only mentions it in the context of the name of the association that i believe made it up. it seems to me to lend weight to that view, but in any case, it's not independent, since it's still the organization being mentioned, rather than the neighborhood. eight (i switched the link to the google apps quick view from the actual .doc) is more promising, as it mentions West Long Beach as a discrete place, but only as part of the name of a planned community, so again, i don't know that helps makes a case that this place wasn't invented by real estate agents. nine (also replaced with google apps thing) is about newspaper circulation, not an article. it might work to show that there is such a place, but it seems iffy. ten this mentions the "West Long Beach Pumping Plant 1450 W. 9th St. Long Beach 90813" Clearly states that the plant is located in Long Beach, not in West Long Beach. The name of the plant is West Long Beach because it's the pumping plant in long beach that's west of the other ones or something. look at the names of all the other pumping plants on that list and see if a case can be made that they're in existing neighborhoods. some of them are, sure, but mostly they're named east or west or after the street they're on. long beach is in the top ten biggest cities in california. if it really had a neighborhood with 35,000 people in it, we wouldn't be scraping around like this to find mentions of it. They'd be everywhere.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of who named the neighborhood, the neighborhood does exist, and this name is in use for referring to it (for example, on Google maps, or in news reports: here, and here, where the Councilmember for District 7 explicitly refers to West Long Beach as a neighborhood). It is not an administrative division of the City of Long Beach, but part of District 7, a gerrymander, a map of which can be seen by clicking the tab "Council District Map" on this page. The designation "Westside" (or "West Side") is synonymous with "West Long Beach": they refer to the same well-defined neighborhood, if possible even more ethnically diverse than Long Beach already is, plagued by problems of poverty. "Upper West Side" is also not an officially named neighborhood, and maybe that name was first used by real-estate agents, but if so, so what? --Lambiam 20:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomination falls far short of making a case for deletion - it seems more an argument for merger, which is best handled via the talk pages of the articles rather than through this process. We have many articles on neighborhoods, whether this neighborhood merits a separate one is for the editors of the articles rather than some drive-by malcontents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

now that is an argument i haven't heard before. "drive-by malcontent"! i'm going to make a userbox for it. the case for deletion is that some good faith editors can't find any evidence that the place exists. do you have any? maybe if some of the "whatever-the-opposite-of-drive-by-malcontent-is" editors who want to keep the article could explain why the place exists, we could all go home. for instance, belmont shore is a neighborhood of long beach that clearly exists. West Long Beach, not so much. by the way, here is a nonpaywalled source for the article that Eastmain found if anyone wants to read the whole thing. this is the only convincing piece of evidence i've seen yet in this discussion. if we can find another one like this, i will switch to keep. i'm really not trying to destroy this article, i'm trying to destroy real estate spamming of wp.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—Lambiam's sources have convinced me that the place actually does exist, so i am changing my position here. i do agree with the principle that if an inhabited place exists, it's notable. i just wasn't able to find evidence that this place exists. others more skillful in search have shown me that it does, and hence the article should be kept.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this report a reliable source? It was prepared for the Greater Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization by an Associate Professor of Sociology from Cal State in Long Beach. In the searches I've done I've found problems of air quality in West Long Beach to be a recurring theme, and if this source can be used, it is a good reference for mentioning these problems in the article. --Lambiam 21:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it strikes me as reliable. how did i miss all this stuff? i'm embarrassed. i know that all the areas over by the ports of l.a. and l.b. are hard-hit by pollution, and none of the many cities involved seem to take it seriously, so there's a lot of this kind of private/academic investigation going on. it looks like there's a lot of material from that paper that could go in the article.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is full of articles on prominent neighborhoods in prominent cities/towns. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all named distinct populated places should have articles. This is not a distinct place, but a vauge locality within a city. North , south , east west , cet=ntral -- all of these prefixes are sometimes defined and meaningful, and sometimes not. This one is not, as the sources indicate--they are talking about no morethan the western part of a city. One characteristic of a defined area is a defined population. The article cannot give any, and resorts to giving the population of a zip code area that's is more or less in the same location. That the term is used in one academic report is not significant--they have to define a study area somehow, and the Western part of a city is as good as any other. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to illustrate the differences, there is no such thing as " West Brooklyn" as a defined place in NYC, even if one or two people should use the pair of words in an article and capitalize the phrase, and even though there is an actual West Brooklyn Community High School [1]. Ditto for North, and East. But South Brooklyn is real and notable. It goes by reality, not appearances. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was initially going to vote delete on this one; however, some of the more recent sources provided are starting to convince me that the area exists in a notable way. These sources 1, 2 & 3) provided earlier in the discussion seem to indicate that the area is notable and known as West Long Beach. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand. you seem to have said delete, but your explanation seems to be for keep?—alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks for that. That was a mistake, I mean to post keep. I've fixed it now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article seems notable and has strong points. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: article deleted per WP:CSD#G7 after sole author blanked the page. – Athaenara ✉ 01:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Michael Smith

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

WP:NOTABILITY. This is built entirely on non-WP:RS (including the CNN material, as that is on their "iReporter" section, for which they deny fact-checking or vetting), including subject's website. The book involved appears to be WP:SPS. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book is being published by Hachette Book Group. The non-fiction book was used to source the article along with a person-to-peron interview, military documents that are available on the Author's site, and other online articles. Psherburne (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book is supposedly being published next month, and you claim by a major publisher, and yet there is no listing for it on the publisher's website, no listing for it on Amazon, no listing for it at BN.com. The publisher is not listed on the author's website, not even in the "press kit" for the book. Your sourcing is material provided to you by the author, and apparently to other non-reliable sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note there are only three links to sites other than the author's; the CNN "user written" site, neighborsgo (which seems to be similar, and was written by the author of the Wikipedia article, "philipsherburne", and another site which also seems to be "user written." --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original author has now blanked the article, and thus I've submitted it for speedy deletion. If appropriate, I would like to see this AFD file remain visible, in case the article resurfaces at a later date. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Stack

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

This biography does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Having published books, is not in itself a claim to notability either. Nor working for an apparently non-notable organization. My searches have only turned up (loads of ) advertorials and Infomercials which are not RS or independent and thus not really suitable as references. It almost reads as spam too. Aspro (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This reason this so much looks like a like a ghost-written Autobiography because is appears to have paid for be the subject herself... looky here (5th job down [2]. Similar looking article by same editor. Dianna Booher. Also, without proper sources.--Aspro (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are generally not really about her, so I don't think they are significant coverage. Sources don't show she meets WP:AUTHOR. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Was not added to deletion log when originally nominated.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, January (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, no evidence that the subject meets any notability criteria; done deal. I see no reason to fuel the syndrome where non-notable people think that a short cut to a Wikipedia article is to pay a flack to create one. Ravenswing 14:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenae Molina

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

The only claim to notability in the article or that I can find in a google search is the cheerleader of the week designation, which I don't think is enough to establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenae was nominated cheerleader of the week by Sports Illuatrated, a very notable sports magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AF1988 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — AF1988 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete IMNSHO the one nomination isn't enough to meet notability requirements. Eeekster (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a small interview in one magazine is not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is clearly not notable.Vincelord (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted (identical to previously speedied article too), salted and socks blocked. WilliamH (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladan Vujic

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

Probable hoax, apparent cloned from the bio of a different person, as indicated by the only reference. The similar Vladan Dyse Vujic has been repeatedly speedied as a hoax. And he's no more Taylor Swift's boyfriend than I am. The images is also presumably phony. A saltshaker is likely called for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Delete Hoax.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as a blatant hoax. I would advise SALTing the page and blocking the socking article creator. Giant Snowman 10:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Politics of Change

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

Does not satisfy WP:NB. It's essentially a recital of what the book is about and an advertisment for the book and for the author. Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional book review cited primarily to the book itself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. Clearly a promo for a book that, as the nominator points out, fails WP:NB.--JayJasper (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - circular reasoning and self-citation does not make a book notable. No evidence exists that this book was a bestseller. The title is also a cliché, which makes searching for sources online nigh impossible, unless your name is Sisyphus. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. The publisher, Prodigy Books, has published nothing else, which to me screams, "self-published non-entity!" Yunshui (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Non-notable book, self-published by the author's own company as a "publisher". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Author not notable [3], book not notable, not notable. Note: not... notable! EEng (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Geraldi

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

No indication of notability, subject's books are published by self-publishing house iUniverse. January (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Racing Driving Simulator

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

There are difference between videogames that never see the light of day but get numerous reliable third party coverages (Thrill Kill for example) and those who get a mere mention and disappear quietly into obscurity.

In another word, the latter is the case of this videogame, henceforth why I am nominating this for deletion Donnie Park (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:No information available in reliable sources to indicate whether this game has even been released, or ever likely to be released in the future. Mattg82 (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. Article author appears to have invented the game, in the fictitious sense of the word. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duran Bell

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

No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. 1st source self, 2nd and 3rd are faculty directories. aprock (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the creator of the article. Bell is well known in his particular field and is a former tenured full professor at a major university. A quick Google scholar search also shows that his work is well cited by others in the field. I believe he passes criteria 1 and 5 in WP:Scholar. LK (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—did nominator read WP:BEFORE and/or WP:PROF, i wonder, given this slough of ill-justified nominations of academics? this one has a gscholar h-index of at least 20, so his work is quite well cited indeed.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the available sourcing, not the sourcing in the article right this minute, that matters. Likely meets the GNG (as well as WP:PROF, but I don't like SNGs). Protonk (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LK and others -- former tenured full professor at a major university. Johnfos (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted this AFD because it was originally closed as a "Speedy Keep", which clearly didn't apply.—Kww(talk) 03:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Club

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

It may have 14 units but I still think it is just a non-notable student organisation. The AfC reviewer agrees. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable student organization on one-campus. Neutrality^talk 22:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of pusher aircraft by configuration

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

Disputed prod. Original PROD rationale: "A list that is nicely done as the result of much effort on the creator's part, but has rather arbitrary inclusion criteria, nebulous subdivision criteria, and given the sheer size of the list were it to/when it include(s) all the aircraft of this configuration, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, while duplicating Category:Pusher aircraft." An IP (presumably the logged-out author" replied on the talk page when removing the prod, to which Ahunt's reply there sums up my feelings on the article (and reasoning) nicely. To wit: List of some examples of post-1930 pusher aircraft by configuration, excluding ultralights and projects, which is what this list actually is, is redundant to Pusher configuration, and "If it is supposed to be a complete list then it duplicates the category and is WP:INDISCRIMINATE." Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This not only duplicates the category, but it also groups the members and annotates them. As pusher aircraft covers everything from lightweight single seaters to the B36, then this is a useful addition to a bare category and justifies its existence on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the list is useful, for anyone but an expert on pusher aircraft, Category:Pusher aircraft is just a meaningless collection of names. This list on the other hand breaks down the category into the characteristics of the aircraft, with enough information to distinguish the different articles, but not so much information that it starts to become an article itself. For someone trying to learn more about pusher aircraft, this list would be invaluable, and is thus good encyclopedic content. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been many pusher aircraft - the original list limited itself for unclear reasons to post 1930 and excluded ultralights - and if inclusive could prove impracticably unwieldy. The current category:pusher aircraft is not fully populated. If configuration is a useful method for sorting pusher aircraft, this would be better done through categories. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arbitrarily restricting the list to post-1930, non-ultralight and non-experimental aircraft probably excludes at least 3/4 of the pusher designs ever built, making the list of dubious use and non-representative of the category of aircraft. Including all pusher aircraft types would probably produce a list of some 5,000 aircraft types, if not more, which would also be of little value to a reader. While I think the idea of discussing the different pusher aircraft configurations is a good idea I believe it should be included in the Pusher configuration article, which is not currently over-long, and just cite one or two examples for each configuration, not a large number from an arbitrarily limited list. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary exclusions are indeed bad, but we don't have to do it that way. I think there's a scope (probably codified as "Anything with a pusher propeller, so long as someone bothers to write it") that makes for a useful list, yet there's no reason why we're forced to list all 5,000^{{{citation needed}}} types. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(My estimation is) about 300 aircraft are already listed under category:pusher aircraft. Whether push-pulls are included or note in the list needs to be addressed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Experimental aircrafts are included; very interesting machines (Lear Fan, Vmax Probe for example). As yet done, some pushers examples are included in the Pusher configuration article. It is an arbitrary choice too... Plxd (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC) — Plxd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a valid argument to keep. Experimental types are in the category, which will act as a directory of types, while pusher configuration can cover the configurations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - re push-pulls. I can't off-hand think of any "pusher" push-pulls (no doubt someone will post one soon - Caproni Ca.1?). Those I can think of most easily are 1920s-1930s aircraft with the small engines of that period, where a broadly tractor aircraft had an additional pusher engine, in the same nacelle to reduce drag. I wouldn't list these under a list such as this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing special about the configuration of Pusher aircraft they are just one of a two main configurations for propulsion nothing that links the different types other than which way the propeller is bolted on which is not a defining-group for configuration, article is just really an indiscriminate list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing that links the different types other than which way the propeller is bolted on" ?. Pusher prop and conventionnal layout means to address (1) the aft propeller/tail conflict; there are a lot of airframes configurations to cope with this problem (short fuselage with single upper or lower boom, twin booms - long fuselage with a drive shaft) and (2) the propeller ground clearance at takeoff (very high thrust line, ducted fan for smaller prop diameter, skid, ventral fin (cruciform tail, inverted V-tail, Y-tail)). That is a lot of pusher specific configurations.Plxd (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nothing that can not be mention in Pusher aircraft, also note finding somewhere for a tractor propeller isnt easy either hence the number of variations that have been tried. MilborneOne (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that many of those are not "specific" to pusher configurations; plus "analysing and comparing" the configuations in an article like this is very likely to founder on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles may fail for BLP issues too, but that doesn't prevent us writing them, and dealing with issues if they actually happen. A threat that something "might" happen is no reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Pusher_aircraft#Advantages is uncited and Pusher_aircraft#Disadvantages has but four citations - I'd say there's already a risk of Synth. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are we now discussing the deletion of pusher aircraft? Of course there is a risk of such things. We also have practices for what to do to resolve them. This doesn't need deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand we have to escape "analysing and comparing" the configurations, but only describe them. Is this an OR ? If necessary we can restrict this article to specific pusher configurations; it was in fact one among other rationales for the post 1930 initial selection.Plxd (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the list is useful and really interesting, !!!

Daytonarolexboston —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the rational given by the nominator, the article seems to be notable enough, however it surely requires additional sources. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Mortemore

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

Autobiography of non-notable actress. Orangemike (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Judged solely on her film & television work, I completely agree with "non-notable". But it looks as though she may have a substantial, recognized body of work on the stage. Her own website (which is not even linked in the article) lists quite a number of stage roles, and there are definitely reviews out there, in which her performances are highlighted--> [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fullfills points one of WP:NACTOR. Every article linked by Hobbes Goodyear and almost every hit found in this Google News Archive search represent the fact that she "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Almost surprisingly, her most widely seen role, the Harry Potter part, doesn't seem to infer notability at all. OlYeller^Talktome 17:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on her substantial stage work. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelaviaboard

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

This is a brand-new web-page/music chart, apparently having just started today. There is a claim to notability in being the "first music chart in Iran". I find it difficult to believe it meets our WP:GNG however. LadyofShalott 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero GNews hits. Three google hits at all, in order: the WP article, its site, side mention in a blog forum discussion. If and when the subject becomes notable, let's have a better version of this article back, but for now it should be removed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per nom, notability not stablished. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a speedy deletion would not be per nom. As I said, there's a claim of notability - that makes it ineligible for A7 deletion. LadyofShalott 14:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: In fact, this a file sharing blog and some of these documents are covered by copyright. Here is one of these illegal files.Farhikht (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elm house murders

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

Contested prod. I stand by the original rationale: Appears to be entirely made up. Given the web's love for the paranormal and pseudoscience, ghost stories that Google never heard of are pretty much guaranteed to be made up. Also nominating Elm hotel which was created simultaneously (and is also a contested prod). Pichpich (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Both. Per G3 as blatant hoax. Looked around a bit, can find absolutely nothing on web to support. An SPA creates two puny, unsourced murder-mystery, ghost-story articles, presumably for a laugh. Go away. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Both as above. Unable to verify. Location (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Outside chance it's not a hoax and just unverifiable, but odds so remote it's not even worth considering. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete possible - blatant hoax. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - With no search results, and no references given, I'd rather not WP:AGF and instead assume a hoax, a form of vandalism that I think is quite unsightly. LoveUxoxo (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:RELIABLESOURCES --Ben Ben (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exorcise as complete WP:BOLLOCKS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 International Tournament City of São Paulo

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

The article contains practically no meaningful content and appears to fail WP:EVENT. As events tend to be contentious, I am listing it here for discussion instead of CSD or PROD. Topher385 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was never transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The article is completely unscourced, and shows no indications of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Bryce-Smith

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

Does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability of biographies. Nevard (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was never transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passes WP:PROF#C7 ("substantial impact outside academia") and there's enough news coverage of him for WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Guardian obituary already referenced in the article plus the first few hits from a Google News archive search (particularly the first) comprise significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC Qwfp (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and noted environmental campaigner. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sanello

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

BLP of an author, which does not show notability; there is one review in Asian Review of Books of one book that he co-authored, but that's the only mention of him in anything that resembles a reliable source. There are some COI issues here as well. Note that an article created about one of his books, The Autobiography of Frau Adolf Hitler, is the subject of another AfD at the moment. bonadea contributions talk 13:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep extended body of work at publishers weekly [11]. let's not "send a message" (wp:bite) to new user. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was never transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Substantially improved in nearly 3 months of limbo before transclusion; appears WP:Author is exceeded and the article should be kept. Dru of Id (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic passes WP:AUTHOR, criteria #3. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 21:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HeroBrine

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

Non-notable game character, only blog-like sources (Prod template was deleted by author) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was never transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it with fire - non-existiant fictional character, a meme of sorts in a gaming community. Slender Man got deleted, for Notch's sake, and the notability of Slendy as opposed to this is like that of a P-51 Mustang vs the glider your neighbour's kids built in the garage and crashed into the drivewayside basketball hoop. Not even worth a redirect to Minecraft, since the character's name doesn't have an uppercase B. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Redirect (see DJSasso's comment for how that came about), unlikely search term, nothing points to the redirect except this AfD and transclusions of it. CSD R3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Kentucky UIFL team (2012)

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

There doesn't need to be two of these pages DMC511 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was never transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Malformed, pointless redirect. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't this be at RfD instead? Ravenswing 14:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be. The nominator had created a copy/paste move of this article and then turned it into a redirect to the new location. After that he nominated it for deletion. It currently looks like I created the redirect because I undid his changes and moved the page properly to its new location. I then replaced the tag he put on the redirect. I must have been a bit out of it when I did it because it didn't dawn on me that it was an Afd notice and not a Rfd notice. I have no opinion on if it should be kept or not from that stand point since it should be at Rfd. That being said it probably qualifies as a speedy delete like I did with others the user made since this is an unlikely typo or search term. -DJSasso (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus to keep this article. It surely notable enough, and the sources are also reliable. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 05:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rag

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

Ultimately a non-notable website, known for just one event. St Anselm (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this essentially is the event, absent a separate article for "Smeargate." --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it is notable for just one event but it was a significant event in recent British political history leading to the resignation of leading advisors to the Prime Minister. The creation of this site by those at the heart of Gordon Brown's administration gave an insight into the extent to which the Labour Party planned to smear their opposition for political advantage. User:PeterT111 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - There is substantial reliable source coverage demonstrating the impact of the Red Rag on British politics. I have gone ahead and added several sources, and there are many more. Some of the sources are right around the time of the e-mail release, but some of the sources are later on as well, demonstrating that the impact of the potential launch of the website was notable in an ongoing manner. This pretty clearly passes WP:GNG. In terms of the claim of notability for only one event, if we take a look at the intent of that norm, it is to avoid non-notable events which do not have impact on other things. This is clearly not the case here, where the Red Rag had a lasting WP:EFFECT. This web site had widespread impact and was very widely covered in diverse sources. It was also covered WP:INDEPTH with deep analysis of the impact on the political landscape in multiple highly reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The controversies that it has covered could mention the site. Does not deserve its own article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge where? Damian McBride? If so, then wouldn't it be more appropriate to merge Damian McBride here, as he does not seem otherwise notable?
This AfD was never transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of reliable coverage cited in the article itself; tremendous, by AfD standards. If there were a separate article for "Smeargate", then sure, it should be merged with that. But there is not; "smeargate" redirects to one of the actors in this event. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant political event of lasting consequence. I'd consider renaming and refocusing the article on the political event rather than the site itself, but certainly not deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Voice of Youth. The article should be merged, both the topics are same, and completely do not show any requirement for an another article. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 05:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of Youth(tVoY)

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

An article about the same topic exists under the name The Voice of Youth.

This AfD was never transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- To The Voice of Youth as policy supported title with no need to disambiguate. Same subject, different information, each has sections better than the other. Dru of Id (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Dru of Id has it exactly right. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Watsons Go to Birmingham – 1963 report

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

article is a duplicate of existing article The Watsons Go to Birmingham – 1963

This AfD was never transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- As duplicate (the other is much better). Dru of Id (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a stub created this year. The original identified by nominator is a well-developed article built up over the past five years. I had a look at the stub, and it doesn't appear that there is any new info that needs to be transferred, so just straight delete. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. This article is surely a decent one, however its surely too early as the filming has not even started. The developing article can be seen here. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 05:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenstein in Guanajuato

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

Prod denied. Film is in pre-production and has not received significant coverage. WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 19:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or incubate. The article itself is actually pretty decent, especially given the not inconsiderable handicap of having as its subject a film that has not yet been filmed. A web search does return plenty of mentions, but I didn't see anything WP:RS and substantial. Given Greenaway's track record, if and when the picture sees the light of day, I assume that it will easily achieve notability. Please bring this article back then. WP is not a not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and is not for WP:PROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or Userfy. Good option. With principle photography slated to begin in 2 months, and in considering the growing level of coverage in its anticipation, this one can be welcomed back once NFF is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Userify as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Leonard

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

Contested PROD. I can't see how this passes WP:MUSICBIO. St Anselm (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability for lack of substantial WP:RS sources. I looked around, but the two secondary source links in the article, from the Moonee Valley Community News and the Moonee Valley Leader, are as good as it gets. Peeked at her last.fm page to make sure I wasn't missing a hidden groundswell. A grand total of 22 listeners ever; over the past 6 months, a grand total of 3 song listens. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I'm quiet sure this looks more like a ad dressed up as a wiki article. Ray-Rays 01:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georeactor

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

The Georeactor conjecture is pseudoscience, contradicting established facts (not just theories) in geochemistry, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and other branches of science. This is not a notable scientific topic. None of the sources given meet Wikipedia's standards. Cherlin (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this pseudoscience is a stretch - when the theory's main detractor in the scientific community (per the article) refers to it as "not complete nonsense, but ... highly unlikely", that places it squarely in the realm of a real, testable (though very likely wrong) scientific theory - whereas I would expect any reputable scientist to refer to actual pseudoscience (e.g. the Wikipedia article on Water Memory, which is not being considered for deletion) as "complete nonsense", period. --75.173.212.22 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The following cited references might meet Wikipedia's standards:

   a.  Journal of Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity 
   b.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 
   c.  Naturwissenschaften (a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Springer on behalf of several learned societies}.

2. Like Galileo's and Einstein's, many scientific theories have contradicted 'established scientific facts.' 3. In the article itself, the Criticism section notes that an experiment by personnel at a credentialed institution might validate the theory.Wordlessw (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is psuedoscience (or fringe theory), because it describes ideas that depart significantly from the established science in geochemistry, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and other related fields. This is a minority view [12]. This topic probably does not merit an entire article to discuss its theories as if these really have validity WP:FRINGE. Actually, probably, the best place for only a section pertaining to this topic is the article about the disaster movie entitled The Core. Please note that J. Marvin Herndon was an adviser to the studio for this particular movie [13]. Also his paper was published the same week as the movie came out. Furthermore, it appears as though he was not the first or only person to advance and publish such a theory [14]. So it is probably inaccurate to mention only his name in the intro and discuss only his paper WP:UNDUE. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin It appears this nomination was never properly listed in the AfD Log, please consider giving it a week from my adding it to the current log before closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fringy theory that even Fox Mulder would consider unlikely. And, frankly, if you have to trot out the "Galileo and Einstein contradicted 'scientific facts' argument for want of anything better, that's a case against you, not for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many articles on Wikipedia on "pseudoscientific" subjects. Besides, the claim that a subject is "pseudoscience" is really a matter of opinion. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and it's the opinion of any and all reputable scientists that this is psuedoscience. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:FRINGE. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hammered The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Milian's fourth album

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

This article is now completely outdated. It was first called Dream in Color then Milian left Myspace Records and re-recorded the album as Elope. Only for her to re-record the album a second time. There is no way of saying how much of this information is actually attributable to the new album. Equally its a never ending crystal ball as there has never been a confirmed release date nor is there one now. An article for something which is so uncofirmed is not WP:V. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or redirect to Christina Milian – Although the article is indeed outdated, and we know nothing about the status of the album, the article is still well sourced. — Status {^talk_contribs 04:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:NALBUMS states "an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it". As far as WP:CRYSTAL goes, this album seems "almost certain to take place" and the sourcing indicates it is "notable". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of !vote to Delete in view of Mizery Made's evidence directly below - current information on album seems to have been rendered obsolete and we now have virtually no referenced info relating to what will be published. All we know is that it won't be the stuff we have info about! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hate to say it, as it is a rather detailed and sourced article but I think this quote from the article sums up why the article should be deleted:

"In September 2011, Milian gave an update about the status of the album, stating that she's been in the studio and has changed the entire concept of the album and is also changing the album's title, stating: "I'm at a new chapter in my life, so it's untitled as of yet". She also stated that all the material recored for the "Elope" sessions will not be used and that she's working on brand new material."

This quote from the article tells us that the album has essentially been started from scratch (with little known about the "new album", not enough for its own article), making a lot of the information pertaining to the "album" from the article rather irrelevant. I'd say salvage what can be salvaged from this article and work it into the artists article (which it looks like a lot of it is already present) showing the progression between her last album and this as of yet titled album. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This nomination does not appear to have ever been properly listed in the AfD log, please consider giving it a week from listing before you close it. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sole "keep" argument selectively quotes the guideline, which reads "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects—generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." (emphasis added) There's nothing about this particular work-in-progress that elevates it to the status of being one of those few special cases.—Kww(talk) 11:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no lasting notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pangs Theater Ensemble

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

A couple of interviews and other hits, but nowhere near notability. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Drmies, no notability provided at all. ItsZippy (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability provided.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.141.11 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2011‎

Delete: clearly fails WP:ORG. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This article has never been properly listed at WP:AfD. Please consider waiting for a week after relisting before closing. Monty₈₄₅ 19:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added to the AfD Log for the first time at 19:03, October 8, 2011. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A long time ago someone placed a template on the article itself saying: "...result=keep" (I think?) Ottawahitech (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was hammered. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Black's EP

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

Just an EP we know nothing about. No release date, no title, no tracklisting, no cover. Only one track confirmed. Fails WP:CRYSTAL ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the anime/manga deletion sorting page, since I don't see any connection to anime or manga. Calathan (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law --Guerillero | My Talk 05:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a crystal ball exercise. Good to see that my friend Mr. Hammer has been immortalized with a "law" — it's not half bad, at that. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the sources do not establish notability. Hut 8.5 15:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kids React

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

Looks like a youtube show with very little notability. No credible refs. Travis Thurston+ 18:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On The First Day of produtcion, or before, lots of kids got auditioned, because of their parents. Beacuse of their publicity, They have became famous, one was in a short movie that has got an award, And If More people get it back THANKS to Them. --|=ANTAG£JAPANR0X (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a response the the recommendation the the article be removed? Not sure what FantageJapanRox is trying to say here... --Travis Thurston+ 01:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are trying to say why they think it's notable. The film mentioned got a minor award which has no Wikipedia article (and for which I could find no evidence of notability), the film itself has no article (and again, I could find nothing to indicate that it meets the notability criteria) and the actress (who did not win an award, just appeared in the film that won the minor award) has an article which is also being discussed for deletion. FantageJapanRox, you need to provide reliable sources (not YouTube) which are independent of the subject to demonstrate that it meets the criteria for inclusion -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 04:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp:note, wp:rs. --Travis Thurston+ 01:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided. The only sources are the creators' own web site and their YouTube pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find minor coverage or non-reliable/non-independent coverage - nothing which would indicate that this subject meets the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 04:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their facebook post:[15] One of the kids have been on Time magazine FOR the show. TIME magazine: [16],[17]TNT Magazine: [18]

I have MORE, but I will add them AFTER Kids React DOESN'T get deleted. |=ANTAG£JAPANR0X (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The series is actually quite popular, having totals of millions of fans. As an internet phenomenon it meets the definition as it had been covered in various media sources. In addition to the above check these sources:

[19] [20] [21]

Of course, this is just a sampling, the series has been covered by many other web sites. To delete for lack of notability is simply false. There's a lot of coverage and we simply need to add it to the page, not delete the article. MB (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The series is notable, but it needs more sources and possibly a rewrite. SalfEnergy 17:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG Inks.LWC (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I just need to provide more references, therefore, this wikipedia page does not need to be deleted. |=ANTAG£JAPANR0X (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources mentioned do not discuss the "Kids React" series. Instead, they're simple embedded-video "isn't this interesting"/"kids say the darndest things" puff pieces using the series' videos (and four of them are "reprints" (for want of a better term) of the same thing). Their Facebook post is utterly irrelevant as Facebook is not an independent, reliable source. Having "Millions of fans" doesn't establush notability. Also, regarding the very first comment in the AfD - Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kids React has uncertain notability to me, but what about an article on The Fine Brothers to which Kids React would redirect? e.g., [22] [23][24][25]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Kayne

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG. No GNews or GBooks hits. No reliable sourcing. No assertion of notability. BLPPROD inappropriately removed by editor who added a link to an advertising page, which plainly fails WP:RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't even see an assertion of notability. Fails PORNBIO. I can't find any RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO, no RS.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: see WP:PORNBIO. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While this has not been closed in over a week, I don't think any further discussion will change the rough consensus given. –MuZemike 06:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in medicine

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

cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in sociology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology; search revealed no compilation of important works in this field Curb Chain (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With "important" undefined, this article is potentially limitless. Medicine was essentially reinvented in the 19th and 20th century, with 1000s of books and articles that could reasonably be described as "important". JFW | T@lk 21:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As there is no official definition of an "important source" I see no reason for this article to exist as it is based off someones opinions on what is important and what is not. Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whom says what is 'Important' (and by implication 'Unimportant'). Unless there are multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying the list, it is pure POV and OR. I am not going to repeat myself Ad infinitum, all my reasoning is in the prior List of important <stuff> AfD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified User:Sandstein and User:King of Hearts (the closing editors for the sociology and biology discussions) and Wikipedia: WikiProject Lists of this discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. This is one kind of the lists a curious reader of an encyclopedia would be interested in in furthering his understanding and knowledge on a particular subject. That we don't have another source (or more) giving exactly the same list that we are going to compile is not only a reason of avoiding copyright infringement but also the intricate matter of compiling survey texts: as long as material is notable it should be mentioned, under consideration of adhering to a NPOV. What this article needs is nothing but a precise inclusion criterion and reliable secondary sources for each entry stating its particularly notability. Cleanup is also no criterion for deletion. Nageh (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are six related articles like this opened right now, with the same rational being repeated on them all.
List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
List of important publications in geology
List of important publications in mathematics
List of important publications in medicine
List of important publications in networks and security
List of important publications in theoretical computer science

And the argument seems to be the same everywhere, that being the word "important" being used. Dream Focus 09:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no original research or merge/move to something like List of publications in medicine by impact factorDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of the article is certainly encyclopedia-worthy (although the word "important" does not seem to do the topic justice: perhaps "landmark" is better). For instance, I don't think there can be any serious argument that De materia medica or the writings of Hypocrates are not "landmark" publications. The general arguments (WP:V/WP:OR) above are not compelling. The question is, can a list on this topic in principle be referenced in a way that meets our core principles? A quick Google search for "Landmark publications in medicine" turns up many promising sources on which to base an article (e.g., "Science and Technology in Medicine: An Illustrated Account Based on Ninety-Nine Landmark Publications from Five Centuries"). As for the subjectivity of the inclusion criteria, we have plenty of subjective articles without a problem: we just WP:ASF and use sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is running into WP:N territory. Are you saying that if someone comments and the positivity or greatness of a publication, it will be a citation and the paper can be included? At Micheal Jackson's funeral, many notables commented on him. Do all these comments come up on article?Curb Chain (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. I'm not talking about using the opinions of some random bloke on the street here, but serious scholarly sources. You know, like the kind of sources used to write an encyclopedia? Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's (implicit) rationale for deletion – no sources exist that define which publications are "important" and which are not – is unreasonable. What it boils down to is: "There is no reliable source proclaiming, The following are the important publications in [insert name of scientific field]: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...; therefore it is original research and must be deleted." (And if such a source existed, the article would instead be speedily deleted as a copyvio – you can't win.) This is not a reasonable deletion rationale because it applies to basically any "List of ..." article. For example, for List of magazines in Pakistan, where is the reliable source that states: The following are the notable magazines in Pakistan: ...? A rationale that applies to essentially all stand-alone list articles is obviously too broad; if you wish to see this list deleted, a rationale must be presented that is somewhat specific to this list, and not so general that it applies generically to all list articles. --Lambiam 14:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should cite authoritative published sources saying the listed works are important in the field. But it is enough to have one or more authoritative published sources FOR EACH LISTED ITEM SEPARATELY. It is unreasonable to require a SINGLE source that gives the whole list. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would even be happy with a Cite that lists 50% of the entries on the List, but the problem is, none have been presented or discovered during these AfD's. Editors are assuming that the entries are obvious & common knowledge, but saying "English Text X" is important, probably does not hold water in China, where "Chinese Text Y" is important. Is 1 more important than the other? Is neither important in Latvian? What is "important" to each person will be different based upon their own experience. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per extensive comments by Geometry guy, most of which, including the need for sources, apply here. Geometry guy 22:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasons for inclusion are clearly presented at the top of the list article. If you have a doubt about any item listed, discuss it on the talk page. There are reliable sources already found to prove this is notable. No sense repeating everything said in the many places this same debate is going on at. Dream Focus 23:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, may main argument is here. --Pgallert (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two reasons. Firstly the term "important" cannot be objectively determined. We don't have a "list of beautiful people". I've read Geometry guy's comments and don't buy his argument in this regard. We can find reliable sources that say someone is beautiful. The key is that the "important" is explicit rather than implicit and the scope is way too large. One could produce a Timeline of cardiology that included key findings over the years. Or a History of evidence-based-medicine that discussed the landmark studies. For those it is reasonable to cite our reliable sources and use them per WP:WEIGHT to determine inclusion. One might even, for a narrow scope, find a publication that provides the list entries in one go. The second reason is that the items in this list aren't homogeneous. The first section contains historical texts that collect medicial wisdom of the age or author. The later section contains the publication of landmark studies. It is actually the studies that are the notable fact. Nobody cares much about the study text or the publication they were within. So is this a collection of great medical texts or a collection of groundbreaking medical research studies? For our purposes, the word "publications" isn't helpful then. We're left with "List of ... medical ..." There are better ways to list this sort of information. Let's delete this one as unhelpful. Colin°^Talk 08:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading my comments: no purchase is required, but donations are welcome :). They were intended to show that the "cannot be objectively determined" argument is not automatically grounds for deletion, but also that reliable sources are needed both to support the inclusion criterion of the list and to support the inclusion of individual entries. There is quite a range between "beautiful people" and "landmark court decisions" or "major biblical figures", and intelligent discussion is needed to determine what is encyclopedic (beneficial, useful) and what isn't in any particular case. I've only looked into the details in the case of mathematics, hence my "weak" keep here. I hope other editors will welcome your thoughtful remarks and suggestions for alternative ways to approach this issue. Geometry guy 22:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this deletion discussion is unlikely to go towards delete, a more productive approach is probably to consider the better ways of collating this information as a list or lists. Then, perhaps, these lists would be deleted as superseded. I suspect that "important" is already frowned upon by list guidelines, or at least should be. And the idea of collating all "publications" is perhaps not wise, if one uses the term to mean anything that has been published ever. Perhaps, in mathematics, the published academic paper really is a key document that first explained some new way of thinking. I don't think, for medicine, the modern academic paper itself is worth much -- it is the great study behind it that people praise, or the great mind(s) behind the concepts. Colin°^Talk 07:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The main argument for deleting this list is nullified because a reference is provided for the list as a group (WP:LISTN) in the lead section. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a simplistic way of looking at this article: "As long as we have inclusion criteria, we can include anything that we want."Curb Chain (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think everyone in this discussion wants Wikipedia pages to meet a high standard. It seems to me that there is potential for agreement on criteria for acceptable lists of publications, and these criteria are pretty much the same for all the lists. I invite everyone to visit the revamped Science pearls Wikiproject and discuss the criteria on the talk page. I would like to make a clear statement on the WikiProject page that could be used by all the lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do the citations really use the word "important"? Or are are editors reading the article and then using it as a citation deeming it "important" fitting the inclusion requirements of this list?Curb Chain (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all We are capable of judging the importance of things. We do it every time we select what we want to include in an article. We do it every time we hold an AfD discussion. That's not OR, except to the degree that research is to some extent an inevitable and necessary part of encyclopedia writing. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a list it is different. The nature of these articles require synthesis. The nature of different articles is different; they may be hoaxes, they may be about films that have not been made yet, they maybe be copyright violations. That's not a judgement of importance.Curb Chain (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read what WP:SYN is about? (See my comment below.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to bibliography?

Keep and rename to Bibliography of Medicine. There are countless sources Bibliographies of Medicine. WP:list permits bibliographies and the sources show that books related to Medince have been listed as a group (duh a bibliography). Individual entries should be verified to a reliable bibliography but the list itself meets notability guidelines. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the links Google returned? These aren't web pages. They are entire websites. Many have now been abandoned (computers index publications better than people). The NLM Bibliography of Celiac Disease alone contains 2,800 entries! The subject, Medicine, is of impractical size. Colin°^Talk 20:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Impractical would not be my choice of words. Impractical is a cop out. If there are 10,000 books on the subject of Medicine that would be suitable for a Bibliography of Medicine, then there are 10,000. Nothing impractical about that. We have lots and lots of lists that are sub-lists of larger lists, with collective entries in the 1000s. A well done Bibliography of Medicine might have dozens of sublists that do indeed contain 1000s of entries. But there is no doubting the fact that a Bibliography of Medicine meets our notability criteria (members of the list discussed as a group). We just need to work at the best why to organize it, and ensure all the entries are sourced to reliable sources. Nothing impractical about that. Oh! BTW do the same search with Books. Lots of bibliographies show up as well. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what would the point of such a bibliography be? How are we to determine what gets included into the bibliography and what does not?Curb Chain (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impractical is a completely reasonable reason for not having a single article on this. As DGG says below, the value of an encyclopaedia is that someone has made a selection, and we need to find a reasonable criteria for that. The "further reading" criteria is a good one as it imposes a natural editoral and encyclopaedic restraint on the list. We are not here to reproduce PubMed or any other broad index of publications. Colin°^Talk 07:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Suggestion Mike asked me for comments about his suggestion . I do not think a complete bibliography of books in the field of medicine or anything else is encyclopedic, except for bibliographies of the works of a notable author. I think they fail NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and they are not of value to people who go to an encyclopedia , who are normally looking not for all possible information, but for the sort of selection of important information that is in an encyclopedia. There are appropriate places for such lists, particularly Open Library. Selected lists are another matter. We accept Additional Reading sections. They're not just accepted, they're a significant feature that should be added to every appropriate article substantial enough in coverage to make them reasonable. For example, at present the article Medicine does not have such a section. What we should do, regardless of the results at this AfD, is write one, and similarly for the other topics here that might not have them. Whether or not the articles are deleted, the list of books in them would make a good start. In conformity to the usual method for breakout articles, I'd propose calling them Additional reading in medicine (etc.). I do not see how anyone would find that objectionable. Of course it would take judgment about what to include, but it's the same judgment and the same material for whether they are in a section or a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is different from other Encyclopedias. We try not to judge what is important so they can pass inclusion into Wikipedia. To do so would be WP:OR.Curb Chain (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt you will get support for that. There currently is no ==Further reading== in Medicine, and Medicine is so broad that such a list would be useless.Curb Chain (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the section isn't there is not evidence that it is inappropriate or unneeded. I do not need support here to add such a section to this or any other article. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout guideline considers such sections a normal part of an article. You can of course challenge that guideline, or argue it does not apply to a particular article. You could also challenge individual items I added, but I would expect to be able to support any reasonable addition with a reference to a review or similar listing, though we do not ordinarily do that for such sections. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a discussion linking to this section at the WikiProject Science pearls site. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A further reading section is fine (and could break out into their own articles if justified). For Medicine it would include books that in themselves given an overview of the whole topic of medicine, or significant aspects of it such as history. It wouldn't list, for example, landmark papers on smoking like this one does and probably wouldn't list classic texts in ancient Greek. The purpose is to the give the reader further texts they can read on the whole topic of medicine. Not some academic exercise to list every "important", "landmark" or "notable" publication ever in the field of medicine, which would be of little value to anyone. Colin°^Talk 07:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of notable publications in medicine. Determining importance without is problematic. Notability we do every day here. --Kvng (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how are we to determine notable? I don't see any sources out there and if we find compilations, we will have to synthesize them for our purposes which is against-policy.Curb Chain (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learn the difference between synthesizing and surveying, Curb Chain. Nageh (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. WP:SYN is about taking one source that says A, another source that says B, and then combining them to say C. It is absolutely irrelevant in this discussion. If a source says that X is an important/landmark/etc. publication, then it can certainly be listed in a list of such things without running afoul of the WP:SYN policy. If there's a legitimate deletion rationale, this is not it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surveying is fine, but using judging them to be applicable to this article is WP:OR.Curb Chain (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What original research is being advanced? As far as I can tell, no one has specifically identified any original research in any of these deletion debates. Saying "It's WP:OR. LALALALALA..." is not an argument. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per Kvng. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not WP:OR, for the reasons already amply discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. I noticed that some of the entries have citations which establish the importance of the entry, while others don't. This is an argument for improving the citations, not for deleting. Jowa fan (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fear your missing the point. it does not matter how well Cited individual entries in this list are. Somewhere in this, there needs to be a Cite from which the list is drawn from. Otherwise it is a list or what individual editors believe is important, not what a reliable Secondary source says is a List of important <stuff>. At its very most basic, this is a list of qualified <stuff>, Where is that list coming from? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exit2Dos. Would you or would you not agree given these references [26] that books, journals and other references on the subject of Medicine have been discussed as a group which is the notability requirement from WP:NOTESAL? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A point that nobody has mentioned is that the criteria for lists in WP:LISTN is relatively new. It was introduced only early this year and that is long after this list and all the other lists of publications were started. I for one was unaware of this change to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Note too that it is guideline, not policy. I suspect that all the editors who have been editing these lists were also unaware of the change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of lists. I suggest that the discussion there by people who spend time on this guideline is more relaxed about the criteria for list inclusion than some of the editors here using WP:LISTN as an argument for deletion. It is so new that it does not yet apply to a very large number of lists. We should be educating editors about this criteria and perhaps opening up the discussion on WP:LIST to see if some modification of the criteria should be introduced. Editors should then be given time to improve lists rather than deleting them now. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: An editor added <onlyinclude> tags to this AfD on 5 October 2011, which broke its transclusion on the daily AfD log. This AfD is therefore relisted to ensure that it is properly transcluded on the daily log for the required time.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this. I was trying to assemble arguments related to renaming articles in WIkipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls, and didn't realize it would have side effects. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's an authoritative compilation of the important works in the 2000 years of medical publishing: Morton's Medical Bibliography: An Annotated Check-list of Texts Illustrating the History of Medicine. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it weren't obvious this is a notable subject, Colonel Warden's listed reference demonstrates it. LadyofShalott 19:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For crying out loud, folks. Nobody said it wasn't notable. Just bloody huge. That is a 1,200 page book with 8,927 entries that took several generations of authors to compile. We are saying that it makes no sense to try to repeat that in a single encyclopaedia article. You know, the Words in the English language is a notable subject too. Colin°^Talk 20:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8,927 is not especially large for a list. See List of minor planets for a list which, in total, has about 300,000 entries. For a feel of the scale on which we operate, see List of lists of lists. See also, WP:NOTPAPER, which says "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content.". Warden (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For all its seven years of existence (seven years!) this list has had no more than nine entries. We've now found a book that consumed several people's publishing lifetimes to compile that contains nine thousand entries. And that makes this list worth keeping, apparently. The article traffic stats show this is at the "only bots are interested" level of page hits and its contents show that editors couldn't give a **** either. Given its incompleteness by many many orders of magnitude, this list is actually a negative source of information, has been for many years and will continue to be. Colin°^Talk 22:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOBODYREADSIT for your page view argument and WP:SOFIXIT for the length/quality of this list. If the ~8,000 entries list is too much go for more selective sources; this can be done on talk. Deletion of the Wikipedia list is not required just because one publication is considered too inclusive by you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my argument and throw WP:CAPITALLETTERS. Those aren't reasons to delete, sure. They are reasons to consider that perhaps the approach taken by the list is wrong. Fundamentally. As explained by several people. That means you can't fix it. Your SOFIXIT is insulting. Colin°^Talk 15:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome of this AfD, editors need to work together to improve related content. If the concept of this list is fundamentally flawed, then "fixing it" includes rewriting, subdividing, distributing, renaming, and reworking. These are all things that can be discussed through article talk.

There is a famous story of a traveler who asked a local the way to a nearby place. The local replied "if I were going there, I wouldn't start from here". On Wikipedia, we have to start from here, even if it is often a very poor place to start. Geometry guy 21:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "here" is Wikipedia. We shouldn't have such attachments to individual articles with specific names that any editorial decisions like "let's not do it that way; how about this instead" just get ignored because various guidelines and cultures mean it is practially impossible to delete mistakes. You know the story of the broom that has lasted for many decades. Only had two new heads and three new handles. That's what the "rewriting, subdividing, distributing, renaming, and reworking" becomes. If there's demand for WP to start having extensive out-of-article bibliographies for medical publications, then that sort of thing can be discussed at the wikiproject. Evidence shows that our current editors don't feel compelled to compile such lists. I'd far rather see a decent "Further reading" section in-article. I predict that in seven years time this list will still, embarrasingly, state that there are only nine important publications in medicine. Colin°^Talk 07:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin°^Talk, much of what you say may well be right but none of it is relevant to the deletion discussion. Contrary to your opening statement, notability is precisely the topic of this discussion. If you want to change the way this list is done, there are plenty of better forums, including the talk page and the several wikiprojects listed on it. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the opening deletion point was on notability. But deletion discussions consider all aspects, not just what the OP stated. Writing on this article's talk page is not likely to be productive is it. Nobody edits it. And the delete positions have come from the most relevant wikiproject. I don't want to change the way this list is done. The list, if you look at it, isn't "done" in any meaning of the word. Nobody has felt inspired to expand this beyond a stub for seven years because it just isn't fundamentally what WP should be listing in one article. Further reading sections per topic article are a fine thing to do, but hard work as few folk have access to a major library. Few medicine articles have such sections to any degree. So expecting editors to expand this to cover all of medicine, a task many many orders of magnitude greater, is unrealistic. Maybe the maths editors are motivated by this sort of thing. So, rather than have another seven years of this embarrassment, we should just accept that it was a wrong move. Colin°^Talk 18:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4 other such articles have been deleted: List of publications in law, list of publications in philosophy, (considering these 2 can be renamed and sourced with editorial judgement of what is important); List of important publications in biology; and List of important publications in sociology.Curb Chain (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be trying to argue according to precedent here. This article needs to stand or fall on its own merits. Besides, another four "List of important publications..." articles were recently nominated and kept. Jowa fan (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are so similar that I believe we should use previous deletion debates to exclude article topics. It seems there's no standard here.Curb Chain (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly argument anyway. List of important publications in statistics was not deleted. There was a supermajority of "keep" votes at List of important publications in sociology, and List of important publications in biology was evenly split (without much compelling argument for deletion in any of these discussions, if you ask me). There was never any kind of real precedent. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count votes. We count the merits of the argument.Curb Chain (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Let's see the merits of those arguments, then, rather than relying on arithmetic to settle the AfD either way. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:LISTN with multiple reliable sources discussing substantial subsets of this list. There is no requirement that a single source cover all of them. If this article simply copied such one source it would easily be a copyvio. The reason invoked for deletion is thus invalid, and I have little faith in the search abilities of the nominator who has posted identical reasons for deleting other similar lists, nominations which were closed as WP:SNOW keep. The talk about impossibility of an objective criteria that others have raised is solipsism. We include stuff in Wikipedia precisely because some author decide to write about it, whether he is "objective" (according to what standard?) or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:LISTN and per extensive comments and examples by Geometry guy. Andrew73 (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename A signifigant topic, its name is wrong, Publications in Medicine sounds about right, short and to the point. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While this has not been closed in over a week, I don't think any further discussion will change the rough consensus given. –MuZemike 05:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in geology

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

cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in sociology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology; search revealed no compilation of important works in this field Curb Chain (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here is one possible source: Preston Cloud (1970). Adventures in Earth History. W. H. Freeman. ISBN 978-0716702528. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another (pair): Kirtley F. Mather and Shirley L. Mason, ed. (1939, 1967). A Source Book In Geology, 1400-1900. Source Books in the History of the Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674-82277-3. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) and Kirtley F. Mather, ed. (1967). Source Book in Geology, 1900-1950. Source Books in the History of the Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 435.. I have these in my posession if anyone wants any particular information from them. LadyofShalott 21:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added these references to a new section, List of important publications in geology#Further reading. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! LadyofShalott 08:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A general question: What constitutes research? Lists of scientists are, by implication, lists of important scientists, the main criterion often being that someone found them worthy of writing a WP article about them. (Is it research to track down the WP articles? Or if they are obtained from a category, was it research to put articles in the category?) Could a publication be considered important if it is described as such (with appropriate reference) in a WP article? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fair to require that each addition to the list provide a citation for importance. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - and it should certainly be possible to do - there are WP:RS that state that, for example, "the world-wide influence of [Lyell's] treatises and textbooks definitely established the principle of uniformitarianism" (Mather and Mason, p. 263). LadyofShalott 22:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 22:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a serious look at the Sourcebook you mentioned and I still have concerns. (we are talking about ISBN 9780674822757 right?) It does not discuss the works, it is only a collection of others authors works, by a single editor. I can find no comments by the editor on why she selected the works she did, nor comments about the works themselves. ~~Any monkey can glue a few books together without saying anything about the selected works.~~ (ps your isbn # is a bit wonky, at least on my end). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about mixing up DOI with ISBN (I have been citing a lot of articles recently). Have you looked at the introductions to each section? I am not claiming this is the best possible source - it's just what I had on my bookshelf. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Np about the DOI ;) I did look at several, to me they gave a good precis of the persons life, but no meat about the stuff we are interested in, sorry. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments about the selections are brief, but Mather and Mason do say something about why each of the selections is important. It's stating the obvious, but clearly Harvard University Press thought it was a notable topic. As for the "single editor" comment - for the first volume, it is two editors with doctorates in the subject; both volumes were done under the guidance of the series editor, Edward H. Madden, and (as already said) published by Harvard U. Press - that is hardly equivalent to one Wikipedia editor, which seems to have been the level of comparison you were making. LadyofShalott 08:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in sociology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide what is and isn't important, and doing so is OR.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it? wp:notability (books) RockMagnetist (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not. WP:LISTN "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been. See my cmt. above. LadyofShalott 00:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And note the statement from the same link WP:LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." RockMagnetist (talk)
While we're on the subject of policy, how about the list in WP:FAILN of actions that should be tried before nominating a list for deletion? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MASSIVE EC's- Then, IMHO, it was done contrary to accepted consensus and guidelines. Just because something was done, does not mean it should remain in that same state forevermore. Just as prior AfD's moved these Articles to their current name, it is still not right. We should continue to evolve, correct errors, Cite & remove Editor opinions from Articles. (yup, the grouping or set has not been Cited.) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I question whether "no compilation of important works in this field" is a reason for deletion. Lists are for listing notable things. They need sources to say they are notable, and I submit that if there is an article on a thing, that demonstrates that it is notable. Second, I fail to see that this is OR, if the items are found to be notable. Of course it will not include all notable publications, but most WP articles are a work in progress. Third, there has been discussing about the name over many years. Should "important" be in the title or not? Should "notable" be in the title or not? "Important" was actually added after an earlier AfD discussion. I would prefer it was not there, but I suggest this is a matter for another discussion. Names can be changed. They are not an argument to delete an article. This list and all the others needs improving by better sourcing and deletion of items that can not be sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whom says what is 'Important' (and by implication 'Unimportant'). Unless there are multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying the list, it is pure POV and OR. I am not going to repeat myself Ad infinitum, all my reasoning is in the prior List of important <stuff> AfD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified User:Sandstein and User:King of Hearts (the closing editors for the sociology and biology discussions) and Wikipedia: WikiProject Lists of this discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a line in Template:List of publications intro requiring that citations be provided for the importance of each publication. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a clear encyclopedic topic. There may be an unclear boundary between important and unimportant. But bibliographies are worth having. If such article were deleted for other major scientific disciplines it is time to bring them back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there have been other articles deleted, including the ones I mentioned above and articles such as List of publications in law and ones I have not nominated as references were already in the article which showed to me that 2rd parties had registered lists of notable works in [insert science here].Curb Chain (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good way of doing it

I had a look at the discussion leading to the removal of the biology list in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology, and I was not impressed by the way it was handled. The opinions for and against deletion being roughly balanced, I would think that the appropriate action would be to give the contributors more time to fix the problems. Apparently BDuke labored mightily to address the issues, but because of the rules of this procedure he had only seven days in which to do it. At the end of that time, an administrator who apparently had no previous role in the page or the discussion waltzed in and made the cut.

Frankly, I don't really have a strong opinion about whether we need lists of important publications. But I don't like this procedure. People have put some effort into creating these lists, and their efforts should be respected. The suggestions in WP:FAILN seem reasonable - why not start by putting a notability tag on the page? And instead of going from list to list, picking them off one by one, why not start a discussion in an appropriate forum to decide what would constitute notability for a list of this kind? RockMagnetist (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do respect the effort that many people have put into these lists. Please do not misunderstand that point. However, IMO, I fear BDuke missed the point we were trying to make ( but that the Closer did catch on to). The mere fact of having a list of "Important stuff" opens up the possibility of a List of "Unimportant stuff" as well. Unless there is a clear Cite for the items on either such lists, there will always be a conflict of Opinions on what belongs where, even between learned & respected representatives of the fields of study in question. What happens to topics that become out of fashion, do they get to be on both lists, or neither list? As far as I am aware, Wikipedia is meant to remain neutral and to explain the Topics, not to decide on what is, or is not, important. If a group of people decide that something is "important", it should say so in the Article about that topic. That "importance" should not be used as the basis for creating a separation of the information. Lists are meant to simply be a different way to Reach information. List everything the 'pedia has, or don't bother with a list at all. You suggest a discussion to decide notability for a list of this kind, but we are asking, What does "Important" mean? To each and every person it is different and an elusively subjective term, changing with each persons own experience. It is not a straight line that can be drawn. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with RockMagnetist about the need for a wider discussion. Let us not get too focused on the "important" in the title. In hindsight, it was a mistake that an earlier AfD suggested adding "important". Other lists, following the manuals of style, are titled just "List of X". That is how this list should be titled and how it used to be titled. We only have articles on important (i.e notable) things. We do not have articles on unimportant things. That distinction is a red-herring. With "List of X", it assumes that the criteria is that the entries on the list are notable. I still think that is the key criteria. The suggestion that the topic of the list itself has to have a source showing it is notable could I suggest lead to deleting almost all lists on wikipedia. That is why I support a wider discussion. However scientific publications are clearly notable. There is an article on Scientific literature to which Scientific publication is a redirect. Geology publication is just a sub-class of that. I think notability is clear for these lists. We have not however always done a good job with them. We need to do better, but there is nothing to stop us. I guess I really am not understanding the objections to these lists and having worked on them for several years, I find the attack on them both odd and misplaced. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you want the list to just list articles that we have? That's already done by categories.Curb Chain (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not want to just list articles that we have. I think we should have items on the list that meet one of the following criteria - (1) there is an article on them, (2) there is an article on something else, maybe the author, that has a significant section on them, that might in future be forked out to give an article on the publication, or (3) there are reliable external sources cited that show the notability of the publication and a redlink there might point to a future WP article. These should also be guided by the reasons given in the included template at the top of the list, which interestingly nobody has commented on in this or the other discussions. On categories, I have been here long enough to see deletion proposals for lists because they should be categories, and then later deletion proposals on the category on the grounds that they should be a list. I would also like each entry to briefly describe the publication and inform the reader why the publication is important/notable. Categories do not do this. User:LadyofShalott below is also correct. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that address who determines what gets included, weather it is a category or list. With the current criteria, it says that it can be influential (who determines this without a source), breakthrough (who determines this without a source), OR "Topic creator" (but that doesn't make it important, notable (per se), or significant).Curb Chain (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the same way - there is a long standing concensus that lists and categories are can and often should coexist. The list has information about the works that a category is not able to provide. LadyofShalott 08:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the minimum being that lists can show refs, categories can not.Curb Chain (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if anyone wants to keep working on List of important publications in biology we could userfy it for the person to work on or put it into the article incubator. I can assist anyone who wants to improve on those deleted lists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one kind of the lists a curious reader of an encyclopedia would be interested in in furthering his understanding and knowledge on a particular subject. That we don't have another source (or more) giving exactly the same list that we are going to compile is not only a reason of avoiding copyright infringement but also the intricate matter of compiling survey texts: as long as material is notable it should be mentioned, under consideration of adhering to a NPOV. What this article needs is nothing but a precise inclusion criterion and reliable secondary sources for each entry stating its particularly notability. Cleanup is also no criterion for deletion. Nageh (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are six related articles like this opened right now, with the same rational being repeated on them all.
List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
List of important publications in geology
List of important publications in mathematics
List of important publications in medicine
List of important publications in networks and security
List of important publications in theoretical computer science

And the argument seems to be the same everywhere, that being the word "important" being used. Dream Focus 09:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way we can suggest that this contributor be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for whatever reasons we can trump up? I for one would dance on his bones. --Matt Westwood 12:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it civil, WestwoodMatt. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm finding it difficult.--Matt Westwood 20:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made a personal attack against me, based on me informing people of similar discussions? I don't recall ever interacting with you before. Dream Focus 23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, not against you, against the person who set up all these despicable delete requests. You're all right. Sorry, when I said "this contributor" I meant the person you were responding to. Apologies for the misunderstanding. --Matt Westwood 05:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per LadyOfShallot. As long as we WP:ASF and use sources, there is no original research and no issue with the inclusion criterion being subjective. The topic of the article strikes me as eminently appropriate for an encyclopedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's (implicit) rationale for deletion – no sources exist that define which publications are "important" and which are not – is unreasonable. What it boils down to is: "There is no reliable source proclaiming, The following are the important publications in [insert name of scientific field]: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...; therefore it is original research and must be deleted." (And if such a source existed, the article would instead be speedily deleted as a copyvio – you can't win.) This is not a reasonable deletion rationale because it applies to basically any "List of ..." article. For example, for List of magazines in Pakistan, where is the reliable source that states: The following are the notable magazines in Pakistan: ...? A rationale that applies to essentially all stand-alone list articles is obviously too broad; if you wish to see this list deleted, a rationale must be presented that is somewhat specific to this list, and not so general that it applies generically to all list articles. --Lambiam 14:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should cite authoritative published sources saying the listed works are important in the field. But it is enough to have one or more authoritative published sources for each listed item separately. It is unreasonable to require a single source that gives the whole list. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the same argument was used in list of important publications in biology, but that got deleted. In my opinion Grey's Anatomy is an influential book, or that being descriptive and comprehensive for its time, all being reasons to make it an important book, or more importantly regardless of the title of the article, inclusion into it.Curb Chain (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say that second sentence again in a way that makes sense? It's fairly incomprehensible as it is. LadyofShalott 19:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Grey's Anatomy is an influential book, or that Grey's Anatomy was descriptive and comprehensive for its time; these are all reasons to make it an important book. Regardless of the title of the article does this merit inclusion into list of important publications in biology?Curb Chain (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it certainly does, and the fact that the Biology list fell victim to deletionists is seriously unfortunate. What's your point? --Matt Westwood 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're just going to say yes it does with out explaining the reason(s)? What makes other Medical textbooks I don't know about any less important?Curb Chain (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is most definitely not unreasonable to ask for Cites for any Article/List. If the List of important operas can find 9 reliable WP:Secondary sources discussing the "group or set" as WP:LISTN requires, then I don't think it is too much to ask for 1 for this Topic. Discussion of the "group or set" is important, because that gives WP:Notability to this entire Topic. A WP:Reliable source discussing only 1 Individual item only lends WP:N to the article about that topic (individual Articles of each subject, not collectively). If even 1 Cite cannot be found talking about this topic/"group or set", then I would go further and say that WP:GNG has not been met for this Lists existence, and everything we are looking in this List is POV/OR. If there is no Cites, then the Article shouldn't exist. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 17:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Curb Chain: please tell us SPECIFICALLY and IN DETAIL what your alleged search consisted of, and do it fast. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am seeing a lot of general arguments about the criteria for notability, very few arguments that are specific to this page. The general themes I am seeing are:

What are the notability criteria for lists of important publications? Can they be determined from WP:LISTN alone, along with the general requirement to cite your sources? Or do we need to incorporate criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (books)? Or is there something else beyond these requirements?
Can the requirements be met by such a list—at least in principle? (If they cannot, then how about other kinds of lists?)
Do they have to be met the moment the list is created? (Keep in mind that lists don't spring fully formed from the head of a single editor, so they are always going to be heading towards completeness.)

If this were the law courts, a decision could be made at this level and then appealed to a higher court. I think an administrator should make a similar decision here: decide in favor or against the article, but leave it in place until the general issues are decided. Maybe a page WP:Notability (lists of publications) should be developed. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment

The Criteria for "the Notability of a List" is determined by the Cited sources. If multiple reliable sources talk about a Topic, Then WP can work with that Topic using them as a source.
Sure they can, if you work from the Cites you have. Don't write an Article then go looking for Cites.
yes. any Article/List without any Cites or claim to Notability is Speedy Delete material

Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 17:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of a claim of notability is a speedy deletion criterion. Lack of citations is not. LadyofShalott 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Similar arguments are being made on the other pages marked for deletion, often by the same people, putting a big burden on many editors and administrators (both pro and con). A possible alternative would be to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls and move the discussions there. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No! Do not do this! It is IMHO a worthless project and worthless timesink! It has become defunct and inactive for a long time! In anycase the premise of the project seems to have the same problems similar to these articles as they seem to be a local-consenus group synergized to create their-own lists of important topics.Curb Chain (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two alternatives are Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, subject to providing more sources, per extensive discussion by Geometry guy. Geometry guy 23:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice discussion, Geometry guy. Do you have some thoughts on how to avoid fighting this battle over and over? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there is no panacea (or, to joke a little, "you can lead a horse to the waters of reason, but you can't make it think"). I like to encourage intelligent discussion based on what Wikipedia is trying to achieve: policies and guidelines are intended to support that purpose, but are often used like soundbites to win an argument by authority or rhetoric. That's not helpful: whatever decisions we make, those who disagree with the decision need a clear explanation why, or at least to understand what the opposing argument actually is. You can't simply tell them "your argument was invalid per WP:NOR". Clear reasoned discussion helps more editors to understand the point of Wikipedia, and hence contribute more productively and effectively in the future. Geometry guy 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The requirements for inclusion are clearly listed at the top of the article. There are reliable sources confirming the information. Dream Focus 23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, may main argument is here. --Pgallert (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment specifically to User:LadyofShalott but open to all - seeing as you are the only one to put forward any somewhat reasonable Cite discussing the "group or set", I am willing to change my stance if this List is trimmed down to ONLY the works discussed in your Sourcbook. I would point out List of important operas as an example of how a List like this can work (multiple reliable secondary sources, listing "Important" works). Individual Cites are irrelevant and pointless unless the Topic (being a List of...) can be called WP:Notable by supporting sources. Although I would prefer to see more than 1, as I still feel that only 1 constitutes an opinion or 'collection' of currently popular learning materials/textbooks. Compromise is possible, but it is going to need work to remove a lot of POV/OR. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important operas is a featured list. That's a nice target to aim for, but don't you think a more humble goal is appropriate to begin with? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a Notable enough topic to be spoken about by reliable secondary sources, then it would be OR for Wiki Editors to create it themselves and call it a List of Important <stuff>.
Indeed, just because the one I've presented is the only list of notable geology publications you like; it doesn't mean it's the only one there. It shows that the topic is notable, not that the items included in it are the only appropriate ones for such a list. (Also, I am willing to work on sourcing the list from my books, but it will be many hours before I am able to touch them again, and I may be too worn out from a long day to start that project then.) LadyofShalott 18:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Hardy makes a very relevant comment about sources here. For Riemann and his paper, substitute Charles Lyell and Principles of Geology. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exit2DOS, your "compromise" is still pretty demanding, considering that the Keeps greatly outnumber the Deletes in this discussion. You seem to be taking it upon yourself to hold these pages to higher standards than WP:LISTN, which says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." (sic) RockMagnetist (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, please inform me how asking for 1 Cite that would attest to where this List(aka "group or set") comes from, is holding it to a higher standard than LISTN asks for? It looks to me as that is what LISTN is asking for. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also asked us to delete all publications that are not in that particular reference. WP:LISTN does not require that.RockMagnetist (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some leeway is always allowed, but if only 3 of 60 things are Cited ... its a WP:Coatrack (esp. WP:BITR the section). Your treating this as a battle, its not. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that the article needs improving, I totally agree with you. I only see it as a battle if you're trying to get the article deleted because that is an overreaction. CC should never have started this discussion without trying some of the Alternatives to deletion. You seem reasonable, so I'm hoping that you are willing to change your vote to weak keep and help us to improve the article. After all, those 3 citations are 3 more than the article had when this discussion started! RockMagnetist (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: I have found links to the two references that LadyofShalott provided (see the list page). One allows the user to see the whole book, the other allows access to the TOC (which lists all the publications). RockMagnetist (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think everyone in this discussion wants Wikipedia pages to meet a high standard. It seems to me that there is potential for agreement on criteria for acceptable lists of publications, and these criteria are pretty much the same for all the lists. I invite everyone to visit the revamped Science pearls Wikiproject and discuss the criteria on the talk page. I would like to make a clear statement on the WikiProject page that could be used by all the lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Strongly agree with much of what LadyOfShallott and RockMagnetist have already said. There exist external, published lists of important publications in geology. Clearly these will all be incomplete/contradictory, as "importance" is subjective, even for experts. This does not invalidate the basic concept of the article. IMO, a single entry in any list of this type, or a number of individual sources saying in isolation "[publication X] is important because [Y]" is plenty support enough. If nonspecialist editors have reviewed this article and think the referencing is not clear (which it probably isn't), then that's a useful and helpful observation; let's sort it out. Substandard referencing in its current form is not adequate reason to delete the article. DanHobley (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...I think there's also a more subtle problem here. Exit2DOS makes reference (1805, 3 October '11) to "currently popular learning materials/textbooks" as a point of concern. This is pretty emphatically not what the article is trying to achieve. These references are to groundbreaking original work, or to definitive reference tomes. There should be no element of "fashion" in the importance criteria. We have made efforts to purge exactly this kind of thing already. DanHobley (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Lady. The nominator seems not to have researched the issue very well. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory break

The same problems found in List of important publications in mathematics can be found here (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics#Explanation break).

List of important publications in geology#Report on the Geology of the Henry Mountains uses the reference [27]. The sentence which it cites is :"In addition to its geomorphic significance, it is a description of the last major mountain range to be mapped by Europeans in the contiguous United States". This is in the "Description:" area of the work. I has not been shown what makes it important.

The inclusion criteria of this list states that inclusion into the list must be either:

Topic creator
Breakthrough, or
Influential

This work has failed all of this because the citation does not explain how it fits into any of these criteria.Curb Chain (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reason for challenging that particular entry, and should be dealt with in List of important publications in mathematics and its talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so. I am just illustrating the fact that these references may not even be appropriate for the topic of this article. Are every one of the references reliable and unequivocally prove that the list is notable and does it show that the word "important" is used or are Wikipedians interpreting the contents of the source determining if it can be used for inclusion into this list and other such lists?Curb Chain (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the so-called issues you raised there are non-issues. One says, essentially, that Cardano created the complex numbers (topic creator). The other "issue" was an HTML glitch that has since been corrected. But as Rock pointed out, it's better to stay on-topic.Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Chain, It is time you stopped mixing issues together. You started this AfD because you could not find references that discussed this list as a group. Now the list has those references, so it satisfies the Notability criteria for stand-alone lists. The requirement that a list have clear criteria for inclusion is in the the Manual of Style for Stand-alone lists, and therefore not grounds for deletion of the list. The requirement that a particular statement is cited is part of the verifiability requirement, and a failure to meet this requirement is only grounds for challenging and removing that particular entry.

You should only be discussing notability on this page. The rest should be discussed in the talk page for the list. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also be discussing the inclusion criteria and weather they invite WP:OR/WP:SYN, which it seems to be ~~clear~~clearer and ~~clear~~clearer that it does. The central point of these lists is the interpretation of important and the way we as editors include entries objectively according to the criteria set out. Note the purpose of these lists. What is it? Does it have any other purpose than to let Wikipedians decide the publications worthy of Wikipedia's inclusion?Curb Chain (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And do these policies specifically state the grounds for deletion of an article? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask such questions to make it seem like I don't know what am I talking about because you could ask these questions with any afd.Curb Chain (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try not to make this an adversarial issue. You're probably feeling on the defensive right now and there is the danger that your position could harden. But because of your deletion proposal, a lot of editors have been improving the lists. You could feel good about that, if you stopped trying to win the argument. What I'm asking is, do you really think that you still have grounds for deleting the lists, or could their shortcomings be addressed in a less drastic way? Even the Notability criteria for stand-alone lists consider deletion as a last resort. And what do you think of Mike Cline's suggestion? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to bibliography

Keep Rename to Bibliography of Geology. There are countless references to Bibliographies of Geology. The Encyclopedia of Geology alone ought to be proof enough that important works in geology have been listed and grouped. Bibliographies are permitted by WP:List. If a specific entry can't be sourced to a reliable bibliography then remove it, but killing the list is ill-concieved.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea (from someone who seems to have quite some experience with lists). Could you say a bit more about inclusion criteria? I would call the DOI system a reliable bibliography. Can a bibliography still have quality criteria? RockMagnetist (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it’s pretty simple. A bibliography is nothing more than a list of books or works related to a specific topic (can be broad or narrow). Thus step 1, notability requires that such a list (i.e. members of the list) has been discussed as a group by reliable secondary sources. If Topic X is notable and reliable sources on Topic X have bibliographies or further reading included within, then one can say that books (works) about Topic X have been discussed as a group. In other words a bibliography or a list of books on Topic X is deemed notable by our list notability guideline. Step 2 then is to determine which books actually make the list. My first test is the title and subject of the book. Is it directly related to Topic X? If not, it may not be appropriate even though it shows up in some bibliographies. The second test is this. If the book is listed in the bibliography or is clearly cited or called out as a reference on Topic X in a reliable source, then that book (work) meets the inclusion criteria. Ideally each entry in the Bibliography should be cited to a reliable source, but sometimes the title of the book speaks for itself. Would anyone doubt that Haines The Yellowstone Story (i.e. the two volume definitive history of the park) did not belong in Bibliography of Yellowstone National Park? Although in reality it can be sourced to multiple published bibliographies in reliable sources.

A comment about comments made about these types of lists that they could contain 1000s of entries. Indeed they could, and so what. Lists can be split into sub-lists to the extent needed to meet our article size, readability and searching standards. It’s done all the time. If there are 2500 important books on Chemistry that make the cut for a WP Bibliography of Chemistry, then there are 2500 in the list and sub-lists.

If I had the time and inclination, creating Bibliographies on almost any important topic would be easy. It just takes time. These lists under attack here are good starts. They just need a bit more attention.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a discussion linking to this at the WikiProject Science pearls site. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every single publication/work tangentially related to the topic would be included. How is this not WP:INDISCRIMINATE?Curb Chain (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thou doest jest I am sure. There are already 400+ Bibliographies in WP. Are you suggesting they should all be deleted because by their very nature a bibliography is indiscriminate. You are jumping perilously to a conclusion not supported by reality. Sum of all knowledge my boy, Sum of all knowledge. We have only scratched the surface. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Suggestion Mike asked me for comments about his suggestion . I do not think a complete bibliography of books in the field of medicine or anything else is encyclopedic, except for bibliographies of the works of a notable author. I think they fail NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and they are not of value to people who go to an encyclopedia , who are normally looking not for all possible information, but for the sort of selection of important information that is in an encyclopedia. There are appropriate places for such lists, particularly Open Library. Selected lists are another matter. We accept Additional Reading sections. They're not just accepted, they're a significant feature that should be added to every appropriate article substantial enough in coverage to make them reasonable. For example, at present the article Geology does not have such a section. What we should do, regardless of the results at this AfD, is write one, and similarly for the other topics here that might not have them. Whether or not the articles are deleted, the list of books in them would make a good start. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout guideline considers such sections a normal part of an article. In conformity to the usual method for breakout articles, I'd subsequently propose calling them Additional reading in geology (etc.). I do not see how anyone would find that objectionable, and breakout sections are strongly supported by the MOS also. Of course it would take judgment about what to include, but it's the same judgment and the same material for whether they are in a section or a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. The sort of publications that are being included in List of important publications in geology would mostly belong in History of geology. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Another approach. another approach occurs to me. Every title on this list, and probable a few thousand others in the field, would probably meet the notability requirements for a separate article. WP:BOOK requires only two substantial 3rd party reviews; particular scientific papers need only meet WP:GNG, and I think we could satisfy that for any which had substantial discussions about them in subsequently published work. Having done that, a list of the items is unquestionably justified.(Actually, I think those guidelines excessive broad, and would advocate being considerably more selective) I've been planning for some time to do this, beginning with the books in Choice "notable books of the year" and the ones in Guide to reference (formerly known as Guide to Reference Books); both have been used here as standards of notability. I'll probably start with biology, not geology, and, if we do not have articles on the authors, make them also. Working not to the very minimal standards some use for stub articles about things like rivers, but to my own standard for a short article, I should be able to do maybe 4 an hour. It would make a nice subproject. (The only reason I haven't done this earlier is I've been concentrating on rescuing other editor's articles, but I ought to return to my original intent when I came here and write some of my own.). DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So write articles what we don't have? I don't see how that will affect the outcome of this afd. And categories will list such articles.Curb Chain (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of notable publications in geology. Determining importance without is problematic. Notability we do every day here. --Kvng (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how will we do that? Use the same system of local debates on their talk pages?Curb Chain (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether by that or other means is not relevant here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd do it the same way we determine notability for every topic on Wikipedia. We do it all the time. LadyofShalott 13:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like where this is going. Agree again with Kvng et al. Only issue may be that the list becomes a bit discriminate, but let's address that if and when it becomes a problem. DanHobley (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this is kind of pointless. If a topic has an Article on WP, it is assumed it is WP:Notable. A renaming to this, would be technically the same as renaming it List of publications in geology. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, but WP convention is that "List of..." is a simple, unadorned list. This article's strength is that it is annotated and a summarising document. Hence the advantage of making a distinction? Also, a straight list could contain entries which aren't notable by WP standards (and/or simply lack entries) but still are publications in geology, whereas "notable" makes this distinction explicit. DanHobley (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per Kvng. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not WP:OR, for the reasons already amply discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. However, I note that this article does need further references to establish the notability of the items on the list. (The existing references are for the authorship and description, but don't seem to establish importance.) Improve, don't delete. Jowa fan (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*I think it's worth reiterating that the issue of renaming is common to all these AfDs. Many of the renaming suggestions are collected here. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fear your missing the point. it does not matter how well Cited individual entries in this list are. Somewhere in this, there needs to be a Cite from which the list is drawn from. Otherwise it is a list or what individual editors believe is important, not what a reliable Secondary source says is a List of important <stuff>. At its very most basic, this is a list of qualified <stuff>, Where is that list coming from?

Exit2Dos. Would you or would you not agree given these references [28] that books, journals and other references on the subject of Geology have been discussed as a group which is the notability requirement from WP:NOTESAL? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A point that nobody has mentioned is that the criteria for lists in WP:LISTN is relatively new. It was introduced only early this year and that is long after this list and all the other lists of publications were started. I for one was unaware of this change to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Note too that it is guideline, not policy. I suspect that all the editors who have been editing these lists were also unaware of the change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of lists. I suggest that the discussion there by people who spend time on this guideline is more relaxed about the criteria for list inclusion than some of the editors here using WP:LISTN as an argument for deletion. It is so new that it does not yet apply to a very large number of lists. We should be educating editors about this criteria and perhaps opening up the discussion on WP:LIST to see if some modification of the criteria should be introduced. Editors should then be given time to improve lists rather than deleting them now. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key sentences for our purposes (emphasis mine): "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. I think this resolves the original raised issue for this discussion, per the Lady's comment right up the top giving appropriate references. This also directly addresses the unsigned comment ("...missing the point...") immediately above - the topic is fine; the entries do not have to all be listed together, just (ideally) independently cited as "important". Further discussion of changing the name seems helpful for potentially improving the article, but not critical for the outcome of this deletion listing. DanHobley (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of influential works in geology

All of the reasons I have seen to delete basically boils down to objections about the word important. And yet, in reality, these articles are not about what is important but they are about what is influential. What is influential is easily verifiable with sources. TStein (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: An editor added <onlyinclude> tags to this AfD on 5 October 2011, which broke its transclusion on the daily AfD log. This AfD is therefore relisted to ensure that it is properly transcluded on the daily log for the required time.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this. I was trying to assemble arguments related to renaming articles in WIkipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls, and didn't realize it would have side effects. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's another source, Reference Books for History of Geology, which has plenty to say about the importance of particular works about geology. Warden (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Colonel Warden. I have added it to the references. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:LISTN with multiple reliable sources discussing substantial subsets of this list. There is no requirement that a single source cover all of them. If this article simply copied such one source it would easily be a copyvio. The reason invoked for deletion is thus invalid, and I have little faith in the search abilities of the nominator who has posted identical reasons for deleting other similar lists, nominations which were closed as WP:SNOW keep. The talk about impossibility of an objective criteria that others have raised is solipsism. We include stuff in Wikipedia precisely because some author decide to write about it, whether he is "objective" (according to what standard?) or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename A signifigant topic, its name is wrong, Publications in Geology sounds about right, short and to the point. And to the deletionists WP:Snow is falling. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Zachary Stone

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

I am nominating this article due to OTRS discussion with the subject, who shows concern about the information within the article. Myself and Fluffernutter have both worked with the subject and explained sourcing and verifiability with them. He requested the deletion. It's a procedural nomination and my nomination should not be construed as supporting or opposing it. SarahStierch (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—i wavered quite a bit on this one, since the news coverage is quite sparse (essentially the two items cited in the article and translations of them from various wire services). also, there's no specific notability standard for either snowboarders or skiers, leaving us with WP:ATH. given that the FIS is is the main international organisation for ski sports and stone won a silver medal at one of their international championships, i find myself having to say that he meets that notability criterion.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is a professional athlete who has not only competed in his sport's world championships but has medalled there, and demonstrably meets the GNG - I found a number of sources with "Zach Stone" + "snowboarding" on Google News; done deal. He is not the first person to try to use OTRS to remove well-sourced, negative facts about himself, and likely won't be the last. To quote myself from that earlier AfD, "... where [removal] involves noteworthy, verifiable incidents reported by reliable sources in an otherwise notable article, we should strenuously oppose that. BLP doesn't give public figures the right to suppress negative information about themselves." Has Mr. Stone proffered any reason founded in Wikipedia guidelines or policies supporting deletion beyond his understandable preference that people not know he's been banned for anti-doping violations? Ravenswing 06:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing. He appears notable and the doping issue does appear sourced so I see no issue here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't look too closely, but it looks like this will be kept. If it is, the article should be moved to Zach Stone per WP:COMMONNAME. Jenks24 (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense; there are a good many more hits for Zach Stone than for Zachary Stone. Ravenswing 23:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an athlete, he easily meets inclusion as a silver medallist at an FIS World Championship. As an athlete, the information about the anti-doping violation is directly germane to the article, and is sourced to the FIS, the governing body of the sport of snowboarding; as such it is a reliable primary source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. All delete "votes" have been withdrawn as article is now accurate and properly sourced. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Manisty

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

Nonsense and it is accurately covered under Manchester Ship Canal Peterrivington (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ (see below for why) - the Manchester Ship Canal entry says "Mount Manisty, a large mound of earth on a narrow stretch between the canal and the Mersey northwest of Ellesmere Port" - so the claim it's a village is presumably a joke edit (vandalism). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Manchester Ship Canal as a plausible search term. No need for AfD. Pburka (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the new version, and support Featured Article proposal. Pburka (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -- The article as I found it cites one source, which should qualify for WP:RS, as it is from an academic publihser. However, I very much doubt that it is sufficiently significant landmark, even in the flat country around Ellesmere Port to warrnat an article of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a reasonable stub now, and I can see potential for at least a little expansion. (Just how big is the mound? Both areal and elevation measurements would be useful information.) Failing a 'keep', redirect to Manchester Ship Canal#Construction. LadyofShalott 22:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sounds like a reasonable enough article about a landmark and unique "geographical" feature (after all, we have three articles about Mount Trashmores, so...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -covered in multiple reliable sources♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. --John (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is no longer inaccurate and if a 100 ft spoilheap is noteable the rabbits should be pleased to get a mention.Peterrivington (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just asked Chiswick Chap, the only person other than the nominator (who has changed opinions) to say an outright delete, whether he might reconsider his opinion given the work that has been done since nomination. LadyofShalott 16:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sympathetic as I am to the notion that piles of dirt should generally not be notable, there are no policy- or guideline-based arguments overriding the point that coverage satisfies the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all traces of the earlier (joke-like) article have vanished, so I am pleased to join the Keeps. Well done Shalott and others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambian deserves the majority of the credit; I just did a couple little gnoming tasks. LadyofShalott 17:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My involvement actually started as a joke. I came to this AfD item only because the nomination was procedurally incomplete; while fixing that I saw the nominator's rationale, and it struck me as funny we had an article on a pile of dirt, presumably created in good faith in a honest mistake. So I edited it to make this explicit, basically replacing "village" by "large mound of earth", properly sourced, and added a detail found in a Google search that increased the funny appeal, namely that this pile appeared "bleak and pock-marked with rabbit holes". After that it became like a sport to make this into a genuine article. I think the discussion can be closed now, as no one is still advocating deletion. Shall we next try to bring this to Featured Article status? :) --Lambiam 19:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

When considering how to close the AFD, there are always great number of policies at play. This one seems to have more than most. Several of our fundamental guidelines and policies have been cited in this discussion: WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Notability, WP:Notability (people), WP:BLP1E, WP:Biographies of living people, a variation of WP:ROUTINE, and more. Other pages that have been cited, which are not policies or guidelines but nonetheless have historically been taken into account at AFD, include WP:COATRACK and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's clear that any close is not going to satisfy everyone, so I'll do my best to explain my reasoning here as best I can. If you disagree with me or wish for me to clarify something, you are welcome to come by my my talk page before heading off to AFD review.

One of the principle implications of WP:NOTPAPER is that we have far more space to go into depth on the coverage of major events than other encyclopedias. While other encyclopedias might be limited to just writing about William B. Travis and the other main figures at the Battle of the Alamo, we can write about those and still have plenty of space to write full length articles about "To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World", the "Coward of the Alamo", and Juana Navarro Alsbury. However, we must be careful that in doing so, we do not violate any of the fundamental ethical principles our project has worked with for the past several years. I am thinking in particular of the final paragraph of the biographies of living persons policy.

Those arguing to keep the article have argued a number of things. Let me try to summarize the valid ones as best I can: (1) that BLP1E does not apply because the subject is covered in reliable sources pre-Occupy Wall Street ("Multiple sources covering several events in this policeman's life, easily satisfy GNG"); (2) That WP:WELLKNOWN allows us to have this article; (3) that there are a great number (17 was a figure cited) of reliable sources that address the matter; (4) that BLP1E does not apply because Bologna was involved in a significant way in a significant role.

Those arguing to delete the article have largely relied on BLP1E in some form. They might be best summarized by this post: "The 2005 Downtown Express and 2010 DNAinfo.com fluff pieces amount to insignificant coverage in unreliable sources. The 2010 Daily News piece contains only trivial mention. The rest is just coverage of one event or non-notable dirt dug up in response to that event. His order to arrest some guy in 2004 doesn't come close to being a notable event. The coatracking seems to have been mostly addressed, but BLP1E still mandates deletion." There was also another matter that was brought up in at least one location, which was not really refuted by anyone: "where is best for this information to be presented? At the moment, the actual notable information (as opposed to the fluff that is bolstering it) is present in the main article".

One of the not-so-fun roles of closing an AfD discussion is evaluating which side has the stronger argument without verging into the "supervoter" category. In this particular case, it appears to me that the latter group has the stronger argument. The argument that the pre-OWS coverage is so minor and routine that we shouldn't take it into account is a strong one, and one I think that wasn't adequately refuted. If that is established, then BLP1E argument easily wins the day. Therefore, I am going to close this AfD as delete and redirect.. NW (Talk) 02:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bologna

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article exists to name and shame a BLP2E police officer, against whom there is much public anger currently. Subject is not independently notable. No need to merge, relevant content is already in Occupy Wall Street article LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article has clearly been created to attack a living person. Although some additional fluff has been added to create the appearance of a notable biography - its all about the pepper spray one event. The person is a basic one event notable at the moment only and at the most is a section of a small para on the main event. Lots of COI editing in this area at present as is to be expected. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: WP:BLP2E? Interesting nomination... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, it's just a typo.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually on purpose (in response to criticism that Bologna was a BLP1E, it was pointed out that there were accusations of excessive force another time before. OK, fine, BLP2E. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of cute, but usually better to avoid humor in nominations - I've discovered that the AfD process is often a contentious one. But as long as we're having fun (are we having fun?), I would call it a BLP-one-and-a-half-E, at most.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If WP wasn't fun, would any of us be here? But seriously, WP can be incredibly un-fun, especially when the article you worked so hard on gets deleted, so agreed, no more humor. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think BLP1E is accurate. That's what I first described it as. The previous incident isn't something he was notable for (it didn't receive ANY media attention until this incident. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain this: media attention before this incident? Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd, I just finished reading that article myself looking for ANYTHING of value I could add to the Anthony Bologna article (playing Devil's Advocate) and was frustrated. It's a neighborhood coverage human interest story that didn't even give the name of his spouse (which, at least, I could have added to the infobox). His service in the Coast Guard Reserve was useless, since I have no idea if its current. It wasn't even "news", never mind encyclopedic. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to review the basics of WP:GNG, then the subtleties of WP:BIO. It's not about how useful the coverage is to editors on Wikipedia. Was there a circulation criteria for sources in WP:BLP2E? I might have missed that. Toddst1 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"How useful the coverage is to editors on Wikipedia" is EVERYTHING. Nothing to include in the article beyond his pepper spraying = no article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please stop fabricating policy. There isn't a single instance of policy relating to WP:GNG, WP:BIO (or even things you make up like WP:BLP2E) that refers to usefulness. Stop. Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is nothing of value from source material to add as content to the article beyond his pepper-spraying I just can't make stuff up. And without anything beyond his pepper-spraying as content there shouldn't be an article, it can be contained in the main OWS article. At least I made a GF effort to find stuff to add. It's not possible, try for yourself. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I struck/retracted my comments as after thought I don't want to stand by them, sorry about that. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LoveUxoxo -- the article does lay out a clear account of his career trajectory in the NYPD...AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referencing the previous incident of his alleged civil rights abuses. That article is a fluff story. Every local newspaper does them, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article about every single mom the local newspaper covers when they're bored. It's pretty much pure coincidence that Bologna has other articles about him in addition to the recent ones, but that doesn't make him notable. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails WP:BLP1E. To the extent Bologna's pepper spraying, after adjudication, constituted quasi-criminal conduct, the article also fails WP:CRIME. His rank of deputy inspector does not make him inherently notable. It's unclear how many deputy inspectors there are in the NYPD (I tried to figure that out), but there are certainly many. Finally, the civil rights lawsuit is not notable. Many, many federal civil rights lawsuits are filed against the police all the time, and this one hasn't yet even been decided in the courts, so it's simply an allegation. Also, it's not clear what other civil rights besides false arrest are involved - the cited article isn't very clear. Finally, although it happened at the time of the convention, it wasn't really related to the convention protests ("His arrest was not directly related to the protest against the Republican convention, but was at a time of heightened tension in New York.").--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The article is about an individual who is notable in his role in several distinct events. Bologna's involvement has been every time a well-documented historic event. If User:LoveUxoxo has reasons to believe that the article has contentious material about Bologna that is unsourced or poorly sourced, that specific content should be removed. Otherwise, the article meets the WP:BLP guidelines. Merging with Occupy Wall Street is not appropriate, because Bologna is not "notable only for one event" as per WP:BLP1E. Other allegations by User:LoveUxoxo that the editors of the article intended "to shame a police officer" are not supported by any evidence that would amount to a violation of WP:COI. If, however, User:LoveUxoxo claims that a particular editor is "advancing outside interests", a proper resolution is to deal directly with a suspected conflicted editor as per WP:COI. In addition, the article meets the Notability test as per WP:SIGCOV: Bologna has received "significant coverage" in verifiable multiple sources that are independent. The cited sources address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content. Disclosure: I am not affiliated with Occupy Wall Street or any other political movement. --Fayerman (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't think any editor's behavior on this issue is wrong, and I believe that everyone has been acting in good faith. I came to the article originally by googling "Anthony Bologna", and saw the page and reacting (seriously) with horror. It's blatantly obvious for what it is, regardless of the intentions of the editors involved. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply — In that case, your assertion stated in the AfD nomination, that the "article exists to name and shame", is groundless opinion. Please refrain from arguments that do not explain how the article violates a particular policy. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- Regardless of the noble motivations of the editors involved (NOT sarcasm), the article is what it is. A name and shame BLP1E content fork that should be covered in the main article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete History of the article and such edits as [29] show this article as a POV-magnet, plain and simple. Just about every senior police official manages to get listed for getting promoted, but that is not, IMO, sufficient to make every senior police official notable for a Wikipedia article. In fact - this article did not exist until 28 Sept 2011 -- and [30] shows the rationale for the article ab initio. Allegations that he is "internationally famous" do not appear substantiated. In fact, it is clear that absent the pepper spray allegations, he would never have a WP article belies that claim instantly. Wikipedia is ill-suited for deliberate use of a BLP to promote a POV, and that appears to be the only rationale for this article. All salient material looks like it will be merged (per the AfD on the article to which the BLP was renamed) and that should be quie sufficient reason to delete this as now a "POV fork." Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is plenty of news coverage, but only because of his temporary newsworthiness, not encyclopedic notability. This article exists to denigrate the subject and as a coatrack for certain political activity. Peacock (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The purpose of this article is not to "name and shame" someone, but to fulfill our curiosity, same as any. This pepper spraying incident is so peculiar because, whatever the critics say, he had no reluctance to do it right out in front of the cameras, and there's no strong reason to think the NYPD is going to call his behavior inappropriate. That gets us interested in what kind of job he holds, who he answers to, what the policies are, what his history was with the other protests, what grudges people hold against him that might taint their version of events, etc. etc., leading, as a river leads to the sea, to the general desire for a full and fair biographical article about the person. And I think I've done a fair amount to balance it out. There's lots more information out there about him. For the record I think other Deputy Inspectors in the NYPD should be covered here, for example Roy T. Richter mentioned in this article as head of a police union. I think if you Google him you find lots of fairly good sources worthy of making a biography also. I would ask whether people here want a ban on every Deputy Inspector, or only those receiving negative publicity which is all over the headline news? My position is simple: cover the WP:WELLKNOWN facts. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - Please don't post your personal interpretation of his feelings/reasons he did something - or your personal opinion about the NYPD either - it would be better id you redact it. I know you don't support WP:BLP but please don't violate it here. We are not here to answer peoples in the moment interest - we write articles about correctly notable people - not because they are in the press at the moment. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't posted any "personal interpretation of his feelings", except to say he knew he was being filmed, which has been remarked elsewhere anyway. In the second videotape that came out he pepper sprayed right across a camera's field of view. We have a right to ask these questions about historical events and try to understand how people are thinking. Your interpretation of "BLP" is an inquiry so circumscribed that most of the time you can't cover recent events. Wikipedia deserves better. Wnt (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We have a right to ask these questions about historical events and try to understand how people are thinking" Very true, however this is not the appropriate place for such research and analysis of current events. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What policy says Wikipedia has to be out of date? That we have to wait to write about what happened until most of the sources have become difficult to find? That we can't be useful now, when the history is happening, rather than only after the fact? Wnt (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources will be difficult to find? This just happened. You just want to report it like a newspaper would. See WP:NOTNEWS. See also WP:NOT ("In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful."). Per your words, you apparently want Wikipedia to be useful in a political way:

And in compiling the information we give people, in this case the people of New York, the power to understand how their police department operates, what difference individual people in it make, whether they like it or hate it. Which is what Wikipedia is for - giving people the knowledge they need to understand and have a say in the world they live in.

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I do. I also support having an article United States presidential election, 2012, and thorough articles for each of the candidates. There's nothing wrong with us informing people about politics in accordance with our policies. Wnt (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6 attractive young women screaming on camera after being maced in the face isn't really "history" on par with Norman Morrison. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it, say, Port_Militarization_Resistance#Port_of_Olympia_-_November_2007 or other protests from a few years ago in which police were spraying or dripping pepper spray directly into protesters' eyes. Unlike the impression given by some of the activists, I'm all too aware that Bologna's reaction was actually quite restrained compared to some of the things done not long ago. I imagine if we had all the background to this case - say, what was accepted by the entire police force during the 1982 Crown Heights Riots which Bologna was present for - we might come to understand better why he did this now. I don't know if we'll ever get to that point but we certainly won't if we don't take the first step. Wnt (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no BLP2E policy. 17 independent, reliable sources are already provided, and there are at least two times that available if you simply do a Google News search. The BLP policy is not a blank check for deleting anything which isn't a puff piece about someone. When there are a large number of reliable sources which give the subject significant coverage, there is no policy-based reason to delete. For a relevant example of an individual notable for one major event which continually is deemed notable, see Anna Svidersky. Or the many, many articles we have about convicted serial killers. (And yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFF. Examples help, and that's not the argument I'm making.) Steven Walling • talk 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of promotion Walling - get real - this article has clearly been created just now - it was created to attack the subject. Before the protesters wanted to attack him he was not a bit notable. You then say, see all the serial killers articles - what for? they have nothing to do with this article at all -Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this argument about motive. Article creation occurs in accordance with the law of mass action, at a rate which is directly proportional to the number of Wikipedia editors and the number of publications reaching them about the topic of the article. When something is top news and a quarter of the editors on Wikipedia see it mentioned before lunch, an article will be created. There's no POV in that. Now I don't deny that underlying emotional reaction increases the chance an editor will take interest, but it's a smaller effect and IMHO seems to vary between editors. Wnt (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Svidersky article is even close to being comparable to the Bologna article. That aside, how do you apply WP:BLP1E? Is the number of sources dispositive? I'm curious. And on a more susbtantive note, why isn't inclusion of some of this material in the Occupy Wall Street article sufficient? Just to talk about Bologna's background and the 2007 civil rights suit? There's nothing notable here that can't be merged into the Occupy article. And the so-called BLP2E "policy" has already been addressed above, so it wasn't even worth mentioning - again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- WP:OTHERSTUFF is so stupid, I hate it. And I think Anna Svidersky is a good example of why an article on Bologna would be bad. All the content in that article deserves two concise paragraphs in the Missing White Woman Syndrome article, at most. How can anyone read that lede and not cringe is beyond me. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's tons of material about the subject and not about Occupy Wall Street. Just read the New York Times articles and the other dozen-plus sources which are about Anthony Bologna and not about the continuing protests. The story became about him, and that kind of coverage from reliable sources justifies an article. That's how Wikipedia works, we bring together material from other reliable sources based on what they cover. You can't ignore the amount of coverage Bologna has been given, since it's our core measuring stick for what to include and what not to. It doesn't matter how many times you badger everyone who's in favor of keeping this -- the sources don't disappear. Steven Walling • talk 19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The badgering comment is beneath you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, the Svidersky article is more of a commentary on mass media, in particular the Internet, and mass hysteria/grief than it is on a murder. It's hard to delete an article where the media likens the worldwide reaction to Svidersky's murder to the worldwide reaction to the death of Diana.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue around the examples I gave, but they're a tertiary issue. The policies I'm citing here are verifiability and the general notability guideline. Plain and simple. Steven Walling • talk 19:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 2005 and 2010 references represent substantial coverage in independent reliable sources prior to the Occupy Wallstreet incident. The subject already satisfied WP:GNG before the event which brought him so much attention. Pburka (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, no it does not. Truthsort (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perhaps we're looking at different articles? I was referring to [31] and [32]. Yes, it's local media, but it's local media in a city of 12 million people. If you review the guidelines at WP:Notability you'll find that this coverage qualifies as significant, independent and reliable. I stand by my position that if an article about Anthony Bologna had been brought to AfD a month ago it would have been kept. Pburka (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wow, you really believe those two sources makes this qualify as "significant" coverage? Unbelievable... Truthsort (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Well, actually, Pburka convinced me (see below). However I have chosen to ignore that part of the policy, which is unrealistically rigid. Not everyone may agree. I don't have any motivation to "fabricate" policy however. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Please review the definition of 'significant coverage' at WP:NOTABILITY. You may not like it, but those articles match the definition perfectly. Bologna satisfies the general notability guidelines for presumed notability. In order to make a compelling argument for deletion you need to show that the article violates what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Pburka (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Those two articles are fluff pieces. They are not news. Almost every high ranking officer gets stories written about them in their local papers/ websites when they retire or are hired to another force. That doesn't make them notable enough for Wikipedia, which is read around the world. yonnie (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Having been a veteran of many AfDs it is, in my experience, quite unusual to find two articles like these specifically about the subject. There are usually lots of passing references, but to find two independent profiles in newspapers (even local papers) 5 years apart is exceptional. Pburka (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment WP:Notability also states that there needs to be multiple sources for a subject to be notable. I highly doubt that two sources, both of which Yonskii points out are local sources on his hiring and retirement, really make me think that this man was notable before this incident. Truthsort (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. Back in my day, two was considered multiple, especially when they're years apart. You can WP:Ignore all rules, but please at least acknowledge that you're doing so. The subject clearly meets the minimum guidelines for presumed notability. Pburka (talk)

Delete Even the other "notable" incident involving him is only being brought up in the aftermath of the Wall Street Protest, so as far as I'm concerned, this is still a WP:BLP1E issue. There is no significant coverage before this incident that would suggest that he was notable before. Simply cherry picking a couple of local sources back in 2005 and 2010 (one of which is apparently just a text file) does not constitute "significant coverage". Truthsort (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to look him up and was glad to find the article. Had there not been prior (to the wall street macing indecent) coverage of him in WP:RSs or he had not been involved in such a notable indecent there would be case for deletion. As it is this article is a useful source of information and I see little disadvantage in it's retention.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Obviously a newsworthy individual. The point of Wikipedia is so people can find out what the fuss is about. If the facts are wrong, fix the facts.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.236.56 (talk)

— 98.234.236.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Multiple articles spanning several years satisfy the baseline notability criterion. Croctotheface (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear violation of BLP, and I'm surprised this is controversial. The overall event at the demonstration is notable; his individual role is not. The other negative material is a charge, not a conviction. The minor positive material is not sufficient for notability, not representing significant coverage.I see this as a clear violation of DO NO HARM. (that phrase does strike me as a little ironic in this particular case, but I support NPOV regardless of my own opinions.) DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Occupy Wall Street. The only truly notable news stories that have been about the officer have been about the OWS protests. Yes, those mention past incidents with the officer; howerver, the officer is only known for the OWS protests. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We may wish he didn't have coverage before the event, but he did, and this isn't an IAR situation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ F-ing Obvious Keep: This guy has been in the news for over more than half a decade: BLP1E does not apply. BLP2E (the basis of this nom) does not exist. Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask or this AFD is closed as a speedy keep on a technicality as you are supporting I will re nominate. Also if you and multiple users vote in regard to a faulty nomination I will also renominate after closure. Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not a speedy keep. It's a BLP, so we need to proceed with the utmost care, as with all BLPs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Speedy keep is a deletion guideline with five reasons listed. I think this !vote needs to be clarified. Unscintillating (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. Nom reasoning is fallacious. Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see notability for one event here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you discount the sources from the mid 2000s? Did you see them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources (Downtown Express, DNAinfo) do not describe a notable person, just a patrolman who rose through the ranks to middle-management. The incident regarding an alleged false arrest generated no media attention at the time, it was not an "event". Bologna is an example of the banality of a not-having-a-very-good-day law enforcement officer. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that those sources exist means that he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. WP:Notability, in the Wikipedia sense, isn't how we feel about an article. It's a clearly defined policy. Notability is presumed if there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. These articles are substantial (they're not passing references) and the sources are reliable and independent. Therefore he is presumed to be notable. Pburka (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy uses the subjective term "significant coverage", and I think being mentioned (prior to his pepper-spraying) twice in his lifetime, in 2 neighborhood newspapers (of which no one, unless you live in Manhattan, would have ever heard about before) falls far short of "significant". LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC) (I retract this comment on WP:Notability based Pburka's comments directly below) LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not subjective; it's clearly defined: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. These articles are certainly not trivial mentions and the subject is the main topic of the source material. They clearly each satisfy the objective standards for significant coverage. Pburka (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are convincing me that according to the letter of that policy you are right. And I'm also convinced that phrasing that policy that way is the stupidest thing I've seen the Raiders punted on 4 and 3 earlier today. According to that policy, this article http://www.dnainfo.com/20110930/chelsea-hells-kitchen/hells-kitchen-gay-bar-might-close-during-school-hours gives inherent notability to some random bar. Common sense, better than any policy every formulated on WP, tells us that is not true. Fortunately no most policies on WP ~~are~~ are not binding, and and that badly-written one has an escape clause that the finding of notability is presumptive, not a guarantee. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pburka, you are ignoring the fifth bullet point of WP:GNG, which states ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." Like LoveUxoxo said, he fits significant coverage according to the letter of the policy, but to me, it seems clear that the notability guidelines were not intended to mean that every cop who has a few fluff stories about his promotions or leaving the area deserves an article. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our rules are a bit funky. Still, most murderers, lottery winners, etc. don't happen to have articles about them in years past. That's how we avoid having articles about them, and may end up having an article about this fellow. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a government official who has gotten international press for his personal role in multiple notable events, and who serves in a fairly high rank in a (the?) major city of the US. We must by all means observe the rules with respect to biographies of living persons and neutral POV. But that doesn't mean we must suppress every unpleasant fact. TypoBoy (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear violation of BLP as regarding one event-notability and in general the whole "presumption in favor of privacy" section. Helixdq (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bologna's actions may represent a significant element in the ongoing Occupy Wall Street narrative. Indeed, the press coverage and commentary it has generated, in contrast to the virtual media blackout which preceded it, is itself noteworthy.— G5187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You may certainly be right, but yours is an argument for merging this article, not keeping it.Jarhed (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ditto above, plus (as the sources show) he has been in the news before this incident. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic has news precedent in a reliable source in 2005 (?) [33], and additional news coverage in reliable sources in 2011: [34], [35] and [36]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again, one source back in 2005 does not make him notable before this incident, and obviously the one event coverage does not make him notable either. Truthsort (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons mentioned above by G5187. Oclupak (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of anything, there is no mention of the officer definitely being guilty. The facts remain the same, everything is under investigation...No reason for this to be deleted. If Bologna is found guilty I hope he faces time in jail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.124.138 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — 24.90.124.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep For the reasons mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.82.115 (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — 99.61.82.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Anything notable that could be said about him is already in Occupy Wall Street. One minor event that nobody remembers back in 2005 DOES NOT MAKE HIM NOTABLE ENOUGH FOR A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE SIX YEARS LATER just because he was involved in something that happened recently. Most of these "keeps" seem to be emotional responses, devoid of any logic, and reek of POV. yonnie (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons User:Fayerman stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.240.21 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — 152.2.240.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment A significant number of "Keep" !votes are coming from editors with exceedingly few edits overall. I suggest any closing admin take such !votes into account as having marginal weight at best, and the lack of reasons for such !votes be used to lower the weight still further. Say - slightly below the weight of a helium balloon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose we might also consider editors who have received an excessive number of complaints and an excessive number of citations for edit warring, and weight their votes accordingly. See User talk:Collect, for example. PromiseOfNY (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain that you do not want to play this game. Collect is a well-known editor on BLP issues. The majority of your contributions, on the other hand, look suspiciously like COI. In any case, it is reasonable to suspect that many editor contributions on a social protest article are going to be protesters.Jarhed (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one playing games. My point, and I admit I could have made it more clearly, is that editors should not be disparaging other editors or trying to make their votes count for less based on improper accusations of bad faith. Judge not, lest ye be judged. That's all. - PromiseOfNY (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Please also take our point that it may sometimes be reasonable to consider the COI implications of a single-use account. I trust the closing administrator's judgement in this matter.Jarhed (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to draw editors to this BLP discussion shows that you have a COI agenda that is harmful to improving this article. In my opinion, your COI problem is acute enough that you cannot contribute positively to this article and you should not be editing here.Jarhed (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP1E if I have ever seen such. All claims otherwise are specious, or the subject would have already had an article before his notable event. Also, consider that this is a controversial event, a political protest. Protesters by definition have an agenda to push. BLP should not be overridden because of the controversy. Because of the controversy, I also agree that contributors should be scrutinized for one-use accounts and weighed accordingly.Jarhed (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your claim that he wasn't notable before, since otherwise "the subject would have already had an article" is fallacious. Essentially you're claiming that Wikipedia is complete and that everything notable has already been written about. If this is the case I guess we can all go home. Pburka (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very well, please provide a pointer to the BLP of any other precinct commander for the NYPD, past or present, even one that was involved in a notable event. My own search turned up exactly one, an incident article, and the precinct commander was not named. Thus, despite your overwrought contention, NYPD precinct commanders are *not* inherently notable as per WP notability standards. This person is only notable for his BLP1E, hence my original, correct, assertion.Jarhed (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I didn't say NYPD precinct commanders are inherently notable. I questioned your circular assertion that notability requires the preexistence of a Wikipedia article. This subject is notable because he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and the article isn't any of the things which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Those are Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Pburka (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the policy lecture. While my logic may have been circular, I meant only to point out that the subject was obviously non-notable until this notable incident. You on the other hand extrapolate the extensive coverage of this single event into non-BLP1E notability. We both agree that the subject has received notable RS coverage for this single event.Jarhed (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect ~~Merge to Scandals and allegations of the New York City Police Department~~ Topic, as per WP:N, is a "low-profile individual"; too much of the material is non-encyclopedic; and the issues have more to do with the NYPD than with the individual. Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading Occupy Wall Street#Pepper-spraying incidents shows encyclopedic material, and that the NYPD accepts responsibility for the actions of its officers in this incident. Notability is not inherited from the NYPD to Officer Bologna. I am changing my !vote above from Merge, to Delete or Redirect, and closing admin should consider both a destructive redirect and a non-destructive redirect. BTW, I added a See also link at Scandals and allegations of the New York City Police Department to Occupy Wall Street#Pepper-spraying incidents. Unscintillating (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your contribution to this discussion is highly constructive, and I agree with a merge and/or link as appropriate with the allegations article.Jarhed (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject was obviously notable before this incident, and is especially so currently. We aren't a crystal ball and can't assume everything is going to blow over and return to business as usual, but if and when it does, then this article may become less notable in future years than it is now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been documented numerous times that he was not notable before this, but I would simply like to tell you regarding your "this article may become less notable in future years than it is now" comment, notability is not temporary. Truthsort (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying we don't know it's going to be 'temporary' because we can't know the future. It could prove more enduring for all we know. In my view he was already notable beforehand. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your idle speculation about notability is more critical than you seem to realize. If the subject is only newsworthy not notable, then he will suffer personal harm while his BLP is online. I would appreciate some indicator that you understand this as an issue, and that your idle speculation does not outweigh BLP concerns.Jarhed (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is my comment so critical? I don't understand what you need me to indicate or why you need it. Just move on. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above you argue that we should keep this article because it might be noteworthy in the future. You don't appear to be aware of the BLP issue of having a BLP for a non-notable person. Notability is a critical issue for a BLP, and that is especially true for someone involved in a controversial event. This BLP could harm this person, and keeping it because of some speculated future value is a poor argument.Jarhed (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't speculate that it might gain any future notability. I stated that it already has notability now, and that we can't speculate that it might lose notability. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about future notability is the essence of newsworthiness. This article is obviously newsworthy. The question is, will it endure in the future as an encyclopedic article. Your argument is that we should keep it merely because it might evolve to be so, and I have explained at length that such is a poor argument. BLP trumps your idle speculation about future encyclopedic value, which I judge at zero. After this incident is out of the news, nobody will care about this mid-level city functionary except for his BLP1E event.Jarhed (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"After this incident is out of the news"... That's precisely what we cannot be a crystal ball and predict at this point... That everything is all suddenly go back to 'business as usual' being the order of the day. That's what I've been saying all along... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "crystal ball" guess is yours, your notion that this individual has any other notability beyond his BLP1E. You have presented no evidence to the contrary. That being the case, the article should be deleted as BLP1E.Jarhed (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In my opinion the article is biased toward Bologna. There is an "effort" to be objective but most anyone can see through it. Anyone can claim that videotape was edited or that cameras were not turned on until a certain point in time. However, to be viewed as credible there needs to be evidence to support those contentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.180.66 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:: Note to admins: The content of the paragraph above was completely changed by 64.85.180.66. ~~by the nominator.~~ Even before the paragraph was changed, it violated WP:AFDFORMAT, because nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion; nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate line. Proposing to either (1) restore or (2) remove the above paragraph (along with my comment) with whatever steps that may be deemed necessary for preventing further disruption of the discussion. Please also note that the nominator was given a friendly warning for badgering (below). Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fayerman, I had nothing to do with the above, why do you think that? LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw it I just assumed it was some anon edit and was going to move it down in the discussion into proper order but didn't have time :( LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) The paragraph mentioned was added by User:64.85.180.66 on 20:22, 3 October 2011 (it also took out the header and the AfD template). I moved it down together with the replies, and added {{unsigned}} — frankie (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the pro-Bologna bias is not relevant to AfD, it's an article editing issue. A few days ago it was rather anti-Bologna, when Off2riorob (one of the people voting delete above) removed a bunch of stuff. I'll likely put some of it back in again pretty soon. We shouldn't have another rationale for deletion with every twist of the wind. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then, edit an article instead of blabbing on the talkpage. thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are technically news articles covering him for more than one event, this sort of case seems to be in the spirit of the WP:BLP1E guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The officer is notable and sourced by many different independent news sources for different events. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Occupy Wall Street pepper-spray incidents. Much to my dismay, Anthony Bologna fails WP:BLP1E (really BLP2E) and WP:CRIME. But the incident itself is absolutely notable. It's been getting almost as much press coverage as the rest of Occupy Wall Street itself. Absolutely Keep most of this article but restructure it to be about the incident.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — WP:CRIME does not apply here. No claim is being made that Bologna has committed a crime. At best, Bologna is subject to civil liability (and not criminal). For example, a civil right violation falls under torts. So does battery. But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Bologna is subject to criminal liability, exception #2 of WP:CRIME would apply: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." As you see, WP:CRIME is not helpful here. --Fayerman (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Qwerty0, Occupy Wall Street pepper-spray incidents got merged back into Occupy Wall Street, do you mean the main OWS article?
Of course this info should be merged into the appropriate protest article.Jarhed (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My vote was before I discovered that Pepper spraying at the Occupy Wall Street demonstration had already been deleted. So it turns out my vote is effectively a belated Keep on the other article as it is quite notable. If it cannot be brought back, then I guess this information should be merged into wherever that article went (namely, Occupy Wall Street).

--Qwerty0 (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:CRIME concern is inapplicable on its face, given that Bologna has not been accused of a crime, and the article does not assert that he has committed a crime. The BLP arguments seem just as absurd. Anthony Bologna is an internationally-famous, high-ranking government official, who had already been described as "top brass" in a 2010 New York Daily News article (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-05-02/local/27063246_1_stats-show-big-move-shootings), and was the subject of the multiple biographical pieces that are noted in the article. His involvement in alleged civil rights violations during demonstrations surrounding the 2004 National Convention has been noted in some of the most important media outlets in the world, from the NY Times to the UK Guardian to the Atlantic monthly. A total of 26,800 web pages are presently returned from a google search for "anthony bologna" 2004 (including the quotation marks), with many top results coming from major media sources. Some editors have pointed out that the 2004 incident wasn't big news until after the 2011 incident came to light. But how is that in any way relevant? There's absolutely nothing in the rule that says that press coverage must be contemporaneous with the event. If anything, this just shows that much of the media have exactly the same rule that Wikipedia does, with many articles only discussing the 2011 event because of the existence of the 2004 event, and vice-versa. Maybe WP:BLP1E should be modified to say that every newsworthy event has to be covered in the media at the same time as they actually happened. But that's not the rule, so, until that change is made, we should apply the rule the way it is written, right? And right now, today, Bologna is famous for, and has received international mainstream press coverage for, both separate incidents. Accordingly, BLP1E cannot possibly apply.PromiseOfNY (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — PromiseOfNY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^{[disputed – discuss]}[reply]

"internationally-famous" is a preposterous claim, this person was not well known even in NYC before this event. "top brass" is a term of color, not an encyclopedic description; there is no such category for NYC police nor do any of this person's peers have similiar articles. All of the non-BLP1E coverage is local, as in neighborhood. Notability outside of BLP1E is not established by any stretch.Jarhed (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, internationally famous. That is as uncontrovercial claim as any claim can be, if we're being objective. Here are just a few of the articles from mainstream publications reporting on Bologna's involvement in the 2004 incident: The Guardian (UK): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/occupy-wall-street-anthony-bologna - The International Business Times: (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/222251/20110929/anthony-bologna-nypd.htm) - The Daily Mail (UK): (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043308/NYPD-cop-Anthony-Bologna-pepper-sprays-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters-video.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) - The Dawn (Pakistan's oldest and most widely-read English newspaper, according to Wikipedia): http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/02/wall-street-protests-success-not-easily-measured.html) - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/27/tech/cnettechnews/main20112427.shtml) - The Atlantic Monthly (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/09/anonymous-goes-after-pepper-spray-cops-personal-info/42960/) - Der Spiegel (Germany) (http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,789227,00.html) - Il Post (Italy): (http://www.ilpost.it/2011/09/29/il-nuovo-video-delle-aggressioni-a-wall-street/). This is just a tiny sampling. It goes on and on and on. See for yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q="anthony+bologna"+2004 . Any claim that Bologna is not internationally famous for this 2004 incident is simply false. There's no other word for it. - PromiseOfNY (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, I misunderstood your original statement. Yes, this person received international coverage about his role in this single event, hence BLP1E. Thanks for pointing that out.Jarhed (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't understand. We seem to be agreeing that he's internationally famous for his role in the 2004 Republican National Convention as documented in those articles above. He is also, of course, internationally famous for his role in the 2011 pepper-spraying incident. Accordingly, whatever objections one might have to the article, BLP1E cannot apply, and the article should be fixed, if necessary, not deleted. -PromiseOfNY (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to redirect uninvolved users to this article shows a COI agenda and in my opinion you should not be editing this article.Jarhed (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is notable even without the pepper spray incident. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there is not a single other incident described in the BLP, I'm pretty sure that you are wrong.Jarhed (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject was notable as far back as 2004. What are you talking about? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proof positive would be a WP article before this event, which never happened. Before the event, all sources available for this subject would have been insufficient to establish notability under WP guidelines, as not a single one of them is a reliable secondary source. This is not a matter of opinion, but a plain reading of notability guidelines. In addition, I note that none of the subject's peers has an article, even ones involved in notable events, which establishes that this individual is not notable by virtue of his municipal job.Jarhed (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No -- it simply means that people weren't motivated to create articles on them. There are many notable people without articles. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the sources available for this subject before this BLP1E event show that you are flat wrong. They are not sufficient to establish notability as per WP guidelines, hence the AfD for BLP1E. A review of the sources for any of the subject's peers shows this to be a common characteristic of them all.Jarhed (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirect ~~Nom's "Article exists to name and shame" is unfounded opinion. BLP2E is a joke. Subject's notability is well established (see Fayerman et al.).~~ Writegeist (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E, an article about an obscure New York City police official propelled to prominence by a single incident. I think it's important to quote the relevant portion of that policy: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. Let's not pretend that there is any chance there would be an article on this official were it not for the pepper spraying incident, an article on which was justifiably merged with the article on the Wall Street demonstrations. The 2004 allegations are absolutely irrelevant to Bologna's notability, which relate to that single incident. The routine biographical details taken from a non-notable free-distribution handout weekly ("Downtown Express," a publication of questionable appropriateness for a BLP ), were added as a fig leaf. I echo Collect's comment and urge the closing administrator to take into consideration that many of the editors materializing here have had few edits apart from this subject area. It seems to me that this is a test case as to whether Wikipedia is serious about BLP, even when a mob of editors descends on an article or an AfD with the intent of circumventing it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bologna has had a "substantial and well-documented role" in several separate incidents involving his use of pepper spray. Even if there were only one incident, you omit the part of BLP1E that counters your argument: where the "event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented — as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981 — a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." E.g. Aron Ralston, D.B. Cooper, Colton Harris-Moore, etc., and also such as Stacey Kon and Laurence Powell. International RS coverage of Bologna's role in the 2011 mace assaults is documented in other comments here, as is coverage of his previous mace assault. Writegeist (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bolded quote from the BLP policy doesn't apply, since the recent incident is not the only context in which reliable sources covered this individual. It was already linked above, but here again is a 2010 Daily News article that describes Inspector Bologna as "top brass" in the NYPD: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-05-02/local/27063246_1_stats-show-big-move-shootings TypoBoy (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 article was on staffing moves in which Bologna is mentioned in passing. Comparing him to Hinckley is absurd. The pepper spray incident was insufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own, and has been merged. ScottyBerg (talk)20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that Daily News article only makes a one sentence mentioning of Bologna. Truthsort (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, what ScottyBerg said.Jarhed (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In BLP1E Hinckley is an example, not a threshold. ScottyBerg's strawman argument addresses a comparison that has been neither stated nor implied. Comparison with the assassin of a head of state is obviously no more at issue here than in countless other single-incident BLPs. And Bologna's isn't even a single-incident BLP. Please. Writegeist (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hinckley is indeed an example, cited in the policy, of the magnitude of notoriety required for BLP1E not to apply. So it is a threshold, in a sense. I think we'd all agree that Bologna spraying pepper in a non-notable incident is not of the magnitude of somebody pumping bullets into the president of the United States. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The policy goes no further than citing the Reagan shooting as an example of a significant event and Mr. Hinckley's role as one that was substantial and well-documented. Nowhere does the policy cite the "magnitude" of H's "notoriety" as a qualifying criterion for a single-event BLP. (That fanciful idea originates from ScottyBerg - not from BLP1E.) Neither, in fact, does the policy mention "notoriety" of any kind as a criterion. And neither, incidentally, was Hinckley "pumping bullets into the president," as SB says (Mr. Reagan was hit by just one ricochet) - that claim also, like the one re. the content of BLP1E policy, is about as accurate as Mr. Hinckley's shooting. And anyway, and most importantly, the incidents of Mr Bologna's pepper-spraying, being several, do not fall under BLP1E - as already explained elsewhere. Writegeist (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tagged the article for neutrality. At this point just under half of the article is devoted to the pepper spraying incident. Over half is entirely sourced to a free-distribution community newspaper and a non-notable website (DNAinfo.com), and it is questionable if we can use such a non-verifiable, non-RS sources for such a large portion of a BLP. If this is a legitimate biography of a New York City police official deserving an article of his own, there would obviously be material of unimpeachable quality and notability available to give this article sufficient girth, so as to not allow this NPOV violation to exist as it currently does. Right now the article is not neutral, overweights one event and is an example of recentism. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:AFDFORMAT when discussing articles for deletion. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s). You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line. (Since you removed my friendly warning from your talk page and failed to cure the situation, I had to post the above message here). --Fayerman (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen an editor try to police a deletion discussion like you are doing and I am wondering why you are doing it.Jarhed (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and in addition, if this person were truly notable, there would be more than one reliable source for biographical info. This BLP doesn't even have one.Jarhed (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bologna is now somewhat notorious not simply for the recent pepper spray incident but for other incidents of abuse as well. I believe this makes him notable through notoriety, if nothing else. Chief Red Eagle (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)— Chief Red Eagle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: I am very concerned by this post on an external website by one of the most active editors on the page, calling for outside assistance. "IMPORTANT: Please go to the Anthony Bologna Wikipedia page, click on Discussion, and comment to make sure that the Anthony Bologna Wikipedia page is not deleted." The closing administrator should take note of this solicitation for input into this AfD. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no such post on the external website page linked by ScottyBerg. Writegeist (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are in comments on high-traffic articles, there are presently three. Here is a Google search that should pull them: Google occupywallstJarhed (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief. So far as I am concerned, that should get him an immediate block.Jarhed (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that's wildly inappropriate, but I'm not sure how much it matters at this point. I don't see how the current discussion can end with anything other than no consensus. I'll be very surprised if there isn't a second discussion in a few weeks once things cool down a bit. Pburka (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no consensus in a highly negative BLP on a non-public figure, the default should be to delete, not to keep. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you're overreacting a bit. The article is actually quite neutral. A Google news search for Anthony Bologna gives a significantly more negative spin in the top headlines than does our article. There is no risk that the Wikipedia article will damage the subject's reputation if it's left up for a few weeks when the top Google news headlines are "Unnecessary Use of Pepper Spray", "Anthony Bologna of NYPD Part of Long History of Police Brutality" and "Anthony Bologna Petition: Remove Mr. Mace From NYPD Force". Pburka (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it not neutral is the overemphasis on one incident, which is why we are here and why the article has been tagged for neutrality. Were the article to survive, it is entirely possible that the entire "career" section would not survive, given the caliber of the sourcing. It is, in any event, window-dressing as the purpose of the article is to hash out the pepper spraying incident. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider all outside coverage immaterial with regard to the application of BLP policy to a BLP.Jarhed (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The external CANVASS done by an ostensible Wikipedia editor implying that said editor is part of the group involved in the incident is sufficient for this to be closed as a delete in and of itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The post appears in multiple locations on that website.[37]. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin needs to have a good look and not count accounts that have just appeared out of a stagnant edit history and posted in support of keeping this Bio. Someone should go through the keep vote comments and see how many are like that or SPA. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:False consensus contains the ArbCom official findings sufficient to disregard any such !votes, or to block any such accounts,, if an admin so notes them. Collect (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BIO1E says that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Occupy Wall Street is indisputably significant, and Bologna has gotten tons of coverage due to his role within it. CityO fSilver 23:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pepper spraying incident occurred approx. two miles from the Occupy Wall Street demonstration. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the significance of the Wall Street protest as being the same as any other similiar protest, which is newsworthy but not noteworthy.Jarhed (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One news blurb of purely local/regional interest 5 years ago does not constitute an "event". I have not seen such pathetic source stretching since the Serene Branson war, and AfD that'd make a fitting precedent for this actually. An old local event + a major event does not add up to 2, especially when no one paid much attention to the local event at the time, and it only gets some coverage because of #2. To say that this case now surpasses 1E shows a frankly incompetent reading of what WP:BLP1E is designed to prevent. The officer is known for the current pepper-spray incident, nothing more. As such, no article is warranted. Tarc (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A source is a source. When you have to say that a source doesn't count for your reasoning to work out, then you should rethink your reasoning. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to not know what you are talking about. A source is certainly not a source, sources vary widely in reliability and differ in type. Could you please restate your comment in such a way that it is not completely incorrect?Jarhed (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A source is certainly not a source," - and you are asking someone else to restate their comment "in such a way that it is not completely incorrect?".--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per the original editor, "a source is a source", that statement is certainly not correct. Happy now?Jarhed (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — There is no requirement in either WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:WI1E or WP:EVENT that the news coverage shall be from the time period immediately following the first event. Bologna is notable for both events not just because of the "one news blurb" several years ago, but also because his involvement in the first event received additional significant coverage since September 26, 2011.

I didn't say there was such a requirement, so that is a bit of a strawman response. What I said was that what you call the "first event" is nothing of the sort. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did say that you have a problem with the older sources covering Bologna (e.g. "One news blurb", "pathetic source stretching", etc.) Any arguments about the quality of the older sources are moot at this point, since the latest coverage of both incidents involving Bologna are not just "blurbs" or "pathetic". Thanks. :) --Fayerman (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not moot at all. Routine coverage 5 years ago + 1 event now do not add up to a WP:GNG requirement. Just because they are talking now about the years-ago local stuff doesn't cut it, sorry. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most certainly was not notable before this event (an interview in a local newspaper does not equal significant coverage by a long shot). As is clear from the history of the article, the intent is to give further coverage of the pepper spraying incident, which is already covered more than adequately at the main article. There are two issues, one is BLP1E, which I believe applies, though I certainly appreciate that there are differences of opinion. The other is, where is best for this information to be presented? At the moment, the actual notable information (as opposed to the fluff that is bolstering it) is present in the main article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Brady is an example of someone far more notable than this yet they have been redirected to the event. I know that's a bit WP:OTHERSTUFF but the same principle applies - what's the point of duplicating information, especially so for something as contentious as this and where BLP problems are likely to arise. Polequant (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(comment stricken - mistaken identity) Wnt (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article is used in the current article - it's the same publisher: compare [38] and [39]. I'm not quite sure why you wanted to refer to the same article twice in "your version". Polequant (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation of bad faith is a blatant violation of WP guidelines. I insist that you follow WP guidelines in this debate.Jarhed (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looking at this it's apparent the article was retained, just with a different publication name. I've stricken my comment per your complaint since it was mistaken anyway. Wnt (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — (In response to Polequant's argument that "an interview in a local newspaper does not equal significant coverage" and other similar arguments by other editors) — There is no requirement in either WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:WI1E or WP:EVENT that the news coverage shall be from the time period immediately following the first event. Bologna is notable for both events not just because he made the news several years ago, but also because his involvement in the first event received additional significant coverage in the last two weeks. Recent coverage of the two incidents involving Bolonga renders your argument about the older local news moot. --Fayerman (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim ignores the reliability of the earlier sources, which is low and not suitable for establishing notability in any case. I could get my own bio in my neighborhood advertising paper merely by buying advertising in it. Such sources have low reliability and are not suitable for establishing notability.Jarhed (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter when the coverage of the first "event" was, because the first "event" was an accusation of misconduct at the Republican convention demonstrations in 2004. It is of such triviality that it can hardly be considered an event at all, certainly not to substantiate a BLP. There is only one noteworthy event in this article that can be validly considered to be an event for BLP purposes. This article's sole purpose is to rehash the pepper-spraying incident in 2011, and the 2004 accusations (which is all they are, after seven years) are completely tangential. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply — (to ScottyBerg) See, that's another whole argument, but with which I also disagree. You said that Bologna's involvement and consequent civil law suit is "of such triviality that it can hardly be considered an event at all." Well, then why so many newspapers mentioned the fact of his involvement? Something tells me it's uncommon that a NYPD officer is subject to a civil rights violation lawsuit. Are you saying that it's common for the NYPD to be sued for a violation of civil rights? Either way, my reply to Polequant covered a different unrelated point in his argument. If you mean it's trivial for the police to be sued for millions of dollars (I read the federal complaint and Bologna's answer) for false arrests, then you might be right that this article should be deleted. :) --Fayerman (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits against the NYPD police department, and high ranking officials thereof, are fairly common. This suit is being mentioned in relation to the pepper spraying incident, and would not have been worthy of publicity were it not for that. It has no independent notability and is just a footnote to the 2011 incident that is the focus of this article. The fact that the suit received no attention at the time is an indication of its triviality.ScottyBerg (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply — Please cite which Wikipedia policy talks about "independent notability". You mean to say that if someone ran 100 marathons in 100 days, that would not be notable, because each of those marathons is trivial? Please let me see a relevant Wikipedia rule that backs up your point. Thanks! --Fayerman (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you asked. I wasn't planning to parse it down that far, but since you raised the issue I will. For the purposes of this discussion (it's noted at the top of WP:1E), "event" is defined at, naturally enough, WP:EVENT, specifically the subsection "The Event" (WP:EFFECT): "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect are notable, even if the event may not solidly meet any or all of the other criteria. Events with lasting effects may have historical significance, which is why such events are allowed automatic inclusion." By this definition, the 2007 lawsuit about alleged 2004 behavior is almost certainly not an "event" for BLP1E purposes. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, note that "people notable for only one event" is touched upon in WP:EVENT. So this notability guideline specifically applies to BLP1E, defining what is meant by "event." Thanks for raising this issue as it's given us a chance to clarify this important point. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to ScottyBerg, unfortunately, the quoted guideline sentences do not help your position (I wish they did). You are committing a logical fallacy where the predicate term of the conclusion refers to all members of that category, but the same term in the premises refers only to some members of that category (also known as Illicit major). This fallacy has the following argument form:

# All A are B

# No C are A

# Therefore, no C are B

As applied by you:

# All events with noted permanent effect are notable

# No civil lawsuits involving cops are events with noted permanent effect

# Therefore, no civil lawsuits involving cops are notable

Please let me know if you agree that you just misapplied the guidelines quoted above due to the incorrect argumentation in your reasoning. If you disagree, we might need help of a qualified logician. Thank you. --Fayerman (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need more wikilawyering on this point. You asked for a definition of event, and there it is. It doesn't support your position, obviously. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering? Sounds like a compliment. I will let the closing admin decide when the time comes. Thank you! :) --Fayerman (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preposterous logic. The old event does not meet notability guidelines under any stretch, and attempts to cast retroactive notability on it from contemporaneous BLP1E coverage in order to bypass the BLP1E guideline is simply ludicrous.Jarhed (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; slightly baffled by some of the seemingly spurious delete arguments. Multiple sources covering several events in this policeman's life, easily satisfy GNG in my opinion. --John (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One reason that you might find some of the delete arguments baffling could be that you don't understand them, for example, GNG is not sufficient for a stand-alone article.Jarhed (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, that'll be it. Point me to where it says that, if you don't mind. --John (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." Wikipedia:GNG.Jarhed (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, thanks for confirming that it is you who do not understand the policy. Cheers, --John (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "several events"?ScottyBerg (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could be of service.Jarhed (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the GNG, the "presumption" reflects that other policies like WP:NOT could exclude certain articles. It's not a codeword for "deletionists are free to ignore this standard when they feel like it". Wnt (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "codeword" interpretation is pure POV and GNG is crystal clear that the stand-alone article determination is more complicated that you are willing to acknowledge. One big, obvious, and frankly galling omission in your blithe GNG reference is BLP.Jarhed (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People known for only one incident don't get articles. If the incident becomes a prominent case, then the case gets an article. Even Troy Davis didn't get an article. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:55, 6 Oct 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Troy Davis' entire biography from childhood on is in that article; somebody just had a compulsion to put "case" after his name in the title. That's not a deletion. Wnt (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title wasn't the result of some arbitrary compulsion, it was abiding by policy. The case is what's supposed to get the article. As with many prominent cases, the bios of those involved can often be seen as necessary included info, but the focus of the article is still the case, rather than the individuals involved. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:50, 6 Oct 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Occupy_Wall_Street#Pepper-spraying_incidents as a plausible search term. Buddy431 (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources other than media outlets echoing the one event. The subject is in a video showing a bad thing (that is not before any court other than that of public opinion), and the subject has been mocked by Jon Stewart. The remaining content is puffery to disguise the fact that this article is an attempt to attack a subject using the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Recreate the article after something of encyclopedic value happens (regrettably, there are many incidents of citizens being badly treated around the world on a daily basis—Wikipedia should record only the notable incidents and participants). Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject satisfies WP:BIO. One of the references is from 2005, which establishes coverage (and therefore, notability) over a range of time. BLP1E does not apply in this case. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP;BLP1E. The older local human interest stories are essentially routine coverage, not significant coverage for establishing notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Doesn't even read like a real bio. More like an attack page. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ScottyBerg. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious WP:COATRACK article, and consequently a WP:BLP problem. Reso lute 16:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the entire article and see no problems with having it. There are references throughout the article, he getting coverage for more than just the one incident. It is written in a fair and neutral way. You don't delete something simply because one or more people are changing things to something inappropriate. The Roman Polanski article has for two years now had people random come and add in "child molester" to the lead where it list him as a director and actor, and these of course were always quickly reverted. But that is not grounds for deletion. This article is not in its current form anything that could be seen as an attack page. Please judge it in its current state. Dream Focus 17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That totally misconstrues the opposition to this article, which is primarily based on BLP1E, not lack of references or vandalism. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some complain about various things, including its an attack page, a coatrack, and a POV magnet. Different people are against the article's continual existence for different reasons. Dream Focus 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the norm for negative BLP1E's.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I say delete this article for the reasons others gave. B-Machine (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least redirect as Buddy says above. Without the pepper spraying incident we would not even consider having an article here, with it it is only one event. AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only routine coverage + a single event. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in Canada. We talked about this guy at work and this is where I ended out finding out more about him. He may have only done one significant thing in his life but he knocked the ball out of the park with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oruanaidh (talk • contribs) 12:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zuccotti Park maybe. Yankee Stadium no way. Contrast that lady in the pen again with Mary Ann Vecchio. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake, he just pepper-sprayed a hippy, he didn't find a cure for cancer. Perspective; find it. Tarc (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you strike your comment as inappropriate, particularly the "hippy" part?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm just fine with my comment, sport, thanks. Tarc (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E (or 1.5E, at best). I don't know what all the shouting here is about, peeps - Alison ^❤ 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge a summary to appropriate article... involving pepper and Bologna... say, Mortadella. →Stani Stani 07:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that it feels like a BLP1E problem; he hasn't done anything notable enough to warrant an article before, and the only thing that has changed is that he may have used pepper spray inappropriately. That warrants the existing (and extensive) coverage in the Occupy Wall Street article, but it doesn't seem to warrant a full article on the person accused. - Bilby (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- if there had been an article prior to the pepper-spraying, then it would have been a matter of BLP1E -- but the pepper-spraying combined with the earlier stuff makes it ≠ BLP1E. I knew that numeracy had degenerated in English-speaking countries, but I guess I didn't realize how bad things had gotten. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the petty insult, I have to wonder if there's something I'm missing. Does being named in a lawsuit make one notable? Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources speak for themselves. Any NPOV issues that the article may have should be fixed through normal editing practices, with discussion on the talk page as necessary. Although I can't see any problems since evreything seems well referenced from prominent international newspapers (e.g. The New York Times and The Guardian. Polyamorph (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is indeed a one event BLP. There's no coverage of the purported prior event until after the one event he's known for. 71.232.52.161 (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — 71.232.52.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. This is a pure example of an article that belongs in a separate article and not a BLP article. Kansan (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are proposing a merge, not a delete. Should a BLP be merged into another article then the original BLP history must be preserved per WP:CWW. Polyamorph (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BLP2E is certainly neither policy nor guideline. While the subject's current notoriety may result from a central role in a particular event, coverage demonstrates significance beyond that event. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats to the admin who's daring enough to close this nomination when it's run its course. Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, very clever, as an admin, you just want to post something here so you don't have to be the admin who closes the discussion. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The prevalence of WP editors who are incapable of transcending recentism will never cease to amaze me. Deor (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has significant coverage in reliable third party sources. The topic meets the notability guidelines for biographies. The subject is notable for more than one event. WP:BLP1E therefore does not apply. Creating a BLP2E is a slippery slope, if we were to create such a policy where would it end? What next, a proposal to create a BLP3E policy? In any event, coverage has continued after the event took place. Even if it were only one event, it wouldn't apply because there has been persistent coverage. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that it is a biography of a living person known for only one event. It would have been best not to mention "BLP2E" in the nomination, but what's done is done. In my view, the 2004 incident is non-notable, except that investigative journalists have recently unearthed and revived discussion of that incident, but only in the context of researching Bologna's background because of the 2011 incident. I do not believe that the 2004 incident has the sort of independent notability required to overcome WP:BLP1E. Off2riorob did a good job of summarizing the arguments against this article early on, and Bbb23 also offered a good overview of the issues. I agree, in particular, with the deletion arguments advanced by Collect and DGG. ScottyBerg did a good job of critiquing the manifest weaknesses of the older sources. Jarhed made many good points, although I disagree with Jarhed's specific contention that if Bologna was notable, there would already have been an article about him before the recent incident. Instead, I would simply say that he was non-notable, so whether or not to have an article about him was not an issue until recent weeks. I favor inclusion of neutral, well-referenced coverage of this pepper-spray incident in Occupy Wall Street, but I oppose a free-standing biography of this police officer at this time. A redirect is fine with me as his name is a plausible search term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator, I sincerely and deeply regret being flippant when I said "BLP2E", which was sarcasm about the argument that 2004 should be considered a discreet "event". While almost all Delete !votes state WP:BLP1E, with a few also saying maybe "BLP1.5E" in a joking manner as well, it was entirely inappropriate of me to have made a nomination in such a manner. I appreciate that so many of you have taken the time to look at the article and sources and make your own well-thought opinion. A big mea culpa, LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the most recent editor to comment previously, I accept your explanation and your apology, LoveUxoxo, and hope that your initial joke will have no lasting impact on the outcome of this debate. Best to you. Thanks in advance, also, to the administrator who analyzes this one properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than important enough to be kept, plug whatever Wikipedia lingo needed here. --88.16.192.72 (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)— 88.16.192.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The reliable sources indicate that the subject is notable for more than one event, though the 2004 events would not have been adequate sources to support an individual article for Bologna on their own. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how a keep is not obvious here - it appears to me that the argument being used is some sort of BLP+1E rather than simply BLP2E. The contention appears to be that if a subject had not been quite notable enough for an article, being involved in one more event then should not serve to make that person notable. If we were to accept this notion, we can extend BLP1E to BLP2E, to BLP3E, and by induction no one could become notable (or at least no article that we don't like).--Noren (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the 2004 incident is so notable then why is there not a single source from 2004 mentioning it? Truthsort (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, because until the recent events, it wasn't notable. Based on what happened now, the media dug into Bologna's past. Looking at court records is certainly a standard media thing to do. It's kind of like doing a background check. And, oh my, they found some lawsuits related to the convention. Shocking.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not elevate the 2004 stuff to "event" status, in terms of how we apply notability policy, though. If he's getting coverage for it now, then it is considered coverage as part of the recent events. If people are basing their keep votes on this...the belief that coverage in 2011 of something that happened in 2004 now makes 2004 a standalone event to consider for notability, this is going to be a shockingly easy deletion finding for the closing admin that comes along. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" The officer is a defendant in two civil suits that demonstrate the same pattern of behavior. Like Volpe during the Guiliani era, Bologna's behavior has become central to the Mayor's claim to have maintained law and order in the city. Gorgonzilla (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article exists only because of people who want this man to be tried in the media rather than in court. Doesn't even seem BLP1E-worthy to me. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC) (formerly editing as "Factchecker")[reply]

Comment - doesn't that in itself make this subject notable, and worth having some neutral, balanced and referenced info? Just because it's not notable or significant to you or a few people, doesn't mean it isn;t notable or significant to other people. The delete arguments here remind me a bit of that old expression "Nothing to see here folks, now move it along" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment puzzles me. Are you saying that a person is notable if there is at least one person who thinks he is notable? Centrify (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't what I said. That slippery slope strawman could be reversed: Did you say an article is not notable if at least one person thinks he is not notable? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying he is barely notable for one event and not notable for another, and that it's somewhat ridiculous for WP readers to be treated with a touching depiction of friendly cops coming into a deli and encouraging one Mr. Bologna, har de har, to enlist in the Police Academy just because this guy was mentioned in newspaper articles about a protest and had his personal details published by a lefty hate group. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've seen I don't like it used as a keep argument. (It's still invalid.) Lagrange 613 02:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't counted, but it seems about half the keep !votes rely on various arguments to avoid. (It's useful! People are talking about him! He's a bad guy! Look at Google!) The closing admin should weigh these very little, if at all, especially given the external canvassing mentioned above. The 2005 Downtown Express and 2010 DNAinfo.com fluff pieces amount to insignificant coverage in unreliable sources. The 2010 Daily News piece contains only trivial mention. The rest is just coverage of one event or non-notable dirt dug up in response to that event. His order to arrest some guy in 2004 doesn't come close to being a notable event. The coatracking seems to have been mostly addressed, but BLP1E still mandates deletion. Lagrange 613 00:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:ANYBIO and has significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Plain and simple. --Cavarrone (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit early to judge how "the enduring historical record" of police work will treat Bologna, so which "well-known and significant award or honor" has he received? Lagrange 613 08:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so it's a bit early to judge that this coverage will never occur either. In the meanwhile, we can look at the fact that the international news has taken extensive interest in this issue:

"A 2001 report recovered by intelligence blog Cyptome claims Bologna is "notorious for his previous treatment of protesters," and described an allegation by the People's Law Collective that said Bologna shoved two protesters before later returning to arrest them."

"At the 2004 Republican Convention, Bologna was again cited for unnecessary force, and stands accused of false arrest and civil rights violations in a claim filed in 2007."

"Alan Levine, a civil rights lawyer representing a protester allegedly held in a special detention facility for hours during the 2004 Convention, heard about the pepper spray incident and immediately thought of Bologna. "A bunch of were wondering," he said, according to The Guardian, "if any of the same guys were involved."" International Business Times Sep 29

In this case, Anthony Bologna isn't just a subsection of an event -- it seems likely that he should also be included in an article on NYPD police brutality, as the article focuses on many other similar events. If the subject happens to be notable in two different topic areas -- why should it be merged into one? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that blog post is a retrospective based on the 2011 incident. There is no genuine pre-2011 event that has been pointed out here that raises this article beyond the level of a pseudobiography. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage of Gavrilo Princip is post-incident too. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Deputy Inspector Bologna assassinates an archduke, be sure to let us know. When last I looked, he was up to spraying pepper spray, so he has a long way to go. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not for nothing, but isn't it a slight understatement of Princip's notability to say he "assassinate[d] an archduke"? ;) Centrify (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News sources describe Anthony Bologna's actions as a major trigger for the escalation of protests, saying that no one paid attention up to that point.

Even Jon Stewart parodies Bologna's actions. [40] elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the article was first created it seemed to me to be a case of "Let's get him!", but my thinking did go back and forth a few times. After reading the comments here, I've decided that the article should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is long enough, referenced enough, signifigant enough, should be kept. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADFM

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

The subject of the article is the position of Assistant Divisional Financial Manager at the Eastern Railway Zone (India) of Indian Railways. It is a run-of-the-mill middle-management post in the divisions of the Eastern Railway zone. The post is mentioned on two web pages on the Eastern Railway web site; both pages are from the same division: Sealdah. Furthermore, neither the article on the Eastern Railway Zone nor the article on Sealdah mentions this position, nor, in fact, do they mention the operations of their accounts departments.

A Google search for AFDM mentions both the Association of Departments of Family Medicine and Association Démocratique des Femmes du Maroc (Democratic Association of Moroccan Women) twice before coming to the first item relating to the subject... which is the Wikipedia article under discussion. For this reason, I do not think a redirect to Eastern Railway Zone (India) or to Sealdah would be advisable.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sam for getting my attention. I tagged for speedy deletion, isn't that oppose to your suggestion ?? just kidding!! Well after reading your suggestion, I think It would be better If we can move this page to a title like List of positions in Indian Railways. And I think all the content in this article is not necessary like this section ADFM#Becoming_a_ADFM. And Roles here written ADFM#Duties also not necessary because we already got External Link for that. So in one page we will have all the positions. Lets see what others have got to say on this. -aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose that the article be moved to List of positions in Indian Railways and be edited and expanded under that title. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, if that is considerable. aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 17:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to that. (Others might - you never know round here...) Peridon (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Other's might, but who knows. so what you suggest ?? aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 21:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what this process is for, to determine what is to be done to the article. All suggestions are welcome, and will be evaluated. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as proposer. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's normally assumed... Peridon (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move so I propose to move then. aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 21:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move I,the creator,have decided,that the article be moved and not deleted.Dipankan001 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this isn't a notable topic. Even if the proposed list were created, I wouldn't support moving much, if any, of this content to that article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with SamBlob and Imzadi1979. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A poorly written article that tells us far too much about the position and its perks, but there is no reason to believe that this is a notable position or important for the safety and operation of the railroad. Even mention in a list of positions is not likely to be worthwhile. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AeroUnion Flight 302

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

Frequent occuring cargo plane crash. Not Notable per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS.William 12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)- William 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. - William 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. - William 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. A tragic accident, but doesn't seem to be one that will be brought up in the history books beyond "aircraft of type X crashed at Y on Z because of A". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:AIRCRASH does not give added notability to passenger aircraft, nor does it detract from the notability of cargo aircraft. In this case, not only were all on the aircraft killed, but there was a ground casualty too. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and suggestion- Casualties don't make a crash automatically notable enough for an article. How about merge this article into the one for the aircraft involved, the A-300?"- William 14:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Airliner hull loss, fatalities on the aircraft and the ground, meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably enough material for an article as it stands already, but bear in mind that once the official reports are published there will be a bit more as well, especially on the sources side. TheGrappler (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think of a cargo plane crash as equivalent to the same aircraft in passenger service crashing with a low passenger count. Because these airframes are being used for passenger service as well, the reasons for the crash and the safety recommendations that are issued have implications for A300s worldwide. Honestly though, our lives really aren't really that better with it here considering the need for cleanup and references that actually work. But no doubt within a year or two it could be, if someone actually cares, a good article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep large jetliner crashes killing 6 people is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article fails A7 criteria for deletion per WP:MUSICBIO. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 05:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Trout

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

Non-notable BLP. Searching finding self-promotion, not independent coverage. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that none of the people who created or edited this page are Chris Trout, deletion on the grounds of 'self-promotion' hardly fits the bill. Are more external sources are needed to establish notability? Could these be in the form of album reviews, interviews etc.?

The reason I created the page was to join dots: several of the bands CT was/is in have wiki pages themselves and surely one of the main aims of Wikipedia is to make quick connections possible, to follow links and establish context? Thus making the connections between various bands via their members is a worthwhile project. Theaphidtwin (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaphidtwin (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets point #6 of our notability guideline for musicians, which says that "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" is presumed to be notable. Trout has been a member of three notable bands that have Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a member of several notable bands, he's notable.--Michig (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Slater

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

Completing nomination for User:101.173.101.94. I am neutral.

Presumably the nomination was on the basis of no significant third-party coverage, which seems reasonable, all the references appear to be listings, user-generated or primary sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real assertion of notability within article. Fails WP:GNG. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most participants agree that the notability of the character is not quite sufficient for an article. Sandstein 10:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Houngan (comics)

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Simone (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Character has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Supervillians (New York, Facts on File, pp.158-159). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPNic (talk • contribs) 13:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. Outside of the above, he is a popular character who was a member of the Brotherhood of Evil. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:58, October 2 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the character name also doubles as a title, making the Google Books search have an inordinate number of apparently false positives, I can see the reference SPNic cites, and one other Superman-centric book reference on the first page of Google Books hits, meaning that this character meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, so it does not meet the general notability guideline. All that exists are primary or tertiary sources where he is discussed from an in-universe perspective, and I don't see any evidence that shows that the article can be improved beyond a plot-only description of a fictional work as there are no sources that establish reception or significance for the fictional character. Jfgslo (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Needs significant coverage in third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is also a paragraph about the character in 500 Comic Book Villians by Mike Conroy (Chrysalis Books, p. 279)SPNic (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm seeing more of what Jfgslo is talking about: trivial mentions and/or tertiary directories about comic books. Needs sources that can WP:verify notability with information about significance and reception, not just plot, and a significant amount of it in order to meet the general notability guideline. I wouldn't disagree with a merge if someone came up with a suitable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Oceania MAX 2001

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

also nominating:

another useless sprawling series of sports results that fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. no evidence of long term notability after 10 years. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fail WP:GNG, insignificant coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These are some of the biggest and most historically significant events ever held in kickboxing. Many of them feature Grand Prixs which determine the best fighters in the region, and which allows them qualify for the World GP at the end of the year. Some of these events even featured world title fights (in both kickboxing and professional boxing) - Minowafan (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

none of these are world title fights. Please provide evidence of significant coverage as per WP:PERSISTENCE to support your claim of historical notability. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Only the Oceania event was a qualifying event. The others were, at best, qualifying events for qualifying events, and some weren't even that. All appear to be just routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Articles are routine sports reporting about non-notable events and without reliable sources. Astudent0 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Massive consensus that this is nonnotable, routine sports coverage. Neutrality^talk 01:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Goossen

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

Delete. Non-notable actor. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The above is the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. No sources except his own web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, if you just search Belgian websites (ie: search google via "Pol Goossen" site:*.be and then translate, you will find it is very easy to demonstrate notability. Notability isn't a function of being covered by English speaking media. WP:BEFORE requires we try a little harder before we nominate, particularly with foreign subjects (or don't nom if we aren't sure how to search for these topics). This is why I removed the PROD tag, IMDB shows he has been in 985 episodes of a TV show, that should tell you that other coverage is at least "likely", if you search hard enough. These were just on the first page: [41], [42], [43], [44]. I am sure I can provide another dozen if needed, but that should clearly establish notability. Article needs work, not deletion. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a read of WP:ENTERTAINER. Existence of sources does not indicate notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:GNG clearly says otherwise. He has been discussed by multiple outlets, which is notable under GNG. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Again, the sources aren't in English, and that is never a reason to not consider them nor their content, particularly when it is pretty easy to translate them from Dutch. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But WP:ENTERTAINER trumps WP:GNG. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, the SNGs do not "trump" the GNG. They encourge editors to be diligent in their searches for sources. And notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article, no matter the language. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That doesn't make sense to me. Why have the individual notability guidelines if WP:GNG always takes precedence? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:N is made up of many sections and subsections and yes, some do seem to be at odds with others, or sometimes even with policy. In respecting the header of all guidelines that encourages common sense, the SNGs have been built over time to outline those circumstances where a topic might fail GNG though not being the recipient of wide coverage, yet still might be worthy of notice.
        
        Here's the way I see it... The GNG defines cases where topic notability is usually quite apparent, and the SNGs define those topics where notability is less obvious but still worth consideration per common sense.
        
        The simplistic formula for notability could be written "meeting GNG = notability, but if not meeting GNG, then meeting SNG = notability".
        
        And conversely, "not meeting GNG OR SNG = non-notability".
        
        Per policy, notability assertions must be verifiable in reliable sources, but the GNG is not a "trump", and the SNGs do not themselves mandate SIGCOV. SNGs do not "trump" the GNG. GNG does not "trump" the SNGs. They are both parts of WP:N and are intended to work in concert with each and should not be seen as disharmony. A topic can fail a SNG and meet the GNG to be notable. A topic can fail GNG and meet SNG to be notable.
        
        The guidelines are not a perfect system (which is why they are not policy), but they have been established over years of discussion and the success of Wikipedia shows they work reasonably well.
        
        That said, the topic of this particular AFD meets both, just not in English. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment - Since the parent was addressing me initially, I want to be clear and say I 100% agree with Schmidt's interpretation of the guidelines. He has phrased it quite clearly, much more so than I could, so I won't add to it. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual has done numerous film and television projects and is written of in multiple non-English sources. A long and verifiable career in film and television projects meets WP:ENT. Notable to Belgium is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia, and being improvable rarely requires an article to be deleted. The man may be WP:UNKNOWNHERE, but he IS known there... and that's what counts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage noted above establishes notability. Secondary guidelines are just that, secondary. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why this was relisted. The "delete" opinions are just assertions, but the "keeps" came with evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Negotiation. Consensus is that this is not needed as an article separate from negotiation. Anything useful and sourced can be merged from history, consensus permitting. Sandstein 10:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiation skills

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

Prodded on the grounds that it reads like an essay. Deporodded on the grounds that it has a source, but it reads like a summary of said source and perhaps even a copyright violation thereof. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows that the topic is indisputably notable, as dozens of books have been published on negotiation skills. The solution to the shortcomings of the current version of the article is to improve it through normal editing, rather than deleting an article about a notable topic. Nominator, please delete any copyright violations that you have identified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, reluctantly. I am deeply suspicious of topics like this. The kind of writing they attract seems to me to usually be tautological moonshine, and the text we have now certainly has aspects of that: There are four basic elements in this alternative approach to negotiation. Very simply, they are:

1. People- Separate the people from the problem

2. Interests – Focus on interests, not positions.

3. Options- Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.

4. Criteria- Insist that the result be based on some objective standard

I also see why this looks like a copyright violation. Authors are cited in the text but not referenced: Whetten and Cameron suggest an integrative approach that takes an “expanding the pie” perspective that uses problem-solving techniques to find win-win outcomes. (Grownups know there are no win-win outcomes, either. More moonshine.) But I am not finding copies of relatively unlikely phrases from this text online elsewhere; if it's a copyright violation, I haven't found it, and if it were a copyright violation I would speedily delete this in a heartbeat. It does read rather essayish-ly, appears to contain original research, and passages of uninformative tautology and bogus lists. I don't like the fact that the world considers a subject like this a real subject; "there's no there there." But it does; sources can easily be found on the topic, and the rest is cleanup, not deletion. Remove original research and meaningless, nonsensical, or tautological passages, and watch for spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea. Selective merge with negotiation and redirect. There's a fair amount of moonshine in there already, that may need to be looked at. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge with negotiation and redirect (per above). Neutrality^talk 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way it is written might be a little of essay type, but the content is original. There are four basic elements in this alternative approach to negotiation as explained by Fred Luthans in his books. And win-win situations do exist in real life, deals like mergers are done to build on profits with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uma8829 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has 8 edits. Neutrality^talk 15:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article simply needs some improvement. Let that happen. -- 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - not complete bollucks, but also not useful as a stand-alone article. Alternately, a merger into negotiation may be attempted. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this page contains anything necessary that Negotiation doesn't already have. With all due respect to Cullen328, we live in an age where self-help books (Writing skills, Money-making skills, Sex skills, etc.) are plentiful and popular. I do not believe that means that such topics are encyclopaedic. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Cullen328 Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems to be an essay put onto Wikipedia. There are problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; even if the article is potentially notable, it would need a complete rewrite to solve all the problems. In any case, I do not believe it to be notable, as I said above. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Livingstone Primary School (disambiguation). The Australian article is here, but since i couldn't in any source for the Zambia one, so I didn't made a article for it, if you get any source any source, please make the article using the content here. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Livingstone Primary School

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

This article is incorrectly about 2 different primary schools. However, there is no reason to split and disambiguate, because neither is notable. Primary schools (unlike high schools) must pass GNG, and there is no evidence that either school does. While the one in Zambia is described as "one of the first in Zambia", that isn't enough. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Until yesterday (7 October), the article was about the school in Zambia. Things like this happen with primary schools. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect as non-notable elementary schools, per standard practice. Establishment of a pair of redirects to the appropriate cities or school districts would, of course, be fine. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Standard practice' is to redirect to school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Change made. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that I understand correctly, are you saying that we create a dab page, with the blue link for each line being a link to the city the school is in (I'm pretty sure we don't even know the school districts, much less have a page for them...heck, for all I know, they don't even have school districts in those locales). This would, by the way, be a fine solution for me. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a DAB page with links to both localities. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We generally redirect rather than delete nn schools, unless they are blatant ads for private institutions. This is an old established precedent, but it's not graven in stone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a suitable redirect target, did you have one in mind? Or are you suggesting creating a disambiguation page? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article is not a dictionary entry, and is a decent article. I have not done the redirect since almost all sources use the current title only. Please feel to correct me if required. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low poly

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

Declined db-reason, with rationale:

there already exists an article with similar info under the name Polygon mesh. The term low-poly does not contain enough info to get it's own page

Procedural nomination; no opinion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is a real term, has some relevant sources and goes into more detail than a dictionary definition so is worthy of inclusion. Polyamorph (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a recognised term (albeit less vital than it used to be) as a distinct quality of rendering that's lower quality, but faster to work with. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Polygonal mesh is the overarching article, yes, but Low poly is a subject that has been discussed extensively and has more than enough information to make it separate from the higher article. Low poly modeling is a staple in practically all programming, modeling, and game designing textbooks. It is a fundamental term and structure to multiple industries. Silver seren^C 16:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to polygon density to avoid the need for high poly, mid poly and ulta-high poly etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkanya

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

Nothing to indicate why this film is notable; one-line article, unreferenced. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and fix through regular editing. Sources are available for this 56-year-old, pre-internet, Hindi film which had the sourcable participation of multiple Hindi notables, C C Desai, Vinod Desai, Manhar Desai, Nalini Jaywant, Smriti Biswas, Bipin Gupta, G M Vyas, Kumar Sunder, Mohammed Rafi, Asha Bhosle, and Chitragupt. If it were unsourcable, a deletion would be a consideration, but we usually hold off on nominating 3-week-old improvable stubs... a better option being tagging them for concerns and allowing allow them to be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG based on those searches, which show countless sources. First Light (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MQS above. Carrite (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lakirein

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

Nothing to indicate why this film is notable; stub article, unreferenced. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and fix through regular editing. Sources are available for this 57-year-old, pre-internet, Hindi film which had the sourcable participation of multiple Hindi notables: Ashok Kumar, Nalini Jaywant, Pran, Durga Khote, Ramayan Tiwari, Cukoo, Sulochana Latkar, Yakub, Kamal, Hafiz Khan, and Talat Mahmood. If it were unsourcable, a deletion would be a consideration, but we usually hold off on nominating 3-week-old improvable stubs... a better option being tagging them for concerns and allowing allow them to be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG based on available sources. First Light (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MQS's argument above. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a difference between things like WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:NSPORTS, and WP:BIO1E or WP:NOTNEWS. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is based on the WP:GNG. BIO1E and NOTNEWS are restrictions on the nature of reliable sources that can be used, i.e. routine coverage in an otherwise reliable newspaper doesn't count, coverage for only one event is insufficient, etc. On the other hand, subject-area notability guidelines are intended to provide alternative ways to meet notability other than GNG. Meeting GNG is almost always sufficient for notability unless the reliable sources are discounted by one of the "restricting" guidelines. That said, this is a no consensus since there's no discussion of whether Hobit's sources are actually good. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kolluru Krishan

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

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. It appears to be a means of getting info about his company on to WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. nn businessman using Wikipedia as advertising; this could almost be speedied under several categories. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had tried doing a speedy deletion... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [45] and the Asianpower article both seem reliable. The "projects" part could stand to go away though. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not establish notability though. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? It meets WP:N. Are you looking at some other definition of notable? Hobit (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the one at WP:ANYBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, you do realize that above ANYBIO the following statement is included: "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."? Hobit (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I am aware of that. Another guideline is WP:CREATIVE. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, color me confused. Are you saying that meeting WP:N isn't enough? WP:CREATIVE has the exact same caveat, so I'm really unclear what your point is. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious use of the encyclopedia for self-promotion. Fails WP:ANYBIO Trusilver 18:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note that hopefully there will be a discussion on ANYBIO/GNG on my talkpage with Trusilver and anyone else who cares to join in. I'd argue that GNG being met makes ANYBIO irrelevant. Trusilver disagrees. Join the fun. And it would probably be good for the closer of this discussion to see if anything relevant is found there. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Waterloo Road characters. Merge them all back to the character list until notability can be established for each individual character Courcelles 00:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Fisher

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

All these articles (except Harry Fisher, which I believe is newly created) have been restored from re-directs to List of Waterloo Road characters by the same user, despite the precedent that has been set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Tyler (2nd nomination). Articles still have no indication of WP:NOTABILITY or significant secondary coverage. Suggest deletion and perhaps even protection against re-creation. U-Mos (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. U-Mos (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur – a characters list article with short bios could be a quality article, I don't think all of these could be. D B D 10:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. U-Mos (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at User talk:Midgetman3 (the user who has re-created all of these) I have suggested that character profiles on the list page would be useful if someone had the time and inclination to include them there (I did remove a very messy and indiscriminate list of characters from there recently, but left to only main characters and given more focus it could be good). U-Mos (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like the way Eastenders have a page, with lots of different characters down it with their info boxes and information, why don't we do that here instead of having lots of different pages. It would make both parties here (Midgetman3 & U-Mos) both happy i'm sure, as it means the characters dont have a page, but they do have all their article amalgamated onto one large page, (in family order). hope this method helps DFTO 11:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontforgetthisone (talk • contribs)

Esentially this is what I'm suggesting, yes. Profile major characters at List of Waterloo Road characters in order of first appearance. U-Mos (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to List of Waterloo Road characters. Waterloo Road typically runs for 20 episodes per year (split into two halves), with many of these minor characters appearing in only one or two of the half-series. For example, Lindsay James, despite having a strong storyline, appeared only in the first half of the 2009-10 season. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Waterloo Road characters. They should be in alpha order there, as in other such articles, not order of appearance (a trivial detail only a true student of the show would be able to figure out). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 16:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and protect against recreation: None of the characters meets the general notability guideline and the articles are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that would be needed if this fair idea goes ahead, just a simple re-direct would make all these different people happy DFTO DFTO 21:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Restore redirects and protect until such time as potential spinout articles meet the GNG. Deletion is not for punishing editors, and no argument has been advanced that these names should not exist as redirects. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable television series; therefore its character deserve their own articles. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like Evans1982 said it is a notable tv series, and like other T.V programmes, they should be allowed to keep their character pages. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all with List of Waterloo Road characters. There is not enough sourced non-in-universe information in these articles to justify entirely separate pages. If you cut the cruft, there is nothing there that cannot be summarised in the main list article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all fail WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games as Stress Release

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

Contested PROD: topic isn't notable; article is essay-like and has only one source. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, it's basically an OR opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - unsourced material put aside, this is complete WP:OR. 11coolguy12 (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be one sentence in Casual video game. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally PRODed it, then it was removed, then rePRODed, then removed, then AfD'd. My reasoning was WP:NOT#ESSAY. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 03:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or to save face for a newbie, merge into Stress management. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as Video Games as Stress Release is sometimes used in occupational therapy and stress management, I can see potential for a decent article. I know little of either field but I suggest no prejudice to article recreation (with WP:RS, etc) if deletion goes ahead. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (natter) 10:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Roland

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

I am not convinced that this French painter is notable per WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. I find no reliably sourced third-party coverage of him, and the museums in which his works are said to be exhibited (the Davis Museum and the Museum of Everything) do not appear to be notable. Sandstein 13:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, and his work does not appear to be in the permanent collection of notable museums and galleries. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not satisfy notability requirements...Modernist (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I have contacted the subject and he has provided several different references. I am not a proficient French speaker and I am not familiar with these sources, so I will leave it to other editors to properly identify these sources.

[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
"Article dans Halden Arbeiderblad Sept 18 2010 "Festivalen er blast i gang""
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]

and others.

theMONO 00:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change opinion to keep. Thanks for providing the sources. Some of this coverage is superficial or not in reliable sources, but in aggregate it does indicate that the subject is taken seriously and reported on as a professional painter in France. Sandstein 10:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelle Jaunay Desroches

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

non-notable actor, doesn't meet WP:ENT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Linked sources thus far provided are inconclusive, if not irrelevant. COI article. 99.170.155.102 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE or indeed WP:GNG. The only two references which actually mention the subject do not meet WP:RS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SoWink

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

Non notable website, I find no relevant matches in GNews that would indicate impact on the historic record and the sources added are either press releases or review websites that review everything new and shiny rather than due to notability. Raising for AfD as prior A7 removed by IP account. Fæ (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - looks like a G11 to me. Danger (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - blatant G11 . Was already speedied and the tpl was removed by creator. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious G11 spam. --Crusio (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eripuram (Errinna Puram)

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

Not encyclopaedic, not notable, not referenced! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources discussing this Hindu myth can be found. I couldn't find anything using a variety of spellings and search terms. I did see a couple of mentions of a valley called Eripuram, translated as "shining hamlet" but nothing about a myth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the author may well be right about the (most likely notable) myth, but the treatment is so poor, unsourced and unlinked that starting over would be easier.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any information salvageable could be included in Shiva, though it could border on trivia. Lynch 7 10:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JVC HD100

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Uri Milstein. No real arguments against merging presented, per WP:ATD Courcelles 00:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

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

Reason: lack of notability Ravpapa (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a self-published book by an historian associated with the Revisionist political movement in Israel. The Jabotinsky society, associated with the Likud party, granted the book a prize for representing its political viewpoint. The book was not reviewed by any major newspaper in Israel or abroad, though its publication was reported in two newspapers. It was never available in any of the major bookstores in Israel, and is unavailable today.

The author is an historian who achieved some renown for his iconoclastic views, particularly on the 1948 war of independence. However, this historian is largely eschewed by the academic community, and does not hold a post in any leading academic institution in Israel or abroad.

I am the principle author of the article in its present form. The article was created by a supporter of the Revisionist movement, in my opinion largely because the title of the book associates the words "blood libel" with the highly disputed military action in the Arab village of Deir Yassin in the 1948 war. Pro-Arab historians contend that the incident was a massacre, a claim hotly denied by Revisionists. Ironically, though, the blood libel in the title does not refer to the pro-Arab charges of massacre, but to the position of contemporary Israeli government spokesmen, who supported the pro-Arab view that the action was a massacre.

As with every discussion on Israel-Palestine matters, partisans will no doubt leap forward to defend the notability of this virtually unknown tome. To those eager debaters, I ask this: have you actually read the book? Have you actually seen the book in a bookstore or a library? Have you ever read a review or a scholarly reference to this book? If it weren't for this Wikipedia article, would you even be aware that this book existed? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I expect that at any moment we'll see users leaping forward to claim that any anti-Palestinian book is inherently notable and that we need to act as an advertising agency for these books in order to avoid systemic bias, but nonetheless, this book was not reviewed or even mentioned in reliable sources, nor cited in Google Scholar, nor won any real awards (the made-up "Order of Jabotinsky" notwithstanding; it's not the same thing as the Jabotinsky Medal), etc., meaning that it plainly fails WP:NBOOK. No debate to be had on this point. User who dePRODed this should be ashamed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Giving a full article to what is clearly a partisan book smacks strongly of POV-pushing. There would need to be clear evidence of its notability. PatGallacher (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have read this book, but probably that is not sufficient proof of its notability ;). It might possibly be citable as a source for Milstein's opinion in some other article, but it doesn't deserve an article of its own. We don't aim to write articles about every polemic book. Zero^talk 13:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention in the bio of the author is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uri Milstein. Its pretty well sourced and can be incorporated into his article.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be described at Uri Milstein. However, we already have an article where notable argument on Deir Yassin can go, so the report at Uri Milstein should not be in the form of an extended presentation of Milstein's argument; just the basic gist of it is enough. Zero^talk 13:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Uri Milstein, per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Seems appropriate here. It is real, and can be mentioned there, but I'm not sure it requires an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am being bold: There appears to be consensus for at least merging this article, if not deleting it entirely. I have therefore added a brief synopsis of the book to Uri Milstein and am changing the article to a redirect. If someone objects strongly, they can always revert. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Bogan

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

This Civil War soldier has the trivial distinction of firing the last cannon shot during Pickett's Charge, nothing else. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously non-notable. Might actually pass the general notability criterion on a technicality, in that there are various US Civil War obsession publications, online and offline, that will mention him, but I'd have to suggest (without quite going George Carlin on the topic) that such sites and zines are not actually independent reliable publications, but devoted to finding and elevating the trivial as long as it has something to do with the Civil War. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mentioned briefy in only one reliable source, namely the 1900 source that Dan Sickles co-authored (what a guy). I see no need to belittle Civil War scholars here. Specialized publications can be exceptionally useful, and it is up to us to make editorial judgments about notability and what is trivial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Battle of Gettysburg and redirect to said article to preserve page history and hence author attribution. Polyamorph (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and nothing here worth merging. There are so many claims to being the first or last to do this or that in the Civil War, and many of them contradictory (e.g. given the number of people who are said to have shot Stonewall Jackson, it is amazing he didn't die of lead poisoning on the spot), that one could debate whether any such claim found in just one source (particularly a speech given 35 years later), can be considered reliable. Further, it is far from certain that reference is being made to the last gun fired in the entire battle. It certainly can't be used (as is done) to claim the last shot (not the same as last gun fired, as in this context 'gun' means cannon) in the whole battle, given that the Kilcavalry charge had yet to occur - the source is clearly referring to the last cannon shot by this regiment during Pickett's charge and we can't go creating pages for the last member of each regiment to shoot during each confrontation within each battle. Other aspects of the page reflect the non-encyclopedic hyperbole typical of Civil War memorials - 'fought in every major engagement of the war'? Really? He was at Shiloh too? and Chattanooga? His role at G'burg is insignificant, only mentioned, it would seem, because he happened to be in the audience when a monument to his regiment was dedicated. No content from this page is appropriate for the Battle of G page, being nothing but trivia. A redirect is likewise inappropriate, since there are a number of equally insignificant Walter Bogans and there is no reason to assume that someone who comes to Wikipedia looking for a man named Walter Bogan is most likely interested in the Battle of Gettysburg. Be gone with it. Agricolae (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Agricolae. Anotherclown (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already recommended deleting, but Agricolae's analysis is apt and compelling. Thanks for noting that the 1900 reference is really nothing more than what we call in 21st century parlance a "shout out" to an old veteran in the audience at the dedication of a monument. I, too, was struck by the "every major engagement" line, but assumed it meant every major engagement that his particular unit fought in. It only takes a couple of hours of study of the Civil War to know that nobody fought in every major engagement of the war. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Golden

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

IMDb shows two directing and one writing credits for two minor films, not "feature films for most of the major studios". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:FILMMAKER, and WP:N more generally. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; lacks reliable sources to prove notability. Also a Google search shows nothing. 11coolguy12 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not appear to be notable.Vincelord (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chipo Chung

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. A nearly unknown character actor with only nine credits, all in minor, non-notable roles. Heck, one of my exes probably has more acting credits than this. While the productions are notable in some cases (Doctor Who), the roles are not. I'm not seeing multiple cases of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The "article" is clearly just a copy-paste of the subject's self-published résumé (I pruned a bunch of name-dropping" trivia from it already – "opposite award-winning [whoever]" junk), has zero independent sources, and doesn't even really make a claim of notability other than having some film/TV credits at all. But not being an abject failure as an actor, and having some minor work in the field, doesn't equate to being a notable actor. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a few independent sources out there. She is a "star" according to Digital Spy [56] which is a bit strong, but according to the impeccably reliable Independent she is an "admirable performer"[57]. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per her verifiable career meeting WP:ENT. Not every actor's career consists of nothing but starring roles in notable productions, and not every film has only one star. ENT does not demand such, and only advises that the multiple roles be "significant"... which I read as being named roles "significant" to plot or storyline", as oposed to credits as named or descriptive and otherwise insigificant background actors. But even without arguing over what that guideline may or may not "mean", we also have multiple secondary sources that speak about the actress in a non-trivial manner, even if not currently used in the article,[58] which gives us a meeting of WP:GNG. The nominator's "ex" notwithstanding, we do not delete improvable articles simply because they need work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering the number of people who have contributed to this article over the last 3 years, the improvements that often follow a deletion nomination haven't exactly flooded in. You would think that when "keepers" have helpfully identified potentally useful sources, some of the creators would pull their fingers out and do some work.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural closure only, fate of article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Fisher Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emily James (Waterloo Road)

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

This article was redirected to List of Waterloo Road characters, but the redirect was subsequently reverted. I see no sourced information here, beyond what is summarised in List of Waterloo Road characters. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect: We do not need more wannabe-articles on minor fictional characters. There's several thousand of these dollops of fanwankery that need to be deleted, really. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request this is closed as superceded by the nomination I have just created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Fisher, which covers all the many re-created articles? U-Mos (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural closure only, fate of article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Fisher Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay James

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

This article was redirected to List of Waterloo Road characters, but the redirect was subsequently reverted. I see no sourced information here, beyond what is summarised in List of Waterloo Road characters. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect: We do not need more wannabe-articles on minor fictional characters. There's several thousand of these dollops of fanwankery that need to be deleted, really. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request this is closed as superceded by the nomination I have just created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Fisher, which covers all the many re-created articles? U-Mos (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Yazbak

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP does not have any significant independent reliable sources to create a reliable biographical encyclopedia entry from. The only Google book/scholar/news searches describe his opposition to vaccination, but do not show why he is notable himself. This has turned his biography page into a WP:COATRACK for his views. Without significant independent source, he fails notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobol (talk • contribs)

No objection to deletion. He's not noteworthy for his accomplishments as a scientist or as a physician, and he doesn't seem to be particularly important among the anti-vaccine charlatans. PubMed returns eight hits, six of which appear to be letters to journal editors, and two are articles in the non-peer-reviewed pseudoscience repository Medical Hypotheses. Among (the relatively few) conspiracy-theorist physicians who spread panic about measles vaccination and imaginary conditions like autistic enterocolitis, individuals like Andrew Wakefield have garnered far more news coverage and had far greater influence. Yazbak seems to be a minor gadfly who has been influenced and guided by the better-known wingnuts of the field; he doesn't appear to be noteworthy in and of himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to clearly fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF. I don't see evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 02:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of minor notoriety in the MMR vaccine wars. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ganpal

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

Article is unverified (besides poorly written and therefore unclear), and no sources for this subject can be found. Author seems less interested in Wikipedia guidelines than in making this article happen, but without reliable sources there cannot be a subject. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I let this situation drag on too long, but even the article creator cannot find reliable sources - see User_talk:Sitush#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FGanpal_2 - Sitush (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we had some solid reliable sources to work with, we could correct the poor writing and resulting lack of clarity. Lacking souces, though, the topic is not notable and the article should be deleted instead of rewritten. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, there's nothing solid here to build on, and with no sources identified/identifiable deletion is the only option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Pets

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

I could only find trivial coverage in reliable sources which does not support notability. Delete per WP:GNG. WP:PROD was changed to a speedy by a user, then removed. Odie5533 (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - not notable, fails GNG, no independent sources. Only purpose is advertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Group Pakistan

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

Non-notable company. Not a big outfit (though I'll grant you that my household couldn't go through 8000 liters of buffalo milk) and no reliable sources claimng any other kind of notability. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company is not notable due to lack of coverage in reliable sources, although the buffalo milk production appears impressive at first glance. Drmies, we do know that a Dutch household needs 8000 liters of cow's milk to function, but that's another issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Cullen, as usual you are correct. And five truckloads of bread. And lots of gestampte muisjes. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had recently PRODed this as not notable, lacking reliable sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources found other than their website to cover that information, nothing on Google News or Google News archive. SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a corporation with $10 Million in capitalization is too small for inclusion here, without signicant coverage in the media. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Horizons

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

The title of the article, A Million Horizons, appears to have been invented by the article's author. Delete per WP:GNG, as there is not significant coverage of the fictitious title. Author contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, not sourced, Google finds nothing on the title, and only one announcement on Review Trailer Website, in Dutch http://www.gamersnet.nl/nieuws/201107/staat_dead_space_3_al_in_de_stijgers/ which certainly isn't enough. The dutch question is "Is Dead Space 3 already in scaffolding?", which I guess means 'are they already building a successor to DS2?' - not exactly inspiring. Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would be notable if it existed. But without any sources in the article, and drawing a blank with Google searches, there's nothing to verify there's any such plans for this sequel, or it will be named this. If it's true the contributing editor has jumped the gun. So delete until such time it can be demonstrated as being real. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect --John (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Off-Beats

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

Not notable separately from KaBlam!; most of the article is a hoax as Nickelodeon never produced a TV series based on the shorts. A few IPs has reverted my redirects several times. Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete may not conform its policy not a notable TV show. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Bjørn Fausa

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

Listing incomplete nomination on behalf of User:Martinfraenebakk, who nominated the article with the following rationale: "As he is not an important person, the article should be deleted from wikipedia." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Chenzw Talk 05:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anirudh chawla

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

Subject of the article may not meet Wiki's notable standards. LongLiveMusic (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one keep comment appears to hand-wave at sources, that there is shown no evidence of existing, and a strong case against them existing is made after the relist. Courcelles 00:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Host Proof Storage

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

I do not think that this encryption technology is likely to be notable per WP:N. The references it cites do not appear to be independent and/or reliable, and there are zero Google Books, News and Scholar hits for this phrase. Sandstein 13:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Host-Proof Storage and Host-Proof Hosting appear to be widely notable terms. References could be improved but article does not need to be deleted. --Kvng (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Michael Mahemoff talked in his book Ajax Design Patterns and on the Ajax Patterns wiki of his book about Host Proof Hosting, the source of Host Proof Storage .--MMpop (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2011 (PST)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I tried to rescue this by filling the citations. However, it looks like the exact term "Host Proof Storage" is used by only one source, this blog posting from Kuapay, and it looks like the article was paigerized mostly from that posting. The diagrams look lifted from that page, which has a copyright asserted. A single blog posting using the term sure sounds like a neologism. To be notable, at least one reliable source independent of the developer would be needed. The book and The use of upper case letters would also seem to assert it is a proper noun, a specific product or service? After all, it sounds like the idea is just a trivial application of encryption on a network, nothing really novel. It just states that three or four times, so could easily be summarized down to a sort paragraph. Perhaps just merge into computer software or Cloud computing security? W Nowicki (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.