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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of dignitaries to visit India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No need for such lists. Obviously, India is a important country and every leader of the world will visit here. Second, this list is incomplete. --Saki ^talk 07:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I made this list BECAUSE I could not find one myself. I have used this in some documents I wrote. Ofcourse the list is incomplete, thats because I cannot find the data required to fill it. This is BECAUSE there are no such lists anywhere. I have put in considerable effort to update this with as much information and as accurate (with sources) as possible. I do not agree that this article is "useless" based on your personal opinion. Furthermore, apart from your claim that it is "useless", there is no other reason for deletion according to the deletion policy. Some class mates have also used this list during their studies for analysis of geopolitical issues. LogicDictates (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of government, Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of state and the articles on U.S. presidential visits. When I think about it, it is actually a damn good idea. Only 3 U.S. presidents have visited India in 60 years; everytime a Pakistani, Chinese leader makes a state visit it is a major event with geopolitical ramifications. Many state visits are major events in the geopolitical history of the country, if not the region. Especially when you want to learn how the evolution of foreign relations of a country just when it got independence - this is like mapping the evolution of foreign policy of a country. The author is not offering original research and as long as reliable sources are used, there should be no problem. However, I strongly recommend Rename to maybe, List of state visits to India - "Dignitaries" is just too vague. Shiva (Visnu) 20:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename and clarify inclusion criteria as per Shiva (Visnu). Pburka (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Shiva (Visnu). Good points, well made, and I see no reason this couldn't constitute a very useful article. --Korruski (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would support a list limited to heads of state and heads of government, like the other lists. this is indiscriminate, & I do not use that word very often. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject to renaming as "List of state visits to India" or similar, and removal of those "dignitaries" who do not qualify for a state visit (such as a Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy). As it stands, the definition of "dignitary" is both too broad and too subjective. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:27, 24 September 2010 (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. WP:NEO does not apply because the sources simply are there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article was originally nominated by proposed deletion, and restored upon request. The prod concern was "The article is a Neologism, based on original theories and conclusions and lacking reliable sources." This is a procedural nomination, at this time I have no opinion since I have not yet had time to review the sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep , because the content covers the topic sufficiently, and the article has acceptable references per WP:RS. Any other problems can be addressed via normal editing of the article. This does appear to be a notable topic. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing to delete, while I cannot review the offline sources, not a single one of the online ones even mentions the term "Jihad satire". As such, this does appear to be a true neologism not supported by the article's sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NEO. Pburka (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have included this on the terrorism-related deletion log.
• Keep I have added material and will add more. I created the article. But I hardly "invented" the concept. The article was featured on DKY, which does undergo review. And as to the assertion that this is article is "based on original theories and conclusions and lacking reliable sources..." I do hope that editors will look at the sources.AMuseo (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you please specify which source uses the term "Jihad satire"? That would help very much in evaluating it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to admit that I didn't catch on to the synthesis, and original research part of this article. Now I see what all the fuss is about. I like the idea of the article, it has useful content, however it will have to be rewritten to reflect secondary source coverage. See WP:NEO for more information. I haven't changed my "keep", but the article will have to be rewritten to comply with policy. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A discussion of reorganizing the article should take place on the talk page, not on an AFD. There are sources for 'Jihad satire" (such as the Wall Street Journal article in tn citations), sources for "satire of jihadists", and other variants including a fairly formal article in the Atlantic Monthly called ""The Case for Calling Them Nitwits". By all means, let's close this AFD and figure this out on the talk page.AMuseo (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article may have to be reformatted and renamed as discussed above, but that should take place at the talk page, not afd. What's clear is that the general topic is notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Brewcrewer, well said - that's what I was trying to say - "general topic is notable" - but got tongue-tied. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I dunno. I think the fundamental aspects of this article are both notable and verifiable, but should possibly be under a different title and maybe merged into a broader article on political satire or humour related to Islam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think WP:NEO can apply here. There are undoubtedly a number of WP:RS that discuss the use of satire and humour to diffuse the threat of Jihad-inspired terrorism and to discourage people from undertaking it. The name of the article might not be "correct", but the article has clearly established its notability. Bigger digger (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although the topic title is not necessarily definitely defined, the sources due attest to the topic's notability.Smallman12q (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^gossip 23:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Author has created this neologism through the synthesis of multiple sources. SnottyWong ^gossip 23:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep . The term 'Jihad Satire' is heavily in use - a google search can verify that, so it's no longer a Neologism. I do however think the article needs a bit of work, to use the sources that can be turned up by such a search. Porterjoh (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is notable, and the name is fine. Plenty of news mention of using satire to prevent terrorists from recruiting people to jihad. Dream Focus 14:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and probably move to Humor and Islamic terrorism or similar. As many in this discussion have noted, the cited sources show that there is a real topic here, but the actual term "Jihad satire" doesn't seem to be sufficiently established. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1) A Facebook group hardly meets the criteria for notability. 2) The introductory paragraph on the WP page and the Facebook page are identical, so one was lifted from the other, and either way, self-reference is not notability. 3) Parts of the article are synthesis and some seems to be original research.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2010 (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 keep - the nomination argument is entirely invalid. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Defense Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Good Evening Per my COS i have been tasked with the proposed deletion of this Wikipedia page. on the grounds that the VDF did not create this page nor did the user have the permission to do so. we would like to request that the page be taken down unitl we can put up information, OR locked for editing and user account DAVISGLRI be allowed to edit. please feel free to contact me on my user talk page or send an email to VDFINFO@VDF.Virginia.Gov thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisglri (talk • contribs) 16 September 2010

• Comment: I have referred the nominator to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem. In the meantime, I have fixed the malformed AfD nomination with no judgment on the merits of the nomination. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Not a valid reason for deletion as you have no "ownership" over an article about you or your company. Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information Yoenit (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sourcing could stand improvement, but no other apparent problems. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep that is not a good reason for deletion, besides the topic is notable, Sadads (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: self-requested deletion is a courtesy we normally only apply to biographies of living people. The state defense force is clearly notable. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: clearly notable and I cannot see any legal issues that would require it to be locked or even deleted. All users, including the nominator, can expand the article if they wish/or are concerned about its content. I cannot see any reason to treat this differently to any other article about an organisation, business or military. Anotherclown (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2010 (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 close Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Lobake National Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Procedural nom. Incompletely nominated by IP with rationale of "I think this is the same as Parc national de Lobeke or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobeke_Lob%C3%A9k%C3%A9_National_Park and Lobake is a typo." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the incorrect procedure. If I'm not mistaken you don't want to delete the articles, you have just idientified a duplicate article that's all. A simple redirect will suffice into one article which I've done and will begin expansion on it tomorrow. Unless of course you think a national park truly not notable? Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dr Blofeld, just merge 'em. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is already done, so I suppose somebody can close this Yoenit (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete. Odd, non-standard, blog information apparently furnished by subject. Needs to be deleted and start over after notability determined by npov editor. Needs to be deleted and rewritten in sandbox, at best IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete deleted under A7 two previous times, and although the writing is pretty confused (very likely non-native English speaker) I still see nothing that passes WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Half of the article is about the page being deleted in the first place. --Deathawk (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Speedy delete, no indication of notability; in fact the writer admits he is not very notable. He should be encouraged to move the information to his userpage, User:Wsdjr, where it would be perfectly appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing here to pass the notability criteria for musicians and nothing "out there" either - all self-published, and very little of even that. At most userfy it, but it has no business in main space even without the rambling preamble. There are also BLP issues here, even if they are self-inflicted. Given the multiple attempts at recreation, I'd suggest salting it, frankly. In addition to the 2 previous A7 deletes for this title, note also this this, this, and this. Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Humes Haney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of this writer Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are some possible sources at Google Scholar, as well as at Google books. She died B.W.E. (Before Wikipedia Era), so Google Ghits won't help much. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Per GBooks, she has written a number of books and has been referenced in others. A "notable feminist leader" per this source and a "distinguished woman scholar" per this one. In Maine, there is a fund in her name: http://www.haneyfund.org/ Still, I'm not familiar with her work enough to know her impact on it. Location (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. If we can find a few sources, one or two will do, then I think we should keep it, but at the moment there is not a lot there. A few sources and then a bit more information (perhaps even unsourced) and we should keep it. Right now though, there really isn't anything to the article, nothing enticing the other editors to work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfaze (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 23:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - At this point, this article qualifies for a WP:BLPPROD. SnottyWong ^talk 23:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was created in 2007 though?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I might be mistaken, but is the BLP policy not meant for living persons (I believe it says somewhere that "it does not apply to the deceased"). As Elly Haney died in 1999, I do not think that policy is applicable. --JHvW (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I click the Google news search at the top of this AFD, and the first result is a news article all about her. [1] Clearly notable. Dream Focus 14:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She appears to be notable. The Bangor Daily News says she has had "a major impact on Maine." [2]. She received an award from the University of Maine. [3]. The United Church Foundation established a "Eleanor Humes Haney fund". --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added these references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LibInfo by Concepts Integrated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Disputed prod. Claims to be one of the most popular library automation software in South Asia but offers no evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if it IS true (and we don't know), I still don't think it would be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unreferenced, no 3rd party sources to establish notability, and created by single-purpose account, so possibly promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't establish notability, essentially no ghits for libinfo "concepts integrated", SPA. (in any event would need a move to LibInfo) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dialectric. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galactico's Athletic FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can find no evidence that supports claim of 'oldest amateur football club in the world.' Club appears to be a very new amateur club. The history seems to be a hoax. Fails WP:CLUB. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete absolutely reeks of hoax, and even if true an amateur club at that level and formed last year is extremely non-notable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not verified, don't believe it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely a hoax. Drewbug (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It looks like they exist, but there's nothing to grant them notability or back up any of the stuff in the article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, so it exists, but the only claim to notability was the supposed long history of the old club. That is still unverified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nowhere near notable enough. GiantSnowman 12:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - most of the article is a hoax. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - bar the last five sentences, which describe a completely non-notable team, everything in the article is absolute and utter rubbish. An Aboriginal player in an English football team in 1882? A football club "famously sold for a donkey and a packet of playing cards"? Yeah right. And as a former Classics student I have to say the supposed motto is the worst attempt to write in Latin I've ever seen -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amused to note that the article creator's only other edits largely focus on repeatedly adding himself to the list of famous supporters at Everton F.C. supporters......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - even if the bit about the club having been formed in 1871 was true (as opposed to a great steaming pile of cow poo) that wouldn't make them the oldest amateur club in the world anyway, as Queen's Park F.C. was formed in 1867........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Either a deliberate hoax, or a massive in-joke. Either way, it's got no business being on Wikipedia. --Korruski (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• snowy delete though I'm sad to see such creative writing be deleted. if only it were referenced. Sandman888 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Looks like they do exist. The content needs to be verified but that isn't a reason to delete. 72.58.66.148 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely existing is not sufficient to merit a WP article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hoaxiness aside, this club plays in the 2nd division of the Warrington Sunday League, well below the commonly used cut-off point for football club notability, and there's no evidence they pass general notability guidelines. Bettia (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable amateur club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - amateur club with no claim to notability. Jogurney (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article lacks notability—and references. Supertouch (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather obvious that I was mistaken in listing this article for AFD now that the page has references. I will leave it here though for a short while. Supertouch (talk)

• Keep. Meets WP:PROF #1 due to his "pioneering work on Maxwell's demon".[4] Searching various combinations of his name, "Landauer-Penrose-Bennett", and "Maxwell's demon" turns up enough sources to support notability. Being a member of a family with other well-known family members is icing on the cake. I agree with the nom that the article needs sourcing and expansion to better demonstrate the notability of this subject. Location (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Actually, being related to notable people is depreciated as a source of notability. And the link you provide doesn't lead to anything about Maxwell's Demon. Abductive (reasoning) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good thing that we're not actually relying on his family to define his notability. And the link points to a source that explicitly describes the subject's work on Maxwell's demon as "pioneering" (click "Page xii >>" in the above link). Location (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was the one who added the references. It only took a little searching to find that, in his fields of study and especially in terms of Maxwell's Demon, he is a big figure and fairly important, having come up with various theories that have had an impact on multiple fields. Silverseren^C 16:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The citation record gives him a pass of WP:PROF #1, and the FRS gives him a pass of #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Absurd and time wasting nomination; look at the GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable now that refs have been added. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The links don't lead to what people seem to be saying they lead to. Abductive (reasoning) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball team captains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Completely unreferenced article that subjectively describes a concept that, as far as I know, is not officially defined anywhere in the official rules of baseball. Only three (out of 30) teams have officially named captains, two of which have sufficient notability to have their own articles (List of New York Yankees team captains and List of Boston Red Sox captains). The concept as it applies to Major League Baseball as a whole is not notable. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kuyabribri. It unsourced, and only 10% of teams bother to have a captain at all. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll withdraw my delete for now, but without some improvements that verify the importance of the subject, this could be a subject for another AfD in the future. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this could have been notable if all teams have captains; but since that is not the case, such list is unnecessary—Chris!_c/t 19:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Chris!_c/t 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly because of the lack of sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 19:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdrew my vote for deletion, as it was based on the lack of sources, something that has been fixed. I'm still not voting for keeping, as the article is pretty short and at the moment I'm unsure about it, should it be deleted or not. I take some time to consider, and then maybe vote again. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For lack of sources and lack of reason to be a stand-alone list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As a concept, it is merely an honorary title. Any references that could be added, I suspect would just state "so-and-so was named Captain", without adding context or meaning to the title.Neonblak ^talk - 22:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - The comments in this AFD suffer from "recentism." The position of team captain has a long history in baseball. During the 19th and early 20th century many or most teams had a player designated as team captain, and he was expected to carry out many of the responsibilities now handled by managers or coaches. A check of Google Books finds team captains mentioned in dozens of books [5]. MLB's official rules do, in fact, briefly mention a team captain (see rule 4.01 on p. 32 of [6]) in a context in which responsibility for the team's lineup may be assigned either to the manager or the captain. I'll try to add a few references. It may be tough to write a long article, but a well-referenced short article is certainly possible and appropriate for Wikipedia. BRMo (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've expanded the article a little and added some references. If this article is kept, I'd recommend moving it to Team captain (baseball) or Captain (baseball); team captains are probably more important in youth and college baseball than in MLB, and it doesn't make sense to have an article specific to MLB without having the more general article. BRMo (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination in light of recent expansion and referencing, and move to Captain (baseball). Article as it is written now applies more to baseball as a whole, not just to MLB, and is an appropriate short article. I will ask all the outstanding delete !voters to reconsider. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think moving to Captain (baseball) is a good idea.—Chris!_c/t 19:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the nomination being withdrawn, I will remove my "delete" recomendation. However, the comments made by BRMo support my position that the Captain title is an honorary one, and has been for at least the last 110 years, I wouldn't call objections in this realm "recentism". Captain used to refer to the person operating the club on field, which is what the Manager does now, so in effect, they are the same position, different name. The honorary title of Captain, that is being used today, has no precedent.Neonblak ^talk - 19:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mostly agree with Neonblak, but with a caveat regarding timing. When I read newspapers from the period 1900–1930, they seem to treat the captain as an important position on a major league team. I haven't run across an article defining what the captain's responsibilities actually were, but it would make sense that when coaching staffs were still small, a senior player would serve in a coach-like role. I've actually seen more documentation of this in accounts of the Negro leagues, where teams generally didn't carry coaches. There, newspapers sometimes report that the captain, rather than the manager, switched pitchers or called plays. For the last 70 years or so, though, I'll certainly agree that the captain has been strictly honorary in professional baseball. BRMo (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official rules from an 1898 Spalding Guide confirm my guess that baseball captains in the late 19th and early 20th century carried many of the on-field responsibilities now assigned to managers and coaches. I've updated the article with this information. BRMo (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article seems to have relevant information regarding a notable - albeit uncommon - institution/tradition within baseball: team Captain. A word of caution: we don't delete WP articles simply because we don't think their topic is notable. We delete WP articles when virtually no one, outside those directly involved, thinks the article's topic is notable. BlueRobe (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep captains is a notable distinction even in baseball. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per new sources and nominator's request to withdraw request for deletion. We may only have three captains now, but great importance was placed on this title in baseball's early days for many decades. Move to Captain (baseball) for clarity. Vodello (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This person doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria described in WP:COMPOSER. Aside from that, this article doesn't include any third party sources that establish his notability. Mishtik11 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Composes music for films, mostly non-notable films. No awards or other recognition to make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATH (had a brief spell at Chester but didn't make an appearance). Only coverage of him seems to be this which isn't sufficient due to WP:BLP1E. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - without significant coverage, or appearances in a fully proffessional league, this player fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm at a loss to explain how this article has survived for over four years! And why is there an external link to Barclay's bank? Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No indication that he meets any of our notability standards, and a quick trip to Google News wasn't of any help. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails notability guidelines. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Repeatedly recreated. Many "references", which are simply links to corporate websites, but other than the first reference, no reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. tedder (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, he's not mentioned in most of the sources, and I see no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable; peacockish article. If the article keeps getting recreated, maybe it should be salted as well. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophers and scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Prod declined in August 2008. Despite the broad-encompassing title, it appears the original intent of this article was for it to be a list of philosophers and scientists from Turkey, but at some point it was converted into a dab page. The original intent is, to me, an odd intersection of three otherwise notable subjects that is redundant with Category:Turkish scientists and Category:Turkish philosophers, while the dab page incarnation does not list articles of the same title. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The title only makes sense when it is a combined list, as a dab to two separate lists it is utterly useless. Yoenit (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A case of creating an ambiguity in order to have a page to cure the ambiguity. It's analogous to having a "list of apples and oranges" that has links to "list of apples" and "list of oranges". Mandsford 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete philosophers and scientists are two distinct concepts; there is no reason to combine them.—Chris!_c/t 19:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Chris!_c/t 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Content is links to two list pages. Ummmm, neither necessary nor useful. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant as there's already a Lists of people by occupation. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2010 (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. I understand the WP:IAR argument about WP:CHILDPROTECT, which is as much a policy as WP:NOTCENSORED, but it is unlikely that this page would be of much use to pedophiles who wish to meet each other or their targets. Returning to the more usual arguments, we have WP:OR and WP:COATRACK on the "delete" side, while the "keep" side points out the LOC classification and the sources, and that the problems are potentially surmountable. Overall, this is a pretty balanced debate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

per WP:IAR. This was an article longtime tagged WP:OR that I had redirected to WP:Child protection per WP:BOLD. The redirct was contested by Delicious Carbumcle. I feel this is a classic case of WP:NOT#IINFO/DIRECTORY. This laundry list of a rather contrived sub-sub-genre which is supposedly "limited to works of fiction, memoirs and non-fiction books in the English language. Books first published in other languages are listed when an English translation has been published. Scientific, professional, medical, research studies and self-help books on child sexual abuse are generally not included". It could be just as easily dealt with by using the category Category:Pedophilia. I also feel that due to the sensitivy of the topic, it would be desirable to forestall any potential WP:ADVOCACY by having it deleted. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The redirect was quite obviously improper, which was why I reverted it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The redirect was a bad idea and really makes no sense at all. Deletion, however, does. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To elaborate: This vote has nothing to do with the content. It simply is not a notable reason to list books, it can never be remotely complete, and in many ways is purely subjective. However, there is no justification whatsoever for redirecting it to the WP namespace. First of all, the likelihood of someone ever coming to this article is nil unless from Google. So, someone clicks from Google and gets this pedantic page saying "Wikipedia cares"... about what? What on earth does that have to do with this list? If you're suggesting everyone coming to this article needs to be redirected to a page saying how evil pedophiles are, with no encyclopedic information, you're insulting a lot of people with no benefit. I can't think of any other gotcha redirects on WP, and I see no reason for this to be the first. The policy page has zero whatsoever to do with this article, which should be deleted on its own merits and no redirect left behind. I'm amazed people are supporting the redirect, frankly. --Golbez (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or maintain redirect I agreed with the redirect but if people are going to keep reverting it, I agree with deletion. I can't really highlight anything else that Ohconfucius hasn't pointed out already. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 16:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This page cannot avoid being a hub for pedophiles who are interested in either meeting each other, working together, or encouraging interaction with minors (I find it regrettable that so many times ones sees "young adult literature" appended to the titles—quite unsourced, of course). In this respect, there is clear relevance of either a breach of the new policy WP:CHILDPROTECT or a failure to obey it in principle. In particular, that policy states, "Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked. The history log shows the work of one user who has been indeffed for promoting such relationships, and who is possibly a sock of a user previously indeffed for the same reason.

  With some notable exceptions (a small minority are what you might call works of literary value), the items are of low to very low in quality (kidie-porn would be a kind description). The articles on those books tend to be based on unsourced claims, and appear to comprise mostly poorly written synopses that focus on matters sexual between adults and children, or less often between children—whether platonic or actual physical sex. Until yesterday morning, the page included such gems as "Mother encourages her husband to sleep with their daughters, Mother tries to sleep with her own Father, Mother gets in bed nude to talk with daughter and son who've just finished sex."—redundant given there's a link target to the article on the book in question, unsourced, even in that article; and unbalanced, given the sole concentration on nakedness and sex—it is, frankly, tittillatory, and totally lacks an educational or reseach function. While that has now been removed, the nature of such a hub on a wiki is that the tittillatory creeps back little by little when we give it the imprimatur by retaining the list. The redundant teasers suggest that Ohconfucius's observation that "Wikipedia is not a directory" is relevant here.

  Most items listed, and certainly all of those that could lay claims to notability, are contained within other, much more suitable categories that themselves do not call into question the child-protection policy.

  This poorly constructed list breaches a number of policies and should be deleted. Tony (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete aside from the whole subject topic, I do not believe these types of incomplete and subjective book lists belong on wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I disagree with some of the earlier delete rationales, but I support deletion on the grounds that this is a mostly indiscriminate and arbitrary categorization, similar to the now-deleted List of songs featuring hand claps. Gigs (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete aside from the problematic subject matter, how do we know that if the books are indeed portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors? I don't see sources on a majority of books here.—Chris!_c/t 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, primarily original research. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Chris!_c/t 19:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable topic with reasonable level of presence in literary arena and popular culture. Library of Congress has this as a subject heading(s) so OR can be avoided; indeed, see article before it was reduced. Deletion rationales not valid. Redirect to WP:CHILDPROTECT?? I think that shows the premise of this nomination. Problems with the article can be fixed. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles about the books, there's no reason not to list them, and redirects from article space to project space is never done. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reasonings are not necessarily about censorship, there are valid reasons independent from the content to remove it. There are reasons not to list them when the list is subjective and not useful; as was pointed out above, I'm sure we have lots of articles on songs that include hand clapping, but that doesn't mean we make a list of them. --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I suggest removing Category:Pederastic literature, as that, too, is subjective and not useful. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. Also, you're kind of proving my point - if such a thing can be handled in a category, it should be, and usually lists without any commentary should, if they're kept around, be made into a category. You still haven't given a reason why this list, as it is, should be kept, apart from "censorship" which is not the primary reason for removing it anyway, it just became that way because someone misguidedly redirected it to WP space. --Golbez (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying that. You're saying delete this, for emotional and non-policy based reasons, and I'm pointing out the inconsistancy of your opinion. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I literally just gave a perfectly valid objective and policy-based reason (replace a context-free list with a category), among my other non-emotional reasons (I question whether you actually read my post). The only inconsistency here is the deviation between my words and your interpretation of them. --Golbez (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I seem to have angered a few here by applying that redirect, but independently of that, nobody appears to have explained why a category couldn't and doesn't do the job as well if not better than this list. It is Everard's own inconsistent nonsense to suggest that if the list goes, so should Category:Pederastic literature, for their existences are independent of each other. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a fascinating list. Most of the titles are unfamiliar to me, but Lolita is obvious; Color Purple, too. Had to refresh myself on Memoirs of a Geisha and Suddenly Last Summer. Interested to know where the child sex abuse is in Leaves of Grass. In any event, interesting list and I think notable. Predation is a legitimate concern. Monitoring should address that. Lionel (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monitoring" of what? What does that statement really have to do with this? --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Question. The list is curious. For the most part it's of books of which I've never heard. I picked the first among them (Acid Row) that was in genuinely alphabetical order, and read that it is a 2001 novel by crime-writer Minette Walters. The novel examines contemporary reactions to paedophilia and resulting urban rioting, and was shortlisted for the Crime Writers' Association Gold Dagger. And that was all, with no references. A crap article, though for all I know a fine novel. ¶ The next one is Bait. More precisely, it's Bait (novel). However, there's no such article; it's instead a redirect to Alex Sánchez (author). And what do we learn there about Bait? That (i) His novel, Bait, about a teenage boy struggling with secrets from his past was released in June, 2009. And that (ii) Bait (2009): Florida Book Award Gold Medal for Young Adult Fiction. No sourcing for either, and no assertion that it's about pedophilia or similar. ¶ But of course there's some good stuff here, supreme among them Lolita, which is in the Category:Novels with an ephebophilia theme. How is categorization inadequate? -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, the articles here on most children's books are a disgrace, being largely written either by naïve children or by publicists. I have tried to get two close friends who are professionals in children's literature to work on them, but they won't go near Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a familiar story. Rather like the articles on the grammar of English, many of which are written by people for whom "grammar" is what's written in silliest of the prescriptive grammar books that mindlessly repeat what similar, older books have said. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The criterion as always is a notable work where it's a significant part of the plot. In all the books I know myself the appropriateness is unmistakable. In some of the ones I don;t , from the plot description it's also obvious. In a few it is not from the material immediately available to me, but if any is reasonably questioned, then some source is needed--as a notable book has reviews, this will normally be mentioned in any review, that should settle the issue. inclusion of any is challenged, a cite may be required. A few of the books do not have articles, but for most, such as the classics by de Sade, they obviously should; a the one or two others would seem right also. but there is a caveat--this should be limited to novels. If we're going to have a list of every notable non-fiction book that concerns these topics, the criteria might be a little trickier & the list should be separate.

The arguments that this list is inappropriate for child protection reasons are a direct contradiction of NOT CENSORED, as was the redirect. Some of the books, again, de Sade being the example, are in my opinion fall into the category of famous pornography. Our articles, & our list, is not however for a pornographic purpose nor can it be said to promote child pornography. The description of sexual acts involving children in fiction has probably contributed greatly to the current increased awareness of these acts in RL, and the consequent public revulsion.

The fact that NOT CENSORED is relevant is shown by the attempt at the redirect, which was most certainly censorship, and the comment that the list is "a hub for pedophiles" (a comment which in any case is pure hysteria.) (& those actions/comments came from the 2 leading advocates of deletion of the article). The attempt to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Aside from the explicit motivation I just mentioned, most of the arguments against this list would not be made otherwise. The comparison to books about hand-clapping is the weakest of straw men imaginable. The statement that the books could be covered in other categories is absurd--ever item in Wikipedia could be in another category. The comment that most of the works are of low quality is irrelevant and absurd, considering that quality is irrelevant to a book being notable--and in fact I think the statement is false--the children's books I did not know are generally prize-winners. As for the prior annotations, I would certainly defend them, but it seems as if that discussion may need to be settled in a RfC. (as for objectivity there, we can always use quotes from the books or the reviews.) Suggesting a inclusion in only the category Pedophilia is drastic undercategorization. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that the books could be covered in other categories is absurd--ever item in Wikipedia could be in another category. Let's take "item" to mean list. Yes, List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords) could indeed be "Category:National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords)" (or some less awkward title). However, (i) most of the items that constitute that list article do not now have their own articles, and if they did exist such articles would be short and uninteresting; and (ii) every item in the list has a terse but informative description, making the list much more than the sum of its parts. So conversion of that list to a category would be tedious and detrimental. Just where would the absurdity be here, DGG? -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is hysteria. Pedophilia and the sexual abuse of children are written about in fiction, and it is useful to readers to have this list as a reference. There is no advocacy occurring here, and deleting this list will not protect children. Are you going to delete Lolita too? People researching the issue of the fictional depiction of child sex abuse will find this useful, and only bluelinks are included so this is not a grubby list of self-published fantasising. Problems with unsourced summaries or questionable entries are dealt with by editing, not deletion, same as any other list. I edited this list to add The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer, so is Tony going to directly accuse me of being a pedophile? Fences&Windows 02:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has proposed that Lolita should be deleted. (Were anyone to propose it, I would stoutly oppose.) Are you saying that Tony accuses anyone who adds a book to this list of being a pedophile; and if not, just what are you saying about him? And where, exactly, is the hysteria? ¶ Questions aside, a reality check. For almost two hours before you wrote this keep vote of yours, the current version had been this one (which remains the current version as I write). You say "only bluelinks are included". Untrue. Yes, most of the links were and are blue, but some weren't and aren't. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This page cannot avoid being a hub for pedophiles who are interested in either meeting each other, working together, or encouraging interaction with minors" implicitly argues that those who add to this article are pedophiles. It's also a false argument, as this page can avoid being a playground for pedophiles just the same as any other articles they might be interested in. The hysteria is suggesting that this list of books can be used to harm children. The point about Lolita is that the exact same arguments about attracting pedophiles made to support deletion also apply to that article. Sure, take a close look at anyone who spends too much time editing this article (the same as with any articles on this subject, and I do see now that someone who heavily edited this article was recently indeffed as a returned banned user, no surprises for guessing what they might've been banned for...), but just because pedophiles might get a thrill out of the books it doesn't mean we shouldn't list them. Previous versions may have had redlinks to non-notable books (redlinks to notable books are fine), but clean up has been conducted, so that's not an issue now. Fences&Windows 02:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder about assertion that you quote at the head of your comment. But for the sake of argument, I'll assume for a moment that it's true. It neither argues nor implies that people adding to the article are pedophiles. (Compare: (a) "The 'Snail and Rucola' pub cannot avoid being a hub for binge drinkers." (b) "People who buy a drink at the 'Snail and Rucola' pub are binge drinkers".) -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic of this list, pedophilia and sexual abuse of minors in literature, is perfectly notable (see gBooks results). The criteria for inclusion seem simple enough to define (pedophilia/child sex abuse is a main theme of the book, and the list contains only redlinks), so all that is needed are references, which should be added rather than deleting the article. Wikipedia is not censored, so as long as this list does not promote pedophilia, it is acceptable. —fetch·comms 02:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a difference between googling (whether generally or in books or whatever) for three words and googling for the string (marked by quotation marks) of those three words. Try this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know. And I didn't use quotations for a purpose. In my search, the fourth result also seemed promising. But it did not say "pedophilia in literature" without any words in between. It said "This imagery explains the popularity of clerical sexual exploitation in anticolonial literature". Yes, using quotes is good most of the time. But "pedophilia in literature" is not a well-defined phrase; that is, there are many ways to say the same thing and I did not want to exclude those ways from my search. —fetch·comms 21:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is currently rotten with unsourced and erroneous claims and Original Research. IMO it will always be a magnet for OR. Of the books I have read in that list, the majority clearly do not belong there.
  Given the way Wikipedia works, the right approach to presenting this information is as a category, not a list in mainspace. (We might have to restructure the relevant categories.) That focuses discussion at the individual articles about books, where people who know about the books can get involved; having the discussion at a separate list-of article has not produced trustworthy content, and probably never will produce useful content. Cheers, CWC 03:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are a boatload of bluelinks here. That seems to indicate a useful list. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could create a list of everyone with an article with the letter "h" as the second letter in their name. It would be entirely bluelinks, and it would be entirely useless. A list having bluelinks is not in itself an indicator of usefulness. --Golbez (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Fetchcomms and F&W. (e.c.) "Wikipedia is not censored"—wrong, actually, if you want to put it in such bald terms. Just as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is wrong (not if you're a blocked user, or topic-banned). All freedoms come with a few of the rough edges smoothed out.

  A better argument is required than that same old one that's dragged out, by implication: that removing a dysfunctional, redundant, poorly constructed, or socially tendentious page amounts to censorship. It is socially tendentious because it attempts to organise a large amount of information of highly questionable notability that appears to be largely for titillation and arousal, rather than educational or research value.

  I see someone above has used an argument that there is worthy material listed; yes, but the little that is worthy—even by the lowest literary standards—is freely accessible under other, more intuitive categories and lists. Here, these worthy titles are drowned out by the dross. I'm not being an intellectual snob, nor, if you please, a sexual prude (nothing like it); but have a look at some of those articles. They are mostly unreferenced (even the claim to be "young adult" literature is unreferenced), so who could tell whether they are a product of some user's fervent imagination. They are usually appallingly written, and many comprise a rather unbalanced synopsis of a storyline that is yawn-material (these books once sold because they titillate a narrow demographic).

  We do a disservice to users by mixing a few good books in with so much rubbish. Inclusion by a single criterion (depicts pedophile activity and/or child sexual abuse) has produced a bad result for any serious intellectual inquiry or educational purpose. Tony (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes, it is technically censored, but for the purposes of this article, it's a valid topic, so deleting it doesn't make sense. I don't quite understand the rest of your comment—did you mean that people may be adding into the list non-pedophilic books, or that the books themselves in the list depict fantastical elements and that the books are rubbish? Lolita is a well-known and highly regarded book with a main theme of pedophilia, but yes, there are many trashy novels about the subject, too. However, that doesn't mean they should not be included on a list whose criteria they fit. Adding references for the listings is something that needs to be done independent of AfD. —fetch·comms 21:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not redirect to WP:Child protection ; that makes absolutely no sense. Books with these themes scenes may advocate for or against, or make no judgment on the issue. A memoir by an abuse survivor is not an advocacy book for child sexual abuse. Mystic River (novel) is a novel containing child sexual abuse, but which is not an advocacy book. Either keep or delete, do not redirect. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the nom's arguments are invalid and nonsensical. This is a list of notable books grouped by a significant shared theme. That this is a Library of Congress classification establishes for me beyond all doubt that this theme is encyclopedic and verifiable. Redirecting to WP:Child protection is one of the most absurd proposals I've ever seen here. postdlf (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even though I'm an Inclusionist, I don't believe that this list belongs on WP. For the nebulous benefit the article might have, it has tremendous capacity for bad publicity (you just know which one of the 3,416,546 articles is going to be quoted by a journalist wanting to tip a bucket on WP). With the lack of referencing, this page appears (at best) as OR, and (at worst) little more than an atrocious happy-hunting ground.  HWV258.  20:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think publicity should affect whether this article is deleted or not. We get bad publicity because people accuse our admins of bias against a certain ethnic group or a religious ideal or whatever. —fetch·comms 21:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You write two sentences. Whether or not I agree with it, I understand each. But I don't understand the combination. Are you perhaps implying that a list such as this would not create bad publicity? If this is what you are implying, are you perhaps underestimating the degree to which the English-language mass media pander to and encourage stupidity? The Onion News Network and Colbert Nation are only slight tweaks to what's widely and straightfacedly consumed as "news" or "current affairs". -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've already addressed the OR issue. The Library of Congress has various headings pertinent to this article; see previous versions of this article that did use these headings. Sources can document a fiction as being substantially about paedophilia / child sexual abuse. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolutely delete. Ohconfucius states the case well enough. Others filled in more details. Why not use the existing cat? Delete it and then salt it a bit. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as grotesquely confused and useless. ¶ Let's see what it actually says. The list is primarily limited to works of fiction, memoirs and non-fiction books in the English language. Why? What's the construct validity or the relationship with the title? ¶ Books first published in other languages are listed when an English translation has been published. Well, yes -- but we'd already read that the material was "in the English language", and not that it was "written in the English language". ¶ [S]elf-help books on child sexual abuse are generally not included. I don't know what these books would be. ¶ Scientific, professional, medical, research studies [...] are generally not included. This suggests to me a perverse exclusion of those books that are likely to be the most worthwhile. ¶ So anyway, we seem to be in for a list of books that an airport bookstall might consider stocking. But no! Every item bar one at the end is fiction. Whoa, not so fast! Among the fiction is "Beyond the Tears: A True Survivor's Story" by Lynn C. Tolson. Is this fiction, or isn't it? (It needn't be: these days we shouldn't blink at novels being waggishly described by their authors as "true stories". Plus of course there's the genre of fraudulent confessional.) Hard to say immediately: contrary to what's airily written above, there are several not-blue-links, and this is one of them. ¶ Let's look at a section of what does appear to be fiction. I choose the "C"s, and in the description use "pedophilia" as shorthand for "paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors". Chain of Evidence: article says nothing about pedophilia. The Color Purple: don't know; I got bogged down reading the he-did, she-did. Counterfeit Son: seems to fit (NB the article is completely unsourced). Corydon: described as a set of essays. If they're essays, why's this being touted as fiction? And the article on it (completely unsourced) says nothing about pedophilia. The Counterfeiters: article (which is completely unsourced) says nothing about pedophilia. The Crucible: yes, this one fits. The Cat Who Walks Through Walls: article (which is completely unsourced) says nothing about pedophilia. ¶ This article is wretched. If a list of this title were intrinsically worthwhile (and I see no reason why it should be), then well over half of the current content should be cut. But even then it would have no advantage over a category. And categories -- more precise categories -- already exist, as we see with Category:Novels with an ephebophilia theme. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear,-- in this case--such information as author and date as a minimum--thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that their existences are independent of each other. However, although there is no reason not to have both, there is equally no reason why we must have both. I don't feel that anybody has demonstrated the value added in keeping this list of 'd-list' paedophile porn. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful how you characterize Lolita, Ohconfucius, or you might succeed in irritating me [emoticon]. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is a straightforward coatrack, many of the titles listed don't even belong in it (they were likely put there as a "screen" to hide the pith of what the article is meant to do) and yes, as Hoary says, this is what categories were made for. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Very poignant observation. It explains why I couldn't reconcile the coherence of the defined criteria with the list of books named. It has now been rendered obvious that the original list, complete with its numerous red linked book titles, was being built to further some ulterior motive, and Lolita and Colour Purple were added to make the list appear more respectable/acceptable. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've been thinking more about the title, and its odd fit for a list that's primarily limited to [itself an odd notion!] works of fiction, memoirs and non-fiction books in the English language but in which Scientific, professional, medical, research studies [...] are generally not included. The last bunch are, well, heavy; you wouldn't take examples to the beach, would you? So if this article were (against my judgment) to survive, how about retitling it List of recreational reading on pedophilia or sexual abuse of minors, or List of books portraying pedophilia or sexual abuse of minors that may be read for pleasure? Not my idea of recreation or pleasure, you understand (aside from that profoundly moral book Lolita and perhaps one or two other titles that I haven't yet noticed), but different strokes...... -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes. Lolita is almost the antithesis to paedophile literature. Most paedophiles would probably die of boredom waiting for the juicy bits, and feel completely let-down because the author's mastery of the English language allowed him to create the illusion/delusion of sordid story, without any graphic depiction of sex. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoary and Ohconfucius have added new layers of commentary that have reinforced the argument, in my view, for deletion. Tony (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As to the question I've heard of "what parent would want such a list", I think many would. Mostly for making sure their kids aren't reading any of the books on the list. Lots of parents like lots of lists. Various ideological groups put out such lists for their adherents. If I see my kid reading "The Turner Diaries", I'd not wish him to. But I know what that book is, maybe another parent doesn't, and could have used a list of "racist literature". Likewise, I might not like my kid reading books that glorify or present as normal, adult/child sexual relations. I think some of those types of books are wrote to express the author's own wishes, or to try to shift what our culture takes as "normal". Or both. Alexandria177 (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Tony (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tony, you know that I am, having "discussed" this with me before. Therefore your "question" is not only rhetorical but serves only to insult me with the implication that I write, comment, edit or vote to no purpose. I appreciate you demonstrating that you had no logical rebuttal, though. Thank you. Alexandria177 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out to me in our policies where it says Wikipedia is a guide to parenting. PS, if you see your kid reading the Turner Diaries, you shouldn't need a list of racist literature; you should take it and look at it yourself and judge whether or not they should be reading it. I've read it; if you can't figure out it's racist literature within two pages, then ... well, insults would follow here. It's called being a parent, not relying on the Internet to tell you how to do it. Should Wikipedia also produce a list of breakfast cereals that have too much sugar, as defined by consensus? A list of video games that have violent, sexual, or otherwise objectionable content (defined by.. whomever!), so you don't have to worry your poor self about actually figuring out what your child should partake in? --Golbez (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such a long list of examples, had you just stopped at breakfast cereals, none of us would have caught on. As to where in Wikipedia's policies it says it's a guide to parenting, that would be right next to where it says it's a guide to obscure historical politicians. And this is where - having given that one example to prove a point - I do not now give more. Alexandria177 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, if you are going to open the argument that Wikipedia (and not somewhere perhaps more suited for it, at the very least Wikibooks?) is going to be a guide to parenting, then why stop at this one list of potentially harmful material? --Golbez (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is pretty perverse. If I saw my kid reading The Turner Diaries, I wouldn't come to Wikipedia and look for 'List of racist literature', I'd search 'The Turner Diaries; in my google search box, or simply read the preface or the first chapter. Yes, we need to have a sex-offenders register so we know exactly where they are, and can make sure they aren't anywhere near our children, but Wikipedia doesn't have such a list because few of these pervs would be notable. In the same way, I fail to see why we would need a list for that small handful of kiddie-pron that would qualify for that list, assuming of course we had reliable sources to determine they meet the criteria defined, which we don't. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, your arguments are two. One, that you know how to google things better than other parents, and they should call you if they have any questions. And two, in spite of the list having notable authors on it, you feel that as it has minor authors and needs some work that the whole of it should be thrown out. I disagree. But I like that you mention the problem of having some discernible and objective criteria for evaluating these things. That's the best "against" argument I've heard yet, but frankly, that just tells me we need to develop such, not throw the list out. Alexandria177 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but even more self-defeating, this list is so disorganised and its criteria for inclusion so zany, that who could trust it as a parent, a school-teacher, a social worker, a child psychologist, or a librarian? No one. It is, in the end, a low-quality page, and deserves to be deleted for that reason alone, aside from the other issues. I say again, the only titles worthy of a pixel are already listed under much more useful categories and lists. No purpose is served by retaining it. Tony (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the problem with the list - again - is that it simply needs clean up, better organization and established guidelines. Agreed. We should do that. But we cannot if the list does not exist. Alexandria177 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Previous AfDs for this list were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. Both were closed with a disposition of "no consensus". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i agree with Gwen's and Hoary's arguments.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

their argument seems to be essentially arguing for outright abandonment of NOT CENSORED, in favor of removing lists of books that talk about disfavored subjects--in case somebody might possibly use the list to search for books to read for titillation on the forbidden subject. As obviously Wikipedia is not going to accept that if stated right out, the way Tony does, they suggest giving them the least possible coverage, by only having categories--a total red herring, as there is no argument whatever for a category being more appropriate than a list, here or anywhere else. f there is a category of things that can be listed, there should always be a list if there is interest in maintaining one. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turning it around, there is no argument whatever for a list being more appropriate than a category, here or anywhere else. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Gwen Gale and WP:OVERCAT. This is a WP:COATRACK for grouping books by incidents within them thus giving undue weight to the incident depicted. The LOC listing is not "portraying pedophilia" but simply "pedophilia" and I doubt most of these books are there or vice versa. The lead paragraph is not a lead at all but an WP:OR excuse to group the books so as to create the WP:UNDUE weight. Redemption of such a title phrase by any of the methods suggested by the keep group is doomed to being over powered by the cruft supermagnetism and thus ... unwise, considering 3 million other options. Salt the redirect and put the categories on notice too. Finally and conclusively, there are no sources whatsoever in the article suggesting that the topic "list of books portraying blah" is WP:NOTABLE. JJB 06:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep; nomination withdrawn--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

note: the article has been moved to
Ines Sainz (reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) note: and then moved again to
Ines Sainz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion, because I believe it violates WP:ONEEVENT Truthsort (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn The article has been improved by User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden and establishes notability. Truthsort (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the only content I found published prior to the recent highly publicized potential allegation of being the victim of inappropriate sexual atmosphere WP:BLP1E was a publicity stunt (arm wrestling match) for the TV station she works for which would hardly count as a notable activity.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 15:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a Mexican reporter would do fluff pieces about American sport that is little known in Mexico in order to interest their viewers in a player with a Mexican background is not surprising.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that fluff promotional pieces are simply fluff promotional appearances and the fluff promotional piece she is associated with is not one that has made notice for its impact on the audience or the television station/product it was promoting or for its originality or anything other than simply having happened. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 15:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Compare the Wiki articles for Sainz's Mexican female sports reporting colleagues Ines Gomez Mont, Montserrat Olivier, and no doubt a whole slew of other Spanish-language only personalities. Indeed, Wp:BIAS says to counter institutional--in this case, English-language--bias is such cases as these, where the subjects are patently notable--such as in Sainz's case for having hosted her own Spanish-language show, obviously available in this day and age throughout the English-speaking world as well, that has done such "media stunts"/offered coverage of sports events from around the world for a decade, with there being plenty of media mentions of Sainz from throughout this period, with a sufficient number of them being in the English language.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pretty sure WP:BIAS does NOT say "ignore WP:BLP so that you can have 'equality' by having crappy sleaze based articles about content from the non-English speaking world." Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole part about the Jets incident is no longer in the article so there's not BLP incident to speak of.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not argue that just because other articles exist, mean that this one should as well. Pointing out that another article on the same subject exists does not confirm that the article in question should also be kept. Quite frankly, it is possible that the other articles you cited should also be deleted. It is just that the article does not get a lot of traffic and goes unrecognized. Truthsort (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Actually, it was in the article at the time you wrote that. You removed it immediately afterwards. I have avoided editing that article myself because of my lack of interest in the topic and, quite frankly, because your edits appear to me to be more than a little trollish. I hope you can explain why you believe that someone named "DJ Mick" is her official agent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DC: In response to others' undue weight concerns I removed that aspect of the article, thinking the same would please their editorial sensibilities. You comment makes me want to stop working on Wikipedia. As for her agency, I had originally been using an infobox template that had a space for "agency"; then I switched to one that used "agent." I'm sorry that you are so negative and, frankly, unwelcoming toward others' good faith efforts to create and continue to work on Wikipedia articles. My god, do you really take personal interest in whether her Wiki bio stays/goes? (smiles)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain how you thought that "DJ Mick" constitutes an "agency"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CB, I've been the lone author of this article for a number of days now, after I turned it from a redirect into a stub. And you come along and, in reference to a single edit, impugn my motives. As to whether the photo agency is a modeling agency, for all I know you are right. But even if I made a mistake in good faith (which I'm not convinced I have as of yet), your attack of my integrity and value to the project [hurt and] angered me. I'm taking a break for a bit to cool off. "Troll" in the internet world is a fighting word: by definition, something that, for example, said in a pub/bar, could get a bloke/dude decked.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "CB"? If you are you addressing me, I would hope that if we were in a pub/bar you would invite me to discuss this over a drink rather than attempting to assault me. Here is your chance to make yourself seem less trollish to me - what makes you think that "DJ Mick" is any kind of agency and has any association with Sainz? Here is the website link you added as an official site, to refresh your memory. Please try to come up with a plausible answer because I am very close to asking to a topic ban for you on BLPs based on this episode. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah: You. (CarBuncle?) Sorry. This is a wiki and it gets rough in the give and take sometimes, I suppose. When you first walked in this establishment, the first thing out of your mouth was to essentially call me a liar because I'd commented here immediately prior to deleting the UNDUE section in the article. Was that a faux pas? I'm not going to look through the guidelines for it because I simply don't think it exists. In other words I'm calling you straight-up a troll in making that your introduction to me. Speaking of faux pas (or whatever its plural is), ironically, I've already RE-reviewed the Brit photos website and found it not any kind of agency whatsoever and deleted its being credited in the infobox prior your coming back here to again hurl your questions about the matter. Since I imagine you are following the article, what other reason would you have to continue to push the matter than to engage in non-droll trollery? Incidentally, I got the url to the pix site from their being thanked by name by Jimmy Trainer at SI.com (Sp./Illus.), after which I'd glanced at it for a millisecond, that is, long enough to get the wrong impression that it was some kind of entity in a contractual relationship with Ms. Sainz, and then I'd quickly added its name to the agency blank in the template:infobox model I'd originally been working with.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think trying to label me a troll is going to get any traction here. The agency link was removed by you after I first asked about it, but you left it in the infobox as an official website (later removed by ActiveBanana). Your excuse for adding it appears to amount to not having looked at the site carefully, which is hard to believe from even the most cursory viewing of that site and does not meet the level of care required for working on BLPs. If you voluntarily pledge to stay away from BLPs in the future, I will be happy to drop this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Ya label me a troll--not once but twice; then, when I do the old one-two, "I know you are but what am I?" you start saying that I'm taunting you as a troll? Gettouddaheah! lol (2) . . . In any case, I think somehow we've come to be inappropriately discussing article content Q's in the wrong forum of an AfD.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- While she became infamous for the one event, I think she was notable prior to that for her reporting and other work. As well, BLP1E specifies that the person must otherwise be trying to lead a private life, and she most certainly is not attempting to stay otherwise private. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Her TV appearances before the recent todo might have generated sufficient coverage to show notability, but the bloggy refs presently attached to the article do not rise to multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Someone fluent in Spanish might be able to find adequate references to show that her notability preceded the one locker-room incident. Edison (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article should include information from Spanish Wikipedia, her work on tv, etc.John KB (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the spanish wikipedia is hardly different that what is in the english article. Sorry, but that is not a valid reason for keeping the article. Truthsort (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the references to reliable sources are sufficient to show notability. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of two references, the sources being used are about the jets interview or the super bowl. There needs to be a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that address the subject directly in detail. Truthsort (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guarding against provinciality through countering institutional bias, mentioned above, we find that wp:NONENG sources count for notability, as well. And the article talks about a full decade of events in our subject's public, professional life: e.g., her coverage of various World Cups, a number of Super Bowls (of course: due to our US-centricity), etc.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said non-english sources couldn't count for notability. I applaud the fact that you have found more sources about her. Truthsort (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vivicca A. Whitsett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced BLP wherein the individual does not meet general notability guidelines evidenced through substantial independent coverage; nor does she meet the more specific WP:ENT via multiple significant roles. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable BLP, unsourced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence she satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. Guest star roles are not enough. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:57, 18 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article advertises a Neologism that has not gained wide usage. The sources cited are first party and are unreliable. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Although an article on this topic was deleted in 2005, this represents an expanded and improved incarnation. No opinion as of now about inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:Reliable sources provided. Article isn't even clear about what the term means. Not exactly a neologism (it's apparently been used by various people - it doesn't take much creativity to add "neo-" to a word), but a poorly defined term that has not gained general acceptance. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2010 (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 "delete" !votes focus mainly on WP:BIO and WP:SELFPROMOTE. However, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources does exist and the article has been substantially cleaned up to remove the promotional tone. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Vanity article created at the subject's request; no actual notability shown or asserted. Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His crazy activities were noted by reliable media over the world, see New Zealand Herald, Auckland stuff, Scoop etc. The article needs neutral editing, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - all over the world = from Auckland to Wellington???? It is to laugh. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found sources in Indonesian, Italian, [7], Portuguese, Ukrainian and German. Thanks for your inspirative and collaborative comment, Orange Mike. I apprecite avoiding sarcasm in the AfD debates. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article lists his six biggest accomplishments, and 4 of them are shared with others and the two that aren't are sourced to his own site and thus apparently self-awarded. Not notable and a pretty obvious COI/self-promotion case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue with listing amongst your greatest achievements, shared records, where they are organised? I have added a link to the Record Holders Republic page which shows that none of his records are self-awarded. It is more difficult to link to them on Guinness World Record website, as they only include some of the main and latest records on there.

As for the editing - why remove the links to Grahamstown, where his family have strong links and are noted in the article about the observatory museum there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwap (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Record Holders Republic does not seem to be a reliable source, you send in your forms with two witnesses who could be literally anyone and blam you are the record holder - oh and then they will flog you a certificate. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted the comment about Record Holders Republic and referred that back to Alastair.

As for notariety, Alastair has passed the following information:

1. I am the 2nd biggest Guinness World Records™ breaker of the decade. Ashrita Furman is the biggest - he is on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrita_Furman (what's the difference?) 2. I have a CD here from my radio interview with Ian Jones and Marc Montgomery of Radio Canada International in 2008; broadcasting to north America, central America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific Islands and everywhere else via satellite. Something like 125 nations. 3. Exceptional People magazine (USA) featured me as an individual in society who stands out for my innovative approach to charity promotions (they don't feature just anybody): http://www.exceptionalmag.com/extraordinary_profiles/extraordinary_profiles4.html 4. Television New Zealand put this attempt online; one of my other attempts on this Good Morning show got higher than average viewer ratings in NZ, and I have the document to prove it (attached): http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/2299015?bandwidth=56k 5. Follow the family tree and any intelligent person will see the clear links between the Galpin and Rhodes family. 6. My kiwifruit eating appears here - for global media to pick up in news releases: www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2008/11/081113.aspx 7. The biggest radio station(?) in Australia has had this link there for 18 months: http://caama.com.au/category/radio/programs/drive-time/ 8. I appear on this link somewhere: http://books.google.com/books?id=rZ8nFo7Ep0AC&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=alastair+galpin&source=bl&ots=P5d3q1fvqP&sig=8wylP5WPJOy0oLMVkJ6WOcnJfXY&hl=en&ei=qaqUTJnONoOwvgO_wYmaDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDIQ6AEwCDgU 9. More big coverage from: www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2007/11/071102.aspx 10. I was in Time magazine! (see : http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1859037,00.html 11. Here I am on the MTV website in an article about the popular US rock band, Fall Out Boy: www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598075/.../fall_out_boy.jhtml 12. Here I have spawned a huge hugging culture, that went to far as to get a charity hugging to assist Haiti after its large earthquake; in relation to this campaign, I was placed next to a box about Bush and Clinton also having an influence on the Hugs for Haiti campaign: http://www.hugsforhaitichallenge.com/take-the-challenge/ 13. News from California: http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_H_arcade05.38d7fb9.html 14. From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2419444.htm 15. Here print media has associated me with the famous David Blaine by connection in article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/05/02/as-david-blaine-breaks-the-record-for-holding-his-breath-we-find-more-superhuman-feats-115875-20402152/ 16. USmile radio on the US east coast: http://www.usmileradio.com/NSAEN.html 17. From India: http://gujarati-club.blogspot.com/2009/11/gurlzgroup-newguinness-world-records.html 18. Singapore: http://www.podcast.sg/938live/breakfast_club/index.xml 19. And some random foreign language articles: http://tintuc.xalo.vn/alistair_galpin http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/Rekorde-aus-dem-neuesten-Guinness-Buch_bid_18757.html http://www.spoki.lv/foto-izlases/Re-cords-Re-cik-mulkigi-/153579 http://marcianos.com.mx/escala-del-ruido-en-decibelios/ http://kaskusnews.us/2010/03/28/6-rekor-konyol-di-guinness-world-records/ Google "Alastair Galpin" and from pg 20 onwards you will see articles in so many languages, I don't know what they all are.

Maybe we can add some of this to the page.

Also - I am not too certain how this page differs from other world record holders pages, for example: Paddy Doyle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Doyle Suresh Jaochim - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suresh_Joachim Peter Dowdeswell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dowdeswell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwap (talk • contribs) 15:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While he may be notable, all references are from his website. Adabow (talk page · contribs) 21:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the comment on Adabow's talk page the article was created on the subject's "behalf and at his request". Wiki is not self-promotional, even by proxy! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This and the !vote above are not valid reasons for deletion, but reasons to clean up the article, as Cameron Scott and Vejvančický have done. Smartse (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If Wiki is not self-promotional, that is naive to think that every page is created by someone who has no interest in the subject matter in some manner.
• Not all references are from Alastair's website - there are references to articles in Time Magazine and Hugs for Haiti. Plenty of other independent media references cited above, if people want these adding to the page. None of the world record holders link to their records on the Guinness World Records website as the pages are not fixed and you cannot always find the records listed except on their community pages (forums).

--Rwap (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, unfortunately, that there are plenty of self-promotional articles which haven't been deleted yet, but the mere fact that they exist doesn't mean that we condone spam or advertising on Wikipedia, just like the fact that some murderers aren't convicted doesn't mean that murder is somehow legal. For more, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• True - there are plenty of self-promotional articles, but if you are penning a biography of a living person on here, then the only sure way of having the correct information is direct from the horses mouth. I see no difference in the page on Alastair Galpin compared to the other pages on world record breakers, such as:

Paddy Doyle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Doyle Suresh Jaochim - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suresh_Joachim Peter Dowdeswell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dowdeswell

Therefore if you are to delete the page about Alastair Galpin, surely all of the other biographical pages on world record holders should also be deleted. --Rwap (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, allowing self-promotion is not "the only sure way of having the correct information". That statement is ridiculous. Would we really want Charles Manson or David Duke to write their own articles? Wikipedia keeps its information neutral (see WP:NPOV) and verifiable (see WP:V, WP:RS) by using only information confirmed by verifiable reliable secondary sources. Regarding the other articles, again, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Besides, all three of the ones you mention appear to be more notable than you are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That there is a considerable amount of trivial rubbish and fanboy fluff in what is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, is no excuse to add more. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, COI, self-promotion and misunderstanding of basic editing policy in this case is pretty obvious. I quite understand your mistrust: an encyclopedic article for a man whose notability is in the field of placing rubber bands over his face, attaching rhinestones to his body, wearing the most T-shirts and having the most snails on his face? It is inadmissible! On the other hand, it's difficult to say what is trivial rubbish and fanboy fluff, as this is always subjective - what is rubbish for you may be useful for others. This guy's activities received coverage in multiple reliable media. See the extensive article in the New Zealand Herald (a large national newspaper), it could be a good start. The article contains among other things some critical comments (and first of all, it is not the only source available). The information could serve as a source i. e. for future sociological studies. In my opinion, we can include this topic to the "sum of all human knowledge". Yes, the article needs complete rewriting. I'll try to work on it. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I've indefinitely blocked Rwap as a promotional-only account, I've stated why on the editor's talk page. -- Atama頭 20:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - seems to have been cleaned up to a satisfactory level and seems to pass the GNG, despite my personal doubts on worthiness of attention. dramatic (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article was a total mess before, but this person clearly meets our notability guideline, having been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Smartse (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both this, and the other pagers on record holders who are not noted for any one thing in particular. Holding miscellaneous Guiness record is just about the definition of indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't easy to define such a kind of human creativity, and I'm not sure whether this isn't slightly out of the scope of this discussion. What is more important to me: this project should describe - among other things - the "craziness" of the world, if the available sources allow such a description. Keeping this information is valuable and it has potential, no matter what I think about similar efforts. The article says something about the world we live in. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, actually. I am a big fan of Ashrita Furman and, while the subject doesn't seem to have the same shall we say gravitas, and GWR's standards are too-too modernized, the notability seems established assuming the statements are true and the Time and ABC coverage is significant and complemented. I'll take prior reviewers on faith for the poorness of the article history as I've seen enough poor articles lately, but the rescue and potential additional source pool seems sufficient. JJB 06:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to New Brunswick general election, 2010. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Tusz-King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable local politician, organization spokesperson for non-notable organization, failed minor party candidate for provincial office; fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Any information about her involvement with Burnt Church can be added/redirected to that article. Bkissin (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not a wiki expert, so I don't completely understand the formatting on this type of page. Orangemike suggested failed candidate for provincial office. She hasn't failed yet.

I've added some references of her published work as a pharmacist. I've added some references to her current involvement with a newsworthy and important local environmental issue. I'm not adding details of the thousands of people she's helped with her social activist work at the Tatamagouche Centre. The information presented is factual, I've provided references. It's odd that it would be noticed so quickly as a candidate for deletion. If Margaret is deleted because she doesn't have the notability of Jessica Simpson, although her positive effect on the planet may be significantly greater, then I guess that's the way it goes. User:Davidbelliveau —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, Mr. Belliveau. I'm sure Ms. Tusz-King is a wonderful human being who has accomplished a lot of stuff in her life. However, while she may be a political candidate for MLA, she is not, according to Wikipedia standards, she is not notable enough for this website. As I'm sure you've noticed from the New Brunswick general election, 2010 article, there are a lot of candidates who do not have their own article, however interesting their lives may be. If she wins in Tantramar, then by all means we can add her article again, but until that point, she is not notable enough for this website, unfortunately. Bkissin (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, candidate who hasn't held office. Above claim that she should be kept because she's more notable than Jessica Simpson (!!) is laughably ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The claim wasn't that she was more notable than Jessica Simpson. Jessica is clearly more notable. More useful? Perhaps not. That was the point. As far as having held office, she's currently a Town Councillor, which isn't a high enough office to be notable, but combined with being a candidate for provincial office and being on the front lines in the Tantramar region in the current struggle against hydraulic fracturing for natural gas could have a cumulative notability valueDavidbelliveau (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC) (Striking Davidbelliveau's second keep !vote.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• • Comment You'd probably benefit by reading the guidelines at WP:Notability, which set out a (reasonably) straightforward and objective standard, which is in essence, that if a subject has received sufficient attention from third party reliable sources, they're notable. If you think she's notable, then pull together as much of that sort of material as you can. Arguing about whether she ought to be deemed notable, in the absence of such coverage, is not likely to get very far. JohnInDC (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I always say merge and redirect to the race article, here Tantramar (electoral district). A new section just above the last election, with a paragraph on each candidate, is all that is needed and fits that article quite nicely. Any WP editor who is serious about NPOV can shrink the article to one paragraph and write a new sourced neutral paragraph on each of the other candidates. Shrinkage during merge is key. Build a new article if she wins. JJB 06:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of the Valley Homebrewers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Same rationale for deletion as given by SilkTork last time: Local homebrewing group with no sources beyond local blogs and college newsletters. Has attracted a notability tag. The claim for notability is the Oregon Homebrew Festival, which attracts some ghits, though looks like nothing reliable. tedder (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no extensive coverage. [8]. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable local organization. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unverifiable, I am having no luck finding any sources whatsoever to keep this from being unreferenced. I do believe he exists, but cannot verify any of the information with any reliable or unreliable sources. Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I reluctantly find this must be deleted (as nominator) unless at least some sources can be found. Nominated as part of the Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project, which is currently sourcing all BLPs marked as unreferenced in May 2008. Our project aims to provide sourcing to all Biographies of Living Persons on wikipedia to improve the quality of the project, by attacking one month of unreferenced BLPs at a time. If you can source this article, we need you!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Found this. According to the product description there is a chapter on him in this book, but is that one of those books made from wikipedia content? It could be. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment with respect to the Books, LLC book, yeah, their books are (in general) republications of wikipedia content. See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Books.2C_LLC --j⚛e decker^talk 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's the former leader of a recognized political party, which has been an accepted standard for keeping articles in the past. I will provide sources in the very near future (when I have the time). Sorry, I was misremembering the details of this article. I thought he was a party leader at one time, but I see (from reading the article) that he was not. I agree that this page shouldn't exist as a standalone article. CJCurrie (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any reliable sources to verify the information in the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. I'm finding nothing that would indicate notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:13, 22 September 2010 (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) 00:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Federico López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Elaborate hoax. No evidence could be found, through a variety of searches, for the existence of this artist, who supposedly sold 110 million records. The elaborate factor of the hoax is not on the English Wikipedia, but on the Spanish one, where we not only have es:Martín Federico López but also es:Listening the Rain; es:Martin LpZ., es:Kissing a Woman and es:López Z.. I would be grateful if anyone who also edits the Spanish Wikipedia would inform them of these hoaxes so they can get deleted as well! Fram (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Good job! On the spanish page, i see they linked to articles about Elvis as if they were about this guy, so the hoax is pretty obvious.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put two notices on the spanish wikipedia (one on the main subject talk page, one on their vandalism page), so hopefully they'll find those.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fram (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2010 (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

notability failure Ubot16 (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep – Album meets criteria at WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. The album ranked on several "best of" lists, some of which were collected here. Fezmar9 (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As well as the reviews in the article, there are more here, here, here, here and a little more here. I'm normally wary of albums that only get in the Heatseekers chart, but this one seems to meet the general notability guideline by sheer dint of coverage. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable via the coverage linked in the article.--Michig (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per all comments above. Spatulli (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2010 (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

obscure label, maybe spam? Ubot16 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep – Nomination did not even address any real issues with policies or guidelines. Relapse Records is one of the more prominent heavy metal labels and meets the general notability guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable independent metal label. Provides a substantial number of in-links to WP articles by bands on the label. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Relapse is far from obscure, it is one of the bigger independent metal labels and distributors with a relatively long history and massive discography of prominent bands. The article just needs a lot of work, something I mean to deal with when I get some time. Cheers! Ibanez Guy (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Why the heck was this nominated for deletion? Notability clearly established in the article. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Being "obscure" is not a reason for deletion. Although unreferenced and badly in need of cleanup, this article should not be deleted. Here are some links. I'm pretty sure this is a good faith effort, BTW. Nolelover 22:43, 20 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

this single fails notability Ubot16 (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for songs. This song has never charted and it is self-released. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:55, 18 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

fails notability Ubot16 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:51, 18 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bang (Empires album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

lacking notability Ubot16 (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. The album has not charted and has not received any awards. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:50, 18 September 2010 (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 claims of the "keep" !side are not substantiated by independent reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable actor, does not satisfy criteria listed in WP:ENT Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Autobiography lacking reliable sources, notability not established. JNW (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, subject has performed in many stage shows, appeared in well known television programs, and portrayed the lead in award winning feature films. in addition, has been in front page ny times articles and been featured in international news segments. --Trekkiemnstr (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,I have seen him on The Coaching Corner.--Carriestula (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Trekkiemnstr is the author and presumably subject of the article; Carriestula also is a WP:SPA. JNW (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I have also seen him on The Coaching Corner. I also followed his references and they all fit true. Acting is his profession, he has credits, I do not understand what makes someone "notable" enough. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.138.95 (talk • contribs) — 166.205.138.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per WP:BLP and WP:ENT. He's sure popular with his own sockpuppets though! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• they're not my sock puppets and i'm kind of offended by the accusations. obviously you have all made up your mind about the article. sure, randall is not a mega celebrity, but he's known well enough in certain circles. oh well. i have no choice but to surrender to the elitest wikipedia editors, despite the fact that it seems like 98% of people don't even have wikipedia accounts (obviously that is not a verifiable number, but i only know like one person who has ever edited anything on wikipedia). it just seems strange to have criteria that is so subjective and so easily contested by any individual on the site. certainly, there needs to be some sort of filter so that not every person/place/thing in the universe has its own article, but the idea of a democratic encyclopedia should not be overshadowed by a handful of individuals who feel the need to police the internet. anyway, do what you want... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.117.139 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry. forgot to login. i'm sure that's a common problem.--Trekkiemnstr (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We do have those 'filters' you mention, we call them notability criteria. The ones most applicable to this article are WP:BLP and WP:ENT. And as for sockpuppets, yes, two brand new editors showing up within an hour to vote identically on a very obscure subject are pretty much guaranteed to be sockpuppets. Votes of this nature are ignored by the admins when closing the discussion anyway, so cut it out, you're not doing yourself or the article any favours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's belaboring the obvious, but always bears repeating that although Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, it is not intended to be used for self-promotion. There are guidelines for notability, which is why this is different from spacebook, myface, (sic) or any blog where you're free to post your resume and life story. JNW (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. He had no major roles and roles in school does not count. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notable roles. Dante's Criterion is not notable, &, appropriately, does not have a Wikipedia article, and there is no other possible importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: pile-on! (Sorry, Trekkie, it's fun and that's what it's like trying to get your man through the hoops.) One NYX interview doth not notability make. Maybe recreate as a disambiguation between Jeff Brown (ice hockey b. 1966) middle-named Randall, and the Randall Brown at flash fiction mentioned in two other WP articles. JJB 07:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Auto-antonym. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of auto-antonyms in English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A tag on the article reads "This page has been copied to Wiktionary. Is it still needed in Wikipedia?" The answer is no - its unencyclopedic because its a dictionary-style list of words with little or no other analysis beyond dictionary definitions of those words. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Previous AfD here, under a different name. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Chris!_c/t 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into Auto-antonym which could use a selection of the best, well-sourced examples. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ask the folk at Wiktionary if this would be suitable for an appendix - seems the kind of thing they're interested in (the "appendix" area being rather more varied than their normal entries), so may well be worth a transwiki. TheGrappler (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Make the page a soft redirect to wikt:Appendix:Contranyms. That page contains some of the same content on this one, plus a link to the transwiki-ed version of this one. Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to wikt:Appendix:Contranyms per Cnilep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely keep, although merge is OK as a compromise. Speaking as a professional puzzler, this is an excellent topic to benefit from wiki fertilization, and, while such lists generally have a little lack of polish, any cleanup necessary is much easier than with some of these other rescue attempts. I don't believe soft redirects to Wiktionary are proper, and the title "list of" won't be a search phrase anyway. No, just keep like the last deletion debate. Nom ignores that the very selection of the two antonymous definitions from among several is the analysis that makes them unique. Tap me if you want help bluing the Dave Morice redlink. Might also drop "in English" from the title, on en.wikipedia anyway. JJB 07:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Appears to have a clear scope, but arguments concerning its possibly trivial nature do have some merit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional radio stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unencyclopedic, umaintainable list. Whilst the article lead claims that its a list of notable radio stations, it blatantly isn't as the vast majority of entries don't and never will have their own articles. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete List of trivia. Any work of fiction set in modern times might mention the call letters of a radio station. That does not make them "notable" as the first sentence of this article claims. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- completely trivial list. This is not 2007 anymore; we have standards now. Reyk _YO! 11:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's right - we require more than personal opinion here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was more thinking adequate sourcing and some demonstration of notability. Reyk _YO! 10:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We have all that. Your opinion of "completely trivial" is, however, completely lacking in supporting evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an article on radio in fiction would probably be fascinating, but this is trivia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate and trivial. Getting mentioned in one fictional work does not make something notable enough to be enshrined in a list. Edison (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Chris!_c/t 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikia Annex 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many cases where the radio station is not incidental but is the main focus of the fictional work, such as WKRP in Cincinnati, WOLD, WUSA and Radio Active. Per WP:CLS, a list is a valid way of assisting navigation to these. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^comment 17:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Trivial, unencyclopedic list of non-notable things. SnottyWong ^communicate 17:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree with the nominator, by far the most of these entries look like they'll never get much more than an entry in this list, let alone their own articles. JIP | Talk 07:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is our policy to keep the good bits, even if we don't like it all. I have pruned the list to demonstrate the use of ordinary editing rather than wholesale deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case I am withdrawing my delete vote. JIP | Talk 07:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In nearly all cases, the names of the radio stations would not be mentioned in the main article of their work of fiction because they are trivial. Why should they be less trivial when grouped together in a separate list? – sgeureka ^t•c 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment seems so counterfactual as to indicate some gross error. Radio stations such as WOLD, WENN, WKRP and WUSA all appear in the titles of their works and are central to their stories. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess there are thousands of fictional radio stations, but only a few handful of them are mentioned in the main wikipedia article of their work of fiction. My point stands. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per excellent work on the article by Colonel Warden. The list has been pruned and restricted in a way that satisfies WP:Stand-alone lists by restricting the list only to notable fictional radio stations. Moreover, it does not violate WP:TRIVIA; specifically, the section Not all list sections are trivia sections states that "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list." Since this list is organized by country and alphabetically, it does not meet the first criteria to meet trivia. Since this list is restricted to notable fictional station, it is selective and does not fall under the second criteria for trivia either. Additionally, WP:NOTDIR does not apply here because this list is not "loosely associated" (like say a list of quotes), rather it is strongly associated by the narrow theme of fictional radio. I'd also like to say that this should be a discussion, not a vote (WP:NOTDEM). Most moves for deletion so far seem rather superficial in analysis. —CodeHydro 21:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment added a few sources and some more fictional stations that have Wikipedia articles. Note that a lot more sources can be added, but are probably unnecessary for the cases where there is a wikilink to a main article on the station; it's also worth noting that the majority of these stations have their own Wikipedia article now or are of a notable show of the same (thereby demonstrating the station's importance to the plot). —CodeHydro 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Note that the list has been trimmed, and what remains has been sourced. Like most "list of fictional X", occasional pruning is reasonable and appropriate to keep pointless entries down, and that's exactly what has just happened here. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After seeing your above comment above, I decided to make Template:Pruned to save future editors from having to make unnecessary edits. This page is the maiden use of the template. —CodeHydro 16:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication that these get any mention outside the book, film, tv show that they are mentioned in, so subject fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Colonel Warden makes a good case. A Wikipedia list that aids in navigation, is a valid list. Dream Focus 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Highly useful and encyclopedic, IMHO. VASterling (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication that the topic "fictional radio stations" meets the GNG, or that the fictional radio stations themselves get significant independent coverage outside of the book/film/tv show. WP is not a directory or a collection of indiscriminate information. Karanacs (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that would be the criterion for having an article about the specific station, not for inclusion on a list. There is no requirement that list elements be notable, because if there were, we'd have an article about them individually. WP:N is very specific that it does not apply to article content. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep PRadio stations that are plot elements in notable fiction are appropriate for a list. That is not indiscriminate, because it does not include any fiction, just notable ones. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List is now trimmed down and the majority of entries have articles. Not a trivial as radio stations are an important plot device.--Salix (talk): 05:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: was with the deleters in the first half, then was buoyed by the hopes in the second half but let down on reviewing the article. Usually I favor keeping tight lists of easily identified notable items, but here the notability bar is still set low and many of the stations are fictional random letters; same for the TV article. To get a vote from me (not likely) I would need to see something that looked more like a high-quality disambig page. JJB 07:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Profiler (TV series). Pending creation of List of Profiler characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Samantha Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable fictional character with no sources for notability. Derild4921☼ 18:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what is the 'non-notable fictional character' assumption based? I assume because it doesn't have all the information yet? If so, this is because I am still editing and writing the proper information for the character. When the show Profiler was on, it was one of the more popular series at that time. --Asdotnet (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you provide sources to prove that the character is indeed notable for Wikipedia. Just because a show is indeed notable and popular does not mean that the main character in the show is definitely notable. Read WP:Inherent notability. Derild4921☼ 20:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Would something like a character page suffice that has all main character and recurring characters on it like this: List of Criminal Minds characters --Asdotnet (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, usually the characters who do not enough notability to stand alone are combined into one article as the example you have given. Derild4921☼ 21:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then I'll do that. Thank you. --Asdotnet (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and happy editing! Derild4921☼ 22:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Profiler (TV series) for now, then to List of Profiler characters if that is created at some point. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: to Profiler (TV) series). No sources to WP:Verify notability, but an editor has agreed to find sources and improve the article. Seems reasonable considering they are new. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monash Association of Debaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable debating society for university students. Gets some limited coverage in The Age (a Melbourne newspaper - see Gnews hits) but nothing that covers the organisation in depth, as WP:GNG and WP:ORG require. The consequence is that any article on this organisation would - as it is now - be reliant on self-published sources and unreliable debating blogs. The way GNG has to be applied is to look at the totality of the reliable sources and ask "could a genuine article - even if only a stub - be written about this group relying only on these sources?" The answer here has to be no. Mkativerata (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete student group at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No sources; Noteability The Eskimo (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - do we think this is the current incarnation of the "Ashcroft Manufacturing Company"? Seems to be; there's a ton of historical information on google books, etc. Some neat standalone sites as well - see here. Kuru (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]