Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 28

< 27 October	29 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Closing this early, because the article has been rewritten so that the earlier votes do not apply any longer. Per Cunard's comment, I am deleting the earlier history of the article. NW (Talk) 15:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Najah Secondary School

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

Personal essay, unsourced original research. JNW (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 72.83.205.80 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it helps to say why. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & rewrite The problem is that an article could be written about the subject, since all HS are notable. Unfortunately, the present article is not really useful as a start. Rather than rewrite it as is , i think it should be deleted, possibly by speedy G10 , to remove the unsuitable material from the edit history before re-starting. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What DGG said. Go out and buy your lotto tickets now, because DGG and I agree on this. JBsupreme (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; it is an unsourced essay and
soapbox. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I also agree with DGG here, but I think deletion is appropriate if there is no improvements. The article has no indication of notability and I don't see sources beign added. Even if they were, the article would require a fundamental rewrite. Essays are not what I want in an encyclopedia, AfD is about the article, not the article's name. The page can be recreated if there is notable content; and my !vote (the ! makes all the difference) changes if there is notable content and the personal essay content goes away. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but purge page history per my rewrite. This secondary school's existence is confirmed by this Google Books link. Per DGG (talk · contribs)'s comment above, the content that existed prior to my rewrite should be purged from the page history because it contained attacks on the principal of the school. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused. The article indicates the school is in Israel. The political party mentioned in the article is in Morrocco, it would appear from the link. And the article is listed as a Pakistan stub, and included in the categories "Girls' schools in Pakistan" and "Pakistani school stubs".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the mistakes. The school is located in
Independence Party (Palestine), instead of Istiqlal Party. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks!--Epeefleche (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops ... more questions. The article about the party is written in the past tense, and speaks of a party that "was" which has its origins in the 1930s. Can't tell when it ended. I'm not sure how that accords with this article, which appears present-day. Is that the correct party? Does it still exist, and is the article on the party wrong?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that
Independence Party (Palestine) has likely been disbanded. The article for the party states that the party's "origins lay in the Istiqlal movement associated with the short-lived Sharifian government in Damascus". The Independence Party was likely discontinued at the end of the Sharifian government. I have little knowledge about this subject, so I could be wrong.
The school article currently says "[a] number of leaders from the Istiqlal Party have taught at the school." This is the correct tense because "have taught" indicates that the individuals used to teach at the school. It does not indicate whether or not the party still exists, so the same tense would be used even if the party was not disbanded. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I did a bit of poking around, and found an article that indicates that the party "disintegrated within two years of its founding." That would be 1934. But I guess that's its claim to fame.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the teachers, Izzat Darwaza, lived from 1888-1984, so it's possible that he taught at this school in 1932 or 1933. I can't find any English sources that say when this school started but there could be non-English sources somewhere. Cunard (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the school came first, then the party -- the book I cite to below indicates that it was in operation by at least 1928, four years before the party was created.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Per Cunard/DGG. See also reference in this book--Epeefleche (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Greenwald

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

Seems to be lacking

notable as a craftsperson. Your thoughts? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete There is an assertion of notability in the article, but I can find nothing to verify it. One of the 3 links does not work and the other 2 do not mention Greenwald at all. I can find nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding the coverage that would establish notability. I did find this evidence for an award but it seems rather minor and without specifics in the article, it is impossible to identify if this is what is meant by award-winning. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2009 (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 wrong venue. Use {{

talk) 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

LYNX Red Line

)

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

This article was created as a duplicate of the pre-existing

LYNX Purple Line article instead of moving the page to reflect the new name of the line. Once deleted, the original article will need to be moved to reflect the change in naming. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Close - AfD is not the place for Housekeeping moves. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Reading Science & Technology Centre

)

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

Non-notable part of campus at the University of Reading, no independent sources to demonstrate notability. There's no reason to have a separate article, any usable content can be merged to University of Reading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Subject does not appear to require its own article. Merge into
talk) 22:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge: to
talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

merge as usual for these. . DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main page; no need to dwell on this one.
talk) 23:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Retain: There is plenty of precedent (see Oxford Science Park or Cambridge Science Park, or Category:Science parks) that suggests this kind of university private sector technology transfer hybrid is regarded as notable. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this one is not a science park in the same sense - it is just one building, not a collection of science-based companies. It is no more notable than any university department. So, merge per others.Yob Mod 12:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts you base this call on are not quite correct. The subject of this article is a collection of science-based companies, albeit in one large building. The UKSPA, which represents the interests of science parks in the UK, certainly lists it as such. It isn't a university department in the normal sense of that term, so a notability comparison based on university departments is comparing apples with pears. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now added a cited reference to the UKSPA's entry for the Science & Technology Centre, plus one to UNESCO's listing of it, which means this article now satisfies the need for secondary sources. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra references don't hurt, but the ones you added do nothing to establish notability and aren't really the sort of references that work well with

WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The policy I was looking to satisfy was

WP:ORG and its requirement for secondary sources. The two I quoted were from a UK trade association and UNESCO, neither of which strike me as being 'unreliable'. Admittedly neither says much about the subject, but that isn't the point when trying to satisfy's WP:ORG's quite reasonable requirement for some verification of notability independent of the organisation itself. As that policy says, once notability is established, primary sources can then be used to fill in the detail. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

And by the way, those other articles aren't really a credit to the notion that we ought to have articles on every "science park" a university creates. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that one. Perhaps we shouldn't have articles on science parks, but that is a bigger question that needs to be addressed somewhere other than here. Picking them off one by one isn't the way to do it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 22:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Bernstein

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

This was prodded; I deprodded for a more substantive debate. Subject is a former bankruptcy judge (bankruptcy judges in the U.S. work for the court, and are not presidential appointees); author of one law school textbook. Sufficiently notable?

T

22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per
talk) 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment
  Snottywong reconsider his opinion without reliance on that page. TJRC (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Citing an essay indicated he agrees with the sentiments of that essay, and those sentiments are part of his reaseon for !voting delete.Yob Mod 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I can't tell if he was citing it as an essay or as a guideline; it may be clearer to you. I have no problem with his Delete position (I come down the same way myself, below), I just would like to make sure he's not doing so based on a a policy that does not actually exist. TJRC (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. In terms of the possibility of inherent notability, I regard US bankruptcy judges as being somewhere between U.S. District Court Judges (who, being presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, and having lifetime tenure, I feel are inherently notable) and U.S. Magistrate Judges (who are appointed by the courts themselves, have 4- or 8-year terms, and can even be part-time; and who I feel are not inherently notable). I come down on the side that, given the terms of years and the non-presidential appointment, bankruptcy judges are not inherently notable. The position helps, but there must be something significant beyond it: an oft-cited opinion; a major case; or some work outside the bankruptcy court. In this case, there's nothing special about Bernstein's career as a bankruptcy judge, and the only extracurricular work is authoring a textbook and teaching law. Unless there's something very special about either, I don't see anything making this worthy of retention. I could be convinced otherwise if there's something more to it. TJRC (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know Bernstein's name personally, but the Southern and Eastern districts of NY, along with Delaware, are strong bankruptcy areas. Putting inherent notability aside, there's an overwhelming possibility that any Southern or Eastern District federal judge in NY is going to have some major cases that grant notability to the judge. Shadowjams (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Bankruptcy judges are federal judges, and while the nom is correct that they're not Article III judges they are substantially more rare and important than Administrative Law Judges. As per TJRC's comment, bankruptcy judges get 14 year terms and are not Article I judges (they serve at the pleasure of congress and not the president) and can only be removed for very specific reasons. All of that's an aside beyond the fact that the Bankruptcy court judges are fairly small and I would suggest possibly inherently notable. On this specific individual, his contributions to Colliers might be enough in any other context to secure his notability. Shadowjams (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per TJRC. Notability guidelines are to indicate that sources should be easily found, even if not in the article. This marginal case would need sources to actually exist to be notable. If he is inherently notable, where are the sources? This is not just non-notable, but unverifiable.Yob Mod 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here are just a few reliable sources demonstrating notability: author of a "Must Read" Decision, author, 1590318129 author again,
ISBN 0333969022 contributing author, law review author, author. The textbook authorship alone would satisfy the criteria for most academics. I am surprised there are calls for delete at all with a subject like this. Shadowjams (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no convincing demonstration of notability per the guideline. Eusebeus (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. District judge is not a high enough level, his textbook appears to be non-notable (e.g. only in 42 libraries in Worldcat), and there's no evidence that he passes any of the other
WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment - I disagree with the premise that a U.S. district court judge is not at a high enough level. Given that it's a Presidential appointment, requires Senate confirmation, and has a lifetime tenure, I regard such judges as being inherently notable, the draft guideline
  WP:JUDGE notwithstanding. However, the subject here is a bankruptcy judge, not a district court judge. I make this comment in case future AFDs refer to this discussion for support for the premise about district court judges. TJRC (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. speedied

247 10:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

CTP Green Slips

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

~~A article that is made like a common forum spam post about Viagra except instead of Viagra we are left with spam about insurance. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)~~User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It mostly seems copied from greenslipinfo.com.au so I tagged it as a speedy. It could also be a G11 I feel. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of the article could be argued to be marginally notable. However, the current state of the article would need a complete rewrite from scratch. Until someone comes along that is willing to do that, this article need not exist.
talk) 22:56, 28 October 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complicity (album)

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

Yet again, an article with the title Complicity has been created for the fifth Sum 41 album, which has not yet been named (the title Complicity was made up by fans) or given a tracklist by the band. No release date is known, either, and the recording process hasn't even begun. This is a clear

reliable sources and likely won't be for at least several months. I recommend that this page also be salted due to multiple recreations. Tim meh 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - No sources are available to confirm that this album will be released, no sources are available to confirm the suspected title of the potential album. This falls under
talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Still no source of any kind (reliable or otherwise) to verify the title. Some of the content was copied from
WP:CRYSTAL. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per
talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (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 - AfD started by banned user w/no other delete !votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 10)

)

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

This article is by no means ready to be turned into it's own independent article just like how many more stupid titles we can make for future seasons of Total Drama Island. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC) The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unlike during the previous Afd on this article, the 10th season has actually started (as of several weeks ago). It's not a future season anymore. A google search turns up tons of pages with episode guides that match the episodes in this article. I don't see why this article can't get started now.
talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep My rationale for deletion last time was it was created in February 2009 and the mid-way point of Season 9 of CSI, way before any of the writers even cared about S10, and was just fanfiction in article form. Now that we have actual episodes and plenty of sources there's no problems here at all. Agreed with nominator that some low-popularity and kid's series do not need season articles, but network primetime series are a whole different animal. chatter) 00:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There are few valid citations for these episodes other than Twitter and blogs and people saying "I am right, wait and see". It upsets me rules are made and not enforced for citations, and it will be the demise of Wikipedia and any hope of being respected as a reliable resource for information. Triste Tierra (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2009 (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 - default to delete. It would be impossible to gauge a consensus that would stick, given this divided discussion. Both sides made good (and bad) arguments. Therefore, no consensus is the only correct outcome. However, this article is unique in that is was previously deleted, and that the 'status quo' is for the article to not exist. No consensus is just that - a closure that doesn't change anything, a closure that returns to the status quo. I just don't see consensus here to overturn a previous AfD decision, even if it didn't meet the strict requirements of CSD G4. (Note: this default to delete has nothing to do with BLP concerns or recent controversies.) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modified to no consensus, deletion overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Human disguise

Human disguise

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
csp
|username}}.

Human disguise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Human suit

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

This is a procedural relisting of a
Human suit) was originally deleted per this discussion at AfD. Although the history of the deletion is complex, and a history merge has been performed, these facts are not particularly relevant to the present discussion. The article has been improved since the original deletion. The original reason for deletion: "[that it is a minor] plot device with no apparent real-world notability", could still be argued, however. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Salt and then drop into the black hole at the galactic core Seriously, this page was disingenuously created to circumvent the then-active AfD on
Human suit and is not even a content fork, it's a content mirror. I thought this was done with but a DrV was launched after the speedy and then closed without me ever so much as being notified! Please just delete this mess! Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This page existed before hand, they just copying information over. A human disguise is better, since some of the examples mentioned aren't actually a human suit. Totally different AFD here. Dream Focus 21:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original one was deleted because of religious people upset by part of what was original there, and all swarming in to say delete, before the article had time to develop into what it became at the time of its unfortunately deletion. But, whatever. There are plenty of notable series that have a character who disguises themselves as a human, so its a notable enough subject matter. And I did find books mentioning it in the last AFD. Dream Focus 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have read every one of the "delete" comments in the original AfD, and I cannot see any evidence at all that they were from religious people. Can Dream Focus direct us to the evidence?
talk) 11:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Read the last AFD. Search for the name "Jesus". That bit on the list I believe bothered many people. Dream Focus 11:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't bother me, and wasn't the reason for the delete. The abuse of DrV here is a huge problem that needs addressing. Verbal chat 11:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, Speedy Delete and salt as per the very recent AfD of the exact same article. I have nominated this for a speedy. By the way, dream focus is both wrong and offensive in his summary of the previous AfD. Having been involved at both articles I'm very annoyed that I wasn't notified about the unrepresentative DrV. This article has no RS that establishes it as a notable concept. This is exactly the same AfD, changing one word doesn't change the lack of RS, notability, etc. This disruptive behaviour is going too far. Everyone at the previous, same AfD should be notified and it should be linked in a box at the top as normal. Verbal chat 21:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy; {{
db-repost}} does not apply because the article was undeleted and listed at AfD as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 21#Human disguise (closed). New content has been added to the article so speedy deletion does not apply. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The supposed new content is rubbish, and similar to content that was in the prior article. It is substantially the same. Verbal chat 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was one of the main proponents of deletion and I am an Atheist. Verbal is likewise not known for a strong religious PoV (I am unaware of Verbal's personal religious convictions). Accusations that AfD was flooded by "religious" people thus demonstrably false. The original issue was the fact that the article was
WP:GNG Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with
talk) 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Snottywong's suggestion is good as long as there isn't a bloody
Human disguise stand-alone article afterward.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs
) 14:55, 28 October 2009

Strong Keep Clearly notable. This new article is ripe for expansion. The use of human disguise by greek gods, satan, in science fiction, and biblical stories is very well established. There are plenty of sources on google books and google news discussing the significance of the meme. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to provide any RS for that? Your cut-and-paste move during an AfD and then DrV on the copy is a clear abuse of process. Verbal chat 22:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're in the article and I'm trying to add more, but it's time consuming to revert your vandalism and disruption. Please stop or you will have to be blocked for the duration of the AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not provided any RS that "human disguise" or "suit" is a notable concept, what you've given is
WP:OR and primary sources that the term is used in books, etc - but not that it is notable. Verbal chat 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The article is being vandalised by Verbal including this edit removing sourced content [1]. He's welcome to make his case for deletion, but if he can't restrain himself from vandalising the article admin intervention may become necessary. Please restore the article content that he removed (after adding a speedy tag and then a bunch of other tags when that was removed by another editor). This is getting ridiculous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at
WP:NOTVAND and the links I gave in the edit summary. Justify your additions on the talk page please, I have challenged them. Verbal chat 22:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete and salt per above. Btilm 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content fork (that it's an end around on AFD is annoying, but what are you going to do?), basically original research. It isn't an encyclopedic topic; it's a coat-rack for trivia.
talk) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but trim- there's enough for at least the material to remain. Perhaps not as a standalone article, but at least in some form. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found any critical coverage of this as a separate topic in any reliable sources. (The search was well worth doing, though, because it did throw up sources for similar topics: why don't we have articles on
Fantasy tropes and conventions. ~~Would a merge be a reasonable compromise?~~—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

What is a
gender disguise? A merge is worth considering, but keep in mind this is a new article and likely to be expanded. I think it's appropriately broad as it is, yet still coherent, but I'm pretty flexible if there's a better way to handle the subject. The fantasy article you mention focuses on aspects in fantasy writing, while this one deals more with sci-fi, cartoon animation, and religio-mythological concepts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It's the thing in older literature such as Shakespeare where the girl dresses up as a boy to go and seek her fortune, or in Woolf where a character swaps gender during the story.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(later) Since this has turned from being a normal AfD into one of our regularly-scheduled battlefields between the Article Rescue Squadron and the Article Extermination Squadron, and there is now no hope whatsoever of a good-faith debate about sources, I have stricken my remark and wish to bow out of the whole matter. Regardless of how this is closed, I look forward to seeing it at DRV shortly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Human disguise" is a notable and encyclopedic subject, with lots of possible references, while "human suit" seems like a concept from a cult. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many of the examples are clearly of very considerable importance, & show this as an element in a fiction. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
The Illiad in this way outside of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This is quite simply not true. Science fiction writer and critic Stanisław Lem often depicted aliens as incomprehensible and was critical of other writers who simply depicted aliens as humans in disguise. Gary Westfahl, a prolific science fiction writer and critic who does not yet have an article, discusses it a bit in an article here [2]. This is a very well established trope. This is a very new article, so it's not surprising that it's taking time to developa dn is starting out by picking the low hanging fruit: noting from reliable sources where this plot device and theme has been used. A reasonable discussion of the name and how best to handle the content is fine. But frankly, the rush to an AfD hasn't provided much time to properly develop the article. The idea that no one has ever discussed this type of plot device is silly and some of the cites in the aritcle already show that it has been discussed in relation to cold-war themes, feminism, science fiction writing, etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to my ear, "human disguise" is a neologism. i would prefer "list of fictional characters disguised as humans" with little content. i am also leaning towards delete as OR, but i do see some value in the idea here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the
they can hide in plain sight. Seriously, the title could change, but the subject is fine. Miami33139 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Could you provide an
WP:RS showing the notability of the subject? Verbal chat 20:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The term "disguised as humans" clearly shows usable source material on books.google.com and scholar.google.com. Miami33139 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Can the previous AfD be linked in a box at the top per standard procedure, and can all previous participants in the very recent AfD please be notified. Verbal chat 20:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Go ahead and add the box, and go ahead and notify the participants. Make sure to use a neutral message.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I'm aware of the history of this articles interaction with
WP:CANVASing - you may wish to redact it or modify it's tone. Artw (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

It's correct and added to an already existing discussion of this article, at an appropriate noticeboard. You've already taken this to ANI and been smacked down for it, so stop peddeling this disruptive line please. Verbal chat 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified everyone (I think) involved at the previous AfD, and the FTN. Verbal chat 21:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but, what does the Fringe Theories Noticeboard have to do with an article that purports to be about a literary and religious motif? I don't understand the purpose of notifying them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... and how is the phrase "abuse of process" to be considered neutral? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They walk amongst us! Messy article, but it seems to cover a theme that recurs sufficiently to justify an article and could be whipped into shape (I'm adding Rescue accordingly). Artw (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can't see this article being anything more than a list of examples which is probably not notable. Also seems to be a recreation of the human suit article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Besides picking up the human suit article, the rest of this is just a list of every random thing that ever appeared in any context in the guise of a human being. I see no possibility of anything non-trivial or unobvious being said. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a recurring theme in multiple notable works of fiction and the like. I do like Mercurywoodrose (talk · contribs) suggestion of turning it into a list, but not outright deletion. --kelapstick (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an RS for notability? Verbal chat 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple reliable sources on the page that talk about the use of a human disguise, that plus it's frequent repetition as a theme in science fiction is enough for me to consider it notable, you are however welcome to disagree with my assessment. --kelapstick (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is
original research it is. Crafty (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - A Google News search reveals 17 pages of articles that use the exact term "human disguise". I have not gone through all of them, but there is at least two New York Time articles, one mentioning the device in science fiction, and another in fable/legend. Seems like reliable sourcing is out there, unlike for the more alien term "human suit". Cheers!
talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The section "In religion and mythology" (which does not seem unrepresentative) is an irrelevant and fanciful bit of artificial knowledge that could not exist anywhere by any means other than desperate Googling to sustain a Wikipedia entry's notability. It is thus
WP:SYN at best, and the rest of the article has been put together by the same method. Even a couple of academic lit crit articles on the motif would not make it a notable subject (they would just provide a couple of footnotable sentences for an article on a notable subject like Literary representations of the human form or some such). Wareh (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - it is well sourced now and it's a notable topic with plenty of room for expansion. Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, but a list, and one that interprets "human disguise" so broadly that this is a collection of indiscriminate information. Besides which it's simply misleading--an article that claims that the Greek gods in the Iliad are doing something similar to the aliens of Men in Black is peddling nonsense. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one or two sentences from the first paragraph may be reasonable to merge into the disguise article. The rest of this is a list of trivia, and the article serves no purpose other than collecting more trivia entries. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to me like a prosified list of examples... an encyclopedia article should explain a topic, discuss it meaningfully, summarize published opinions on the topic... I don't really like the idea of an article that can do nothing but list 50 examples of the topic, and not talk about what it actually means. That's just trivia. --
Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- not a real unifying article, just a grab bag of examples. Not a notable enough idea to warrant an article of its own. Auntie E. 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this quite obvious end-run around
WP:CSD#G4, and we need to start thinking about sanctions for stuff like this. Black Kite 01:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt: still no indication that a coherent topic exists without editor
term of art (e.g. "invisible or in some human disguise"[3]). Article in its current form was created as a clear end-run around original AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment and sources - Some sources which actually talk about it as a subject, and thus do not require OR and synthesis to make a subject from: "Alien invaders in the movies tend to fall into two types. There are monsters from outer space ("The War of the Worlds," the forthcoming "Independence Day") and infiltrators ("Invasion of the Body Snatchers") who slip in using human disguise"[4] and "The Pagan deities often assumed a human disguise; and, when angels appeared to the Jews, it was always as men"[5] In these sources, instead of simple having examples and making up the subject, the subject itself is discussed. Cheers!
talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment on lack of sources: bare use of the word combination "human disguise" in a very few sources does not amount to "significant coverage" (it is "trivial" coverage as that word is defined in
WP:NOTE). Where are the sources that discuss (in something even resembling depth) the significance, history, etc, etc of 'human disguises' in literature? It appears that there aren't any -- therefore there should not be an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete on the basis that, without sources really exploring this concept as a literary theme, it's just a pile of
trivia in disguise. The current "in criticism" paragraph is completely off-topic; the quote is not about aliens literally disguised as humans, it's about fictional aliens that act too human because of a failure of imagination on the author's part, a very different thing. Everything else should get cut from the article as being primary-sourced trivia, but then there'd be nothing left. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep: As a broad theme in literature, film, and television, I'd think it's clearly notable. Gods, angels, demons, monsters, aliens, and robots (Disneyland animatronics), and even other human beings (e.g. Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs, or the Mission Impossible crew) have worn human disguises. It's an unsettling topic that asks uncomfortable questions about how we know whether someone's really a human being, even what it means to be a human being. Whether the article's going to be done well or not is a separate matter, but surely it should exist. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt pure original research, unnotable topic, and trivia, and already deleted once. This recreate and rename should not fly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sizzle Flambé. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised keep. I wasn't expecting to want to keep this article, but looking at it in its current state, it already makes a reasonable claim that this is a notable concept. There are plenty of instances in fiction and mythology of gods, supernatural creatures and aliens that masquerade as human; arguably enough to say that it is a trope worthy of having an article about. There are issues with original research here, but it should be possible to find third-party sources that discuss this concept. Robofish (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, like Robofish above, was surprised at my thoughts here, although obviously for different reasons. This is an extremely popular meme, as the article notes, and is all over the place. However, that is all the article notes, and therein lies the issue. Every (or nearly every) source only proves that this exists and is used, but I didn't see a single source that was actually covering the topic of human disguises. Notability requirements are for coverage in third-party sources, not mentions. I have not seen nor can see a source that is itself about human disguises/suits, and that leads me here to delete. Being a popular concept in media is grounds for inclusion in TVTropes, not here. Barring evidence of coverage and discussion of the actual subject, this article is essentially one giant "In popular culture" section. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, per Snottywong's suggestion: I don't have a strong opinion on the subject matter, but as an article, it's fine. Snottywong might be onto something though that it would be more appropriate if merged with "Disguise".--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We could call this an "article disguise." It's a fairly random list disguised as an article. But the disguise is thin indeed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I liked the "Human suit" title. I consider the
potential for improvement and how it can be made to serve the project. What can be improved through normal editing does not belong at AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: yes I "looked" (I even quoted one in my 'delete' opinion). The
"delightful potential", which I why I would like to see it removed as expeditiously as possible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Nice that you looked. Other editors have looked and formed opinions quite the opposite of yours. That the original nominator of the previous article finds his concerns addressed speaks volumes [6]. The beauty of community is that we do not all have to agree. I do not expect you to agree with me... and I will respectfully disagree with you. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For all the reasons given above and more.
talk) 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The notability of this concept has not been established. Some of the examples listed are clearly notable but there is no indication that reliable sources have discussed these examples in terms of the more general concept. Our inclusion of them is a breach of
WP:NOR. The manner in which this page was created, and the technicality through which DRV overturned the speedy deletion is a more general problem that must be fixed. This was a clear end run around an ongoing AfD.PelleSmith (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the content. Certainly, it could use more work, but as discussed at the DRV its creation was not technically a violation. This article is much larger and better sourced now than the
G. ツ 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It was a copy paste move of an article that was about to be deleted at AfD, a clear violation. The Stepford Wives are humanoid robots, not a disguise. Verbal chat 13:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thankfully that concern has been eminently addressed through the course of normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge of the few bits that would fit into disguise. We actually had consensus for that and the process had started. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? If it the article is kept, don't "merge" a small token bit over to another article, and then delete the rest. We could perhaps make an article called List of non-humans that have impersonated humans, or something of that sort, for the bulk of information, and just have a short description of a human disguise here. Dream Focus 19:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source for such a list would have to be something other than the current article, in order to avoid very idiosyncratic (
WP:OR). Wareh (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep and dont merge. Stunning rescue work by Child of Midnight and Dream Focus. This is shaping up to be a most excellent article. As an amateur classist Ive read the Iliad several times, along with some of the best regarded commentary by Bespaloff and Weil. But Id never worked out how someone like Diomedes was able to wound several gods – hes not even as good a fighter as Achilles. It makes so much more sense now I know he was just damaging their human suits! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt - blatant effort to circumvent the normal deletion review process. This is the same old article, just as unencyclopedic as ever, if not worse; and this kind of attempted end run is violative of process as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to make a good argument that this article was created in circumvention of the normal deletion review process since it was recreated following a deletion review. Perhaps you've been misled by Verbal's canvassing and distortions? Is there a different deletion review process you wanted it to go through? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this whole situation when it was at DRV, and it honestly seemed like the closest thing to a bad faith action was the G4 speedy deletion that prompted the DRV. I want this article deleted, but at least its proponents seem to be operating within the rules. --
Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
So you don't see a problem with a cut-and-paste move (not allowed) while an AfD, which is clearly heading for delete, is in progress? The starting a DrV on that illegitimate copy rather than a request to restore and rename the original article? And the DrV didn't even get input from those involved on either article? I see several problems with that. Verbal chat 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally deleted based on the AFD which hadn't even been closed yet, that was never disputed in the DRV. DRV isn't required to get input from any particular group beyond the people who happen to show up for the DRV. Perhaps I shouldn't have cleared CoM of any questionable actions, but the deletion of the article he started was very problematic, especially as the person who made the deletion apparently never explained it. There was a lot of confusion. I'll assume good faith and say it was confusion all around. If there's more "confusion" and it leads to a third AFD in the near future, I'll start to think maybe there's some circumvention going on... but I don't see the need for jumping to any conclusions just yet. --
Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep very well researched article. I am very concerned by the many "usual" bad faith comments in this AFD also, "which [should be] ignored" by the closing admin.
talk
)
Do you have RS that establish notability of the concept (significant coverage of the concept in third party sources?), and do you have any rebuttals to the delete arguments, and do you have any policy reasons for keep? This is not a vote - as you often tell others. "Well researched" is blatantly unsupportable. Verbal chat 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE That the article has got worse since the AfD started, with many unsupported sections and sections that are not supported by RS, such as blogs or primary sources. Editors are resistive to any change or discussion, and are arguing that their OR trumps wikipedia policy. Verbal chat 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I DISAGREE and suggets that editors take a look at the articles history to see for themselves rather than taking Verbals word for this. Also the all-caps is very silly. Artw (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is just a collection of film and book trivia with little to no encyclopedic value at all - mostly seems to be made up by the editors. As has been said above, the notability of this concept has not been establsihed at all. --Teaearlygreyhot (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Excellent article; insufficient reason to delete. Badagnani (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

I just want to remind everyone that AfD is not the place to discuss whether an article is good or bad - those are (personal) opinions and should not impact an article's
status. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I thought that this subject might be covered in the talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete i had suggested content be changed to a list format, and retitled. while someone could someday make a nice simple list of fictional nonhuman characters or mythological nonhuman characters disguised as humans, this article is so overwhelmingly original research as to be impossible to fix. to keep this article, we would need multiple, secondary sources commenting on primary sources that discuss in depth the idea of "human disguise" across the entire spectrum of forms as listed here. its been said before: this is not a place to publish your ideas, no matter how interesting (and this could very well be the core of an excellent essay or book). I even think my attempts at fleshing out Aliteracy could be considered OR (and would not be offended if it was afd'd, though i would be sad of course), as i progress in my understanding of WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, especially "across the entire spectrum of forms as listed here." Without that, the topic this article's on is an
WP:OR invention of the article's author. Wareh (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
you've set up a catch-22. When it's a mere list, it's objected to on the basis that it's just a list; when it discusses some of the examples, and gives sources, the objection is that it synthesizes the material into a discussion. And now you object because it isn't a complete discussion--a standard few Wikipedia articles can meet What the actual article is is essentially a list in paragraph format, with supporting references.I am really a little puzzled by all this, since i think it's a fairly good article--certainly a fairly good one as a basis of further improvment, which is all that is asked for. This is not a FA discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any "List of..." article, in order to belong in the encyclopedia, should be a list of phenomena in a category that has been recognized by reliable sources. I do not think a list has to be complete--it can be a tiny work-in-progress sliver of a larger category. What I do think is that the larger category has to demonstrably exist in the scholarly/reliable-source world. So, for example, this article includes the Iliad, not because its gods have ever been considered by a reliable source to be part of a wider category of human disguises, but because the editor liked the idea of human disguises and googled for disparate uses of certain phrases which no reliable source has ever related to each other. That's what makes it
WP:RS-supported object of knowledge. Wareh (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

comment I've re-added the Not a ballot hat, as removed by Verbal. There is sufficient psuedo-canvasing (or posisbly actual canvasing), disruptive editing, groundlerss accusations of policy breaches, non-policy reasons given for deletion, weord all-caps outbursts etc here and on related pages that I would assume the reason for it's presence is pretty self explanatory. Artw (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And let's leave it to avoid further obfuscation and
3RR issues. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep. The article covers a recurring literary theme/device that is notable and well-sourced. The active canvasing by Verbal (as linked by Artw above) and the disruptive editing by the same user, deleting valid sourced references added by ChildofMidnight, are especially disturbing. Such actions create the appearance that AfD is viewed as a competition or that there is some personal grudge-match going on. This is not how an AfD discussion should be handled. I suggest that the closing admin disregard votes cast by individuals canvased by Verbal. Cbl62 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've tried to get Cbl62 to justify these accusations against me, and further discuss them, but he doesn't seem interested in either justifying them or refactoring the above personal attacks. Verbal chat 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Note. Quite to the contrary, I did provide justification for my comments and engaged in a lengthy discussion of the point on Verbal's talk page. As is his right, he chose to delete the discussion. The following diff], as cited by Artw above, appears to me to be canvasing. Indeed, in this recent diff, even Verbal conceded that: "Apparently my edit here above is inappropriate canvassing." I have also expressed to Verbal my concerns with his removal of referenced edits by ChildofMidnight. I have further raised with Verbal the issue of his having thrice reverted the "not a ballot" template from this discussion. See here, here, and here. I have no desire to antagonize Verbal or pick a fight, but the manner in which this AfD discussion has been handled suggests that a lot of personal "ego" is being attached to winning or losing the debate. I think it would be a good idea for all involved to take a deep breath and let the process run its course. The differing camps obviously feel strongly about the way the AfD has been handled, and things undoubtedly could have been handled better by both sides. I urge all involved to put "ego" aside. I have no stake in the article, have never edited it, and have no connection with it. Based on my read, it looks like a solid start on a notable topic. We can have differences of opinion, but let's keep things civil and lower the volume of the rhetoric. Cbl62 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is notable, can you please provide
WP:RS for the topic, as that would end a lot of the discussion here. As to the "lengthy discussion", it was very short and you refused to justify your attacks. I'm fine for the AfD to run it's course, but using ad-homs and false and unjustified accusations of canvassing and vandalism are not hallmarks of grown up debate, and present an untrue picture of events. Artw reported me to ANI for what he calls "canvassing", but his interpretation was roundly rejected. Verbal chat 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe the notability of the article is sufficiently established by the references in the article. This is a recurring theme in, among other places, classical literature, mythology and science fiction. You disagree. Not so unusual. We are entitled to have different opinions. As for accusing you of "vandalism," this is simply untrue. I made no such accusation and ask you to point to a diff supporting the statement. Also, I cannot find the ANI discussion where you assert that Artw's canvasing interpretation was "roundly rejected." Could you provide a link so that I may consider the comments made there? Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl's reply is also misleading, the conversation was on his talk page, and he kept editwarring it onto my talk page- leading to a 3RR warning. He removed the short conversation after the warning was given (by an uninvolved party) and I had requested calm. I gave several pointers to policy, and asked which I had broken with specificity. He refused to discuss, so I asked for the comments to either be refactored or removed. He still refuses. Verbal chat 20:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, Verbal. Stop this. I have not accused you of "vandalism," as you assert above. Nor have I engaged in edit-warring, as you also assert. I simply have a different point of view on this. Cbl62 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed, but Verbal has actually now reverted the "not a ballot" template for a fourth time. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I've self reverted, but I'd still like the tag to be justified on the talk page.Verbal chat 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt -
WP:INDISCRIMINATE says WP isn't the place for "plot-only description of fictional works." Similarly, I don't think that it's the place for an indiscriminate list, derived from otherwise-unrelated fiction & non-fiction works, just because all contain a common reference to a gimmick (minor in most, major in some). If, at some point in the future, multiple secondary sources all decide to cover the topic, then it will be worth an article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Well... since this is not a plot-only description of a fictional work, your arguments puzzle me. I am confused by your declaring this article as an indiscriminate list,when the lede spells out exactly what the article is about and shows that it is specifically not indescriminate. Since multiple reliable sources have been offered as sources, I am further puzzled by your summation that we might wait for a
WP:RS guides. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that it is substantively a "plot-only description of a fictional work" (sprinkled with a few bare-mentions in secondary sources), the argument would appear cogent. The "future" in question is one where "significant coverage" (not bare mention) is found in third-party sources. For the coverage to be "significant" it will, of necessity, have to include some in depth discussion of the device/motif of a 'human disguise' for a non-human. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your opinion, the argument is not cogent, which is why I posed my puzzlement to
reliable sources have been offered as sources... sources which deal with the subjects of the article in a more-than-trivial fashion, your continuing to claim they haven't or that they are all bare mentions is not helpful. And unless User:DoriSmith is an alternate account of yours, perhaps you'll please let the editor then speak for themselves should they wish. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

User:MichaelQSchmidt, maybe you should try taking a look at what I actually wrote, and maybe then what I said would become more clear. For instance:
I did NOT "[declare] this as a plot-only description of a fictional work""—what I said was that, to me, this article has similar issues to those that are covered by
WP:OR
) should, similarly, not be allowed either.

I never said, "we might wait until ALL available reliable sources deal with this subject in the same or greater detail"—again, you've misrepresented what I did write, which may be why you're having trouble understanding it. What I wrote was "If, at some point in the future, multiple secondary sources all decide to cover the topic, then it will be worth an article"—that is, if/when multiple reliable secondary sources all publish something on the subject, then at that point we'll have resources with which to write an article.

My perception of your rebuttal is that you're saying my policy-based belief that articles require sources that cover the concept itself is incorrect/inappropriate/inapplicable/inflated and that the article does have multiple reliable published sources. Which is it? It can't be both, as they contradict each other.

As to "indiscriminate": "mythology, religion, science fiction, and cartoon animations" (along with metaphors, comic books, television shows, fantasy, non-animated cartoon characters, and video games, all mentioned later) involving "gods, angels, Satan, demons, monsters, robots, or aliens" (along with lemurs, fairies, and mermaids, mentioned later)—honestly, I think "indiscriminate" is a reasonable description.

Additionally, some of the article is just plain nonsense, e.g., "Recently New Frontier returned to the cold war theme, using the character of the Martian Manhunter"—explain, please, how the 1961-1963 Kennedy administration (which is what the "New Frontier" article, linked to, is about) is either "recent," or is a "return to the cold war theme"? How about what JFK had to do in general with the Martian Manhunter?

Please, try to stay civil and focus on improving either your arguments or the article. Apparently, you skimmed what I wrote and then attacked the subsequent strawman.
assuming good faith. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that the New Frontier link has been amended so that it points to the correct article. Artw (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to rescue effort. Good job, gang! :) Also, I hope everyone had a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly a notable phenomenon in pop culture. I have seen it numerous times in television shows and movies, and it isn't just for some obscure sci-fi films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan321 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 November 2009

Delete Coatrack article, fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I've never seen such a disjointed collection on this subject except here. Wikipedia is not the place for original essays. Also, bar one word that has changed, meets CSD G4 criterion.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Pure original research. Laundry list of unrelated fictional elements. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, and hunt down and destroy any zombies formed from its corpse This is really an inadequately stealthy attempt to recreate the
literary trope that anyone cares about; it's a list of examples for which there is no article. And probably the reason there is no article (besides the aforementioned attempt to recreate deleted material-- i.e., the author didn't care) is that the notion of disguise is so basic that there is nothing notable you can say about it that isn't either said under disguise itself or in any more specific article (e.g. avatar and incarnation). Mangoe (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: This page provides good information on a genre of literature that is all too common (especially in recent years). Im suprised such an article hasnt been done sooner. Id like to see more contribution to this page to help improve it, but the topic should certainly be kept and expanded. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some
WP:GNG? Verbal chat 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't collected sources no, although i have no doubt you could easily find some. The topic of demons, angels and similar taking human form is a very well established genre. Shows like "Touched by an Angel" and dozens of similar modern literature or tv shows not to mention the thousands of different literature going back thousands of years all centering around this topic. It is not just a passing side note in some literature but rather a central device in more literature/tv than i could ever hope to mention. To me there isn't much doubt regarding its notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debeo Morium (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is I and other editors have not been able to find any sources that show this topic passes the
WP:GNG; they have not been easily found despite efforts. Which part of which notability guideline do you think is met? Verbal chat 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the problem here is that your looking for papers titles "Human Disguise" or similar (perhaps a rename of the page is in order?). My searching on google has shown much literature of course regarding this genre. but the question is if there are reliable sources that address this topic in literature. While i doubt youll find a paper by the above title there is a great deal of sources which talk about the various literature within this genre. Often times as a side note they may make reference specifically to the aspect of "human in disguise" (usually not by that name). I think its just one of those topics you need more eyes on to really get a good set of sources going and bring it up to wikipedia standards. I don't doubt much that the notability exists and the guidelines can be satisfied if the right attention is given. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Verbal is looking for is any work of analysis (a thesis, of at least minimal notability) that dwell on the subject specifically, instead of just mentioning it in passing. I have also looked for this, and have come up empty. As per
WP:NOR we are not allowed to create our own analyses of primary literature, and all the refs I've seen so far are primary sources. There's the problem. Hope this helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
My understanding of the guideline is that a paper where this is the main topic isn't needed for the subject to be notable. It needs to be more than a trivial reference in a single paper, sure, but it doesn't need to be a whole paper on the topic.. to quote
WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." From what i can tell this will easily be met. Ultimately i don't plan to get in there and do all the research and edit the article. This is just my assessment of the topic. I wouldn't be surprised the more eyes you get on this the more reliable the sources you find will be. The hard part here is finding the sources which are more likely to refrence this topic even if the paper itself isn't specifically about it as a whole. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The alien section is the only section of this article that I have worked on to any great extent, and where possible I have used sources that establish aliens in human disguise as a common theme in SF. I beleive we have good coverage there, and should the article be deleted I will be attempting either to roll the work there into Infiltration section of the
Alien Invasion article or create a spin off article. However I don't see any reason why the other sections could not be sourced similarly, and may they may already be so - I haven't been keeping up to date on the latest updates outside of the aliens section. At any rate, the claim that the article consists only of examples and that there are no sources establishing themes are false at least for that section. Artw (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Could you describe how your additions were appropriate to an article named "Human disguise" as opposed to "List of times thing that were not human were disguised as human?" IE - how are you not synthesising a list of times something happened to an article about how those things are connected? Hipocrite (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis would be combing material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources - the alien section most certainly does not do that since the thematic link is explicitly stated. What certainly could be improved within the article, which at present is a bit laundry-list-ish, is the discussion and sourcing of the theme as a whole across the various sections. It's not there yet, but theres no reason to believe that the article can't be improved in that direction, but article writing and researching sources proceeds at a slower pace than, say, wiki-lawyering or article disruption. Artw (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your case would be more convincing if you could find sources that discuss more than one instance at a time, therefore establishing the theme. Otherwise, this is OR. --Ramdrake (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are sources in the article that do that. In particular I would look at the two sources I just added, both of which examine disguise as a theme in fnatastic literature.[7]

[8] Artw (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not it. These are just mentions in passing. It fails "significant coverage", and represents only one source.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think possibly you're getting your notability guidelinbes and your OR guidelines mixed up. That and also being deliberately obtuse. Artw (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From
WP:NOTE: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. (emphasis mine). I wouldn't argue that your references provide "significant" coverage, now do they? Also, could we please skip the ad homs?--Ramdrake (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Id like to reiterate my earlier quote from
WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The resources already added seems to cover significant coverage to me. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 03:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This is where we disagree: I don't see a source providing significant coverage of this subject as a theme. Yes, there are primary sources that mention it, and secondary sources which also mention it in passing, but no source so far which does what
WP:NOTE requires.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
A fuller quote from the first reference there: "Disguises also aid in crossing racial barriers, often represented in science fiction through the use of aliens in space or robots. Sometimes humans attempt to pass as the other: a red-dyed John carter impersonates a martian in Edgar Rice Burroughs ... more often, aliens and robots attempt to appear human. In Ray Bradbury's The Martian Cronicles, Martians employ psychic powers to masquerade as Americans, while The Man Who Fell to Earth uses contact lenses and a mask. The ability of The Thing (1982) to appear human leads to paranoia, which is also behind the testing of robots if The Terminator and the androids in Blade Runner. Fears about being unable to identify the Other are gender-inflected in Stanislaw Lem's "The Mask" (1977)" - That would appear to be some not insignificant coverage of a theme. It's certainly not "in passing". Artw (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference I gave there, BTW, is pretty much a survey of secret identies, and starts with gods in disguise and covers dopplegangers, the non-human superhero Superman and science-fictional shapeshifters. Again, this is not trivial coverage or in passing. Artw (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the new references are fine and dandy, and there are no doubts dozens more around. But any attempt to gather them together without a Reliable Source is Synthesis. The article is in a sense an attempt to create a neologism, and we don't do that here. PhGustaf (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure synthesis. No reliable source adresses the topic as a whole, making the article Wikipedian editors original synthesis, as opposed to a real article. Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Topic" that exists only as an unsourced
synthesis based on individual instances (and, in a number of cases, on a poor understanding of those instances). Deor (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

As outright redlinking is always an extreme last resort that no one prefers, this article as titled could be a reasonable spelling for some searching for an article on say this book and as such has at least redirectable benefits as a blue link. After all, I frequently type lower case items in the search bar which take me to ~~funkytown~~ the article I am searching for. In any event, as far as human diguises go, I am looking forward to V (2009 TV series) this week! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure, writers have made up stories about aliens etc. disguised as humans. And with six billion people on the planet, there are articles/books that use the words "human disguise". However, there is no
WP:SYNTH. If the supporters of the article really want it, please change it to a "List of..." and just list the examples with links to relevant Wikipedia articles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, it boils down to "these things that use a human body as a disguise" but then veers off in so many directions that the article makes little sense, and is heavy on the synth. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Source City Three secondary sources have been added which deal with this topic in a non trivial way, and three more have been placed on the talk page for possible future integration. Three of these are near the top of our RS hierarchy as they're from University Presses . Angels and demons: what do we really know about them? for example has two pages of discussion focussing on Angel's human disguise , with proper reference to scripture. Several of the sources are largely focused on the human disguise aspect as can be seen from the titles, e.g. Human Animals: Werewolves & Other Transformations. I encourage all open minded editors who have voted delete to re-evaluate. There's hopefully no question that the many sources now establish this article is notable by any reasonable interpretation of our policies. About the only remaining valid argument is synth, specifically that no secondary source addresses the topic with the same breath of coverage as this article. But its part of an encyclopaedias function to collate different secondary sources, so naturally we are going to have a wider scope than any one source. This is part of the reason why reliable sources acknowledge we sometimes have the best available article on certain subjects. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source ghost town: these sources provide only bare mention of the concept of human disguise, in discussing related topics. No "significant coverage", no detailed treatment of the topic. Reaffirm 'delete' opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Source Ghost Busted! The bare mention criticism only seems to apply to the Brothers and Beasts: An Anthology of Men on Fairy Tales source used for Kitsune and there seem to be sources in the Kitsune article that treat the human disguise concept in more detail. If youd like to chose one out of Angels and demons: what do we really know about them or Retrofitting Blade Runner or The History of the Supernatural then when Im back online tommorow I'll try to illustrate in detail how the coverage is non trivial , with quotes that you should be able to verify from google books! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely spot on Feyd! Good job, I feel even more confident in my position to keep on this one. Thank yoU! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic
WP:SYNTH violation and original research. Take away the involved synthesis and the topic no longer has a claim of notability. Skinwalker (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I don't think anyone will argue that the article doesn't need work, but that isn't a reason for
deletion. Keep and improve it. If it needs to be renamed, then rename it. If it needs to be trimmed, trim it. If it needs more/better sources, source it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Allow me to sufficiently summarise the whole thing: is the topic worth discussing? Yes. Please spare us from wikilawyering and use that energy to fix the article. This AfD page is 78 kilobytes long. Abolish AfD. --Sincerely, a jaded regular, wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a serious comment or sarcasm? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deboringize and Transwiki to tropeswiki. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I simply cannot resist making a pretty much valid transwiki call, correctly request insertion of humor, *and* doom us all to hours of distraction all in a single 5-word post. ;-) [reply]
&& Hoist by my own petard (note time in signature) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid and notable concept. Everyking (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2009 (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) 04:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiera massette

Kiera massette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The author added a {{
notability." NW (Talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
] Delete. I did not find significant coverage, and nothing in the article convinces me that I should have found some. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] A very very saddened delete, because the lady really looks good. On the serious side, though, no verifyable RS are listed and I doubt any could be found. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Gonna go delete here. The WP:ATHLETE, nor does it seem to fall within WP:PORNSTAR. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete - not notable. --Quartet 14:03, 29 October 2009 (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) 04:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wonderland (Sea of Treachery album) Wonderland (Sea of Treachery album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NALBUMS. This article does not come out until 2010. Btilm 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete per nom. Per talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this talk) 23:41, 28 October 2009 (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. American Klub e.V. The result was Speedy Delete (A7). Alexf^(talk) 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] American Klub e.V. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This article fails WP:CLUB. Btilm 21:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Strong delete. Fails WP:CLUB. Seems to be a club that meets in a bar. That's not notable. No independent references, can't verify. Probably merits a speedy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete per above. Note: author placed Template:Newpage on the article, and while a quick look at their contribs shows no sign of familiarity with guidelines for inclusion, I hope that the nominator takes that into account before marking articles for deletion. BlazerKnight (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 28 October 2009 (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 both. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Norton level crossing Norton level crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Fenwick Level Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete - I've cleaned up this article a little bit from its original incarnation, but I still don't feel its anywhere near notable enough for inclusion! It just seems to be a random level crossing, out of many hundreds we have in this country! Jeni ^(talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: I've included Fenwick Level Crossing in this nomination, just about to tag the page. Jeni ^(talk) 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete both: Fails WP:GOOGLETEST. --Triadian (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete both: there are (were) literally thousands of level crossings in the UK alone. Mention in an article about the line they are on is the most that is needed (usually by inclusion in a route diagram). Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete both: no sign of notability not different to thousands of other crossings in the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete both. What next? An article about every railway bridge or signal box? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete both, they might merit a mention in the article about the lines they are on or a list of level crossings in South Yorkshire but not full articles. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete both as NN -- There are thousands of places where railways cross roads or rivers, but we really do not need an article on every one: a level crossing is no more worthy of an artiucle than a bridge under or over a railway. A few will be notable, but this should be rare. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 22:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Noreen Heron and Associates Noreen Heron and Associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Obviously a promotional article, but brought it here instead of nominating it for speedy deletion as it does assert notability, although I'm not convinced it's sufficient. talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Speedy Delete spam. So tagged. Assertion of notability is a concern for {{db-a7}}, but spam is pretty cut and dry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC) [reply] Keep, on the basis of the references from reliable sources. Of course, the references to the company's own website do not by themselves establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment. See http://www.heronpr.com/press.html for links to scans and reprints of articles which back up some of the claims (and note that some of those articles do not show up on the website of the publication where they appeared). Today's Chicago Woman doesn't seem to have anything about her online at http://www.tcwmag.com/?search=Noreen+Heron&x=1&y=1 (in fact, the magazine's search doesn't seem to work), but http://www.heronpr.com/se-chicago-pop.html lists three articles which mention her. Of the references in the article, three are the same newspaper story about his skills at multitasking. See also http://www.heronpr.com/irish-pop.html , http://www.heronpr.com/uic-pop.html and http://www.heronpr.com/se-chicago-pop.html -- Eastmain (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete A PR firm maintains a list of news briefs where it pushed some journalist to mention them. Wow! Nice case where several sources still don't make for decisive notability. Miami33139 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment from nominator: the Chicago Tribune article is about Ms. Heron rather than the firm; it's her tips on multitasking rather than coverage of her or the firm's PR activities. I realise the distinction may blurred here but as the article is about the firm and not a BLP, I think the article would have to establish notability specifically for the firm to be kept. talk) 18:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete. None of the coverage from reliable sources - really, only one source, reprinted several times - is actually about the business. They're about the CEO's struggle with work life and motherhood, and only incidentally mention where she works. Publicity businesses only become encyclopedia subjects if they meet the most stringent tests of notability, because they're publicity businesses, and presumably know the publicity value of Wikipedia coverage. This business does not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Comment. So should the article be moved to Noreen Heron? == Eastmain (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Not sure that being interviewed for a story on "how I juggle a career and motherhood" meets WP:BIO either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete There is virtually no media coverage of the PR business itself, or of work with the listed clients, and rather little coverage of Ms. Heron. I can't see this meeting WP:N. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Index of Lebanon-related articles Index of Lebanon-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD ) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Most likely a category. Damiens.rf 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep Actually this procedure is found in almost all other countries as well and is very useful. We cannot treat this on its own, but as putting Lebanon in line (in par) with all other country listings of similar logic and nature. Check for example these country indexes: An American continent page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Canada-related_articles Asian country pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Japan-related_articles (check each letter expansion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_India-related_articles African pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Egypt-related_articles European page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Portugal-related_articles Oceania page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Australia-related_articles Lebanese and many other pages were designed exactly as many others. In fact see how many countries have these lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_country-related_topics Why should we deprive Lebanon of such an easy reference that can be expandable even further. The index works exactly like a dictionary would whereas categories are thematic and much harder to locate and arguably very time consuming. Admittedly some searchers go by subject, some other searchers go by alphabetical order. The only way a category would work this way is if ALL Lebanese subjects are categorized with Category:Lebanon category which is not what we want to do. I suggest this Index of Lebanon-related subjects stays as is and even improved further with even more easy-access alphabetcal entries leading directly into the Lebanese pages, because it is very useful for many who don't want to go into the hassles of tens if not hundreds of segmented categories. Both systems can live together side by side. There is no need to exclude a system which is applied to so many other countries. I suggest a strong keep. werldwayd (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep Although "easy reference" is not what I would call this or any of the other "Index of ______-related articles", which read like long blue paragraphs, I'd probably grumble even more if each of these entries had its own line. Some people find this to be more efficient than other forms of navigation, and it's clear that this and others have been maintained since 2007. I know that the argument might be made that a category serves the same purpose, but "category Lebanon" is fragmented into 22 subcategories, which then split into sub-sub-categories, and even sub-sub-sub-categories; which kind of defeats the purpose of having a category in the first place. I look at this as a list of Wikipedia articles about Lebanon, without the dreaded "L-word". Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] There are two reasons why new lines for each entry are not used. ONE: Almost all country-related lists are done this way. We are just copying a Wikipedia style that has been applied elsewhere TWO: It is a space-saving device specially if there are a lot of entries. If each was on a new line, the list would look 4-5 times longer. For a list with say 20-30-40 suggestions, it would be ok, but not if there are hundreds of entries werldwayd (talk) That makes good sense. The more I think about it, the more I realize that separate lines would go on for page after page. Mandsford (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep This is basically a list; 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, 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. To justify deletion, there must be some very special reason. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep Of course this is a list and not a category and lists are all around Wikipedia. I cant find any sensible reason for this Afd except multiplying the number of edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.89.188.61 (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Evidence regarding Bigfoot Evidence regarding Bigfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD ) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This article is a blatant content fork with Bigfoot I redirected to Bigfoot and it was reverted, after discussion third opinion sought and third opinion suggested AfD Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] A redirect is not appropriate, because this is not a likely search term. On doing my research for this !vote, I've found that Wikipedia's coverage of Bigfoot is, frankly, a total mess. We have Patterson-Gimlin film. Basically, what's called for here is a much smaller number of articles, each containing much more information.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Exactly! Fewer articles, more dense information, less POV splitting. Right now Patterson-Gimlin film is notable enough to have its own article. We need to fix this somehow but I'm rather indifferent to how (merge, delete, whatever). Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep While this page needs to be cleaned up in places I really don't see any reason why it should be deleted. It's a relevant expansion of Talk:Bigfoot/Archive05#Bigarticle for why) and I believe it has enough interesting and valuable information to merit its existence. The Bigfoot stuff, and the 'paranormal' stuff here is a bit of a mess, granted, but to condense it into one topic would be a huge loss of information. K602 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Merge to the Bigfoot article, but please keep in the correct scientific framework. None of the "evidence" is scientifically confirmed zoological proof that there is a "Bigfoot" - a claim of "evidence" in the form of a standalone article suggest a confirmation of something that has never been proven. talk) 01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep - Proper split performed per WP:SPLIT. Problems with the POV of the sub-article are reasons to fix the sub-article, not to delete it or shoe-horn it back into the main article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep The bigfoot is too large to consider even a fraction of this referenced material. Reading both bigfoot and the evidence article reveals bias in each article. This needs to get fixed, but that won't happen via attempting to merge or redirect. I'd say that the other articles mentioned should be summary sections in the main bigfoot article, not in the see also section. Miami33139 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep the article was split from talk) 20:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep per TexasAndroid and Totnesmartin's comments above. My thoughts exactly. -- œ^™ 17:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep Legitimate spinout article to keep the main article from growing to large. Any POV problems can be dealt with by discussion and proper sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete as a POV-pushing fork of the main article. It doesn't need to be merged back, it needs to be deleted, so arguments about the size merging would require are misplaced. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I've already said it wasn't a POV fork but still you bleat POV fork. don't you read anyone else's comments, Dreamguy? Are are you just one of those people who think their own opinion is the truth? talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep For size reasons, as it is an extremely important aspect of the article Bigfoot.--Windowasher 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Keep: Size matters. Not a POV fork - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep - There is much interesting material here worth keeping. Merging with Bigfoot would create a too-lengthy article. If there are POV problems here, the proper response is to improve the article, not eliminate it. Plazak (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was merge and redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Urbanate AfDs for this article:Articles for deletion/Urbanate Articles for deletion/Urbanate (2nd nomination) Urbanate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD ) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable neologism invented by a now largely defunct group 'Technocracy Incorporated'. No external third party sources to show that this term has ever been used by anyone except Technocracy Inc in their literature. Borderline speedy, as even taken at face value, article does not establish why subject is notable. LK (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep: I started the article and have been asked to comment about this, so here goes. This is really a rerun of the previous discussion ([9]) and the reasons for keeping it are essentially the same. It is not a "Neologism" since it has been around since the 1950s. Yes, it is a concept of Technocracy Incorporated and yes, probably few people today will have heard of it, but that does not make it non-notable. The Technocracy movement was once very notable in having hundreds of thousands of members in the early to mid 20th century and the Urbanate concept was one of the group’s main proposals. Certainly technocracy is not as popular as it once was, but it certainly still exists and is not "defunct", but even if it no longer existed at all, this would still be relevant and interesting in a historical sense. For a similar example of something which is obscure, but notable, look at Technocracy Incorporated article. --Hibernian (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete/Merge into Technocracy Incorporated It was a neologism when it was coined, didn't take hold and is now not even an archaism. It deserves a brief mention in the Technocracy article, not an article of its own. JQ (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Comment: You could say exactly the same thing about Atlantropa or any number of other obscure old ideas. Atlantropa was of course a new term when it was coined, it never took hold and it could now be regarded as archaic, all of that may be true, but it is not a reason to delete Atlantropa, or this. --Hibernian (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] It that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete. Non-notable term which is already discussed in many other WP articles, see [10]. Johnfos (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Strong keep. The same team of tandem editors is deleting related articles to energy economics, and now the Technate article also... Led by user LK, and JQ. L.K. is currently under consideration for being topic banned as to editing economics related articles due to bias, topic ban?, and is wikihounding information related to this article also... note here on that subject --> from Economics project page. Also Noted Johnphos goes from page to page with this tandem edit group and has also been tandem editing with them as to pov and also stalks any edits concerning this subject in general. This points out the larger problem of tandem mainstream editors wanting to get rid of issues they are not in agreement with. User Johnphos's wikistalking repeated behavior. skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep This level of documentation would support a modern subject. I don't see why it is proposed to delete a historical one. Miami33139 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Redirect or smerge to Technocracy article. This term does not appear to be notable outside the corporation itself. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete There is no reason to have individual articles explaining each word of the jargon used by an obscure fringe group in the 1950s. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: What makes this group obscure and fringe? As far as the notable people involved in the group and Even a Time Magazine article from the 30's, I just recently read [11], Prove this group to be a fairly notable historical group. Why would time magazine write an article on a obscure fringe group? AdenR (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep I really don't see any reason for deletion.AdenR (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Merge into Technocracy Incorporated, then redirect per Guy. Beagel (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Comment: The fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not at all a relevant criticism in this case. The article does not attempt to make future predictions, it is a specific engineering proposal by a group, in exactly the same way as the Arcology article is. It does not in any way claim that Urbanates will be build, nor even that they should be built. It simply outlines what the Technocracy group proposes, I made quite sure when I started the article that it was NPOV and I stand by that. --Hibernian (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't doubt the article's neutrality, just its notability. Without a crystal ball I can't see circumstances changing to make it notable. If there was progress in that direction, this could be an interesting Did you know? Before arcologies there was Urbanate which in some ways anticipated their rise factoid. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Merge into Technocracy Incorporated and redirect per Guy and Beagel. Sifaka ^talk 00:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Merge Only 1 real source, the 1955 digest article. This could be much more concisely described in the Technocracy Inc. page. II | (t - c) 22:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete Non notable, indicated source is SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete Article appears to be an attempt to make the views of a small group seem important. That's fine, but only if independent secondary sources verify that the term has some general significance. Delete or merge to parent article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Merge Acknowledged neologism. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete. Most of the sources do not discuss the term. Only publication that may do so is not independent. Own searching does not reveal any use of the term, beyond what is in wikipedia mirrors. Appears to be a neologism that has fallen out of use. Given the lack of use of the term, I do not think a redirect is apprpriate. talk) 10:43, 4 November 2009 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wapsi Square AfDs for this article:Articles for deletion/Wapsi Square Articles for deletion/Wapsi Square (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Wapsi Square (3rd nomination) Wapsi Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This page was previously deleted at reliable coverage. Guest9999 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Comment: I'll deal with the issue of deletion later but for now I will comment that there does not seem to be an afd header on Wapsi Square. Someone should add it, and I have no idea how. --Elfwood (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Added, sorry about that, first time that's happened to me in about 100 nominations. Guess I must have closed the tab rather than saving or some such thing. Thanks very much for pointing it out. Guest9999 (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep: This is a prominent webcomic, as prominent as the rest of the Blank Label Comics strips. As for the Web Cartoonist Choice Awards, well, Academy Awards are voted by movie people themselves, Hugos by SF fans and Nebulas by science fiction writers. That is no reason to disregards WCCA. And it's not the only award WS has received - Skysmith (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep: I'm very disappointed to see this focus on how slim the references in the article were when 2 minutes of googling pointed out another award nomination and other places where the comic has been given recognition (I don't have time to add them all right now - just look and you'll see them). The discrediting of the Web Cartoonists' choice awards is undeserved too. Publishers weekly [has covered them and so has the New York Times, which you should know if you've read the article about them you linked to. They aren't perfect, but they are an indication of notability. Editors who focus on nominating articles on worthy topics for deletion instead of on developing articles to their full potential are, in my mind, one of the major barriers to participation in editing, something we're currently considering in the strategic planning process. The editor who put content into this article should be appreciated for contributing and encouraged with guidance on how to make it better and collaboration on making it so, not have the article attacked. By instead nominating it for deletion, you are actively contributing to the attitudes and frustration displayed here, which discourages everyone from contributing. (I was referred to that discussion in a comment on my request for comments on reader conversion here. I am not a fan of the comic and have never read it.) There's a way to deal with articles that are on good topics but need better citations and that's citations needed, not deletion. Netmouse (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] The article was previously deleted - award and all - following G4 in the future - something it was potentially vulnerable to before this discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] You "asked" for consensus but did not bother to put a notice on the talk page of the person who reinstated the article, nor on the talk page of another editor who had recently invested time into it. I suspect you didn't bother to do that the first time you nominated it for deletion in January either, but I don't think I have any way of checking that. I have added a couple more reliable sources into the article. I think wikipedia needs a less confrontational/dramatic process for highlighting articles that need references or other restructuring than proposing them for deletion. In fact we do have one, but you skipped it this time. If you thought notability was the issue, you should have used that tag instead of proposing it for deletion, or you could have tagged it as needing citation. Instead you jumped straight into the deletion process. Netmouse (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] The editor who most recently worked on the article (notable. Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Your reference to "the majority" of the participants of the earlier debate seems less impressive when I consider that the majority you are referring to was 2 commentators against one other participant. Hardly a sweeping majority. Notifying other major (not all) editors may not be policy, but it's certainly the polite thing to do. Netmouse (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep: I'm going to have to chime in as keep as well. It passes WP:WEB on point 2 (the 2004 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and the 2009 Lulu Award) and possibly point 1 (on the basis of the cited reviews and newspaper article) but I'll admit that this last point is tenuous. In fairness to Guest9999, I would point out that the article had no references when nominated, however that is not an excuse to jump straight to the deletion process. --Elfwood (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep: The article has been growing considerably from the contributions of multiple users, suggesting a reasonably large group of interested people. I wasn't around for the first deletion debate, but the editing history of the current incarnation shows it to be fairly busy for a stub article. Also, I've looked at an archival version of the previous version (URL lost, sadly) and what's there now is not a copy of the earlier page. It may be that Guest9999 has a deletion hobby, but this page seems to have more than sufficient reason to exist. Wyvern (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Elfwood.—Chowbok ☠ 20:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep but with an emphasis that I do not think Guest9999 was out of line in making the nomination. Given the result of the prior deletion debate, this nomination is justifiable. Powers ^T 14:35, 3 November 2009 (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) 04:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] MULTICUBE FP7 Project MULTICUBE FP7 Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Part of a plan to get these projects onto Wikipedia; [13] However, this project isn't notable. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete astroturfing. Miami33139 (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete - I wouldn't say this is notable enough. That, and the plan thing, which clinches it, , (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:10, 29 October 2009 (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. Ain't No Sunshine (Song Michael Jackson) The result was Speedy delete (A3). Alexf^(talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:Articles for deletion/Ain't No Sunshine (Song Michael Jackson) Ain't No Sunshine (Song Michael Jackson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No real content, no evidence that Jackson version deserves its own article. Had removed prod to turn into a redirect, but on reflection "song Michael Jackson" is pretty akward. Declan Clam (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete as clumsily named, individual versions don't get their own articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete for no content. So tagged. Article only contains an infobox at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tarth (Deadlock) Tarth (Deadlock) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD ) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Race within a videogame. No third party reliable sources exist. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Merge - no explanation as to why the default position (merging) for character articles is unacceptable here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Redirect immediately The problem with saying merge is that after AfD gets closed nobody does it. Redirect it and someone can add the content. Miami33139 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Merge Redirect: We have to assume the closing admin will actually do it, and even if it were missed that's not an excuse to not suggest the proper thing. Redirects are for things people might look for or think are normal articles but we happen to have them listed in a different way. If it's not appropriate as its own article it really shouldn't be a redirect, and per our normal consensus of "what counts" as notable as sub articles, a race is no different than places/locations, abilities, characters of most games, etc. ♪ (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete - nothing useful to merge. Target article already contains an excessive amount of fictional information. Not a useful redirect name: Tarth already exists as a redirect which can be, uh, redirected to Deadlock: Planetary Conquest. Marasmusine (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Redirect to Deadlock: Planetary Conquest, as the topic is covered there. No reason not to redirect it as far as I can see. --Taelus (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] From how "Other projects" on (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] These are good points to consider, however I believe that since the article already exists and there is a relevant redirect target which contains relevant information, a redirect would be the best option. We should remember that the article may be linked on non-Wikimedia sites, and thus without a redirect we would be breaking those links. Redirects are cheap, so as long as the information exists somewhere, I think it is harmless to have the redirect. If this was proposed as a redirect to create I think your points would rule against creating it, but since the page already exists it may have external links pointing at it we don't know about. --Taelus (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Good enough for me. Changed my original comment :) ♪ (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] I have no objectionion to a redirect, after all. Marasmusine (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was redirect to talk) 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Sairam Sairam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Disambiguation page for two totally unrelated terms. Ridernyc (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sayram and Sairam are close to each other (so they are related, which does not mean that there is a semantic relationship between them). Moreover, Sairam can be changed into a redirect to Sayram (spelling variant)). Apokrif (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to , (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Redirect per Spongefrog. Not an unreasonable search term. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Sayram and add to the lead "also spelled Sairam". Wikipedia is not Google and does not need to provide every possible use of Sairam as a dab page or in the Sayram aricle. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 19:03, 3 November 2009 (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 per WP:CRYSTAL without prejudice for re-creation when it is reviewed or previewed by the media. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Christian Brothers film Christian Brothers film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Personally, I think this fails talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Comment It's a future movie. The firing of its main star could signal the demise of the whole project. Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete. No notability, and if it's not even on iMDB, it may be promotional - but I'm still seeing obvious issues with WP:CRYSTAL here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep: Per [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19]. talk) 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Comment IMDB doesn't cover Malayalam film sector well, I believe. It doesn't even have basic details about some Malayalam film actors, photograph of [Mohanlal hxxp://xxx.imdb.com/name/nm0482320/bio]. This I am saying to show that, how you can take it as a criterion, when they don't cover this part of the world adequately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight177 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep: This movie is finalized and will begin shoot in November. It has been reported in regional dailies and channels. IMDB do not cover malayalam movies well. Please find some links confirming it http://www.nowrunning.com/news/malayalam/mohanlal-suresh-gopi-amp;-prithvi-in-josheys-christian-brothers/26691/story.htm http://entertainment.oneindia.in/malayalam/top-stories/2009/joshy-mohanlal-christian-brothers-141009.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnipbvr (talk • contribs) 10:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] To be honest, I'd be more inclined to say keep once we actually started filming - the first lin k appears to be a blog, but the second to me indicates it hasn't started shooting yet. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was merge. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Soul World Soul World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This fictional place lies within a gemstone, and appeared in (perhaps) one issue of a graphic novel. No sources can be found. Prodded twice, once be me and once by Durova. Abductive (reasoning) 16:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom; beside it's lack of notability, it has excessive talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Merge to more general article (Infinity Gems perhaps). I doubt secondary sources exist, so it shouldn't have a stand-alone article. However, being sourced to a primary source isn't a problem if the material is only part of a larger article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Merge to WP:COMICS so if people can hold off while we try and re-organise our articles that would be appreciated. We're just working on getting the last few stragglers assessed and then we plan to evaluate what we have and where it should go. Hiding T 11:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:42, 30 October 2009 (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) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Alan J. Baverman Alan J. Baverman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete, notability not established despite a thin patchwork of attempts in the article. First, being a U.S. Magistrate judge does not make one presumptively notable; they are not true federal judges appointed by Congress, but rather are court employees who relieve the burden of U.S. District Judges by presiding over preliminary hearings. Their opinions are rarely reported in case law reporters and are in the form of recommendations to the actual U.S. District Judge sitting on the case. In the case of this particular individual, the article attempts to buttress his notability by reference to matters in which he was involved. The article claims he "gained national recognition as a criminal attorney for his representation of Roy Cicola in the Atlanta Gold Club Case"; neither Cicola nor the Gold Club case have articles (The Gold Club redirects to strip club), and the only news story offered as a reference for that statement doesn't even mention Baverman, let alone establish "national recognition." He is also called out for being sanctioned for judicial misconduct, but the only citing references are to primary source documents and a story about judicial misconduct generally that doesn't mention him at all, so there is no indication that this was ever a notable event with coverage by secondary sources. Finally, his role presiding over the pretrial proceedings of rapper one event does not confer notability upon him personally; the news story mentioned him only incidentally to cover what was happening to T.I. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete. Notability not established through reliable sources. Lara 02:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete - he might be notable, it is not possible to tell from this poorly sourced hit piece. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2009 (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. Kevin (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kevin Falvey Kevin Falvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) As is typical with assistant professors, Dr Falvey does not yet meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. His papers get, according to Google Scholar, 73, 20, 9, 8, and 4 citations, yielding an h-index in the single digits. His first paper (and dissertation), on the topic of belief, was Falvey and Owens 1994, has a brief mention in the Externalism About Mental Content article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This mention does not, in my opinion, put Dr Falvey over the high bar of WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete, much too early for an article on him, fails PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete. WoS shows an h-index of at most 3. Also, the fact that he got his PhD almost 15 years ago and remains an assistant professor (i.e. has not been promoted from academic entry level) also suggests lack of impact. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply] Delete. WP notability not yet achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply] Temporary weak keep - More of a comment, to be honest: I work in science, but it is my understanding that h-indexes and similar things behave very differently in fields like philosophy or humanities in general (and in general their distribution is different between fields). Are they truly a reliable indicator of notability in this case? An h-index low in a field may be very high for others, and we have a publication with 73 citations, which is not trivial. --Cyclopia^talk 12:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] I guess I have to say what I was merely alluding to before; the one paper/dissertation was more the child of his advisor, Owens, than him. This is borne out by his weak(er) record since that time. Abductive (reasoning) 12:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] It may well be, but how do you (we) know that? You mean you deduce it from the fact that his latest publication record is by far not as influential? --Cyclopia^talk 12:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] I abduce that by the fact that the only secondary source that mentions him or his work mentions the paper on belief. Here's the deal; in spite of the usual congruence of WP:PROF with notability, there are cases where it is simpler to just look at the secondary sources and judge directly. Abductive (reasoning) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was no consensus. There's a valid argument made to merge this, but no particular consensus to do so in this discussion - I would suggest editorial efforts to either elaborate on the notability of this topic or merge it into Brock University. ~ mazca ^talk 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Brock University Students' Union Brock University Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) A typical student's union, with no claim of notability. Article reads like the organization's webpage, with detail only of interest to some members. All sources in the article are in-house publications, and no reliable sources can be found by internet searches. Abductive (reasoning) 16:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete as no notability is asserted in the article. Aiken ♫ 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete: no demonstration of any notability beyond that of any university's union. Relevant information should be merged to Brock University, but no need for a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Merge: to talk) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep: General notability guidelines : Significant coverage: All sources link directly to relevant information, and no original research is needed to extract the content information Reliable: Secondary sources meet the reliable source guideline Sources:11 Sources on the page Independent of the subject: 4 Sources included that are works produced by those affiliated with the subject. --Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Many of your "sources" are 404d, and the rest are the university or the union itself. Abductive (reasoning) 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Indeed as a separate entity from the University, it would be silly to merge it there. I do question the reliability of the sources as this "Brock Press" is likely not a secondary source, but it does offer substantial information on the topic. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Every college and university on the planet has one of these. What is special about this one? Abductive (reasoning) 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Quoting from Wikipedia's General notability guidelines, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are several reliable sources that are independent of the Brock University Students' Union included, some that have been added recently, and more that can be added/are in the process of being added.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] The sources are not sufficient. Let's look at all 16 of them; 1. busu.net, 2. brocku.ca, 3. St. Catharines Standard article on student move in day, 4. the dental plan of which Brock U is a member, 5. busu.net, 6. busu.net, 7. busu.net, 8. St. Catharines Standard article on a haircut fundraising event, 9. brocku.ca, 10. busu.net, 11. busu.net, 12. busu.net, 13. Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA), of which the BUSU is a member 14. Queens University Student Union page on OUSA, which mentions that BUSU is also a member, 15. OUSA, and 16. the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, of which BUSU is a member. So, the only independent source is the newspaper, in which the mentions of the student union are "trivial". Abductive (reasoning) 05:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Smerge to the university article. It isn't relevant whether the union is an entity indpendent of the university, it is still clearly associated to the university. Per WP:CLUB, this organisation is local in scope and all coverage is also local (and trivial) in scope. As such, standalone notability is not established. The long list of references is misleading as it is primarily primary sourcing and not the indpendent coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep the main student organization at a major university is notable, as much as any other first-order major part of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 2 November 2009 (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) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mike Dolce Mike Dolce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Subject is non-notable. His only activity of notability is being a participant in the reality show The Ultimate Fighter 7 which he lost in the first round. Justastud15 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] "He has fought nationally for the Portland Wolfpack of the International Fight League" indicates some sort of notability, but it is unsourced. Aiken ♫ 16:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I agree that losing in the first round of a reality TV programme doesn't lend notability, but I was concerned about the possibility of notability accruing as the result of meeting the specific sports guidelines. I looked at Mixed martial arts which seems to indicate that the organization (International Fight League or IFL) in question is professional, but hardly at the highest level of such activity (I was unable to determine quickly if UFC is considered amateur or professional, but that seems to be the top dog organization). IFL seems to me to be a regional and/or middle level organization and thus below the threshold of high-level professional sporting activities so, on the balance of probabilities, I suggest deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:26, 28 October 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hartmut winkler Hartmut winkler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD ) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) fails WP:PROF. All references are either to other wikipedia articles (which are irrelevant to the subject) or to abstracts of subject's writings. No third party coverage. Drdisque (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete per nom, fails WP:PROF. References to Wikipedia don't help. Aiken ♫ 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note Article is Hartmut winkler (lowercase) is a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete The article speaks of "one of the notable influences...", "famous works...", and more. However, I cannot locate any notable work in any of the material added regarding Winkler. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete No evidence of notability. talk) 12:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Comment Article has been produced by 4 editors, all of them making their first edits within a period of 10 days, and with fairly similar editing history. talk) 12:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete, Wikipedia is not a CV repository. Haakon (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep -- the article isn't in very good shape, but the subject appears to pass PROF, with an h-index of (roughly) 10 (and possibly higher if google scholar fails to capture German citations at an even greater rate than it fails to capture English citations). Book search produces >500 hits. News coverage is rather more than negligible as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment I think that there is another Hartmut Winkler, "a physics professor at Vista University's Soweto campus", see [20], confounding the results. Abductive (reasoning) 08:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] I saw that there was a different one, but the extent of confounding didn't seem very great. I'll be happy to change my view if I'm wrong on that. But I could add that a German full professor is likely to be presumptively notable as the standards for getting to that level are more stringent than in most other countries. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] However, WP:PROF demands a lot more than what you mentioned. For example, I see no indication that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep Full professors at major universities should be considered notable. paderborn is the place that makes the determination, and we just need to record it. There is no way of using G Scholar or any other citation index accurately to determine the importance of work in the humanities--it is too erratic, and the others don;t cover books. Looking at his web page [21], there are 5 published books as an author & one as an editor, each of them reviewed multiple times--and several dozen articles That's enough for notability under either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. The reviews show the importance of the work. We could go through them and find various phrases saying how important they are, but it's meaningless--the existence of these many reviews is evidence enough. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Reviews are indeed secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 00:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep according to GS cites and arguments of DGG. Article was prodded by Drdisque 13 minutes after it was created. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Redirect. Any content worth merging can be retrieved from the page history. talk) 18:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Burden of proof (logical fallacy) AfDs for this article:Articles for deletion/Burden of proof (logical fallacy) Burden of proof (logical fallacy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD ) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The article includes no references to a logical fallacy called "burden of proof". I have found no evidence that the fallacy discussed has been identified and called by this name in the literature. Consequently, this page appears to be about a peculiar neologism. (If anyone can find evidence of this so-called burden of proof fallacy in a RS, then I will withdraw my nomination. A couple of non-RS sources use "burden of proof" as a synonym for argument from ignorance.) I considered redirecting the article to argument from ignorance, but it appears as if the current article has a different fallacy in mind. It seems more appropriate to delete this article and add a pointer to argument from ignorance on the Burden of Proof disambig page. Phiwum (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom; this seems to be OR. It might be attempting a critique of the concept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which I don't believe is considered a fallacy. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Notwithstanding the formulation in the article that Midgley is exposing a "logical fallacy", the article appears to be more generally about the concept of "burden of proof" in philosophy (as opposed to law) rather than about logical fallacies, and perhaps the solution is simply to move the article to theory of justification, or argumentation theory. I must say, though, that I'm inclined to favour deletion, as I'm not convinced this is a notable topic per se, and that the uses of "burden of proof" in the quotes appeal to anything beyond the everyday meaning found in dictionaries: "the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth".[22] --Lambiam 16:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] I like Lambiam's idea. Rename to Burden of Proof (Philosophy). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Changing !vote to delete. Fallacy already covers logical fallacy and burden of proof for philosophy. Perhaps a redirect? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment What could we possibly say in an article about burden of proof in philosophy? If there are any such treatments in the literature, I'm not aware of them (which isn't much evidence of anything), but I'd wager they have little to do with the article as it stands. In any case, what sources could we use for an article on burden of proof from a philosophical standpoint? Phiwum (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nominator. This article doesn't appear to be about a notable topic and a quick search did not yield any reliable sources for it. It is not at all clear what this article is supposed to be about and as Phiwum suggests, I don't think having much from this page in a burden of proof (philosophy) article would be meaningful, so I don't think that renaming at this point will help. Shanata (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Reversal of the burden of proof is a common and notable fallacy, issues with the present article are not insurmountable, there are several prior versions which include informaiton which appears to have been lost along the way. I think it needs a cleanup at this point rather than deletion, thogh I'm not opposed to a reasonable merge to a related topic. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Could you find a single relevant source (say, in critical thinking or logic texts) which identifies this fallacy? (Note: the article refers to exaggerating one burden of proof, not "reversing" it. I'm not sure what you mean by reversing, but it sounds rather like argument from ignorance to me.) Phiwum (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html is where I picked it up. That site has always been my reference for such things. As I say, I'm not opposed to merging. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (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) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kanohi AfDs for this article:Articles for deletion/Kanohi Articles for deletion/Kanohi (2nd nomination) Kanohi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Long unreferenced list of elements from the Bionicle stories and toys. Ridernyc (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Also recreation of deleted material. Ridernyc (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete recreation of previously afd'ed article -Drdisque (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] The last AfD was in January 2008 and attracted one person. Consensus may have changed now. Aiken ♫ 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Totally agree with this statement. Ridernyc (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete - no more encyclopedic than the last time; fancruft at its most trivial. This belongs in a Bionicle wiki. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:54, 30 October 2009 (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. talk) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Budania Budania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD ) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) talk) 06:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Could you please give us the reason why you think this article should be deleted. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Do not delete it its have information of the Budania people and their villages. User - Bhupendra Sorry for not including this earlier: (1) The lone citation on this page is The Modern History of Jats. I looked for this book on worldcat.org, and apparently the book does not exist. (no verified sources) (2) The article sat with "gibberish"(?) like "rajender singh S/o Sh. Dunia Ram budania prabhu dayal S/o Sh Banwari Lal budania" for several months with no editor removing it. (uncorrected vandalism) "Not in English" =!= "gibberish"!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Gibberish" was not meant as an insult. Considering this article is in the English wikipedia, it's expected that the content be in English. For most English speakers, this was "gibberish". talk) 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] (3) The topic appears to be highly esoteric, naming a gotra that is distributed within neighborhoods(?) of Jaipur city? (lacks notability) It is not highly esoteric as said by Jwesley78. Google search on Budania word shows 24,400 hits right now. Hindi word बुडानिया shows 1300 hits in spite of the limitation that google is still not working properly in Hindi language. The clan has other variants like Burania which have not yet been explored. Technical problem here is that Hindi language alphabet ड़ which appears in the clan name has no English equivalent. The clan is found in a vast area covering the states of Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab in India. It also found in Pakistan Punjab. Thus covers at least two big countries. Founder of the Budia state Birbal was a highly notable person in the Indian history. It also has references to great historian like Megasthenes. My point is that it needs to be expanded without any bias. By deletion Wikipedia will be at great loss. Some experts on Indian context also need to comment here.burdak (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Apparently there are several tens of articles covering the various tribes and clans of the Jats people. I suppose I don't understand the significance of having an article for each "tribe and clan", but it looks to me to be "overkill". (A link for our reference: talk) 12:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Neutral until Jwesley78 explains something about this nomination. Alexius08 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] If this clan is famous as a whole, its article could be kept. However, only a few members claimed fame. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Retain - I do not understand what purpose will be served by deletion. Each clan of Jats has its own history and ethnological significance. These clans retained their ancient character in spite of all historical adverse factors. I understand that references are few because they do not have recorded history. This matter about certain clans was discussed earlier also and consensus was to retain. Slowly and slowly these articles are expanding. I will devote some tome to edit and improve the article from some other references I have got with me. Deletion will be at loss as it is connected with many other articles which shows its significance. burdak (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Are you claiming that there is no way to find proper English language sources for this content ("because they do not have recorded history")? Without the ability to cite reliable sources, this content does not belong on Wikipedia. It perhaps belongs on some other Wiki site dedicated to the Jats. talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] If someone could verify that the book "The Modern History of Jats" truly exists in print (and can be found in libraries such that a sufficient number of editors for this article could have access), and the book verifies most of what is stated in this article then I would agree that the article belongs on Wikipedia. talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] My understanding of the citation is that that's just a translation of the actual title, "Ādhunik Jat Itihasa". I haven't been able to find that either, but maybe someone familiar with Indian library catalogs can. --Chris Johnson (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] There is no requirement for "proper" sources to be in English. Having said this I have tried searching for Budania+Jat in Hindi, and only found 23 web hits and 4 news hits, with nothing from Google Books or Google Scholar. I'm not linguistically qualified to say whether they amount to significant coverage in reliable sources, and I don't even know whether Hindi is the appropriate language to be searching in, so I only offer this as information to inform the debate rather than any recommendation. I have been unable to track down the book provided as a source. Maybe someone can let us know the title of this book in its native script? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] The book is in Hindi language. The title of the book in Devanagari is आधुनिक जाट इतिहास, which translates to Modern History of Jats. It is published by Jaypal Agencies, 31A,Subhashpuram, Agra-282007. Its new edition was published on 15 January 1998. I have got a copy of the book with me. Budania in Hindi is बुडानिया. It is searchable on google and has 1280 hits right now. It shows its notability. I do not think that content in English is the only criteria for notability. If this is the case then the purpose of Wikipedia will be defeated. burdak (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] 1280 hits on google for the book does not show "notability" for this article. BTW, in a search for this book I found this wiki: http://www.jatland.com/home/Main_Page that appears to be devoted to the Jats. talk) 12:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep. Nominator has raised content issues, which can and should be resolved without a deletion debate. The book whose existence is doubted is used as a source or reference in nearly 100 articles, so if it does pose a problem there's a much broader issue to look into. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hullaballoo, you may have overlooked issue #3 on the "notability". talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] No. Neither being "esoteric" nor relating to a limited geographical area is an indication of a lack of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete - I'll confess to a non-familiarity with Indian or Hindu culture but if I read the article correctly it's about a rather large clan, one of a large number of similarly large clans. No notability for the clan is asserted other than that it had several (arguably) notable members. There's no inherent notability in families or surnames, whether or not famous people have been associated with them, and as no other claim of notability is made the article doesn't pass WP:MILL.) Delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] To quote talk) 06:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] If the books are in Hindi, and not on internet, then they are not reliable? As an extreme analogy: Is the Bible reliable? - BrijD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.59.36 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] BrijD, I'm not sure which side you're trying to support. talk) 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Wikipedia is about archiving knowledge. One cannot simply go about deciding what is notability and what is not, on the basis of a few , admittedly sincere people, whose sincerity though may be misplaced( in this case_). What is notable for one , may not be notable for others. As people who wish to know more about this clan, will search as an increasingly 'first option' is to look at Wikipedia. If Wikipedia does not contain a page on Budania, does that mean this important clan should cease to exist or change its name. Strong Vote to keep! Ravi Chaudhary ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yes, Wikipedia is "about" archiving knowledge, but not all knowledge. Only knowledge that is verifiable and notable (among other things). Although, the terms "verifiable" and "notable" appear to have a much weaker meaning than I thought! And, of course, the Budania clan can continue to exist even if its article is deleted. :-) talk) 06:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] This might help: talk) 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] I would think that any information which adds to the list of all the possible sources of information about the world and its constituents, should be considered good knowledge, especially for an encyclopedia. - BrijD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.52.128 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete - if we cannot find any further sources. A single volume is not the significant coverage required to qualify for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Weak keep The subject seems to be notable and has some sourcing. More work needs to be done to improve the sourcing which may be tricky because of the language barrier. But deletion doesn't seem helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep. After thinking this over and reading other editors' comments, I think the article should be kept (assuming the source checks out as being valid). It's not particularly "notable", but neither are U.S. High Schools and many of them have Wikipedia articles. The strongest reason lies in the lack of sources and, in my opinion, the inability for many editors to have access to this source (since, according to Worldcat.org, there's not a library in the world that holds this book). More sources should be added. Perhaps citing http://www.jatland.com would even be acceptable. talk) 18:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Comment. As the main concern here seems to be with whether a source that is used in nearly a hundred articles can be accepted as reliable I would suggest that it would be better to keep this for now, but maybe to have a wider discussion at Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (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) 04:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Cataclysm (2010 film) Cataclysm (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Contested prod, Non-Notable film. Ridernyc (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete — Only self-published sources, nothing on Google Search/News except Facebook hits, nothing on IMDb. Fails WP:FILMNOT. Favonian (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete per Favonian -Drdisque (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Favonian: no independent of the subject. Cliff smith ^talk 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this talk) 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete without prejudice. Even their own website says they're in pre-production. Let it back once notability can be established [23]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 29 October 2009 (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. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Instant rice Instant rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) For more than a single year of this page's history, this page lacks any references. Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 11:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 11:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Seems like an obviously notable topic to me (see here in particular). Any editorial issues such as a lack of references are dealt with via editing, not deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Lack of references doesn't equate to lack of notability here.--Milowent (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep - This is an editing issue not a deletion issue. This is a notable topic and should be kept. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep This article is notable and relevant, in the developed world who has not heard or consumed instant rice at some point, televised documentaries have devoted airtime to this phenomenon.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Passes talk) 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep A little research before nominating it for AFD would have shown that numerous books have had significant coverage of it, such as [24]. It is also a major portion of the rice market in many countries. Uncle Ben's and Rice-A-Roni. But that is not the purpose of AFD. Edison (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (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) 04:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Vallalraja Vallalraja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No sources and Google Search only comes up with pages about a guy of this name, which is kind of suspicious. At any rate, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Author removed PROD without explanation. Favonian (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete This isn't even a candidate for transwiki to ta.wikt and it isn't at the level of a dicdef either! -SpacemanSpiff 16:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Updating to A7 please. Now that the article has been updated from a partial dicdef to a bio with no importance asserted, it's a true speedy candidate. -SpacemanSpiff 16:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment The original author has now revealed that it is in fact a bio of some person of questionable notability. The AfD tag was lost in the process, but has been reinstated. Tsk, tsk! Favonian (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete A perfect example of a non-notable bio. Salih (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete - A7. Why not, eh? My apologies to the article's creator, , (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete No References, fails Wikipedia:Notability. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Halloween!} 13:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete An A7 candidate. Abecedare (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2009 (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. ( talk) 00:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Angolan passport Angolan passport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) None of the information after the first sentence is about Angolan passports ( WP:COATRACK), and the first sentence does nothing but state tautologically that an Angolan passport is a passport issued to Angolans, so removal of the part after the first sentence would leave a virtually content-free article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Comment: Most passport articles (e.g, US, Brazilian, Indian) include a section on the visa-free travel available to holders of that passport. That seems pretty directly relevant and not coatracky. --Chris Johnson (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] That seems to be like creating an article about Angolan people with the title WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Perhaps the problem is not that irrelevant material has been placed under these titles but that the choice of title for all these articles was poor and they should all be renamed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] This is a stub about a notable topic. I linked to other articles to show what this information looks like in the context of a more complete article. It's certainly undue emphasis in the stub as it exists now, but once the article has been expanded it will be appropriate. I really don't see how this is irrelevant material. The whole point of a passport is that it confers certain travel rights. Where you can travel with just a passport is a big part of that. --Chris Johnson (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Information about documents other than your passport that governments require you to possess in order to visit their countries is not information about your passport. Listing these other requirements in an article whose title says it's about passports is somewhat like editing an article with the title United States birth certificate to add information on documents in addition to a birth certificate (proof of residency, vaccination certificates, etc.) that one needs to register one's child in a public school, or to get a driver's license, or to register to vote. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Certainly a "list of countries requiring a visa" would be out of place in such an article. But this is the opposite sort of list. This is a list of countries where Angolan passport holders either (a) don't need a visa or (b) don't need to get a visa in advance. That seems pretty focused on what the passport itself lets you do. (One could quibble a bit about "visa on arrival" countries; they're sort of in-between.) I think analogies between passports and birth certificates break down as passports are narrowly focused on travel while birth certificates have a zillion uses beyond their primary function of documenting a birth. --Chris Johnson (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Of the 140 passport articles we have, 88 are stubs like this. In my opinion the national passport of a sovereign state is an inherently notable topic, and the stubs should be expanded rather than deleted. In any case it would be really strange to single out the Angolan passport stub for sacrifice on the AFD altar. --Lambiam 14:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Regarding your last point, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regarding whether these articles are valid stubs: With respect to the tables of entry requirements, I don't think that that is really information about the visitor's passport, but I've given my thoughts on that and I won't belabor them. With respect to the "stub" at the top, if someone created an article titled speedy deletion of empty articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep as per Lambiams' comments--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] FYI, WP:PERNOM. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep per Chris Johnson's comments. Stub contains valid information which would remain present in a complete article. Gruntler (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'd remove it in a fuller article as WP:COATRACK content. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] keep as part of a series. No valid reason provided to discriminate against Albania or this article Hmains (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] I wasn't discriminating. This was the article I saw, and it seemed to bear consideration for deletion for the reasons I gave. I will again ask that people read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before giving the reasoning that it's like other articles. Perhaps the whole lot merits deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep I added some non-trivial (though very boring) information to the article's lead. At this point I think it would be a valid short stub even if the information Largo Plazo objects to were removed. (I still don't think it should be removed, but I won't belabor my point either.) I think the larger question of what information belongs in passport articles is better discussed wherever centralized discussions about passport articles are held. I'm really not sure where that is, but Template talk:Passports might work. --Chris Johnson (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. While problems with indiscriminate inclusion do exist, good arguments have been made for why this article is superior to a category: it serves as a more detailed directory as well as a merge/redirect target for insufficiently notable magical weapon articles. ~ mazca ^talk 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of magical weapons AfDs for this article:Articles for deletion/List of magical weapons Articles for deletion/List of magical weapons (2nd nomination) List of magical weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Indiscriminate list of various fantasy weapons with no clear guidelines on inclusion, nor is there any indication of notability of the weapons themselves. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment - my original concept for this list was for a navigation page to existing articles on magical weapons. There have been a number of mergers and deletions since then, showing that individual weapons are less notable than I had originally thought. If all these blimming anime and RPG swords are stripped away, it might work with the inclusion guideline of "weapons from mythology and folklore". Otherwise I don't mind whether or not the article is deleted. Marasmusine (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep This list may have a lot of other problems, but "indiscriminate" isn't one of them. Just as not all brooks are babbling, the words indiscriminate and list don't automatically go together. An indiscriminate list would be nothing more than a list of blue-links, with no other content other than that the fact that they are grouped together under one title. We see plenty of those around here. On the other hand, if the editors have added a sentence of explanation about each entry, that's how one "discriminates" between one entry and the next. The problems that this one does have, of course, are that it isn't very well sourced to reliable and verifiable locations. It could easily be sourced beyond six cites. It isn't. So while I do applaud the various persons for trying to make this more than the classic indiscriminate list, there's no excuse for a lack of sourcing. Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete better severed by a category, easier to maintain and patrol. Either that or inclusion criteria needs to be way tighter, magical weapons is just far to broad a description. There are thousands of possible entries for this list. Ridernyc (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete in accordance with Ridernyc's sound reasoning; sever it from the encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Also want to point out that this information is endlessly repeated in other articles List of Middle-earth weapons and armour, List of Dragonlance artifacts, Magic sword. Ridernyc (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Comment The sections on folklore and mythology seem interesting, valuable, and well-constrained. It's the popular-culture sections that are the problem. If everything from "In novels" down was deleted I think it would be a decent list. Gruntler (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep the list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. That is not the case here. When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly. These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. I do not see the problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. It is not necessary that the specific use of the object in the specific fiction be notable--if it were, there would be a separate article for each of the uses, an absurdity I hope nobody is going to advocate. That the information is separately in the other articles is not a problem either--bringing together significant aspects is a function of an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep: It seems the entries in this article were all picked for very specific reasons. Great care has been taken to limit entries to very specif mythologies that are well-established on Wikipedia and each 'weapon' given is of a subset that can link directly to one of them. There are some very, very common historical objects of lore in here such as (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep The article organizes the information in ways a category cannot. Lack of criteria for improvement is a reason for improvement, not deletion. And since the items listed are bluelinked, that is asserting notability for them. Edward321 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2009 (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 Deleted at 10:51, 28 October 2009 by Fuhghettaboutit as G12 Copyright Infringement. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] SivanMalai SivanMalai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) i don't know what this is for a fact. it may be a temple, but i have no clue why it is worth an article. it has no references. redirect articles created by the same person CynofGavuf 10:11, 28 October 2009 (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) 04:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] MintTwist MintTwist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not meet WP:ORG guidelines. The first reference provided is a promotional blurb with no indication as to why the company is of significance, and the other a press release. Google news returns nothing reliable. Fairly obvious COI present too. Contested PROD. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete nothing but a few self published press releases. Ridernyc (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this talk) 21:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] The Middle Eastern magazine feature on MintTwist is not a Press Release and was in no way comissioned or purchased by MintTwist. The foreign office approached MintTwist to run the feature because they felt it was relkevant in a market where there are relatively few Web Design companies who are based on the groud. The press release by the UK Department of Trdae and Industry on the trade mission was not created by MintTwist - it was created by the UK Department of Trdae and Industry press office. Understood on the point re Google news.Elliottking99 comment: No one has claimed that the Middle Eastern magazine mention was a press release. However, the intent of that aspect of the magazine is to promote UK interests in that region. I don't know weather they wrote it independently, or asked you to provide them with material to be included, but in this specific situation I don't think it matters because what is written can be viewed as nothing but an advertisement. As for the press release, I don't think it matters who released it when it comes to WP:RS. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (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. ( talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Monroe and Isabel Smith Monroe and Isabel Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) none of this is notable CynofGavuf 08:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep 67 hits on google books, for an uncommon search term. More than notable. Ridernyc (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep Bringing hosteling to America and the establishment of American Youth Hostels (supported by various articles, books etc on Books/News searches as per Ridernyc) make this couple worthy of an article. Nick Ottery (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep - seems notable enough. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Looks like there are sources to establish notability. Are there particular concerns from the nominator that we might address? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Google - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2009 (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. General consensus here seems to hold that there's been enough coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Stan Helsing Stan Helsing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) non notable film CynofGavuf 08:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not asserted Josh Parris 09:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep Passes WP:NF. Five reviews from Rotten Tomatoes "top critics": [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. A non-archive search of GNews turns up a bit more coverage. --Chris Johnson (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Keep This article has just come into being. Now it's at the stage of needing to be built up to meet the requirements.Fractyl (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep. An AFD here is premature, though I agree that cleanup is in order. Multiple sources, including reviews, document that the film exists, is entering into a wide release, and appears to be notable. Doesn't look like a great movie, but it meets our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete – fails WP:CRYSTAL. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ] How can it feel like WP:CRYSTAL if the movie already is out? Fractyl (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
Comment – The
AfD}} template from the article … they have been warned, but Some Other Editor(s) might want to keep an eye out for their disruptive edits. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

COMMENT – I suggest that a copy be made as a
WP:NPOV material … I say Userfy that puppy. :-) Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{10:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply
]

Delete or userfy - fails WP:FILMNOT; also fails WP:CRYSTAL by prematurely asserting non-existent notability of a new film. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added the Variety review as a ref for the production/distribution info (which BTW is not correct, this is in fact a Canada-US coproduction: imagine my pride!). Anyway, while Variety makes clear the lacklustre nature of this film, it does seem to have the
talk) 08:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:02, 5 November 2009 (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) 04:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Winston Hotel Southampton

The Winston Hotel Southampton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable public house. Much of the content has been copy-pasted from
The World's End (Camden) and does not refer to this pub. The references to World War II are a complete fabrication. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah thats a valid point i think i have over eleberated that point but it is on a German luftwaffe map which is in the Mitchell Air Mueseum in southampton which i have seen just recently last month . To be honest its the whole area of Archers road marked on the map but only because many of the Workers who helped assemble The Spitfire during the war lived in and around Shirley. So maybe i can change that to Give the FActs of that . Also Has lopts of history Because about 100 metres up the road from here is the common and before D Day Thousands of troops assembled all up Hill Lane And Archers road where the Trucks Munitions etc. It has huge significance in southampton and was also the main Southampton fc supporters pub when the oud staduim (The Dell)was just across the road about 50 metres. So can you maybe take that into consideration and ill just put some historical facts . Many Thanks Alexander 29 Southampton

Delete Non-notable, full of nonsense and irrelevant info, and no references. This article is an omni-shambles.
Talcum Mucker (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per the lack of
madeup. Cunard (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non notable pub, unable to find suitable sources. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 09:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable public house with little historic significance, nothing sensible in the way of references 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to
Calicut University Institute of Engineering and Technology. NW (Talk) 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Diksha fest

Diksha fest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Notability not asserted Anna Lincoln 08:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would need a crazy amount of cleanup and is promotional and one event Cynof Gavuf 10:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local college festival. Salih (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Calicut University Institute of Engineering and Technology. I would have done so boldly, but didn't want to upset anyone so I merged a few bits and will let the AfD run its course. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Calicut University Institute of Engineering and Technology. Any usable content has already been merged there by ChildofMidnight. Abecedare (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Calicut University Institute of Engineering and Technology as a merge completed by ChildofMidnight. -SpacemanSpiff 21:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to
Technocracy Incorporated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Technate

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Technate

Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination)

View AfD
)

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

merge or delete redundant cruftJQ (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and strong keep. The editor above is going from article to article on related energy/ecomomic issues and the background groups to those issues new and old, and either doing redirects without discussion of making Afd's. This is related to this edit by John Quiggin was reverted he is doing other redirects without discussion also such as here
Urbanates (another page redirect without discussion) on related topics. This is noted as problematic in regard to furthering the project regarding information also elsewhere... note here on that subject from Economics project page. An important concept from a notable group. Interesting historic cultural group. Made up of notable people. skip sievert (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable topic which is already discussed in many other articles, see [30]. Johnfos (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external third party sources to show notability. Appears to be a neologism invented by one group that is no longer active. LK (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the word has been in use for 75 years. The Group that coined this term are still, as far as I've looked, active.AdenR (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A visit to the Technocracy Inc website suggests that their only current activity is a newsletter consisting of reprints of MSM items on energy-related topics. [31]
Comment. Not so. Either you are uninformed or are putting up false information to influence the discussion negatively. Here is a link to their site, Technocracy. There is a larger problem here also with tandem editors. The same team of tandem editors is deleting related articles to energy economics, and now the
Urbanate article also is trying to be removed... Led by user LK, and JQ. L.K. is currently under consideration for being topic banned as to editing economics related articles due to bias, topic ban?, and is wikihounding information related to this article also... note here on that subject --> from Economics project page. Also Noted Johnphos goes from page to page with this tandem edit group. This points out the larger problem of tandem mainstream editors wanting to get rid of issues they are not in agreement with. User Johnphos's wikistalking repeated behavior. skip sievert (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: @ John Quiggin, if you want to know whether Technocracy still exists or whether there are still Technocrats out there... well you are talking to two right now. There are numerous websites dedicated to Technocracy besides the official site, at least two of them have active discussion groups with many members. So sorry to disappoint you, but the movement does still exist, you may not like it or be interested in it, but some are and we're here too. BTW, I'm not getting involved in any fight that may be going on between you and Skip, I don't know anything about that and have been there before and don't wish to get involved again, if possible. --Hibernian (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've been informed that I should now comment here too. Again this deletion request is exactly the same as the one that previously failed, and I guess I'll use the same arguments for it as I did then. Firstly, I don't think anyone would doubt that the Technocracy Movement was and remains a notable topic for wikipedia. Bearing that in mind, the idea of a Technate was and is the main aim and goal of that movement, there have been hundreds of thousands of people who will have been supporters of (or at least familiar with) the idea in the early to mid 20th century, and today there are still few thousand who are dedicated to it. The term and idea will be about 76-77 years old now, so it can hardly be considered a neologism. Is it a popular and widely discussed idea? Not now no, but once, yes it was. As I said on the Urbanate discussion, even if Technocracy no longer existed (which is does still), even then the idea would still be of note to historians and scholars, etc. And yes it is hard to find references to the idea on the Internet (other than what the Technocracy groups have put up about it), for the simple fact that this was a concept from well before the net, dig up some old newspapers and magazines from the 1930s and 40s and you will find it, it was fairly significant idea for some time. But no that won't show up on any Googling, so by going on that basis it would seem the idea never existed, but it most definitely did. Again, just because an idea is not popular or widely known today doesn't mean it has no value to an encyclopaedia. --Hibernian (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The result of the previous Afd was "Delete". JQ (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same logic that allows phalanstère to be an entry should apply here. -- RLV 209.217.195.184 (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or smerge (second choice) to Technocracy article. The term is not notable outside the corporation. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
Technocracy Incorporated, then redirect per Guy. Beagel (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Beagel you tandem edit with Johnphos and L.K, and J.Q. those editors are systematically removing references to this notable material for unknown reasons, (pov?), but see the note here on that subject from Economics project page. Accordingly you are a canvassed voice here. See this thread about a possible topic ban for that groups leader.

Skip, I would kindly ask you to remove your personal attack and baseless accusations. I never had have any contact with L.K. or J.Q., and never discussed with Johnfos you or your edits. This is irrelevant, but my last contact with Johnfos was several months ago about creation of the article about the Gujarat solar park. Your accusation about tandem edit is a nonsense and your disruptive editorial behavior does not help to achieve the aim of Wikipedia. As of canvassing, I think that as of a member of the WP:Energy, you should knews that there is an
automatic notice on the project website about proposed deletions of articles tagged with the project banner. So, once again, please remove your baseless accusations and personal attack. Beagel (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There is no reason to have individual articles explaining each word of the jargon used by an obscure fringe group in the 1930s. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Technocracy Incorporated and redirect per Guy and Beagel. Sifaka ^talk 00:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Technocracy Incorporated and redirect. Sunray (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The sources do not discuss the term with 1 exception. This could be much more concisely described in the Technocracy Inc. page, which would actually be helpful to people who want a concise overview of Technocracy. II | (t - c) 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Some of the text in this article is just a copy-paste of the main; Since 2 of the resources given for this article have been specifically discussed as questionable-at-best in sources discussion and 2 others seem entirely irrelevant, it leaves little new information not on the main article. In other words, there's no notability case made here that it to be a separate article. ♪
(talk) 02:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked all the refs and external links currently in the article, and cannot see mention of the term "technate". I accept that it is probably on the technocracy.org site, but in the absence of independent
Technocracy Incorporated. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The sources do not appear to show notability of the term. I am concerned that the article is being used as a soapbox for technocracy.
talk) 10:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect Per above - no use outside of Technocracy. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2009 (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) 04:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Transit Connect Mobility Van

Ford Transit Connect Mobility Van (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously CSD'ed, and still seems like an advert (see particularly the last sentence), with an un-notable subject.
247 07:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Google is not the be-all and end-all of notability, but this is suggestive. No reason not to let it come back once reliable third-party sources have been provided. --Paularblaster 07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete as spam. The material is a direct copy of their website and would need to be rewritten in its entirety to be encyclopedic and maintain a neutral point of view. Releasing the text under CC-by-SA doesn't make it not spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2009 (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) 04:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reinvigorate

Reinvigorate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Slightly spamish article on a non-notable peice of software. Artw (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article does not assert the notability of its subject or provide any reasons why this software is more notable than a
run of the mill item of software. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I can't find
talk) 21:29, 28 October 2009 (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. (
talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of The Simpsons couch gags

List of The Simpsons couch gags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

cruft. list. listcruft. nuff said. Torkmann (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a finite, maintainable, well-presented list detailing an important and iconic part of the main subject The Simpsons, and arguably independently notable of the show it is derived from. The pop culture impact of the Simpsons is immense enough that what would be listcruft elsewhere can be independently notable here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call for better nomination. Frankly, if an article is viewed 5000 times a month, nominating it for deletion with "cruft. list. listcruft. nuff said." is very rude and disrespectful, not to mention that the argument is very superficial and could be classified as
WP:ITSCRUFT. Please rewrite the nomination to demonstrate that you have put some thought into the matter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep These types of articles are what Wikipedia is all about...okay it is for the
couch potato in us all?...Seth Whales (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep Clear case of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT by the nom, with no policy cited for why this should be deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete similar to the problems with List Of Problems Solved by Macgyver [32], yes it's awesome, yes it gets tons of hits, no it's not encyclopedic. Ridernyc (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close: Per
~~WP:SNOW. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)~~User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Mind explaining what exactly is bad faith about the nomination. Ridernyc (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~As Lugnuts clearly explained, this is a clear case of~~
~~WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)~~[reply
]
While not the best worded nomination it brings up valid points and is in no way bad faith. As for the
WP:IDONTLIKEIT that's words put on on it by people trying to keep the article without citing policy, interesting,gets a lot of hits, this is what Wikipedia is great at, none of them are valid reasons to keep. However an article with no real world context that simply lists hundreds of gags from a show fails a number of policies about fiction. Ridernyc (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: per DustFormsWords. I can't imagine this would not be kept.--Milowent (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family also has a list of couch gags (pp. 90-91).SPNic (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per WP:SIMPSONS, the de facto state of affairs on Wikipedia that The Simpsons is beloved to many of the persons who maintain Wikipedia. Don't complain too much. We've been working for years at removing moronic references to The Simpsons in serious encyclopedia articles (for example, [Kaiser Wilhelm II] "was parodied in a Halloween episode of the Simpsons, where he tries to fit in with a group of cowboy bandits, and somehow pulls it off". The variety of openings is something people are very interested in. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. It's all said above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: this debate was originally closed as a speedy keep, but has since been re-opened following discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Non-Admin snowball AFD closure, where a tangentially similar AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of problems solved by MacGyver (3rd nomination), was mentioned as a precedent. I probably won't be keeping an updated play-by-play, but some link to that discussion seems appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a regular Simpsons editor, I have to admit that I wouldn't mind seeing this one go. After all, there is no List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags (though it was deleted mainly because of copyright concerns). But I wouldn't be upset if it were kept either because the couch gags are a major area of interest relating to the show. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added an independent source that defines and discusses
couch gags. If if we can find 1-2 more such independent sources the article will be worth keeping, else it will need to be deleted as not meeting out notability guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There are many books and academic papers that discuss and list the series' couch gags. While obviously none of their list is as exhaustive as ours, such sources clearly establish the notability of the topic. A sampling:
Turner, Chris (2005). Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Defined a Generation. New York: Da Capo Press

Popular culture and critical pedagogy: reading, constructing, connecting by Toby Daspit, John A. Weaver

‘‘Are We There Yet?’’: Searching for Springfield and The Simpsons’ Rhetoric of Omnitopia, by Andrew Wood & Anne Marie Todd, Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 22, No. 3, August 2005

The small screen: how television equips us to live in the information age by Brian L. Ott

Simpsonology: There's a Little Bit of Springfield in All of Us by Tim Delaney

These and other similar sources need to used to expand the lede of the article, to make it encyclopedic, but its current state is not a reason to delete. Abecedare (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented above and, incidentally, because we ignore clear reader feedback at our peril. It's well established by pageview statistics that deletions like this remove content our readers genuinely want; we should always be doubly thoughtful about deletion requests that run counter to the demonstrated view of our audience. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this list is kept, then
WP:OSE either, because down that path also lies mockery of Wikipedia and loss of editors. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
To be fair, that one was deleted mostly because of copyright concerns because of all the quotes on the page, not just because it was cruft. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting 'copyright concerns' from? Wikiquote apparently doesn't accept copyrighted material without permission. If the nominator's reason was copyright concerns (which he didn't state), he should have sought clarification at
reviewed. MickMacNee (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

keep Sourcing given shows pretty well that this extends well beyond simple plot material. The presence of secondary material discussing these gags makes them notable. Is a well put together list. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And
WP:TROUT to the nominator for failing to articulate a deletion reason. 'nuff said? Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2009 (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. No strong arguments to keep - no prejudice to creating a redirect Kevin (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Park Teddy

Park Teddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

DELETE. This is a BLP article which has apparently been unsourced for well over a year. The entire article, in addition to lacking sources, is highly amateurish and unnecessary. No opposition to a redirect at a later date but there is nothing to merge here and nothing to salvage. Requesting deletion on BLP grounds. JBsupreme (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-ish comment - I think the subject is notable enough. But if sources cannot be found, delete,
, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Probably want to redirect it to that group he's in. What's it called again?
, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Merge/Redirect to
WP:NMUSIC as being (1) a member of a notable group who (2) has been involved in significant solo works (as a songwriter for other groups). - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2009 (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. Additional sources have been added since the last "delete" arguments but further discussion has been minimal. At this point I would suggest that article improvement should be attempted rather than deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German-South African Lawyers Association

German-South African Lawyers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable organization. I searched Google for the English and German versions of the name, but found nothing to satisfy
talk) 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete - I'm not too fluent in German, and know nothing of Afrikaans. But from what I can make of Ghits, it looks pretty non-notable,
, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (NB: comment by the article's primary author) I've added sources to meet WP:RS. I also think WP:ORG is established. The GSLA is a non-commercial organisation with a scope on international activities. It is referred to by the Embassy of the Republic of South Africa in Berlin, by professional bodies such as the German Bar or the biggest regional South African law society, The Law Society of the Northern Provinces. The GSLA is further listed on South African country pages by various academic institutions, such as the universities of Stanford, the German universities of Frankfurt and Leipzig, or on German country sites of the South African universities of Cape Town and Pretoria as well as Rhodes University. The association is mentioned and referred to in the encyclopedic country report South Africa by the non-profit organisation inwent (see section "Recht und Justiz" / law and justice); inwent to be found at the German Wikipedia. Finally, the GSLA is listed by various legal information sites, such as FindLaw, Legalbrief Today, Lawyersonline.in, Minority Professional Network or Centre for German Legal Information. Ghits include many GSLA's members personal sites. HWescher (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep An organization spanning two distinct rules of law and with an expanded mandate and with credentials recognized by two major countries seems sufficient, to me, for a keep--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
talk) 00:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Minidrag

Minidrag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a fictional planet. Whether the subject is notable or not, the nomination should be accurate. This set of nominations has an error rate that's way too high. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Minidrag species is without notability. The one character Minidrag, Pip, is also up for deletion. This article is very short, so deletion is the best option. Abductive (reasoning) 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Humanx Commonwealth - this article about a fictional species (not "planet") does not establish independent notability for its subject matter and is therefore more appropriately dealt with on one of the parent pages for this group of fictional works. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: see above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Humanx Commonwealth. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Humanx Commonwealth races Dream Focus 01:49, 2 November 2009 (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) 09:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pitar (alien race)

Pitar (alien race) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, subtrivialfancruft. JBsupreme (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject is a fictional race, not a planet as should be blanatly obvious from the mere title of the article. Edward321 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and redirect to Humanx_Commonwealth#Pitar - I;d say merge, but I'm not sure there's anything much not covered there. Artw (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per Artw above. This article about a fictional race (not "planet") fails to establish independent notability for its subject matter and is therefore better dealt with at the parent page, Humanx Commonwealth. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2009 (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. No arguments to keep. Kevin (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Landa lakes

Landa lakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotion page for non-notable artist. Damiens.rf 12:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:29, 28 October 2009 (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. I'm closing as delete, referring to the mainspace article (now a redirect to the incubated version). Once rewritten, it may be appropriate to move it back. Kevin (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Habibi Silsila

Habibi Silsila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article isn't even written encyclopedicly. It has no
notability test. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 03:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Not possible to determine Notability in its current incoherent state but if rewritten it may possibly emerge as notable. I suspect this is a bona fide effort to describe somebody of note but just needs assistance, I would offer to help myself but probably better if it were somebody culturally closer to the author, ideally with both English and the author's language. Suggest delete now and possibly reintroduce after: 1. Complete rewrite by somebody with good English language skills. 2. Redevelop to conform with Wikipedia Manual of Style - see
WP:MOSBIO. 3. Add citations. E x nihil ^(talk) 05:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Question Is this a copyvio in part? It seems to be a translation of something
Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - More-or-less unsourced and is unsalveagably badly written. I can't really tell if it's notable or not. Does it still count as copyvio if it's been translated in this way? Probably. The above proposal for recreation seems sensible,
, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Neither this article is copied nor well written. We need some experts to help us in fixing the problem and make it presentable. Hyk 99.244.249.141 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) --99.244.249.141 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the authorities will reconsider our problem and will try to help us. Our intention is to bring this great Sufi Saint to the light - it is a kind of biography and his contribution to the society. We are trying to get more information from various local languages and maybe will try to seek help from good English writers.. Meanwhile we request Wiki people not to delete this article Thank you in advance.. Hyk 99.244.249.141 (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC) --99.244.249.141 (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this fails multiple policies and is unlikely to be fixed in the short term. If our anonymous friend wishes to register an account he can have it moved to his userspace to allow rework, but this is likely to take some considerable time so it's not a good idea to leave it in mainspace in the mean time. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I am understanding it correctly,
silsilah) started by Sayed Khwaja Habib Ali Shah. However the article and sources are written in such a hagiographer and incoherent style, that it is difficult for me to make any further sense of them. Also, the linked websites are not really reliable, and I didn't find any useful books/articles online. So while the subject may possibly be notable, there is no point keeping this article around. Abecedare (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

We are in process of seeking expertise help please bear with us. We will reformat and incorporate the books and other mateial. This was an attempt.. Thank you for understanding and considering to hold the deletion at this point... We realize it is not meeting the criteria of wiki.. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.249.141 (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it a moment I have offered to help rewrite this article with the original authors because I think there could be something noteworthy in it. Meantime I have recommended that the originators voluntarily blank the page themselves to avoid having a delete recorded against this page name. We will repost it if we can get something together that conforms. Meantime, it would be good if this page could be left for them to blank. E x nihil ^(talk) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ex nihil, it would be great if you could help the IPs develop the article. Since blanking an article in mainspace is not recommended, how about
WP:INCUBATE ? I have no objections to either options as an alternative to deletion. Abecedare (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I have moved this to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Habibi Silsila so we can work on in in seclusion, perhaps somebody with the authority to do so can remove the AfD tag for us? E x nihil ^(talk) 08:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Incubate as that step has already been initiated and shows some hope. Also Note that two of the above delete !votes have effectively changed to incubate. -SpacemanSpiff 02:23, 5 November 2009 (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) 04:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing of the Treaty of Lisbon

Signing of the Treaty of Lisbon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails
WP:NOT, if you think about it. Relevant details are covered here; those interested in seeing the actual signatures can peruse them here; but if we don't have, for instance, Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence or Signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (two rather more important events), then surely we can do without this little experiment as well. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Utterly pointless, unencyclopedic, indiscriminate information, content fork of
Talcum Mucker (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Yes, I know that this article needs more content if it is to survive in the long run, and I intend to write more very soon. Biruitorul; I (apparently as opposed to you) am very aware of a certain policy called
SSJ ☎ 10:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Fear not, SSJ, I too am "very aware" of WP:OTHERSTUFF, though I am also aware of the fact that it is
the burden is on you to do so
(an actual policy).

About Cleveland: that arose when an endless article on Obama's inauguration was written, and some said "well, if we have that, we need all the other US Presidents too". I agree that's a somewhat dubious line of reasoning, and would welcome an AfD there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fornow, it doesn't violate any Wikipedia rule. It is notable and verifiable, and the parent article is too large. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See
Lisbon Treaty is not really a reason to split this out. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ehhh: Not sure what I think, but I wanted to note that wikipedia has no other articles that start with "Signing of the Treaty" or "Signing of the" anything. (We do have
Signing of the Document of the Venezuelan Declaration of Independence redirects to Venezuelan Declaration of Independence. --Milowent (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I guess the wiki-notability of the signing of a treaty would depend on how much fuss is arranged in relation to a ceremony. And I would suppose that in the 19th century, the signing of a treaty essentially was a group of persons gathering in a room, opening the treaty book and signing it. The portuguese presidency really made a big ceremony out of the whole day. -
SSJ ☎ 15:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, no objections to discussing this at
Lisbon Treaty (as we already do). But what's the added benefit of a separate article? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Do we have a gallery of famous autographs somewhere? This looks like nothing more than an excuse for displaying the signatures, perhaps not of the "Crowned Heads of Europe", but at least the prime ministers. No wonder it's too large to fit into the parent article, it would be like trying to fit a fully inflated life raft into the family car. Plenty of air to let out of this one. Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is what you're looking for? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree that this contains nothing that couldn't be covered at the main Treaty of Lisbon article. Redirect and merge anything useful. Hobartimus (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:GNG, has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject which means that it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. While it is true that GNG does not guaranty of notability, the singing of a notable treaty is, in and of its self, notable in my opinion. The fact that Gordon Brown was late, which received significant media coverage and speculations, also reinforces the claim for a dedicated article. Multiple BBC News articles, sourced in article, and a quick check of other Newspapers (or there online arcives anyway) shows they all reproted on the singing cermonmy. [33], [34], [35], [36], and [37]. More could easly be found. --Elfwood (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
For the Brown controversy, see
Lisbon Treaty; what (other than a set of signatures, the purpose of which I can't really discern) does having a separate article add? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Should be expanded a bit to avoid being merged, but in principle, it's encyclopedic. —Nightstallion 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an encyclopedic article on a very notable historical event. -
SSJ ☎ 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - for the record, SSJ sent out these three messages. While technically worded neutrally, we should also note the three recipients all openly proclaim their support for the European Union. In order to avoid the appearance of
canvassing, perhaps SSJ would like to extend similar invitations to avowed Eurosceptics as well. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Sorry but that is absurd, support for the EU does not equate to support for this article. I am one who has been contacted and my track record on these matters (even supporting some of SSJ's writings) is hardly one of fanatic endorsement.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed. This article should be just as significant to a pro-EU member as an anti-EU member. One would consider the event very important because it’s the next big step for Europe and the other because it was the single moment which codified a momentous mistake. To use the nominator’s logic: anyone who thinks WW2 was a bad thing would vote for the deletion of the article. Since this position is clearly absurd, so must be Biruitorul implications of bias. Secondly, I would also like to point out my objection to the nominator’s statement that the United States Declaration of Independence and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact are ‘two rather more important events’ and even if they were why that should matter? If someone had created a ‘Signing of...’ article for one of them and subsequently it was deleted through the Articles for Deletion Process, that would be one thing but merely noting that one does not exist only means that they don’t exist, not that they should not. I for one would strongly argue that a Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence article should exist. --Elfwood (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this: I did not directly accuse SSJ of canvassing; nor did I question the ability of the three to judge impartially, without being overly influenced by their personal beliefs. Indeed, I'm sure they have been impartial. That said, the appearance of impropriety remains. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At first thought, I was thinking "how on earth can you write an article about the signing of the treaty??" But reading through, we have a solid basis for an article here, even without expansion I don't think this warrants the attacks it is attracting (though expansion I think would be highly favourable). It is a notable event that is not totally covered elsewhere and that is not in itself a reason to delete it regardless - if it can be made to work better as a separate article then why not? I totally disagree with the nominator, I find the argument that we "don't need this little experiment" is one totally against any spirit of advancement here, let's experiment! Just because there isn't one on the declaration of independence isn't a reason for there not to be one here, nor does it mean there shouldb't be one for the declaration of independence either. Leave it alone! If it goes down hill in a few months then come back to it but it is depressing to see people stalkign around Wikipedia looking for babies to kill in their cots.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just how detailed does it need to get? The article is (by taxonomy, not just its current status) a collection of factoids. The more relevant bits (if any) should be covered in one of the existing articles. Dahn (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see having a separate article about the ceremony that accompanies the signing of any important document. So far, the history of the Treaty of Lisbon is well-covered in that article, since the ratification process is going on. Maybe that's the solution, to make this a "history of" article, without all the bells and whistles. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Treaty of Lisbon article is far over bloated already, off shoots of the side issues are useful.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I must echo this point. We also must remember that the Treaty of Lisbon article already has 7 sections linking to a main article (using the {{main|...}} tag) and 10 further information sections (using the {{See|...}} tag). The only reason it is not much worse than it already is, is because people are splitting pieces which could possibly be part of the main article in to their own. Could Signing of the Treaty of Lisbon be part of the Treaty of Lisbon article, yes of course it could. But we have found sources, news and media coverage enough that it could also be its own article, and given the state of Treaty of Lisbon and its potential for much future expansion (as soon as the changes it recommends kick in), I think it’s entirely justified to make a dedicated article. --Elfwood (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are either the treaty itself or the circumstances surrounding its signing controversial? If yes, then keep; if no, then delete. 72.83.205.80 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Firstly, controversial is hardly a requirement, would you remove an article on the signing of the Declaration of Independence merely because there wasn't a punch up afterwards? Secondly, some controversy here: Gordon Brown coming late in a semi-snub, large environmental cost which undermined the EU's environmental soap-box and the fact the treaty itself was controversial. All these points can easily be built on substantially in the article beyond the sections currently being laid out.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fairly
notability test as this was an important signing. It could do some work, but every article is a work in progress. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, don't understand the nominator's point about not having articles for other signings that are "rather more important events". Importance is relative. "This little experiment" concerns many more countries than those treaties the nominator chose to make their point. Passes the GNG, so keep. --
•wicke 20:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete An absurd split. The only actual additional information here is the signatures of the signers and the events of the ceremony, including the lunch menu. The most extensive section says that Brown did not attend. The treaty is important, the controversy over it in each nation is important, the court cases deriving from it are important. The ceremony is the least important thing about it. WP is not an autograph album. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that Brown chose not to attend the signing became a well-known diplomatic spectacle, and was a major, well-sourced controversy in the media; but the biggest section in this article is not about that. The menu has been removed, I agree that's trifle. But as Wikipedia has precedence for keeping articles about the most important ceremonies (American presidential inaugurations, opening ceremonies in sports etc.) I think this event, which was highly controversial and by no means a matter-of-course, passes GNG. In the three speeches in the beginning of the ceremony, the importance of "this" day in the history of Europe was stressed several times. -
SSJ ☎ 11:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The signatures are not there for the purpose of decoration. It's a list of signatories, which is very relevant, encyclopedic information. For example there is a separate article called "
SSJ ☎ 15:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Lear 21 (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 10:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event is clearly notable and is an appropriate split from a rather large parent article—it is established practice to split content from such articles. This article is well sourced and doesn't appear to controvene any of our criteria for deletion. Rje (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This event is a key moment in the history of the European Union. Therefore it is clearly notable. JoJan (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The main article is very very very bulky. It doesn't hurt to break off information that is well sourced and is very notable in it's significance to Europe. Besides if someone is interested in the topic, the information is usefully there. However, I would contact WP:WikiProject European Union, and see what someone in the field thinks about the article? SADADS (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2009 (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 keep arguments here provide no evidence that this person passes Wikipedia's notability criteria. Kevin (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Dabral

Ashish Dabral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This seems to be an autobio or CV, or at least a fan bio. I tried to find reliable sources to verify this information and show notability, but I could not find any mention of this individual. Fences&Windows 03:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article and do let us know what kind of reliable sources you need to keep it in Wikipedia. This is about a person who started his life from a basic village and is working for mankind through a NGO. We strongly recommend to keep this article on Wikipedia because we feel this article deserve it. References can be provided if required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.190.95 (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read
notable enough for an entry in an encyclopedia - Wikipedia is not a host for CVs or tributes to friends, but rather it makes record of people and topics that have received recognition and may be of historic interest. Fences&Windows 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Every source provided so far seems not to mention the guy, Google, Gnews do not give any source. Gbooks retrieves a book by the guy, and that's it. Nice guy, but not for a bio here. Even my inclusionism has a threshold. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not sure what kind of "real" avidence you are looking for. We have hunderds of example in Wikipedia where people do not have any reference but their descereption is available in WP. We can provide enough avidence/references about this person who is working for a noble cause and we are sure WP will help him to spread his noble efforts. If required, We can remove things looking like his biodata - i.e. his work profile etc. But still we strongly recommend him to be in WP. We don't mind if you delete him but trust our words, You will find him in WP sooner or later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.206.5 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we need some
reliable source. Is he discussed in a book? Has he been discussed in newspapers? This would greatly help your cause. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

There are a couple of newsletters, Magazines and journals where you can find him easily, unfortunately, these journals, Magazines are not available online presently. You can find an article about his works on OMKARESHWAR Temple (OMGOD) in 'Om Shanti Sandesha' June 2009 edition (published by OM Shanti Mandiram, Columbia, USA: A Non Government Organization) and if required we can provide scanned copy of the article in said journal. A couple of local newspapers acknowledge his work towards Indian Culture. His works are in primary phase so the references are limited, but there are references and this is the fact. If you believe whatever is present online is the only truth then please go ahead and delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 215.66.225.23 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC) External Link: http://omshantimandiram.org/worthyhomepages.html[reply]

A charity organization newsletter? Sorry, but that's not nearly enough. It's not matter of "believe whatever is present online is the only truth", it's that we have no way to check otherwise. If you can link scans of reliable news sources (wide circulation newspapers, magazines etc.) talking about him, you're welcome -though we cannot guarantee it will be enough, for sure it helps. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We will provide link(s) for scanned newspapers/magazines shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.210.31 (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The biography is unsourced + even if all the facts were verifiable, it is not clear what makes the person
WP:Notable as a student, NCC cadet, employee at various tech./engineering firms, or as a founder of an NGO that started in October 2009! Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep seems you are confused, or you are not aware what you want to quote here, This article is about a person who studied in a small village in India and then participated India's Republic Day Parade, This is itself a big achievement for a person. He is awarded by Governor of the Uttar Pradesh State and Gen. Ved Prakesh Malik.

In the age of 26 he started a NGO and working for welfare of poor people and for the great Indian culture. It is easy to comment here but it takes a lot to achieve such things. Once again we recommend him for WP and will provide "evidence" as requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.241.41 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but it is you that are confused. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The fact that this person had a personal big achievement is nice, but it doesn't make it automatically fit for an encyclopedia. We need sources, that's it. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a difference between noble and
notable in the Wikipedia context. I haven't been able to find anything to show notability in English or Hindi. In Hindi, I found this web forum post, nothing else. -SpacemanSpiff 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ged UK 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Davich

Jacob Davich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy delete if possible. The biographical article is about
Taylor Dooley. There does exist an imdb link to Jacob Davich but he hasn't acted in the mentioned movies. P.S. The external link to IMDB also links to Taylor Dooley ^Writer_Listener 03:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and it could go as a speedy vandalism G3 as "blatant and obvious misinformation" as it is clearly an attempt to mislead. Per the nom, it is in large part a copy of the Taylor Dooley article with a few name changes, although without bothering to change the gender of the pronouns. The filmography, barring one film, is pure fantasy. In addition, and it is time to call a
talk · contribs) sock, down to the role in A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), a film whose cast list Alexcas11 has tried to expand to include what seems like most of Hollywood by now. (The last version of this article, which was deleted, was created by an Alexcas sock) However, the subject himself might well be notable enough and certainly none of the above should be taken as prejudice against the creation of an article in good faith . However, this ain't it. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 08:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Per
talk) 08:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Two Brothers Brewing

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
csp
|username}}.

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Two Brothers Brewing

Articles for deletion/Two Brothers Brewing (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Two Brothers Brewing (3rd nomination)

Two Brothers Brewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is Wikipedia is some kind of restaurant directory. This entry should be remove due to the fact its not notable, and contributes to the sum of all human knowledge. This article would fit very well on an advertising flier, stuck to my car window in Warrenville parking lot at the Satisfied Frog pub and grill. This article should be promptly removed, per
WP:PROMOTION. unless Two Bothers is paying some at Wikipedia to have this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbreww (talk • contribs
)

Geez, what is this, broken AFD day? It seems like I'm the only person who can fix these freaking things. Clearly nobody else cares. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at this link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are a bit confusing and cryptic. Sorry for the trouble - thanks Greenbreww (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected the articles AfD. The false 3rd nomination has be deleted. (CSD G7) -- allen四names 03:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank youGreenbreww (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seem to be enough references to establish notability. Not to imply they're nationally famous, but there seems to be enough for inclusion. Problems with the article can be adressed there rather than at a AfD (see
WP:BEFORE). I'm also pretty sure that getting fliers stuck in your window isn't a valid arguement for deletion. Just saying' Bfigura ^(talk) 03:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A little two bit micro brew is not notable. See
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The reasons for deletion of this article, as it is blatant advertising for this small and rather non-notable gin mill in Warrenville Illinois.Greenbreww (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I'd ask the nominator to tone it down a bit. There's no need to disparage the subject here. Also, the nominator's history suggests a SPA --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the fact this article is blatant advertising and is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia still stands.Greenbreww (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The editor who nominated the article for deletion the first time around seems to have abandoned the account immediately afterwards. And now we have this new single purpose account. Kind of odd. — goethean ॐ 14:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TONE down the Ad Homumin attacks - the issue is not about SPA, it's beer and the notability of this little bar in Warrenvile, I know you like being abusive, aggressive, and nasty to those that don't 110% agree with your off wall opinions, but this only about bad beer, not about those you don't like.Greenbreww (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's your angle, Green, see my comment about you below?--Milowent (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw, thanks - The comment was directed to Mr Goethean - his comment about SPA was uncalled for.Greenbreww (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated failure to reply to my simple question is good evidence to suggest that you have a conflict of interest with the article subject. Its not about whether you are an "SPA" but what your angle is.--Milowent (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google alone shows coverage in the Chicago Reader and in a journalist's book about "American beer culture" (plus "BeerAdvocate.com", for what that's worth), all of which are third-party sources, although I wouldn't go out on a limb for their reliability or depth of coverage. If the article appears to be advertising the topic, that can be solved by editing rather than deletion. (Editing to add: this is in addition to the Chicago Tribune coverage already noted in the previous AfD, for those who haven't read it.) --Paularblaster 08:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Numerous third party sources. Gamaliel (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: So there was a recent prior AfD that ended in July 2009 as a keep, and I see no argument that prior consensus has changed, right? As suggested above, Nominator Greenbreww was around during that AfD and was active on talk page, and his nick sounds like he's interested in the subject matter, so am interested to know what he/she thinks is different now.--Milowent (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Google books [38]. — goethean ॐ 16:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per wikipolicy regarding using Wikipeidia for Advertising a business, especially one so small. Note, the Trib and other will give complementary writeups in their news paper for paid advertising, especially when the Trib is bankrupt right now. So, I call in to question the true notability of this bar. But, this article, is in conflict with published Wikipeida policy of
WP:NOTDIRECTORYBut I guess all of these polices are worthless? Greenbreww 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

You are the nominator, and a presumed delete !vote, Greenbreww. Why don't you respond to my repeated questions about what your angle is in all this, and why you think the prior consensus from less than 30 days ago, resulting in a keep, has changed? I am always open to differing viewpoints, but simply reeling off policy names is rarely convincing.--Milowent (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Greenbreww has now !voted delete twice - I just noted this while persuing the comments again.--Milowent (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reeling off Policy, I guess it's ok to use wikipeida as a form of free advertisement, Now I throw the question of "What is me interest in this..." I throw this back at you, MR Milowent? Why is this little, bar so important to you Mr Milowent the the others??? Just for the record, I live with in 1.6 miles Away from this place and have tasted the work of the Two brothers, unlike most here, less maybe MR Goththememan( who I know lives in dupage). I found the work to be unremarkable.

Now, the point, first why bother with policy, when it can be apply or not to apply at will and convenience of those with the power bully their point of view? Second, As I mention, Two brother advertise in the Trib, Daily Herald, as it is customary, for those that advertise heavily, to give favorable reviews in return to heavy advertisers to the newspaper. In other words, I don't recognized the validity of the reviews listed about TB. Now finely, the rule of law (policy) vers (consensus) - Now, if we have rule of law, then even tho, as we look out side and most would say the Earth is "flat" The truth is its round, but if you get a "consensus", in Wikipedia which - the earth is "flat" and enough bully in to say so, then it's flat - Or in other words, might makes right when it's wrong. That is the point, yes?

Consider this...

Trade publications and awards aren't good enough The current
notability guideline for businesses
discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world.
Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the
Business Week
type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business....
...General interest outside your locality and outside your industry is what makes a case for notability.

Greenbreww (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to my interest, Greenbreww, I've only been to Chicago once and have never heard of this place, but what has retained my interest in this AfD are the hints of COI among some of the edits. I have a keen interest in internet behavior, including hoaxes like lonelygirl15 where I was one of the people involved in investigating that hoax. That's my angle. So, it was fairly clear to me that you had some interest in the article subject here. In fact, I hypothesize that you don't only live 1.6 miles away, and have tasted their beer, but that you also either dislike the brothers or have some other business interest adverse to them.

Now, I am well aware that articles like this can be subject to spamlike content. But I checked google and and saw how darn many references they have in the media. That's crosses the line for coverage on Wikipedia. Maybe part of that is just good PR on their part, but they have generated enough press to be notable (including, for example, outside of Chicago, two references to their beers in the NYTimes in the past year.) Your position is that the local press is biased because Two Brothers advertises in them, so you discount the use of those sources as counting towards notability. That's a not a crazy argument, but this place has more than just one local puff piece out there.--Milowent (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I live on the E side of Winfield - get a map out and see the distant to the brewhouse. Any rate the passive aggressive Ad Hominum is not relevant anyway, what is, I have been there, and on more than one occasion and found the beer overrated. Now the beer was drinkable... as drinkable - say MGD or Goose, but award winning - NO. I'm of Central European stock, and know beer. Further more, this article is bold face puff and free advertising and inconsistent with Wikipedia philosophy. Finely, I have no business interest adverse to the TB, I work as an IT admin.Greenbreww (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Your personal opinion that the beer is crappy and the press about them overblown mimics my thoughts about Miley Cyrus.--Milowent (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it Wikipedeans want to put words in people's mouths, I said " The beer was overrated", but was drinkable, as MGD. This is not crappy beer just not Award Winning beer. Please restrain from this kind of assumption and stick with the discussion of the article. Thanks.Greenbreww (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for offending MGD drinkers.--Milowent (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. This is a
consumer business with a local physical plant. It sells things to the general public under its own brand. It's been through the AfD wringer once already. Seems to have at least some coverage outside of sites and publications that cater only to beer enthusiasts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The sources seem to confer notability.--
WP:LOTM) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment With the article in it's present form, I will be willing to let it stay. But again, Wikipedia is information, not a forum of advertising.Greenbreww (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is unsourced material in the article that is kinda spammy that probably should be removed if there is no sourcing, but perhaps not the wholesale excision you just performed.--Milowent (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add what you think, but the wholesale rejection by Goetheanan is not going to get us to a place of agreement.Greenbreww (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can this be closed as "withdrawn by nominator" now? (The only delete "votes" are all from the one source). --Paularblaster 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_link.png

Comment ONLY in this form [39] will move to close this afd not when this article is shilling as a times square billboard like this [40]...Greenbreww (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I note that the nominator has removed this source (among others) from the article, which is a book published by an academic press providing significant coverage of the subject.
Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I have read the source mentioned by
Phil Bridger and read the page history and I now think that the nominator is biased against Two Brothers Brewing. Incidentally, I believe that a moratorium on edits by participants in this discussion on Two Brothers Brewing should be called. -- allen四names 15:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I believe the creator of this article is a great deal more bias then I am. I no connection to Tb, and there is strong possibility that the creator of this article has connection or my even being paid for it. I willing to have the article, but I am not willing to have the Times Square, Spamomatic version now on line.. Two brothers is only notable enough to justify a paragraph of two, no more.Greenbreww (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, consensus is clearly way against you on content, so please don't blank out 90% of the article like you just did. Nobody here gets to put down directives as to what can and can't be in any article as a personal privilege.--Milowent (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus - NO,
WP:COI with the author of this article and the gang which now has been assembled. Again '...please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes."And lastly, Goehthean acts with out regard to any one, and refuses to make argument and explain his position, other then edit war, which he has a long history this. This is not very Civil.Greenbreww (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Squawking about uncivil comments isn't moving the ball any, you sure are good at citing policies for a newby editor. Now you are even edit warring on the article. I am reverting you, and if you revert me again I will call for you to be blocked. Please let's be constructive.--Milowent (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT you never answer the question, or engage the discussion, only lecture, condescension and threats. Typical of a weak argument, BUT I guess policy, rule of law are alien concepts here, in the end I believe TB has paid Goethean for this article, under the Duck [41] policy of wikipeida.

Keep. The topic has sources from reliable sources and appears to be at least marginally notable. From the vitriol and extremely limited range of edits from the nominator, this appears to be some sort of vendetta beyond anything to do with Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 14:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only a "vendetta to see right prevail over MIGHT. But, Rules and right is not notable?Greenbreww (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whats right isn't always as clear as you seem to think. Personally, I'd be happy to see article or list entries for each and every commercial microbrewery. older ≠ wiser 15:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is bar, that brews its own beer, in illinois called "Two Brothers Brewing." These things seem true. It has received no particular attention (that is, notability as understood at wikipedia) accept from local newspapers and something called "The Guide to brew pubs in illinois" which mentions every last one of 'em in the state of lincoln. Delete this per the GNG, not a directory, etc... It's not a notable bar, not one of the sources establishes this.
talk) 14:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per unambiguous close of previous discussion that closed as "keep" and pretty overwhelming consensus above that bar is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, i.e. due to sources presented by others arguing to keep above. Also, I hope everyone had a Happy Halloween yesterday! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per
notability guide doesn't say that local newspapers aren't eligible as reliable sources. In addition, calling the Chicago Tribune a "local newspaper" is a really strange argument. The book reference makes a very good argument as to why it is notable; having a reputation in the area as having a reputation in Chicago for having good beer even among other brewers. -- Atama頭 20:00, 2 November 2009 (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. Taking into account those arguments based on various policies and guidelines, the questions answered in this discussion are: do his patents show notability?; do his convictions show notability?; and does he have sufficient published coverage to show general notability? Consensus is that neither the convictions nor the patents are notable, so we must assess on the final question. On this question, overall the keep arguments fail to effectively refute the detailed and numerous arguments that the totality of published coverage does not lift the subject over the threshhold of general notability. Kevin (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Press

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Howard Press

Articles for deletion/Howard Press (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Howard Pressman

Howard Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

DELETE Please!! - This article was written by the subject's son. I admit the COI. I started the page admittedly naively as a newbie) out of a heartfelt idea to discuss my father's positive contributions to humanity with his patent. But this has gotten WAY out of hand. Do you all really want my good intentions to leave me responsible for matricide?
It is my understanding from having lived through all of this mess, that this guy Etis was planted in the factory by those in Forest or other labs who wanted to steal my father's patent rights. It seems they did a really good job of it.
Regardless, WIKI policy on Biographies for living or in this case deceased (see C: below) persons, still call for certain protocols; to wit,
WIKI: Biographies of living persons (remember see below that this applies to deceased as well):
Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects (NB -Mrs. Press) is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. So please review, if you are not already familiar with these policies, which from my perspective clearly qualify this article for deletion.

A: With respect to Criminals:
WIKI takes the view that MERELY that the act is High Profile does in and of itself doe NOT constitute "notability", read:<br? Perpetrators

A perpetrator of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a perpetrator. Notability with regards to this is normally defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. Editors should consider creating articles on perpetrators if at least one of the following is true:
1. They are notable for something beyond the crime itself. An example is Phil Spector. (Note: Press was NOT, you all said so)
2. The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. A good test for this (but not a necessary prerequisite) would be if the victim has an uncontested Wikipedia article that predates the alleged crime or death. Examples of perpetrators meeting this standard are John Hinckley, Jr., Mehmet Ali Ağca, Yigal Amir, André Dallaire and Gavrilo Princip. (Note: Press was Clearly NOT, you never heard of him until I started this!)
3. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime, as above. Examples of perpetrators meeting this standard are Jeffrey Dahmer and Beverley Allitt. (Note: Though we may have a hard time proving this, Press swore all his life which was otherwise devoted to humanity and his family, that ETIS was PLANTED in his place to do exactly this. And, thus may have been a victim of this horror. And, by the way. He was ONE year in Federal Prison, NOT three! So much for the Notorious Counterfeiter of all time crap.) So: even in arguendum he was really guilty of counterfeiting and supported it, this still is NOT enough to qualify for NOTABILITY under your own rules!!!!
B: Articles about people notable only for one event

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.
If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.
NOTE: He lead an exemplary life in every other aspect of his life. WHAT ELSE was he notorious for? Thus the article fails THIS test as well.
C: Dealing with articles about the deceased

Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper. The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material. This applies to verifiability of sources, and to all content policies and guidelines.

D: Presumption in favor of privacy
WIKI Policy states:

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
Thus, for all these reasons I ask that this article be finally DELETED. BTW: I sincerely apologize to all those who tried to improve the page, and did earnest research trying to help the case to keep a page re: the patent. This was my FIRST article an it was clearly a mistake for all the reasons you have all articulated.
^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion begins here

Notice - to all editors. As I understand it, the nominator is, or claims to be, the son or relative of Howard Press. So while that's not an argument for delete or for keep, please do be extra careful to not make personal attacks in this debate. Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did and still do believe that Howard Press should have been considered notable on the grounds of his invention, and subsequent patent. The addition of the information on his trial and conviction is wholly immaterial to his creation, and his contribution to society, and is clearly a retaliatory action by those editors with whom there was a disagreement over notability. I therefore move that this article be deleted on the grounds stated by Drsjpdc. Waynethegoblin (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC) — Waynethegoblin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Bongo, you might be able to pull a CU on this one. Astronominov 04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasons in the last AfD; nothing has changed since it was closed as "no consensus" yesterday. Dealing with the nominator's specific points: (1)
WP:BLP1E which doesn't apply as the man's criminal notability stretches across multiple events and prosecutions even before we take into account his claims as an inventor. They're also intended to address the question of whether it's appropriate for an article to be about the perpetrator, the victim, the crime itself or something different, rather than the question of whether Wikipedia should cover it at all. There's no suitable alternate article in this case. (B) As above, he's not notable only for one event. (C) The relevant policy statement for articles about the deceased is that they should be verifiable and well sourced; this article is (at least in relation to the potentially defamatory claims). (D) The need for privacy applies only to the biographies of living persons (Howard Press is deceased); the "victim" clause (those impacted by another's actions) isn't relevant here as the claims of duress made by the nominator within the article are unsourced. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: What exactly *IS* he notable for, and how has that notability been established? User:Drsjpdc failed to show that Howard Press was notable for his patent, and there are no references with significant coverage of Mr. Press in regards to the criminal prosecutions. DigitalC (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Waynethegoblin says, the subject appears to be notable, and indeed the article seems to be rather well-sourced.
WP:BLP1E would only enter in if the person was only notable for one event, which doesn't seem to be the case here. (Although the section concerning the negative aspects could use an edit for tone). However, the trial and conviction do appear to be notable portions of his life, so I'm not sure it's worth deleting simply because someone thinks it casts a relation in poor light, so long as NOR/NPOV/V are all met. (And since this isn't really a BLP, I'm not sure privacy is a strong argument so long as things are neutral and sourced). --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The verifiable facts in this article do not give rise to notability. The crimes that the subject was convicted of do not meet the threshold of notability, and being issued a patent alone does not either. Were it accurate, the original claims might give rise to notability, but (despite numerous editors' good faith research efforts) they cannot be verified, and indeed appear to be false based on what sourced information has been identified. ^Bongo_matic 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bongo, and also per nom. Astronominov 04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE~~ - Figura, says these are "notable portions of his life". However the policy says that for criminals to be notable enough, they not only have to be MAJOR crimes, but that ALSO some other aspect of the life has to have ALSO been notable. Are you seriously equating the illicit manufacture of real pills with a trademark violation, to Jeffrey Dahmer? That's one of the examples?

You can't eat your cake and have it too. Earlier you all argued that the page should be deleted because the patent was not first, and because it proved nothing. I concede all that now. Thus, this FAILS to meet the criteria for Notability based on the WIKI policy for criminals alone.

And the policy for bios of deceased persons, stated above says that essentially the rules for living persons basically apply to the deceased. Bongo and I have rarely agreed./ I ask you to heed him now. - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 05:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I didn't argue for delete, and neither did WaynetheGoblin, DGG, ~~Bearian,~~ or Rikatazz. Or for that matter, yourself, Drsjpdc. You made a convincing argument for Keep last time around; your difficulty is that you convinced people. There's some really excellent work occurring to improve the article and make it more NPOV, and I'd invite you to contribute to that effort and help present a balanced article about your father that will intrigue readers for years to come. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - My comment above originally suggested Bearian at some time had argued for Keep. That comes from a misreading of the 2nd AfD and it's not correct. Please disregard. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply Drsjpdc, please don't put words (or analogies) into my mouth. If the article was about someone solely notable for their criminal acts, your comments would apply. However, what I (and a number of others) have asserted is that the subject is notable for multiple reasons, not just the criminal issues. Ie, we should be looking at
WP:N/CA (which is focused on the notability of criminal acts as stand-alone subjects). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment reply - Ditto. I argued for deletion. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The fact that the subject is notable, the article is properly sourced, and the main author admits his "mistake" in creating the article is all noted. The author has been well-acquainted with our
The Law of Unintended Consequences
- which reads:

Consequences of ignoring this guideline

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created,
removed
, perhaps permanently.

In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our
deletion policies
. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

You can't eat your cake and have it too. According to our policies, it is too late now for the author to do anything, especially because it is the fault of NPOV that the unsavory details have been added. Their pleadings actually violate the principles written above. They knew about this warning and chose to ignore it. Too bad. One could say that this is the just rewards of attempting to misuse Wikipedia for promotion. We don't write hagiographies here. This is an encyclopedia, not a free webhosting service where personal articles can be written and displayed. To seek to misuse Wikipedia to write a hagiography, and then seek to misuse the AfD process to undo the consequences of ignoring policies just won't do. One cannot rejoice when a policy-violating article somehow makes it through, but then regret when it gets revised into an article that abides by our NPOV policy. This AfD strikes right at the heart of our most sacred policy, NPOV. The proper response to all such AfDs is to keep it and make it even better. --
talk) 05:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Special pleadings and personal attacks that aren't appropriate in an AfD

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thats all very cute. But how does one prove a negative. I was told over and over that he only plead guilty because the Prosecutors promised him a suspended sentence if he did. So he went across the street to he lawyer and basically fired him and came back to the Judge and accepted the guilty plea. Beause the whole thing was draining the family's resources. he did this for all of us. When they turned on him and asked for prison anyway, he tried to revoke the plea, but the Judge refused to allow it. Never heard of that kind of thing happening before? I rather doubt there is any documentation to show that the Federal prosecutors pulled this kind of dirty trick. Did you read the Appeal case you posted? It essentially tell that same story. It just leaves out the WHY would ha have accepted a plea, and the tried to revoke it?? Are we the National Enquirer?
More... did Bull Rangifer do some of the research to dredge up the dirt? If so then his opinion would be a COI too. Just asking. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made only one edit, the addition of a category, so retract your fangs. --
talk) 05:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Fangs retracted. I was just asking, perhaps badly, if those who dug up the mud, should have the same voice now that their work is threatened? Wiki policy make it clear that this is not supposed to be the National Enquirer. - Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely they should; the same logic would have barred you from participating in the last AfD. Everyone gets a say, and it's worth noting that the "mud" was dug up specifically to support your claims that Howard Press was notable. As I've said before, if you feel that the criminal prosecutions are not an accurate reflection of his life as a whole, you are more than welcome to add additional (appropriately sourced) material to the article to balance them out. (I'm not saying this by way of further argument over this article but in an attempt to help you understand and exercise your options at this stage.)- DustFormsWords (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was NOT aware of the COI policy when I started this article. As I said, it was my first (or nearly so). I became aware of it only later when another article was removed for COI issues. So, that statement is incorrect. - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 05:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is very correct. On Aug. 19, the day you started the article, you were alerted to it on the talk page. You should have listened. Your COI has been discussed by yourself and others many times. --
talk) 14:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

1.: I admit that I advocated too strongly for the preservation of an article on my dad. He was a good man and didn't deserve this.
2.: However, I also concede that at about the end of the discussion in AfD 2, (when It was too late to concede). I read the research that found a couple of other patents which PRE-Dated his (I'm sure he never knew about them), not Consolazio's , but another WAS found, which clearly DID use a cellulose base to deliver medication over time, and thus I have to concede that the Press patent was not the first to have this idea. By the time I saw that, the article had taken a dark turn.
3.:In any event, since the patent was not the first, one of you proved that this means that Bongo was right all along about the notability issue; and since the "crime" is a 40+yr old trademark infringement case, in which no one was ever alleged to have been injured, it hardly rises to "notability" under WIKI rules (above) that talk about "major crimes" like Dahmer; the analogy is even ridiculous, and we don't stick to the rules, would lower the credibility of WIKI. If one actually reads what I posted at the start of this. I certainly have received a WIKI education here.
Can we spell Schädenfreud? Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For Now. A number of editors have enhanced the article very recently, adding verifiable facts and improving its neutrality. I repeat what was said in the previous AfD: the article is in a great state of flux, and every day new documented facts about Howard Press's life are coming to light. The latest request to delete this article was a knee-jerk reaction right in the middle of some of the best research that had been done on the subject. Certainly we should give the editors the benefit of the doubt to continue their research and improve the notability of the subject. The decision to delete this article should be a slow process, and should be postponed for several months.

Second Point: Drsjpdc cannot give an unbiased account of whether his father's crimes were minor or major, notable or not, so his opinions must be discarded. Counterfeiting drugs in the U.S. is a serious felony--thousands of people could get sick or die--but also a crime that is quite rare and unique. Most felonies are not notable as they are run-of-the-mill local offenses, but in this case presumably General Pharmacal would have needed great sophistication (tablet presses, packaging, labeling, surreptitious dealings, interstate transportation, conspiracy) to undertake this operation. Local, state, and federal agents had to combine to shut it down.

Drsjpdc's claim that somehow Press, president of General Pharmacal, was somehow oblivious or uninvolved in the counterfeiting at his own company (over the course of a year) is absolutely preposterous. A reading of the indictment and complaints proves the opposite.

Drsjpdc notes that his father's offenses resulted in only one year in Federal prison, and that this should minimize its severity. Yet Liptower was correct in stating that Press was "sentenced to three years"; presumably Press got off on good behavior. Most relevantly, the judge in the case warned the conspirators never to set foot again in the pharmaceutical industry, for their next sentence would be a "life sentence." Evidently the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third District thought the crimes were notable.

Besides the notoriety of the crimes themselves, Howard Press himself may be notorious as a repeat offender. Drsjpdc edited what Liptower had posted in the article, changing "Press faced new felony charges yet again several years later for an even larger offense" to "Press faced new felony charges several years later for mulitple [sic] issues related to the original charges." This is disputable. The second indictments, which came down from a New Jersey grand jury on October 27, 1965, appear to be quite distinct from the first (General Pharmacal 1960) case, with a completely different set of conspirators, and a different set of charges. The first case involved interstate shipments of counterfeit nationally trademarked drugs; the second, 18 counts of distributing counterfeit Dexedrine and Dexamyl Spansules, fraud, and conspiracy. In the first case, agents had been probing General Pharmacal from 1959 to 1960; in the second, federal agents made a series of undercover purchases beginning in August 1964. Drsjpdc wants us to believe these were one in the same. In reality, there were at least two separate crimes; what happened was that the first indictments were dismissed in favor of a single, consolidated indictment. Furthermore, evidence is now surfacing that Press defrauded Lowey back in 1951, and Key Corporation in or around 1954, etc. If so, this is not one isolated incident but indeed a case of a serious perpetrator who was on the FDA's watch list for many years.

Third Point: The fact that the crimes took place in the past, or are mostly unknown to our generation, is irrelevant. If Wikipedia editors unearth truths that contribute to our understanding and knowledge of a topic, then it should not matter if the events took place 5, 50, or 500 years ago.

Lastly, I will repeat for the nth time that Drsjpdc must not make inflammatory, unsubstantiated accusations either here in the AfD, his article, the talk page, or anywhere else. He is advised to retract his statement at the top of this AfD that Forest Laboratories, a publicly traded company, is somehow responsible for crimes for which his father was indicted. If on the other hand, Drsjpdc is so certain that this is the case, and can supply documented proof, then I welcome him to retract his latest request for deletion and enter such factual evidence in the body of the article.--Rikatazz (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE DELETE DELETE: What a mess. Drsjpdc wrongfully creates a glowing article about his dad, and labours away on it. Bongomatic rightly sniffs out the original research bonanza (citing a page of the 1930 US Census book listing dad's birth, come on!), and proposes the 2nd AfD. In the meantime (Oct 27 GMT time), a single purpose account, Liptower comes through and rifles[42] the article with this criminal stuff written as negatively as possible, including citations to court documents. Liptower, most likely, has some connection to Hans Lowey or someone else who was adverse to Press. E.g., the obscure 1962 book cited for the "notorious" quote does not mention Press by name, nor do the 1960 articles in Chemical Week or Newsweek. The short 8/6/60 NY Times article mentions Press as one of three arrested. The 1961 NY Times article is 121 words and lists press as one of six people. (I have access and can send the short articles to anyone if they want to see them.) All subsequent court proceedings, including the 1965 indictment, are cites to court documents without evidence the proceedings received any news coverage, and there is no basis for me to conclude its not all just run of the mill criminal allegations and civil litigation of no interest to anyone else except the litigants. "Howard A. Press" gets 19 hits on google, a few of which are hits to the actual reported cases, but none of which are coverage in sources reliable or otherwise. Searching for "Howard Press" without the initial is problematic because of hits to printing companies, but "Howard Press" and "General Pharmacal" gets 0 hits outside wiki mirrors.

So, in my opinion, the notability of this WHOLE article rests on two brief press mentions in the NY Times in 1960-61 about some criminal allegations completely unrelated to the mass of patent stuff otherwise covered. The 2nd AFD closed as no consensus, and some infrequent contributors were among the keeps. Among regular contributors (and I'm not saying infrequent contributors deserve no weight, but this is clearly a screwy case), DGG was a weak keep, and DustFromWords was a keep contingent on "if the claims made in the article lead section are backed up by sources." I cannot deny I feel for Drsjpdc's personal appeal for deletion, but undoing this one is right both on policy and equity. P.S. I also ask possible SPA Rikatazz to disclose any connection to this mess - you have copies of 1960s indictments? --Milowent (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To establish that Press wasn't a one-offense criminal (and to counter your view that Liptower based his whole section on just two short NY Times articles), I have added new citations to FDA Papers and FDA Report on Enforcement and Compliance that report new counterfeiting in 1962-64; see the talk section as well. As I said, the article is in flux and new factual references are being added, so perhaps postpone this deletion decision until editors can finish. You might consider searching for "Howard Press" or "Howard A. Press" on google/books too.--Rikatazz (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rikatazz, Errr? did you miss my question to you? I also ask possible SPA Rikatazz to disclose any connection to this mess - you have copies of 1960s indictments? Cause if you didn't miss it, its extremely telling. Its obvious you care strongly for this article for some reason. In any event, these two FDA docs don't show notability, as the FDA has reporting requirements that require the compilation of this type of stuff, and we don't have articles on every FDA-related criminal matter or counterfeit drug maker. If you got newspaper reports covering these events beyond the two NY times snips, we should look at them. Of course Liptower did not base his additions on the two small NY Times articles, he has his own sources. I went ahead and checked "Howard A. Press" on google books and get 15 hits -- there's nothing beyond that 1967 FDA Papers citation you found; no new sources found via "Howard Press" and drugs either.--Milowent (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed something, the criminal claims are also sourced to the relevant trial transcript, which anyone with access to the relevant legal libraries can read. There is absolutely no question that the man was arrested and convicted in the 1960s in relation to these offences - the son admits it - so why are we questioning the sources? - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dust, generally trial transcripts are not available in legal libraries. There may be for some cases (like O.J.), but not usually. I highly doubt this one is, but Rikatazz could chime in and tell me if I'm wrong. I'm not questioning that trial transcripts or court documents are relevant for verifying facts, but they doesn't show notability. Note, by the way, that the article doesn't say he was convicted for the 1961 indictments, just that he was indicted. The proceedings later in the 60s show the guy pled guilty under the 1965 indictment, and later tried to withdraw his plea, which was denied. Looks like a dispute with his attorney to some extent. I don't see how these crimes confer notability on Mr. Press.--Milowent (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. as purported notability is being suggested by the crimes described in article.—Milowent (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —DigitalC (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —DigitalC (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails
WP:N; however I see no reason why the article shouldn't be userfied to one of the account of one of the passionate editors arguing for keep. Clearly, a lot time went into the article so perhaps one day notability will be satisfied, perhaps his son will write a book. Mathieas (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete (Disambiguation):~~ After Dr Press wrote his last appeal, which I see a few courageous souls have called for what it was, I too read the “pre-existing” patents, and now also agree that there was at least one that looks an awful lot like his father’s. Thus, I have to concede, like the doc that the original page also did not qualfy under WIKI rules for notability. I hope this ends the twisting of my previous statement, and makes it clear that I too voted for DELETE Waynethegoblin (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Removed second !vote from same user. ^Bongo_matic 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically per my reasoning in the previous AfD. The sources added near the end of that discussion and since should be fine, but I am not seeing the sort of in depth coverage of the person or the series of events that would make this a notable topic. A merge to General Pharmacal might be viable, but I am not at the moment convinced. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Milowent has been to my talk page politely requesting some further discussion, and I've there laid out a more extensive dissection of my reasons the article should be kept. They're a bit long and they're really only a restatement of what I've said in this and the last debate, but if anyone wants to read them you can find them here. Please leave replies on the AfD debate, not my talk page, to avoid splitting the discussion.- DustFormsWords (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with what you stated on his talk page resolves around the first paragraph, particularly point 3. It states "If the inventor of time release medication were to be Press, he would therefore be notable.". I agree with this, but we have no reliable secondary sources that states that he was the inventor of time release medication. You then say "All of the above is, as I understand it, not in issue and backed up by reliable sources." [sic]. But this isn't the truth - it isn't backed up by reliable sources. DigitalC (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

BTW: I can swear and attest that "Waynethegoblin" and I are not the same person. I have ONE account only. Also, I am 62 years old, and this sounds like a name that a much younger person would use. And, after reading what sure looks like long saved paperwork, I too would like an explanation of the possible COI of one of the "pro" voters. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I would like to repeat that I have learned a lot since I made this mess. I sincerely apologize to all those who put effort into this, and thank all those who saw through the disaster. - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contray to rumors, I did argue for deletion, and I do so again. As I predicted in the 2nd AfD, this would become a
WP:BLP, and I feel like Cassandra. Bearian (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The crime and trial received very little attention, and the patent and dispute received practically none. I don't buy into the
WP:BLP claims because this isn't a biography of a living person. But the lack of notability lets me lean toward delete. To give full disclosure, Drsjpdc did leave me a message on my talk page asking for advice on how to deal with the "mess" this article became, but he did not ask that I participate in the AfD. I decided to do so on my own, for my own reasons, because I don't feel the article belongs in the encyclopedia by our usual standards for biographies. -- Atama頭 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

It takes time to unearth the facts. We shouldn't race to delete an article because AfD voters do a 10-second google search for the subject and come up with few hits. I just added information to the talk page that suggests that indeed there was widespread publicity about the 1960 crime, and that, contrary to Milowent's assertion, Press was clearly mentioned in the Chemical Week article. Just because you don't have instant online access to everything doesn't make the topic less truthful or real. Question: just how long does this AfD process last?--Rikatazz (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD process generally takes 7 days. DigitalC (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Rikatazz: "I also ask possible SPA Rikatazz to disclose any connection to this mess - you have copies of 1960s indictments? And the merits, OK, I see the quote you put on the talk page in chemical week, press' name is listed (the google search shows no hits on that article, whether you can read the article or not, it says 0 hits are contained in the article, that was the source of my prior assertion). I have done far more than a "10-second google search", including accessing the NYTimes pay and highbeam article library pay archives. Also, the article you quoted says "widespread publicity" is to still to come, but I don't see that it happened. Its a crime that had no impact beyond basic reporting, and those generally are not notable. BTW, since you seem to know a lot about this stuff, whatever happened to the 1961 indictment? The article doesn't say. And whatever happened to Lowey's SEC's investigations, that popped up in my searches as well?--Milowent (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could someone do the favour of going through the 36 sources currently in the article, and making a list of secondary sources that actually mention Mr. Press? Such a list could be located on the dicussion tab of the AfD, or on the article's talk page. DigitalC (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have since reviewed the references, and found that there were only 3 secondary sources that mention Mr. Press. 1) Joseph O. Haff, "Bogus Pills Laid to 3 in Hoboken," The New York Times, August 6, 1960 2)"Six Drug Men Indicted, Charged with Counterfeiting Trademarks on Pills," The New York Times, March 29, 1961 3)Chemical Week, Volume 87, Chemical Markets Inc: 1960, pp. 18, 45.

Delete: I stand by my !vote from the 2nd nomination, in that this article still fails notability. DigitalC (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
I have refrained from doing any more editing of this enquirer article, but I ask my colleagues to look at the following:

1.- there is NO reference to support the change that was made to now say that Press was "in business with Lowey" in Bonded laboratories, is or ever was true. As I have stated for disclosure purposes, I lived through the whole nightmare, and I never heard my dad say ANYTHING about having worked for Bonded laboratories. I did know that he knew Lowey and he blamed him his whole life for having stolen his invention; and, 2.- he then says that "Lowey signed a licensing agreement with Key Corporation"; there is no proof that it was Lowey who signed anything. Since he seems to have access to Lowey's or Forest's long archived papers; where is the contract? no reference? retract the statement; and, 3.- he then claims that Lowey (changed from Press) signed a non available "licensing agreement". NB: the two references listed #s 7,&8 have nothing to do with a licensing agreement; 7 is another reference in the 1959 PDR, and 8, is a BMJ article having nothing to do with any relationship between Press and Lowey and nothng to do with a contract; and, 4.- the entire statement:

- agents began covertly investigating General Pharmacal's Hoboken office in connection with a bootleg drug operation that they believed Press to be running. Agents determined that the company was manufacturing illicit tablets and pills bearing the trademarked names of nationally recognized drug companies, and that the misbranded drugs were counterfeits of genuine products

is unsupported by ANY reference. Was the editor an FDA agent? From whence did he manufacture this whole statement?; and, 5.- reference 14, also only shows that a study of Nitroglyn was done, and published by the Heart Association. What has it to do with the controversy?; and, 6.- the entire statement:

Press and five others began shipping imitation Dexedrine and Dexamyl Spansules in late 1962. Starting in August 1964, FDA agents made a series of seven undercover purchases of these illicit drugs, and by October 1964 had found more than a million counterfeit capsules and tablets. On October 27, 1965, Press was indicted under an 18-count charge including fraud, violation of the criminal provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and a conspiracy in violation of that Act.
is unsupported by any of the references. It sure looks like someone who wrote that, has an ax to grind here. Where is the documentation for this? The couple of citations are listings of documents apparently not available to us today. Where did the editor find them, and considering the claims made, we should either see them or the claim should be retracted.
Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References which actually mention Press are: 1,
3 (census)
5 is a broken link
9,10,11,27,28, 29 & 30, 32, 33, 34, & 35 ??? we can't examine: these a re apparently ONLY available to the editor with the ax, and the 40 year old archive of this stuff
24, 25 and 26 mention ONLY the corporation
31 mentions the sentence, but also list others I never heard of.
^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, BTW, please notice that despite that Forest Laboratories (Which I did not know until now still existed), has its own page on WIKI, (and due to a now understood COI on my part) I didn't add the references and controversy that could possibly hurt them by adding references showing that thei founding was grounded in some shady dealings with re: this angel Lowey (their Chairman-of-the-Board) having been cited by the SEC for Securities fraud, etc (See reference #6). And check out #5, which shows that the 1960' incarnation of Forest was sued by others for other kinds of fraud as well.
All is not what the criminal record seems to show. - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed what was reference 8 in the article because it had nothing to do with the proposition cited, so the numbers above will be off. If trying to compare to numbers above, check prior revisions to match up, as I'm am looking through these cites (many of which are to bare URLs) and may have to edit some more.--Milowent (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I don't believe that the "bust" or counterfeit operation would meet the inclusion critera of a stand alone article (based on
WP:NOTNEWS), there certainly shouldn't be an article about one of the people involved with it. Aside from that there is the process patent, and in my eyes there is nothing to establish notability there.--kelapstick (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment re notability - I just noticed that | this source claims that the FDA considered Press' company to be the principal source of counterfeit drugs in the United States in the eary 1960s. Make of that what you will. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That book again doesn't add to the notability of Howard Press - it doesn't even mention him. If anything, it might lead to notability of General Pharmacal. DigitalC (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I might not be on top of the debate; is there any genuine dispute that Press was President of General Pharmacal during the relevant period and had partial or full control over its operations? That's backed by the court transcripts for the convictions, surely? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are no court transcripts of any convictions, because he was never convicted of anything. I've fixed those assertions in the article. For the 1961 indictment (the one covered by the 121-word NY Times article), there is no information about what happened to that, which makes me suspect it was dropped, though we have no idea either way. The 1965 indictment -- which was never covered by any news coverage anyone can find -- ended when Press pled guilty to one of 6 counts (presumably the other 5 counts were then dropped, but again, we don't know). Press' guilty plea came during a short period of time when he didn't have an attorney, and he was not allowed to withdraw the guilty plea. I learned this stuff by reading the court opinions, which don't demonstrate any notability to this matter. / All that aside, the 1960 NY Times blurb says the 37 year old Press was the President of General Pharmacal at the time of the raid. There is no press coverage I have seen explaining what Press' role was, or anyone else's role, and without an actual trial nothing ever HAD to be proven in court.--Milowent (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thanks Milowent! I'm not sure a conviction is necessary to found notability - being the controlling mind of a company alleged to have been America's largest counterfeit drug producer would in my view be enough - but you're right that a source will be. (None of the below addresses that issue, it's just for use in improving the article and finding sources.) This document indicates that prosecution was still ongoing in June 1962 (it's an appeal by only one of the defendants so doesn't mention Press). And while I'm citing sources, on an unrelated matter, this source provides support for General Pharmacal manufacturing Obes-Ebb tablets in 1959, by way of a destruction of some defective units. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think 10 convictions of a crime would confer notability, unless they "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Being charged with a crime, or being a hoax floating balloon, can confer notability if it receives significant coverage. Here, even Press' guilty plea received no press of which we are aware. We also have no idea what Press' role was - I could argue he knew nothing substantive, and there is no source either way. I have read the June 1962 case opinion, and you cannot tell if anything was pending against Press at that point.--Milowent (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't gone through the sources in detail, but judging from the discussion above, this looks like a case of
WP:OR: an article created through stitching together mentions in primary sources rather than reporting from secondary sources. There doesn't seem to be the required level of coverage in independent reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. Robofish (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I said weak keep last time, to a more confused version of the article. The present version is stronger, and coherent, and better sourced. It's absurd to say he was not convicted, because he pled guilty and was sentenced to prison. If a standard textbook cites the criminal scheme as a notorious example, he';s notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - Please look at the sources, or instead to DigitalC's comment about them above. The reason they look better is because bare URLS have been changed to look like actual cites, but the sources are no better quality. There is no coverage in reliable sources of the criminal conviction/guilty plea. The court cases don't say he was convicted, because he pled guilty, though i realize news articles can be loose with these terms. As law.com defines it, a conviction is "n. the result of a criminal trial in which the defendant has been found guilty of a crime." And that never happened. Also, the book hardly looks like a standard textbook, and does not even mention Press. Also, regarding the original reason this article was created (Press's son wanting to tell the world it was really HIS dad who created time-release medication, not Lowey), there is no coverage in any reliable sources about Press' alleged contributions to time release medication.--Milowent (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the law.com definition is a little misleading. On the basis of a plea of guilty, the court (usually) finds that the defendant is guilty. (It can refuse to make that finding despite the plea in some circustances, such as where the defendant is found not fit to plead, or where the court believes that the plea is not an honest plea (eg the defendant is covering for the real criminal)). Following a finding of guilt, a conviction almost inevitably follows during the sentencing process (although again a person can be found guilty without conviction, typically when the charge is technically made out but so inconsequential as to deserve not even the punishment of conviction). So yes, even on a plea of guilty we'd expect to find record of conviction. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Dustforms comment and reference; You are grapsing at straws to support the unsupportable! Obese-ebb was General Pharmacal's OWN brand, generally sold to local bariatricians (weight-loss) doctors who gave them out like water. That was the 60's. I actualyl recall that. Dad was really annoyed that they thought this batch failed purity tests. He hired a chemist-specialist just to make sure that didn;t happen again. - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 03:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drsjdpc, I'm no longer trying to actively argue this; there's some discussion going on that Milowent's findings re sources for the conviction do undermine the notability argument, which I'm inclined to agree with. So really right now I'm just only getting involved to correct some misapprehensions about what conclusions can and cannot be validly drawn from the remaining sources on the criminal matters. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a further waste of time to me.
Isn't it clear that a consensus has been reached this is at least 2+ to one in favor of Delete. How much longer does this torture continue unnecessarily? - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 04:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days seems like a long time in this type of situation, especially since there is no clear consensus. The better the article gets, the better case for keeping it. One cannot deny that being the president of a company that was the major supplier of counterfeit drugs in the USA is NOT a small matter. That's very significant and notable, and that a repetition of a crime he had already confessed to is very typical. A pattern has been established. That he later seems to have been a good father and decent citizen is nice to know. That doesn't change history. You have the makings of a new biography here, where you can tell your version of the story, including the details of what actually happened, why he continued in crime, how the family reacted to it, what he told his family, and what he didn't tell them: "Betrayal - The Inside Story on Howard Press. The Family's Perspective". --
talk) 05:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

We don't write original research biographies on wikipedia-your comment is incredible support for deletion. And as this is mostly original research in here, its not surprising that you have the facts wrong -- he was not convicted more than once. He was the president, but there is no coverage whatsoever regarding what his role was in the counterfeiting, the meager amount written about it never mentioned Press except for the fact that he was arrested in 1960 and indicted in 1961--for charges that apparently never resulted in a conviction. we don't judge notability solely because someone "sounds important" -- there should be significant coverage in independent sources showing notability.--Milowent (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a family member who is in denial? It sure sounds like it after the way you are twisting this. Note that I didn't use the word "convicted" in my comment. I noted that he was involved in two separate cases of crime, and he spent time in jail for one of them. --
talk) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Haha. No, to be clear, I knew nothing about any of these people until I stumbled upon this article on AfD patrol. I will admit, however, that this AfD is getting under my skin a bit so I almost anticipated someone would ask that! I don't think I truly appreciated the importance of Wikipedia:No original research before this one. I highly suspect that Rikatazz, the primary champion of keeping at this point, is very close to the litigation because he apparently has unpublished court materials from the 1960s and 1970s. He also added a number of the sources, aside from some added by SPA Liptower, who first brought up the criminal allegations. I've asked 3 times above what Rikatazz's connection is, but he has not chosen to respond at this point.--Milowent (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Actually for accuracy sake, it was the corporation which was found to have been involved in this, and the President was arrested exactly because he ran the company. That was what he told us, and this seems to be supported by the dearth of any evidence that he knew what was going on Nowhere has anyone shown that Press knew that all this was going on, or actively participated in it. Also the laundry list of "co-conspirators" that no one in the family ever heard of before, and he told us that too. Nowhere has anywhere shown that he was arrested with counterfeit pills in his personal possession. NOWHERE. All that, frankly supports his story. People are arrested all the time for things they do not personally commit. I made an error, caused by not yet knowing the rules here, but certain editors who should are ignoring them, and one had to wonder why? I inadvertently, out of dedication to a great father's memory, created this huge mess. I have apologized to my WIKI colleagues already several times. When does this end? -^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that СДжП,ДС. An AfD normally runs for seven days. But you are making an important point -- there is absolutely no evidence that Press was personally involved in the "ring." He may well have been, he may not have been, but we simply don't know. The circumstances of his guilty plea on one of the 6 counts (based on reading the court opinions) are very screwy -- my reading is that he ran out of money to pay his attorneys and freaked out after one another defendant went to trial and was found guilty--but even this is highly speculative and not covered by any sources. We have no idea what that other defendant did, but its quite possible it made Press think (when he had no counsel) it didn't make a difference what he actually did, and that the guilty plea he was offered was his only option. Am I the only one who thinks of Richard Jewell (not strictly analogous though) --Milowent (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right! If one actually read all of what I wrote,(and YOU obviously did) I said before that dad (he was pretty forthcoming for a guilty guy) told us that he was offered a plea with suspended sentence in exchange for a guilty pleading. As soon as he fired the lawyer (Fischbein), the prosecutors conveniently forgot about their promises and he went to jail. If we re-read that screwy appellate cite; that's why he tried to take back the plea!!! The Judge and the prosecutors had a "gotcha" moment. (Kind of like this article) (law of unintended consequences; right) This all makes sense now. - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 16:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References Provided. At the request of Milowent and other editors, I have posted two items on my talk page: the 1965 FDA Report on Enforcement and Compliance and the November 13, 1973 summary judgment in the case Press v. Forest Laboratories, et. al. Milowent and other editors: please re-write changes you may have made to the main article, after you have seen these items. Let me know if there are other items you need.--Rikatazz (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So one again, if one actually reads all that old garbage, Press filed his suit more than six years after the fact, and this was one of the major reasons cited by the court for dismissing the case. The whole suit looks like he was pissed off at the theft of his patent, anddecided to use the courts to tie up Forest over this, frankly inappropriately. I would have advised against doing that, had I been a lawyer, or even consulted.

As to the convictions; here again there is no wording which directly ties Press to holding the contraband. It sort of hints at that, re the airport matter, but it never says that. It says that they found the goods at the home of one of those names I intriguingly never, ever heard before. Also, frankly, in my estimation this supports my dad's story, in that there were people he really didn't even KNOW, doing this stuff BEHIND his back; allowed into his plant by Etis, and he just got nailed for it's being his place. Nothing here to controvert that story at all! - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, BTW; I TOO would like to know from Rikatazz, where he is getting this stuff? There HAS to be a COI connection with Lowey or Forest; SOMEONE who would have carried a grudge all these years to save that trash. - ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Rikatazz is providing V & RS, and is not disruptive, (s)he is under no obligation to out themself. --
talk) 06:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

No one needs to out themselves, as (edited to add): in my opinion its already obvious to me that Rikatazz is related to someone who was adverse to Press. ~~That's the only way he would have these unpublished court materials, so its a clear conflict of interest which editors should simply be aware of~~.--Milowent (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and ask that you please strikeout your comment. I believe that the documents were available through LEXIS.com, and as such there is no clear COI. Further, a COI is not an issue unless the editor is failing to abide by
WP:NPOV when editing. DigitalC (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

DigitalC is quite right. It's also rather ironic that Milowent supports the author of this article when the author regrets that his non-NPOV version gets fixed to a more NPOV version, and then Milowent seeks to attack an anonymous editor who actually follows NPOV by including sourced material that improves the article. COI's LUC is directed at the author's attempts to own a non-NPOV version of the article, and Milowent's attempts to support him. Such attempts should be rebuffed and the article improved with more good sources. It is Press that has the COI problem because he used his COI to write a hagiography about his father, and knowingly left out negative details he knew about, while Rikatazz has no problem because (s)he isn't violating policy, but is actually bringing more balance to the article. --
talk) 22:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Who I am attacking now? I think Rika and I get along fine, but I'm not blind either. I edited the comment above slightly. It does appear that 1973 unpublished summary judgment opinion (which I haven't analysed yet, but will) is available via lexis, though it was never cited as such (with the lexis cite) before.--Milowent (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing forward these sources. However, the FDA Report certainly does not bring the "significant coverage" needed for
Wikipedia's notability requirement. DigitalC (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not sufficiently notable. Unomi (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of
verify the claim that his patent contributed much to his academic field. If he did indeed contribute much to his field, I would expect some sources on Google Scholar; however, there are none.
My own searches for sources on Google News Archive (1, 2, and 3) and Google Books (1, 2, and 3) return no valid sources that could be used to construct a biography, so I conclude that Howard Press is non-notable. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Additionally, I have reviewed the sources posted by Rikatazz (talk · contribs) and am unable to see how those documents (File:19731113 Press v Forest1.jpg, File:19731113 Press v Forest2.jpg, and File:19731113 Press v Forest3.jpg) establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Stephen, you may find it hard to believe that I, LIPTOWER, agree with you that the article needs to be deleted as soon as possible. The whole thing is a tragedy of contributors with feelings vs. people who want to stick only to hard facts. Maybe I should not have opened the can of worms but by the same reckoning maybe you Stephen should have been more polite yourself. I believe you have learned an important life lesson. At the same time, you are learning a few things about your dad. You were either too young to understand, or your dad never told you what happened, or whatever. This will be my last entry in Wikipedia, so there is no need to respond, I won’t reply anyway. I am going to tell you the whole story, and I am not going to back up with pointless citations and references. Whether you choose to believe it or not is of no concern. Just read it. Then re-read it, over and over, until it sinks in. Think about it. This is what happened.

Long narrative constituting original research, but demonstrating that the original research in the article is but one interpretation of the primary sources referenced

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Your dad was a promising young chemist, well educated, good looking, and ambitious. Hans Lowey, who ran Bonded Labs, admired Howie, hiring him around 1950. At the time, Bonded had two business lines, a pharmaceutical business and a vitamin operation. Howie was brought on to handle the vitamin line so Hans could focus on what turned out to be the more lucrative tablet business. One of Hans’s customers was his good friend Howard W. Stern at Key Corporation. Previously, Hans had developed a method (he actually developed dozens of methods and throughout his life had more patents than anyone) of coating tablets that improved on the old enteric, delayed-release technology. He signed a licensing agreement with Key in early 1950. Much work had to be done, including trials and studies, and things were put on hold for some time by the Korean War, when the firm was called upon by the U.S. government to developed long-acting salt tablets for soldiers. Howie and Hans collaborated on this and probably many other beneficial products in the early 1950s. However, Howie was not satisfied with his role in the firm and wanted more.

One day in 1951, Hans came into the office very early in the morning and caught Howie in his office with a large sheet of paper, trying to copy Hans’s signature. When questioned by Hans, your dad had no answer. Hans fired him on the spot.

The formulation for Key’s sustained action products were known to no one but Hans—not even Stern knew it, and not Howie—and the methodology was kept in a sealed envelope, to be opened only if Hans were to die or if he failed to fulfill his end of the agreement. It is clear that the formulation as described in your dad’s U.S. patent was not the one used in Nitroglyn, but rather Hans’s method. I will explain this shortly. During 1952 and early 1953, Hans and Stern ran clinical trials of the sustained action drugs and commissioned independent research studies. Your dad obviously got word that sustained release products were coming out, and around June 1953 he determined to get a piece of the action and file a U.S. patent bearing his name. Hans quickly sued and said that such work was done jointly while your dad was an employee at Bonded. The two agreed on a joint ownership of that patent and that Hans would pay royalties to Howie for any products developed using that method. Problem was, no such products were (or ever were) manufactured with the Press patent. Nitroglyn and the other Key launches used the Lowey method, which we are certain about because the marketing materials from Key speak about therapeutic constant levels of pH as the medicine is exposed to enormous peaks and valleys of acidity and alkalinity in the stomach and small intestine. This was the essence of Hans’s approach—he solved the problem of uniform pH—and nothing in your dad’s patent speaks about this. Hans paid some token sums to Howie over time, and Howie didn’t complain—at least not until 1956, when he sued for an accounting. If Howie was so certain that he was being defrauded, then why did he wait for three years before suing? Here’s why:

A year or so after the launch of Nitroglyn, Howie called Stern secretly and offered to manufacture sustained action Nitroglyn for him at a price below what Bonded was offering. Stern foolishly agreed. Trouble was, Howie believed all along the formulation in his patent was the one used in the Key products, and that it worked. It did not. Howie and his company thus produced defective tablets for Key. Stern contacted Hans and told him the merchandise was substandard. Key stopped paying royalties to Bonded and the FDA was brought in. However, when it was determined that Key’s drugs were not up to specification, but Bonded’s were, Stern was caught in a lie by his friend Hans. Stern broke down and admitted his mistake in judgment to Hans. Key immediately paid all the monies due to Bonded and Stern swore never to work with your dad again. Stern was so devastated by this debacle that, irony of ironies, he died of a heart attack a few days later.

This is the genesis of your dad’s fall into wrongdoing. The General Pharmacal scare of the 1960s may not be remembered by this generation, but it was in the papers, at least in New Jersey. Some readers here are old enough to remember the Tylenol scare of 1982. Pharmacal was similar, but in miniature. Just what was Howie doing, president of a shady operation for years, run in a secret warehouse, amid dingy conditions? I find it hard to swallow that he was "asleep at the switch" for a whole year 1959-1960. General Pharmacal wasn’t a massive operation—it had a dozen or fewer employees, and everyone knew everyone else for years. And why, after the police closed down the company permanently, didn’t Howie learn his lesson? He got right back into counterfeiting again in 1962 with a new bunch of shady characters, and was convicted and sentenced for a new felony. You once wrote that Howie has never been compensated for his "contribution to humanity." A tragedy!

Stephen, you and your family suffered through years because your father couldn’t straighten himself out. He lashed out at Hans, Bonded, Forest, and others around him, all to no avail. He held life-long grudge against Hans which you inherited, wrongly. You are an esteemed doctor of Chiropractic, not a vindictive man. Why did you write this article in the first place, withholding your dad’s felony charges and jail time? Was Wikipedia a means for you to be heard, a pulpit for you to continue this "vendetta," as the judge called it, and re-open old wounds from 36 years ago?

Howard Press absolutely does not deserve an article. Notable or not, the story is too troubled. Just look at it: a biography section, light fluff about PROW, then a Nitroglyn section, then the crimes and suits. The whole section on Nitroglyn falls apart because the subject did not have anything to do with it, and it reads more like an article on Hans than Howie. The section on the crimes is going to be edited and re-edited hundreds of time, without any purpose. Administrators: please DELETE this article, as per Stephen’s wishes. Editors, you can serve the Wikipedia community better in many other ways, for instance by improving the article on time-release medication. There you can stick to facts and avoid feelings. If this article is not deleted, then some other editor will propose another AfD, and so on, a waste of everyone’s time. Good riddance.--Liptower (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Annotation for aid of the drama-interested reader: Liptower is the editor who came thru about 4 days ago and added the criminal charge sections to the article.--Milowent (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a comment reflecting the significant changes to the article.

The article now has numerous references.

The references that are used to back all significant claims in the article are primary sources.

The interpretation of those claims is anything but uncontroversial.

The entire article remains original research (though probably better original research than it was at the time of the nomination).

There remains no legitimate claim to notability for the subject of the article (even in the original research).

^Bongo_matic 02:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep It cannot be that an article gets re-nominated one day after the prior AfD gets closed. If this is the way we do it, a lot of articles will be constantly on the AfD-list. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Seb az86556, it appears that you are not familiar with the procedural history. Here:
between the second nomination and this one, the article was dramatically rewritten; and

the main proponent of "keep" in the second round changed his opinion.

The procedural issues, where entrenched views hope to appeal to a broader constituency or hope that previous participants don't chime in again, are totally inapplicable. ^Bongo_matic 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The reasoning is quite....reasonable! It should be an AFD policy that there must go a certain amount of time between AFDs. I'd say two weeks at the minimum. --
talk) 06:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
(a) That isn't policy, and changes to policy should be addressed elsewhere.

(b) Such a policy, should it be implemented, should and would (in order to gain consensus) provide for carve-outs for new information, material changes to the article, or changes to the views of significant contributers to the previous AfD discussion. ^Bongo_matic 06:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the potential, the reality seems to be that abuse of AfD relistings is actually fairly minimal, and while I've disagreed with the nominator on the merits of this matter both the circumstances and the resulting discussion have totally justified the process of bringing it back so quickly. Besides which, heated AfD discussions almost always result in the quality of the subject article being improved, so Wikipedia benefits even in the case of repeated Keep results. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... in other words, should this AfD turn out to be "Keep" or "No consensus," it will be back for a 4th time within one day? Just trying to clarify what the views are here... effectively, it means that anyone's "keep"-vote is null-and-void. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the result is Keep, then I would say it is probably not be appropriate. But, if the result is No Consensus, shouldn't we continue the discussion until a consensus develops (one way or the other)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalC (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Am not familiar with the Wikipedia editorial policy: can someone explain how the AfD "vote" is handled? Is it based solely on the number of yeas vs nays, or based somehow on a subjective interpretation of the coherency of the various arguments made by the editors? Do editors with established COIs get their opinion heard? I would point out that Drsjpdc has been repeatedly changing the article and editorializing--after he said he would stop--does this not weaken or invalidate his 'delete' position?

Also, to be fair to editors like Milowent (who asked quite a number of times what is my relationship; not sure why you thought it crucial to use bold typeface): you should know simply that Hans Lowey, who escaped from Austria in 1939, helped rescue many Jews from the Nazis and arranged for their safe departure out of that country. Lowey saved the life of someone very dear to me, securing his release from the Dachau concentration camp. Certain editors have used this article to damage Lowey's reputation and cause pain to his friends and relatives. Sure, Lowey was enjoined by the SEC, but if the editors who introduced this citation bothered to read on, they would note that Lowey never admitted to any wrongdoing and was never convicted of any offense. In fact, he won a major lawsuit against his former company Forest in the mid 1980s that allowed him to continue developing new, innovative sustained-release drug delivery systems on his own. This article and discussion must be limited solely to factual information about Howard Press (two-time convicted felon, according to Press's own sworn deposition), not attacks and speculations about Lowey, Forest, or various editors.--Rikatazz (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rikatazz, its not a vote (which is why you see people saying !vote on wikipedia so often, it means "not a vote"), but numbers are not ignored. The adminstrator who closes can weigh many factors, including weight of the arguments and conficts of interest of editors. And thank you for sharing your personal interest in the article. While you pushed hard to make the article very negative about Press, when those materials naturally led to some negative press reports about Lowey, who Press is inextricably linked with in this article, you now sound identical to Press' son, bemoaning the negative material you don't like and saying it will cause harm to relatives and friends. The fact is, the whole article should be deleted as I've asserted above, as none of this material shows notability, in addition to the major original research problems. Perhaps you'd like to acquaint yourself with those policies and consider changing your (!vote) opinion on whether this article should remain on wikipedia--Milowent (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I would appreciate any assistance in getting this trash removed. It by now should be clear what Milo was the first to note, and I certainly agreed was as severe or worse a COI for Liptower as for myself in the foolish creation of this article in the first place. He certainly has essentially admitted a direct connection to Lowey in this commentary, while still refusing to admit how. NOTE: clearly his story is almost 180 degs. opposite that of my dad's. One thing I have learned here, is that they became mortal enemies. What I meant by the "Golden Calf" allusion is that dad thought that Etis was possibly paid off by Lowey or, maybe Key, to do the "Counterfeiting" exactly to get him shut down and destroyed, so he would not have the wherewithal to continue his fight to get reimbursed by Lowey. We have an admission that there was a profit sharing agreement. If I fired someone for trying to steal my secrets and trying to forge my name, I would NEVER, EVER agree to work with that person again, and would frankly have gone to the Police right then and there and filed charges. In fact something like that happened to me with a secretary and I filed charges immediately! The very fact that Lowey entered into a sharing agreement, speaks volumes about the objectivity of this story too.

Obviously no one has all the facts now. Both my dad and Lowey are gone. However, it is also true that Hans Lowey was not an angel either. We have seen that he was cited by the SEC for securities fraud, and later even sued ^[1] by FOREST, for his "own" patent! And, in the early 1950's BOnded was charged with producing "adulterated" products. ^[2].
This HAS to end. ADMINSTRATOR. Please put a bullet in this now.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) By the way, Liptower's story contains overt LIBEL. The charges he rants on about are unsubstantiable, and are unquestionably libelous. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you claim as the victim of libel here? It cannot be the article's subject, as libel by definition is statements about a living person. ^Bongo_matic 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the legal dictionary: (emphasis added): libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this article. Not recent, but no reason to think things have changed. Note phrases such as "centuries of legal tradition". ^Bongo_matic 06:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by the very nature of this discussion. The use of the word "libel" has become strongly frowned upon at Wikipedia, and can lead to charges of violating
talk) 06:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Both the pro-Lowey contingent (Rikatazz and Liptower) and pro-Press contingent (Drsjpdc) have been jousting like this for the past week, and I am sure it will only continue if the article was to be kept. I've found more original research sources that are negative about Lowey but have decided not to add them to the article at this point.--Milowent (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wise decision on two counts

You're probably right that (just as long as Drsjpdc sees any hope for deletion, so that door of hope needs to be fixed or closed) he will continue, but that is not a legitimate, policy-based reason for deletion. On the contrary! The
Law of Unintended Consequences
makes it clear that inclusion of sourced negative information will happen. Not only is that NOT a reason for deletion, opposition by the COI-affected author IS listed as a reason for blocking the COI involved party (Drsjpdc) so that disruption will stop. Deletion should be based on policy, not the wishes of the author.

You are also right not to include more ~~negative~~ information about Lowey, as he is not the subject of the article. The article is about Howard Press. That's basic policy regarding article writing. Articles should stay on topic and must not be used as
coatracks
to attack those who are not the subject of the article. Since Lowey is tangentially related to both the topics of patents and illegal activities, he can get very short mention, but no more than that. Therefore the inclusion of mentions of Lowey must be very short. If he is notable (and he may very well be), then write an article about him so those sources don't get wasted. I suspect an interesting article about all these aspects could be written in which both Press and Lowey are extensively mentioned. If that happened, it might justify deletion of this article.

Basically Drsjpdc has been walking a very thin line by first violating NPOV and then LUC, where he is threatened with blocking for doing what he's been doing here. It needs to stop so the article can be cleaned up and improved. As any COI-affected author, he should use the article's talk page (not AfD) to make sure that unsourced negative information is sourced or removed and/or proven inaccuracies get corrected. --
talk) 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
How can the article be "cleaned up and improved" when it so blatantly fails
WP:N? There are no secondary sources which give significant coverage to Howard Press. DigitalC (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. What a mess. This is cobbled together from primary sources and some passing mentions in secondary sources, pepped up with some original research. Howard Press does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, so we should not have an article about him. Neither his patent nor his conviction add up to making him notable. He's run-of-the-mill. Someone might be able to write about General Pharmacal or the fraud case, but I highly doubt that either of those is notable. Fences&Windows 23:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete all (
G3) as blatant hoaxes. The two articles that were copypasted were dead giveaways. MuZemike 04:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Mel Rogers

Mel Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Chris Wills (90210), Melvin Stovall and this article were created by the same user User:Theman234. All links to this article in any other wikipedia page was also created by this user. Can't find any verifiable links on google. Must be a hoax ^Writer_Listener 02:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reason:[reply]

Melvin Stovall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chris Wills (90210) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--^Writer_Listener 02:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete definite hoax -Drdisque (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2009 (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) 04:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time Machine (Solution-Soft software)

Time Machine (Solution-Soft software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable software. A search for "Time Machine" Solution-Soft seems to bring only self published promotional hits. Ridernyc (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacked news coverage. Alexius08 (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether news coverage exists or not, this is a minimal stub article on a software utility for testing date & time sensitive applications such as backup programs, financial reporting software and corporate billing too. The article makes no claim for even minimal technical or historical importance for this software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nothing here. Miami33139 (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2009 (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) 04:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brunch with the Brit

Brunch with the Brit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

contested prod, unreferenced and non-notable radio show, fails
WP:BROADCAST and probably COI issues Declan Clam (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Creator of the Page - irvinefan - I made this because it is a remarkable show in the way it has grown to 5 continents. It has a large pirate audience unlike any other college radio show. I have now properly sourced it as well. They have been discussed on Absolute Radio as a feature of Christian O'Connels show. (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvinefan (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete - The growth mentioned in the comment above isn't shown in the references given. So far all that's been established is that that show exists, that it may be available as a podcast on ITunes (can't confirm this, since the link given requires a login), and that a Twitter account which may belong to
WP:NMEDIA, and I can't find any online. MuffledThud (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:BROADCAST. Significant audience or impact cannot be verified.--SabreBD (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2009 (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. NW (Talk) 22:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Nobel Prize laureates

Black Nobel Prize laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Delete. Article is unable to proceed without a definition of 'Black' as a race. Defining people by colour is not possible as no empirical method exists to do so and there can be no consensus to achieve this other than by explicit self identification by the persons concerned. Attempting to define the colour of others is illegal in most countries and Wikipedia is at risk in doing so. Even if a definition were both possible and legal the article is unbalanced by representing a single race in the absence of any others. E x nihil ^(talk) 01:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the article is obviously well intentioned, the nominator is right. while any individual or group can advocate for itself and self identify as they wish, WP cannot ever come up with rational criteria for who is of what "race". the only way this list could work is if it only listed nobel winners who publicly stated that they were "black", as opposed to some other race, and with no other partial race mentioned. race is a cultural construct, while ethnicity is less so, but only nationality will work for a list like this. this belongs on someones private website, to support cultural unity and self identity for those who identify as "black", and for those who support all people of colors right to self determination, expression, and accomplishment. there is nothing racist or anti-black or even anti left in proposing this for deletion. however, if a book was published on this subject, or a subject which included this list (or one close to it), and was widely discussed and reviewed, we could include it, with sourced commentary on the inevitable controversy over listing awards, etc by race.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rebuild as "non-Caucasian" 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be type of information people might search for and want to know -- "hmm ... i wonder how many black folks have won a nobel prize. 12 out of 806? hmm, interesting!" Just because there may be a debate from time to time over whether a certain person should be included (obama is half white!), the normal editing process can accommodate that. We don't delete
List of African-American firsts, or eliminate the gathering the racial background in the U.S. Census, simply because Tiger Woods is not 100% black.--Milowent (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom. He is absolutely correct. This is also the US POV on race. African-American and balck are not the same. What is done in the US census is specifically forbidden in the census of many other countries. "non-Caucasian" has the same problems. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Milowents' comments. The debate about of what shade of colour should be included in the article is moot as would be the illustration that President Obama is actually a white man and debated ad nauseam. The cultural and racial diversity of modern society allows for articles such as this one to be perfectly legitimate not to mention that it is well written, sourced and referenced--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, a great bit of info that work's equally well for White supremacists and for Black persons who want to play the race card. "Did you know that out of 806 Nobel prizes, only 12 of them went to Black people?" I'd say the same for someone making a table of how many Nobel laureates are Jewish, or gay, or Ivy League graduates or evangelical Christians. Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A new introductory sentence that defines "black" would alleviate the nominator's primary concern. The article is correctly referenced and very interesting.
talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Define Black? Would you say Indians are black because some of them are dark? I don't see any problem with having African Nobel Laureates or African-American Nobel prize winners as well. But without a suitable definition of Black, this article shouldn't be kept. --Writer_Listener 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for user WriterListener, each individual Nobel prize winner in this article is identified and their country of origin specified, a quick read or following the link to the individual will dispell any doubt about definition. --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that what I don't like-- and it goes beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and right into WP:OR -- is the statistical table that has been part of the article from when it first started. It's cited as coming from "Nobel Laureates Facts", but the Nobel Foundation doesn't keep a table of racial statistics. Skin color has nothing to do with whether someone is nominated for a Nobel prize, any more so than having been born in February. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work as a new introductory sentence: “To date, there have been 12 Nobel laureates who are either African or of African heritage”?
talk) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it does not work with the current title. The term "black" is used in all sorts of ways other than to refer to "African or of African heritage”. For example, Melanesian people have been described as black. Australian Aboriginal people have been described as black. If the title was changed to Nobel Prize laureates of African heritage maybe it should not be deleted, but with the current title it should be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm not opposed to an article about the Black Nobel laureates, or anything else that lists Nobel laureates of a particular nationality, gender, religious belief, school affiliation, etc.;
List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University, for instance, are very good articles. I'm inclined to think that the author wasn't intending to argue some sort of point by compiling his or her own table of statistics, but if a point isn't intended, why make a chart like that in the first place? I'd rather the outcome be that the consensus is to keep the article and remove the table, so it doesn't come down to an edit war. Mandsford (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - the issue with defining blackness is a red herring here; I don't think anyone would argue that any of the people listed here should not be considered 'black'. If the word 'black' is a problem, 'people of sub-Saharan-African heritage' could be substituted, but I think the meaning is sufficiently clear. A bigger issue with this article is that of original research; is this, in fact, a topic people have written about, or is it an indiscriminate collection of information? A quick search immediately reveals that it is a topic that has received serious attention, and so a Wikipedia article is appropriate. Robofish (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with defining blackness is most certainly NOT a red herring here. To equate "black" with 'people of sub-Saharan-African heritage' is a US-centric POV. This is not the US wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't see any person on here who could not be described as "black". If there are black (as you define it) Nobel laureates who you believe aren't on the list but ought to be, it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Generally, the last editor is the one who decides whether to write "color" or "colour". Mandsford (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not that Melanesian people or Australian Aboriginal people have been excluded. but that the inclusion criteria are not clear. Note also that I said that Melanesian people and Australian Aboriginal people have been described as black - past tense. They are now just described as Melanesian people and Australian Aboriginal people. The term "black" is derogatory in the South Pacific. It may not be in the US, but we want a term in the title of WP articles which is clearly understood everywhere in the same sense. "Black" does not meet that criteria. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(weak)Delete While interesting, the whole thing depends on original research. I don't think that any reliable source says that lumping together Nobel Prize winners of different nationalities and/or different categories of prizes just because they are considered the same race is a legitimate thing to do. And (although I know this doesn't matter much on WP) I also find the article somewhat offensive, especially the table with all the 0's where no prize was ever won by a black person. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you mean it is offensive that the Nobel committee overlooked the work of black scientists?
talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Did they? If the point of the table is to accompany, with statistics, the (published) beliefs of other persons that the Nobel committee was racist, then that's the type of context, with sources, that would logically accompany such a table. On the other hand, if the point is to make people assume that the Nobel people were bigots, or to assume that black scientists are a rarity, then I would say yes, that's offensive. Mandsford (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are correct. I would support removing the table, too.
talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I was actually thinking that the point was being hinted at that maybe black people are not smart enough to win a nobel prize in science. Either way it wouldn't be the job of WP to make a point indirectly. If reliable sources have criticized the Nobel Committee for racism that should be mentioned in its article, not indirectly implied in another article. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already voted delete above but one problem with this table is that I suspect 'black' participation will always be undereported because we just don't divide neatly into 'black' and 'white' we are all a rather nice mix. Where is the cutoff point? Half-castes? Quadroons? Octaroons? These degrading terms were used in slave days, the whole discussion is very distasteful and in this day and age unecessary, we are just people and if an African heritage is part of our identity let's just keep that in the bio. Let's not introduce a race ID card to WP. E x nihil ^(talk) 01:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that nobody seems to support having the table in there, I've tried a version that simply lists the twelve Nobel laureates who can be described as being of "Black African" descent. If anyone feels that the table should be in there, it's a simple matter of reverting the changes. If someone can find a term for dark-skinned people of African descent that is in use throughout the entire English-speaking world, it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Assuming an article without the table, then I say keep. Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article provides useful information, although I agree that the table at the beginning is somewhat unnecessary. I would be in favour of renaming if a suitable alternative title can be found, that would comprise all those currently listed. Davshul (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article contains useful information and is properly cited. It does not violate Wikipedia policy. There are several similar articles on Wikipedia that establish a precedent, as described on the article's talk page. When in doubt, I tend to follow the advice several seasoned editors have given me - if it's useful to our readers then keep it. I think this one does that. Truthanado (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not really ambiguous-- the use of the term is to follow what the person uses, or is referred to in major works of reference, as with all other categories. the all such groups are mixed to a considerable extent does not invalidate the concept. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is much better without the table. I still don't think it's a great article, but I would probably have not have voted on this AfD at all were it as it is now. I'm not ready to change my vote to "keep" however since OR is involved to say that "Black" has any meaning in this context. Of course my judgement is influenced by emotion since as an American I have strong feelings about racial issues, so maybe I'll downgrade my vote to "weak delete."

p.s. What would you think of an article on "tall" or "short" Nobel Prize laureates? Northwestgnome (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's ever a "Tall History Month" in the schools, someone might get away with it. John Maynard Keynes would be at the "top" of the list. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree this is an US centric/POV take on race, but beside that I don't see a strong argument for deletion based on WP policies. --Jmundo (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (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 deleted, without prejudice to eventual re-creation. This page concerned an adventure game in an "early stage of development". In this discussion, the
only significant author appears to acknowledge that this isn't ready for encyclopedia space yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Humm and Strumm

Humm and Strumm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

24-hour-old sub-stub about an upcoming game. Nothing on Google that is not a blog or a primary source. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find
speculation. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This is true; at the moment, this project is *not* known. Perhaps I jumped the gun on this. When/if it becomes more well-known, at least, I may create it again, but not until the project becomes much more notable. Hummstrumm (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blanked by creator. The page of jokes here is mildly amusing. He may well have appeared in 150 productions but they were all dire East German stuff and never escaped to The West. So nn-bio rather than hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Logs Viewer

Apache Logs Viewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find
talk) 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - doesn't assert notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2009 (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) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I was likewise unable to find significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to
talk) 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Clarity Held

Clarity Held (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable fictional character, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Szzuk (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (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) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect: to
talk) 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/Redirect to Humanx Commonwealth] per Joe Chill above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Humanx Commonwealth. Edward321 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2009 (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. While the article has sources, they are blogs and editorials. Could be redirected to a section of main dotcom bubble article.
talk) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Second dot-com bubble

Second dot-com bubble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article based on a two year old neologism , that predicts future events that never happened. Entire article is based on two year old speculation from a few editorial writers. Ridernyc (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article (as at this writing) is founded on three independent reliable sources, is well sourced throughout and describes a notable concept. (I could be talked into a Merge though if someone found an appropriate target.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's kept it's needs to be totally rewritten. Ridernyc (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when did this happen? editorial writers aren't enough to make an article an encyclopedic topic. only a few here Cynof Gavuf 07:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like an analysis, with points for and against the fact of the existance of the subject. I recommned that the sources be folded into Dot-com bubble, and a small section be added that talks about the idea of a second such bubble - sort of like how a movie article will have a small section talking about a (possible) sequel. We can't very well talk about a subject if independent sources contradict each other about whether the subject exists. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is notable. I admit, it really ought to be shifted to the past tense, and it has a really long, unnecessary list at the end, but it is still a notable topic, cited in 3 independent, reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another interesting article. However I don't think WP can have an article on something that may or may not exist (Okay
UFO and Bigfoot are different). In this case real people's lives and careers are affected. I'd like to see the information placed somewhere else, but I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe it could be snuck in at the end of the first Dot-com bubble article, in a section titled "changes in the market since the bubble" or something like that. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2009 (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. Kevin (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iza Valentine

Iza Valentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced and of questionable notability. Eeekster (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2009 (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) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - I'm not sure of what the relevant policy is relating to racehorses but she's won an award (1985 California broodmare of the year, per here), her death has been reported on several hobby/industry specific sites (here and here), and been the subject of analysis here. All those articles appear to be written by or largely mirror the horse's owner, but on the other hand they're published in places that have editorial oversight. I'd appreciate insight from an expert on the topic and it may be an appropriate candidate for article rescue. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - With the links provided above by DustFormsWords, the minimum threshold for notability is probably met, although barely. California broodmare of the year and several successful foals provides notability, and Bloodhorse and Thoroughbred Times are two respected publications within the racing world. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Humanx Commonwealth characters#Mahnahmi Lynx . NW (Talk) 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnahmi Lynx

Mahnahmi Lynx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is about a character, not a planet. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Flinx or Orphan Star. No citations to significant third-party coverage establishing notability. --EEMIV (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (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) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
Flinx. Edward321 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to List of Humanx Commonwealth characters#Mahnahmi_Lynx Dream Focus 10:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
talk) 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ulru-Ujurr

Ulru-Ujurr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (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) 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to the Humanx Commonwealth. Mandsford (talk)

Merge to Humanx Commonwealth. Edward321 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Humanx Commonwealth. Abductive (reasoning) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Humanx Commonwealth planets Dream Focus 01:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
talk) 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ulru-Ujurrians

Ulru-Ujurrians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is about a fictional alien race, not a planet. Edward321 (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (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) 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect to Humanx Commonwealth. Abductive (reasoning) 01:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Humanx Commonwealth#Species; as with these other articles about fictional planets and humanoids from the mind of Alan Dean Foster, I'd have no objection to one spinout article about the planets or the different groups. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Humanx Commonwealth#Species. Edward321 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2009 (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Packer

The Packer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reason Article fails
WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Vance Publishings article, "The Packer ‎"
. Previously prodded, but removed by the articles creator.

This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see the -
Spam case

Using Wikipedia for Self-promotion and are
WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
________________________
This article was not created as part of a spam effort. I created this article long before the other articles cited were written. I am not connected to the other users listed on the spam page.
I haven't been involved in much other (past) editing due to busy-ness with other activities and being a new user.

_____
How is information about this business publication different from articles on these business publications? Some of the publications listed are small regional publications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trade_magazine_stubs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountancy_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereford_World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_Week
____
I removed the AFD header earlier because it said it the article would be improved, the creator can remove the article.
I have reworded the article and made it sound more neutral. The name of a competitor has also been added. --Clarence Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2009 (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) 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I added two references. The article seems neutral. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article, as now written, sounds neutral. -- --12.191.126.130 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ulrich's shows it as a major trade publication: audited circulation 12,434, published since 1893. I removed the names of the editorial office staff, leaving only the editor. That's the only one we list for most journals, even more important ones. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btw, i think the other magazines in the spam list given above are probably appropriate also. Unless there was a great deal more than than shows now, I do not see this as spam, but as possibly COI editing that does need somechecking, but not wholesale condemnation. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 30 October 2009 (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) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Constanzo

Rodrigo Constanzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

promotional article lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. no real claim of notability. old prod removed by SPA article creator Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it does make a claim of notability ("won several competitions") but given the competitions aren't named and from context appear to be non-notable, the claim of notability is not supported. Therefore delete for not passing
WP:NMUSIC). - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2009 (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) 00:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I don't yet see what criterion of
WP:BAND it meets, but am happy to hold off voting in the event that someone can demonstrate that.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nominator, no sources listed. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (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 decision to redirect or merge can be finalized at the article's talkpage. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performance improvement plan

Performance improvement plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Article is partly a copyvio, it seems to me (from this, and besides that, it is unverified and outlines a plan of action more than an encyclopedic topic. I am not convinced that this is a notable topic in the first place, and the article as it is now is not in accordance with our guidelines, which propose we do not write manuals on how to act in certain situations. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we need to cut this content. Copyvio and howto. However, I think there's an article to be written about PIPs (which I know as "Personal Improvement Plans" rather than "Performance Improvement Plans", but it's a recognizable and distinct topic within human resources).
I'm minded to run with redirect to Professional development for the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hundreds of sources on gBooks and gScholar. It seems "Performance Improvement Plan" is the most popular, but I saw the first P standing for personal and program too. Check the phrases in quotes on gScholar for popularity in academia. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2009 (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) 00:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge any referenced non-copyvio material to performance improvement. I don't see the ned for separate articles on these closely related topics. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2009 (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) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conjure Cognac

Conjure Cognac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable beverage riding on Ludacris' coattails but apparently receiving no publicity. Orange Mike | Talk 03:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No signs of notability. In the alcoholic beverage area, I would require significant third-party coverage to consider a single product/a brand notable enough for an article separate from that of the producer. Tomas e (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2009 (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, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Very slight news coverage reads like press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2009 (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. No arguments to keep Kevin (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Pedro da Viega

Joao Pedro da Viega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Nothing found to backup claims. No sources. Seems to fail
WP:ATHLETE noq (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:ATHLETE - no evidence in the (fundamentally unencyclopaedic) article that he played at a professional level. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2009 (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) 23:59, 27 October 2009 (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.

^ http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CNY%5CNY2%5C1984%5C19841203_0046927.NY.htm/qx

^ http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/fdanj/bitstream/123456789/15905/5/ddnj05065.pdf

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_28&oldid=1142643204"~~

[1] ttp://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CNY%5CNY2%5C1984%5C19841203_0046927.NY.htm/qx

[2] ttp://archive.nlm.nih.gov/fdanj/bitstream/123456789/15905/5/ddnj05065.pdf

[1]

[2]