Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 7

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. (

Bruce Tutvedt

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

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

fails

• Withdraw -- I misread the criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Iran

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

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

Currently hopeless

• Week keep. I agree that the article is currently full of unsourced OR... but the usual google searches indicate that sources do exist on the topic, and these can be used to fix this problem. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article would need a fundamental and total rewrite to be useful. I concur that the topic has potential, but in cases where there is nothing worth saving in the article I believe the typical course of action is deletion. That said, if anybody does make a good stab at improving this (and I may hop over to the article and see if it can be stubbified in some way), I'll go the weak keep route on this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a but- send it to the
  incubator, if, as Blueboar states, there's a viable article to be had on the topic, then it behooves us to write one that conforms to neutrality, notability, and verifiability standards.. This article, isn't it, however, and shouldn't be sitting in mainspace. Nuke the article as is, and allow incubation for creation of a viable article. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Second the above Good call. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ann McGowan

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

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

Delete: Unsourced bio, mostly impossible to read gibberish . Appears to be some sort of machine translation. Marokwitz (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Barely an assertion of notability, just gibberish. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources and it barely squeaks by CSD A7 and yes it does look like a babelfish/google translation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The only keep that actually adressed this article, instead of all bus route articles, changed to "redirect" on closer examination of the sources available. So among the people discussing this article, and not some general principle, the consensus is clear that it should either be deleted or redirected. Anyone wanting to create redirects after the deletion is free to do so of course.

London Buses route 231 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

Another non-notable London bus route. This one had been tagged with {{notability}} and {{unreferenced}} since May 2009, and a few hours ago both tags were removed in this edit which added some refs but nothing approaching evidence of notability.

Per

There is already a List of bus routes in London, so after deletion this title could be re-created as a redirect to the list. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere. Jeni ^(talk) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises

Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a

pointy nomination more than anything. I'd have thought an admin would be setting an example and contributing to a discussion rather than these rash nominations. Jeni ^(talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni ^(talk) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clarity! Indeed, your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. If you think that this is a notable bus route, it's little wonder that you don't want the wider community to scrutinise the notability of any such articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because it is evidence that all your procedural ruses are just a form of disruption, and that your actual purpose is trying to keep non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no discussion of this or any other individual bus route. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to, DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.

  There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy

  original research

  or as repetition of primary source material.

  In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl.
  Mkativerata (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I may have been wrong to remove the notability tag, but I genuinely felt the route's history was significant enough that it justified an article. After a small expansion and the addition of a new source, I still feel that this is true. See below. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well done sourcing one of the points in the article, but none of the sources comes anywhere near meeting the test in

  WP:GNG

  , of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has 3 footnoted sources:

• So I don't see anything which can justify keeping the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly it seems that you're right, so I can't really argue my case any more. Move to Redirect as better than deletion since the page is already linked to from a number of others. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A redirect can be created after deletion, but redirecting without deletion leaves anyone free to simply revert the redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the worst argument for deletion I've ever heard in my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeni (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 March 2010

  As you should know if you had read the nomination, the substantive argument for deletion is clear, and founded in policy: that the article does not meet

  WP:GNG

  . You have offered any evidence to counter that.

  So why exactly do you object to deleting the article, and then creating a redirect? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without
  due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:BEFORE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Actually I would say that your keep !votes and lack of AGF are more disruptive than these nominations.--

  Crossmr (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--
  Crossmr (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or redirect per nom. Orderinchaos 17:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete or redirect - apparently no coverage in reliable sources, which is a necessary precondition for us writing an article about a subject. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this lacks significant coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BHG's analysis of the sources. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Reyk _YO! 11:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. It has become wholly obvious that this article has no basis in truth. Criterion

Conor kavanagh

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

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

A football autobiography. It seems that this person once played for Blackburn Rovers' Under 18s,([37]) which as far as I can tell, doesn't meet

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete The article is essentially a hoax. Nobody of this name plays for Leeds United, nor, as far as I can find out, ever has. There is a Conor Javanagh who plays for Clitheroe F.C., a team in a very minor league, and in no way comparable to Leeds United. Nothing else in the article can be verified as far as my searching indicates.
  talk) 14:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - This may be a speedy but I'm not in any hurry. Agree with nominator. OlYeller^Talktome 16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Summers

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

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

• Delete Biography with two sources, both unreliable. Notability assertion does nto go beyond
  WP:HOTTIE. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Agree with above.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteDoes not meet PORNBIO, has no reliable sources. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Terri Summers (birthdate matches) has made a few porn films. I don't think by itself this reaches the WP:PORNBIO bar, but whatever we do to source hardcore pr0n actresses would be worth a try. Since this person seems to exist, I would not object to Wikipedia:Userfication until notability can be established. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete less than notable. - Schrandit (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Damn, she really is a HOTTIE. When it comes to notability though... NOTTIE. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many sources at http://www.myspace.com/terrisummers1 78.55.203.243 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - I had prodded this article before. There is no indication of notability. EuroPride (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't have time to research it now or in the coming few days but if this is deleted, please userfy it to my user space. I'll try to find a few sources for the claims. Being Pet of the Month in seven countries seems like an unusual thing and if true may be able to be sourced. Dismas|^(talk) 00:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think a myspace page counts as
  WP:RS. Concur with above observations on failing notability guidelines. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete I removed the Prod actually. She was Pet of the month in 5 countries and Pet of the Year in the Netherlands, however the only definitive source, Penthouse.com, does not make this information available for free. Pretty frustrating really, but I guess I did not think sources would be this hard to find. If I could figure out what year she posed in Penthouse I could possibly find it on archive.org, but I can't even find that. Please userfy to Dismas, I'll improve it if I feel inclined. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete

Santoshkumar Kammar

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

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

Contested CSD-A7. IP repeatedly removes CSD tags. Not notable person, reads like a resume. GregJackP (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - The ip in question is clearly the creator (see here) so CSD-A7 still applies. Codf1977 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn with no calls for deletion. Non-admin closure.

Anthony Venn-Brown

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

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

Non-notable author. There are sources in the article, but they're either not independent, not in reliable sources (Youtube, a Perth GLBT community newspaper...), or they're minor (a short radio interview on an obscure programme five years ago). I just don't see the sort of independent reliable sources that we'd need to have an article on this fellow. It's not open and shut though, hence bringing it here for further discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn, somehow The Age link didn't come up when I googled for him, but I agree that that does put him over the line. My original rationale no longer holds so I am withdrawing this nomination (but I will allow someone else to close it for the sake of propriety). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP :Anthony Venn-Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am the author of this article and I included an article on Anthony Venn-Brown not just because he was an author but because of his community activism in the gay and lesbian community . And I know that people have been consulting this article in recent days . I don't think we should be excluding articles as reliable sources because they are GLBT newspapers - I think they are a valuable source of information . In terms of the radio program of 5 years ago - I hardly think a nationally broadcast abc radio program is not a valid source although it is now now 5 years old . However I have included some extra/more recent links in the article . I also need advice - Anthony Venn-Brown was recently interviewed on the ABC program - The Hungry Beast - can I include that as a link to the program even though the program can only be viewed by Australian viewers. frollus— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frollus (talk • contribs)

• Keep The Age has coverage about him the includes family details, work history, and he's been recognised as one of Australias 25 most influential Gay people. add that to being an author he meets notability, thats ignoring the ABC interview mentioned by the articles author Gnangarra 15:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can see the nominators concern - but I would consider the 2005 ABC link not minor (being an Abc-ophile might be my bias) - in that the link has been kept - many links from that era on the abc simply vanish for less notable issues. http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=anthony+venn+brown - I find interesting - the audio book and archived websites are the clincher for me
  Suro 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Roberts

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

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

Whatever this is supposed to be, it has no place here. If this is a real person, then it's an unsourced

The image that used to be in the article is File:DamianRoberts portrait 20030425.jpg, now transferred to commons, which is actually a woman from uglypeople.com with a beard painted on, and was uploaded and placed in the article by the original creator.

PROD declined three years ago by the uploader, and wasn't followed up. Let's delete it already. Amalthea 10:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sounds bogus, and doesn't currently contain any real claims to notability. Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia didn't get its first 2 million articles without a good share of things that were simply "made up". The creator of this article put this one together as his or her sole contribution, then disappeared. The part about his discovery that his father, who had died before his birth, had been a Romanian militant ice-cream truck driver was a nice touch, and is much like the story of Bill Clinton except for the Romanian, militant and ice-cream truck driver part. Generally, a local radio station personality would not be notable under any circumstance. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as all above. Google does not provide anything else to establish notability. noq (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbre

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

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

This is supposedly a disambiguation page, but not even one of the articles it points to is entitled arbre. The rest of the content is a dictionary definition, and of a non-English word at that. I don't see any reason for the page to exist; without it, typing arbre into "Go" gets you search results, which is probably more useful. Trovatore (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just tweaked it a bit to get it into the proper
  WP:DAB format, what do you think now? Amalthea 11:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I hadn't read

  partial title matches were actively discouraged. Nonetheless though, and even if the three ambiguous topics are only redlinks, it looks useful to me. Page search is particularly helpful for page title matches, not so much with a rather generic word in article bodies. The three redlink topics are only referred to in hits 20, 22, and 82 when searching for "Arbre".
  The question is whether a DAB page should provide navigation between standalone articles, or between topics. I've no real opinion on the partial matches, and the See-also link to Baum should almost certainly be removed. But even if it's only the three redlinks and the wiktionary connection (and personally I would bring back the '[...] is the French word for "tree" and [...]' bit) I think it's a useful DAB page, for someone who actually looks up that word in search for one of those meanings, more so than a page search. Amalthea 09:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep per Amalthea's cleanup. Article appears to be a proper disambiguation page, now. Some of the topics are thin, but we have enough to justify a DAB page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep certainly the first 3 entries meet
  talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment The redlink entries, and the partial-match entries, would be reasonable inclusions if there were a reason to have a disambig page in the first place. But can a disambig page be justified when there are only redlinks and partial matches??? I don't think so; I've never seen one like that, and I don't think it's a good precedent. --Trovatore (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very nice job on Amalthea's part there, it looks like a real disambiguation page now and works fine. Silverseren^C 18:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see only keep !votes, but not a single one of them has offered a rationale why it's better to have this page than not have it. I thought the purpose of disambig pages was to help people navigate among pages that would otherwise share the same name. When there is not even a single existing page that would plausibly named arbre, it seems very strange to me to have a disambig for the term. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple articles, as the page shows, that have to do with the word "Arbre" and it is good for Wikipedia to have a disambiguation page for readers to find the one they are looking for. Silverseren^C 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it good? Isn't that what the search engine is for? The existence of a page called arbre short-circuits the search engine from redlinks and from "Go". --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's what disambiguation pages are for. Read

WP:DISAMBIG. We use them in order to direct readers to various articles that may fall under an ambiguous term. Silverseren^C 20:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

But the term is not ambiguous, not in the sense of having multiple articles that would naturally be called arbre! What you have is, some articles that mention the word arbre, and two things that plausibly could be articles called arbre, but aren't. The wording I remember for the purpose of disambiguation pages is something like to help readers navigate among articles that have the same name. This wording appears to have been changed — how much was this discussed? I think the old wording is better. --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was changed was because there are some articles that have a slightly different or longer name that is not exact, but still relates to the overall topic. So just having disambiguation pages have those that have the "same name" cuts out a significant amount of articles that readers may be looking for. This is why it was changed. Silverseren^C 21:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that discussion? I don't see it on the talk page of

WP:DISAMBIG. --Trovatore (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - have added redlinks for the 2 Belgian places. One of them was already linked (just as Arbre) from List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities_in_France, so I've fixed that link. PamD (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - dab pages fulfill a more refined role than a string-match search. If I type "Arbre", it is very handy for me to see a list of pages that are called—or could be called—Arbre, not just an undifferentiated set of pages that happen to have the string arbre in them. A redlink/bluelink entry might even point me to a page that does not currently have the target string at all, leading me to a closely-related page to the topic I'm interested in, even if that topic is not at this point specifically covered by its own WP article. (And perhaps encouraging me to add material about that topic.)

Note that if none of the redlinked entries had an appropriate bluelink, this role would not be fulfilled, and the entries should be removed per

WP:MOSDAB, at which point the page itself might collapse into nothingness. This does not seem to be the case here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chon ma'aronim

Chon ma'aronim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Someone added the comment "The above is a prank article with no connection to any known ceremony in any known religion or ethnicity." on March 26 at the bottom, and then today blanked the article and replaced it with "I have deleted what was clearly a prank article with no connection to any known ceremony in any known religion or ethnicity". Clearly an editor who doesn't know about AfD, so I've brought it here for them instead. I'm currently neutral myself, because I haven't done any checking yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find anything on this online; looks bogus to me. Brianyoumans (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I strongly suspect this is a hoax, and therefore vandalism: a member of a Jewish bride's wedding party responsible for the brit l'chorayam, the ceremonial sacrifice of a young male goat's manhood. The Chon Ma'aronim is traditionally a non-Jewish participant, whose job entails restraint of the goat by the horns. The position is held in esteemed honor by the wedding party and is considered essential to the post-wedding meal, at which the goat is served. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've done a bit of searching now and I can't find anything - so yes, I think it does look like a hoax -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7 - Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, by JzG. Non-admin close. BelovedFreak 12:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Webbs

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

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

I doubt that publication in a single magazine in a single state is enough to meet

? just looks like Artists trying to get their name out, what do you care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adw151515 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC) — Adw151515 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Speedy Delete - Meets CSD A7. Codf1977 (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Famous throughout... Milwaukee? Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. The only editor who commented in favour of deletion has changed his !vote to "weak keep", and the nominator has stated that he wishes to withdraw. (non-admin closure) Intelligentsium 02:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. V. Mathew

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

)

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

Contested prod. An attempt it made on the talk page to address the criteria of

• Keep I think his academic position plus his religious offices add up to notability. He was the Secretary of his denomination, which apparently numbers roughly 1 million believers - it sounds like an important position. Brianyoumans (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tagged this article for
  rescue. Silverseren^C 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I added three sources. As for meeting
  WP:PROF, I would say that Pradeep had a good rationale for the criteria on the talk page. Silverseren^C 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:V. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Weak keep. Pradeep provides three reasons for keeping on the article talk page:

Claim:

WP:PROF

#1 is met by 11 citations. HOWEVER, we generally require hundreds of citations, or a reasonable h-index.

Claim:

WP:PROF #3 is met by membership of the Society for Biblical Studies in India. HOWEVER, this is a non-notable society (per the AfD discussion

of its article), and nowhere near the "highly selective and prestigious" nature of the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society demanded by #3.

Claim:

WP:PROF #4 is met by having supervised doctoral students. HOWEVER, this is part of being an ordinary academic, and does not make "a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional arguments for notability would be the principalship of two theological colleges: Mar Thoma Theological Seminary, Kottayam from 1981-1986 (unsourced) and of Dharma Jyoti Vidyapeeth, Faridabad from 2000-2002 (we have generally leaned away from taking short-term principalships of theological colleges as satisfying

Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church does not mention a Secretary role. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Buried at the bottom of the article, I note a festschrift in his honour, and on the strength of that I'm switching to "weak keep." The article needs a great deal of work, however. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a poorly written article! Why wasn't that in the main body of the text? Yes, the festschrift would (almost) qualify him under

WP:PROF, though the guidelines say that it's not usually sufficient by itself. But given the other considerations, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• I think keep. Has a number of publications. Appears to be notable. Bio probably needs work to eliminate nn awards, that sort of thing. bio has had a number of contributing editors, as I recall. Supervising doctoral students should not qualify for bio, by itself. Expected, as mentioned above. Student7 (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Having said that, it isn't "publications" that should be counted, but rather how often they are cited by other academics/researchers. I'm getting 400+ hits on google, but a lot of those are bio sketches. There are people who track this sort of thing. Be nice if we could see that list. India is not high on the list of articles with 40 or more citations in all fields, not just theology. Student7 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Looks to me as if he is probably a notable academic. Ghits are probably not a good means of judging things in countries where the Internet is less established than in the West. There are a lot of Christians in India and it is appropriate that theri leading acadmics should have articles. I have pruned off some of the succession nox items, where it is unlikely that predecessors or successors will be notable, or where it is an appointment without a clear succession. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Agree with previous comments. Keep. However, I would prefer if this article was renamed to reflect his full name rather than initials for first and middle name. It adds consistency and makes it more readable. If he was popularly known as KV Mathew then we can mention that in parentheses in the article summary. Another point: Is Mathew the correct spelling? Seems unusual. Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nom has withdrawn the nomination. As to the name, "Mathew" seems to be correct. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. What about renaming the article? Are there any guidelines for that? Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fincham

If you came here because this was mentioned on BBC Radio 1, 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 spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

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

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

Contested prod. Reason given for the proposed deletion was "No independent third party sources provided to establish notability". I would agree that there are significant problems.

I would note that this article, and its proposed deletion has been mentioned on BBC Radio 1 (Hello Scott Mills). Listeners were encouraged to try to campaign against the deletion. For the assistance of anyone unfamiliar with how deletion discussions work on Wikipedia, it is important to realise that they are not simply votes. Ideally anyone participating here should explain their opinion with reference to what the relevant Wikipedia policies say. The admin who closes this discussion won't simply count the votes but will instead make an assessment of the arguments made for and against with reference to Wikipedia policies. Adambro (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was the admin who first identified the problem with this. There is little need for me to duplicate Adambro's considered and accurate reasoning. It breaches
  WP:BLP by not containing references to independent reliable sources. It fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  reliable, independent sources, they are most welcome. StAnselm (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete being one of the lead campaigners in the effort to save this articles, I spent a LONG time (probably too long considering my dissertation is due in soon) searching the Internet for independent coverage. I can confirm that there genuinely is none, besides the one fact about twitter I found. hence my decision is for this articles deletion. --Kingsmill (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not seeing any independent coverage that would provide evidence of notability. The closest thing there is to a claim of notability here is 'he is also the second highest producer of British radio on twitter being topped only by Rachel Jones' - except that
  WP:A7 candidate. Robofish (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I am the original creator of Matt Fincham's Wikipedia account, so I suppose I'm likely to be biased; however, he is well-known throughout the UK and there must be surely be millions of people who know who he is. Furthermore, despite being most famous for the Chris Moyles Show, he has broadcast in some capacity on three previous shows, and it is likely that his fame will increase in the future. Apologies though for not including more references; I used to know Matt vaguely many many years ago and consequently did not rely on references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discombobulating (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find nothing about him other than trivial mentions, and the aforementioned comments about Twitter. "It is likely that his fame will increase in the future" isn't a reason to keep; Wikipedia's not the BBC staff directory, and there are literally tens of thousands of people who appear on the 59 radio stations and 24 TV channels that make up the bloated beast that is the BBC. – 
  iridescent 01:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Twitter ratings are not accepted to establish notability. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to

List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

This is a blatant

• Keep. Since it was made clear that
  List of names for the Biblical nameless concentrates only on the Hebrew Bible, we would be doing our readers an injustice by having incomplete information and not including the books that that article omits. As the article creator previously stated, a complete encyclopedia should include all pertinent information, which includes the Catholic Bible as well. If there's still any POV issues I'm sure a change of article title to something more neutral can rectify that. -- œ^™

Actually, nobody was taking that position. Rather, some editors (including me) were saying that the Deuterocanonical books should appear in

List of names for the Biblical nameless in their own section, rather than being mixed with the Hebrew Bible (since they were never written in Hebrew, and are not accepted by Jews as part of their scriptures). -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I disagree that the former list is only about the "Hebrew Bible" or the King James Version.
  List of names for the Biblical nameless can be edited by anyone. I think that the comment that it "concentrates only on the Hebrew Bible" comes from someone else's observation that the article had, up to that point, only been the Old Testament and New Testament, without consideration of the Apocrypha. That doesn't mean that there's some type of bar against edits that regarding books that are in the "Catholic Bible" but aren't in the "Protestant Bible", however one would want to define those terms. It should be noted that the "Biblical nameless" article doesn't simply refer to people who are unnamed. It refers to people who are nameless in one book, but who do have a name in another source (from the article, Lot's wife, not named in the Book of Genesis in any version, is called "Ado" in another work called the Book of Jasher). The examples given in this article (the four angels out of seven who aren't named in the Book of Tobit) would be appropriate if they have names elsewhere). Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I certainly cannot see any reason to object to a third separate section identifying people who are nameless in the non-Hebrew language books of the Septuagint that are named elsewhere. I began the head article quite a few years ago. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Smerdis of Tlon, assuming there is relevant content to be merged. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Delete. This material should have been added in an "Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical" books section of
  List of names for the Biblical nameless. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment That was discussed, but the author of this new article did not want that - here he says, "I could not see a section entitled Deutroconical & Apocrypha, grouped together as one section, giving credence to them as appendages, whereas Deutroconical are an essential part of The Bible for me." Hence, no consensus was reached, and this article was created as a POV fork. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I have already said, for a Catholic, the Bible contains a number of Books and sections of Books that are not in the Hebrew Bible. No agreement could be reached to their inclusion in the original article page. As I have already said the apocryphal are utterly seperate from deuteroconical and have a seperate history. An Encyclopaedia should have a comprehensive coverage on all subjects. I have taken the subjects from a scholarly point of view and have shown clear references to well known Exegets work on these subjects. I created the article as no alternative was open to me or others, and you yourself said to me you wanted closure on this issue to get on with your lives (StAnselm). This article is not meant as a fork but as a complement to, as no agreement could be found. I have not covered the same material that is covered already in the
  List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible)
  , is only the most obvious, and leaves the many others to when/if agreement has been reached.

You say that anyone can edit the

List of names for the Biblical nameless

, yet when someone attempted, their edit was deleted even more than, I think, three times. And no way forward was open to any additions, or any ammendments. This gave me no alternate but create a new page, and on scholarly lines.

Hence, I say keep the Article page until a clear agreement/alternative is reached, otherwise we are bordering on a sensorship.

I proposed catagories on the lines:

1/ Hebrew Bible

2/ Deutroconical

3/ New Testament including Revelation

4/ Apocryphal

But even this was unacceptable. Please do remember that deutroconical literature are an intrical part of the Bible for a Catholic, and cannot be confused with apocryphal. To propose a section made up of both together is offensive to a Catholic and according to the talk page it is offensive to The Orthodox Churches. I have heard and headed the Orthodox feed-back.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty I had with your fourfold division, is this: Does "apocryphal" include books that are not included in the canon of any Christian church? If so, in what meaningful way can those books be said to be "biblical"? StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this article page on the talk/proposal pages at least for a week prior to creating it.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if you started it in your own user space (User:Bernard Mc Nally/List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible)), that's your business. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I note the rejection of good advice from œ^™ about notifying the creation of this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a scholarly point of view, a lot of Books / Literature had to be autentacated to be cretatable. Hence, the history of its acceptance is important. In The Letter to The Hebrews, tradition accepted it was sourced to Saint Paul. The content of the material itself is a crediable point, and this is were the study of Hermeneutics comes in. (see: The Jerome Biblical Commentry, Article 71, Hermeneutics, Raymond E. Brown, S.S.).&.(Epistle to The Hebrews, Article 61, Myles M. Bourke)

Apocryphal literature, would always remain a source of study, for this literature is defined as of uncertain origin. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a particular example, see: (The Jerome Biblical Commentry, Article 68, Apocrypha; Dead Sea Scrolls; Other Jewish Literature, Raymond E. Brown, S.S.). Every good Commentry will include all this literature, and any good Encyclopaedia will, too. They all throw light on The Bible. The truly independant sources would be the histories of Pliny and Pliny the Younger. The writing of Jonathan would be questionable if they were Biblical.

I hope I have explained how apocyphal literature is seen as truly Biblical. If you do not assept my word then consult Raymond E. Brown, S.S. in the articles attributed to him as mentioned above and below.

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend; Raymond E. Brown, S.S. article 71 on Hermeneutics, considered the best in it's field. The answer to all your questions are to be found here.

Item 54: "...He believes that the literal exegesis of NT texts, limited though they may be, is the exegete's primary theological duty, while the reader's duty is simply to be obedient to what the authors of the NT wanted to communicate as revelation, even if it is quite foreign to the modern mentality (cited in J. M. Robinson, New Hermeneutic, 41). This is meant as an example of the study.

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, if something comes to light in history or in Archaeology that throws extra light on the source or authorship of any of the apocryphyal, then you could find them being added to The Bible! I can give you some parallels of this.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that (1) the part of

List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible) regarding authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews belongs in that article, and (2) there is limited value in listing all people and angels with no names anywhere. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it not very clear that there was no way forward?

It would appear that any inclusion on the article page would be challenged or removed. Those who do not accept apocryphal literature here would object. Hence, there was no clear way forward, for the names of the nameless in the Bible are all to be found in extra-biblical literature.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm still having trouble getting a full understanding of the details behind this disagreement. Could you explain once again, clearly and simply for the uninitiated, why a separate section entitled "Catholic books" within the

List of names for the Biblical nameless article is unacceptable to you? -- œ^™ 22:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hence, I started a new page of the "nameless", not offering to put in suggestions of their names from other literature.

List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible), contrasted with; List of names for the Biblical nameless

. These names all come from extra-Biblical sources, by definition. Hence, to object to the use of apocryphl (books of uncertain origin), in the article page is objecting to the article page itself!

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still struggling to understand the argument here. The intention of

List of names for the Biblical nameless are not sufficiently scholarly, there are ways of improving the article that don't involve creating a POV fork. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

MacOfJesus (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. So that we may move forward.. Bernard already said this is acceptable, now does anyone at all object to having a section titled "Catholic books" within the

Wow! Where did that name come from? No, that's a particularly bad section title, since there is a section called "New Testament", which has considerable overlap with "Catholic books". StAnselm (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Catholic canon" then? Or "Books of the Catholic canon"? There's got to be a section title that both you and Bernard can agree upon. -- œ^™ 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox books? Why would we discriminate against them? What's wrong with "Deuterocanonical books," which is the Catholic term for non-Hebrew Old Testament books? -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure.. I don't have the answers to those questions, that would be for you subject-matter experts.. I'm just trying to mediate here so we can reach some sort of outcome that all parties can agree upon. -- œ^™ 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I admire you for attempting it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into
  Apocrypha. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as others have said, providing an "Apocrypha" section. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the answer is having a policy regarding deleting, that stipulates that the deleter should try to see a helpful accommodating way where possible.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What categories would be worthy of an Encyclopaedia? From the Commentaries I am familiar with there is a proper way to include all sections.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard, when you refer to "categories", I believe what you are referring to would be the article's "sections". Sections is the commonly used term, Categories in Wikipedia are something different.

I think what the problem is now is that we need to come up with a proper section heading to put your content under, a few section headings have been proposed. Perhaps a way to move forward would be to list all possible section headings and have a poll to reach consensus on which one to use. -- œ^™ 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a consensus here that

List of names for the Biblical nameless#Deuterocanonical books, which already exists. Debating the section heading there is probably necessary, though a little outside the scope of this AfD: I'm not sure of the best mechanism for doing it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think all the relevant material now exists at

List of names for the Biblical nameless#Deuterocanonical books. I'm therefore changing my !vote for this article to delete. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) In Wikipedia we generally use

wikilinks for much of the explanation. Distinguishing between Catholic and Orthodox Deuterocanonical books only needs to be done if there are "Biblical nameless" in the Orthodox canon but not the Catholic one. So far we only have 2 Maccabees and Tobit

.

(2) In

List of names for the Biblical nameless

the names have always come from (according to at least someone's point of view) extra-Biblical sources.

(3) I do not understand your comment about Commentaries. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]