Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 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 redirect to The Riddle-Master of Hed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

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

No notability. —  

• Delete no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- crufty fan trivia with no notability asserted or demonstrated. Reyk _YO! 07:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, at least Appears to be a major character that appeared in a series of three notable books. Absent any compelling reason to delete, it should at least be a redirect to the first book, or a series article if one is written. There may be enough sources to actually expand and keep this, but I haven't even looked yet. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 8 August 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) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Min Kwan Kim (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)

doesn't meet a criterion of

• Delete per nom. Chris (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically a resumé, nothing to indicate notability in academia or business. Google Scholar shows few articles with negligible citations. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 13 August 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. Even though there are twice as many "keep" !votes as "delete" !votes, most of the "keep" !votes are not grounded in policy. Their rationales include

Antoine Dodson (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)

As prurient a

• Keep I can't be the only one who thought of looking this guy up on wikipedia. What good does it do to Wikipedia to delete this? It's information. Encyclopedic. Period. I don't get why this would be controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikpatt (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and salt to stop it being recreated.
  Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Clearly not per
  WP:BLP1E in terms of policy and guideline, and good sense in terms of everything else. Delete. Pedro :  Chat  20:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: "routine news event" + "shock news" + "viral phenomenon" -- it's almost as though that line in Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria was written specifically with this article in mind. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What Off2riorob said above. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: What more is there to say? Favonian (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep...for now He must be notable when NPR actually discusses the societal and racial impact of his meme. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Baileypalblue. Wikipedia is not a news host for people famous for one thing or being YouTube celebrities. —fetch·comms 02:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DEFINITELY KEEP: He has become a national sensation worthy of a news spot. If he isn't on Wikipedia, it diminishes the inclusive spirit that makes this site so great. He is more than just a fad but now a real celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.31.239 (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC) — 67.244.31.239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• For the love of God, Delete Fails GNG, no significant mentions Reliable Sources, and finally NOTNEWS. Good grief, the stuff that gets created these days. Skinny87 (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP In addition to being a notable YouTube celebrity, Mr. Dodson's comments and popularity has sparked a debate about race, homophobia, the internet and humor. NPR isn't the place where such discussion is taking place. See here, here, and here.VarunRajendran (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP A very importanat article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.66.13 (talk) 14:34, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Famous on the internet, covered by news websites, NPR, etc.
  Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! Contribs 16:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• - —
  talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits
  outside this topic.

  So what? Lots of things are "famous on the internet". Why does that make them

  encyclopedic ? Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep He is pretty famous now, needs to be covered on Wikipedia. 1Matt20 (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "He's famous now" according to who exactly? You?

  encyclopedia". Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete None of the keep votes have addressed the BLP1E concerns. The article needs to go.
  Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete what BLKP 1E was invented for--I invoke it very narrowly, and think it much overused here, but this is an example of why we should have such a rule. The misuse of "famous" in a few of the comments above shows why Wikipedia does need the concept of notability DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This guy is huge. It shouldn't even be a question. (BLP1E says A person is non-notable "...If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, AND if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual..." OBVIOUSLY he is not a low profile individual. Run and tell THAT! Rapidosity (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dodson has had a societal impact, especially about life in low-income housing projects, and has prompted a social dialogue. The nerve he's struck is similar to the "Don't tase me, bro" episode at the University of Florida. AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we do cover that at University of Florida Taser incident. I don't see a need to rename this to Huntsville, Alabama attempted rape news report incident but I suppose we will if we must.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject has received major coverage and is actively marketing himself now. There was a 5 minute clip on NPR about him just this week!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage proves they're notable. Citybrand (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — Citybrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The Bed Intruder Song in which Antoine Dodson is the main vocalist, is now charting on the
  recording artist. This, accompanied with several viral videos should be enough to merit an article on him. Mkimemia (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Strong Keep: I second this notion. BLP1E is irrelevant, since his notability should be established though being a charting musician.TheGoogler (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and welcome to the 21st century. This isn't "just being in the news". Nowadays "just being in the news" can lead to you being on iTunes, top on YouTube, and all over the news for an unrelated matter. This article may have BLP issues but the whole story definitely seems to pass
  WP:GNG. A lot of the articles in Category:YouTube videos are about similar events... change the title to make it less of a BLP problem if you must. - filelakeshoe 10:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The man is appearing in a lot of coverage and as mentioned has charted on iTunes now. That said the article needs heavy modification. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I agree with DGG that BLP1E is often misused in attempting to delete articles, but here it applies, rightly so in my view. The coverage seems to be entirely related to one event and notability is solely resulting from this event. (It is interesting how very different are people's views on the substantiality of fame and importance. I expect it has a lot to do with the age of the person making the assessment). Thincat (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E says A person is non-notable "...If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, AND if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual..." You're apparently only looking at the "single event" part. If a person is high profile, whether from a single event or multiple events, he's notable. Rapidosity (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the wording of BLP1E is atrocious, "...or is likely to remain low profile" - how are we supposed to make this assessment? I haven't been editing heavily in the last 2 years but since when did Wikipedia become a crystal ball? - filelakeshoe 09:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We wait until the subject becomes high profile for reasons not connected with the one event and then we create an article. Thincat (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doens't matter whether the person is high profile for one events or more than one event. He's high profile so he gets an article. Rapidosity (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies if the person is low profile. He's not. He's high profile. Rapidosity (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Momentary blip on the internet landscape, not a sufficiently significant subject for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Dobson is now relevant as media personality and becoming hard news like it or not. Covered by major news outlets (NPR, Washington Post, CBS News) regarding social commentary on rape, racial impact and status as internet sensation. Stars in pop song currently #3 on Apple's Itunes r&b charts. Internet videos attracted well over 7 million viewers within ten days. Wikipedia without Dobson is unaware and incomplete. — 68.238.191.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:20, August 10, 2010 (UTC).

The song is now #25 on the i-tunes "all songs" chart.[6]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Do we have a itunes makes you notable, no they don't.

Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Do we have an itunes doesn't make you notable, no they don't. I was just noting how his fame was increasing during the course of this AfD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the song by him, or about him?Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is credited to him as the artist, as they lifted his interview into the song.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. One nes evetn and some internet popularity notablilty does not make.18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
• Keep New coverage in WP:RS supports notability. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bed Intruder Song is actually the newest internet meme. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Tomorrow's chip paper.... Bjmullan (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP - I head about this guy and wanted some more information about him. What is the first website I go to, Wikipedia. It's quick and fast and has an article for almost anything you could think of. If Wikipedia had not had an article for this guy I would have been highly disappointed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Komi77 (talk • contribs)
• - — Komi77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Weak Keep There is currently a strong media following and interest surrounding him. However, by next week, he will probably be forgotten. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If
  WP:BIO, then why shouldn't he. Plus Bed Intruder is getting millions of hits. Phrasia —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Keep* He's an internet sensation that may just continue. It can always be deleted later. --Firetwig (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• - — Firetwig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete what Kevin said: he'll be forgotten by next week. Slow news day, Congress isn't in session, so the big hitters need something to cover. Classic BLP1E. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep him! Why would you even consider deleting his Wiki page? He's a sensation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.140.231 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  WP:BLP1E does not apply because Dodson is notable for both the event itself and the hit single that features his vocal talents. Dodson is a veritable media phenomenon. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  He's only famous for one thing. Being turned into a meme doesn't make you notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"Famous for one thing" is still famous. You misunderstand BLP1E. It's talking about a person that is a "low-profile individual," not a famous person. Dodson is not a low-profile individual. He's famous. He's notable, as a result of the single event. Notable is notable. If you read [notable only for one event], it says "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." So, see? It's taking it for granted that it is appropriate for a person that is notable for a single event to be represented on Wikipedia. It's just a matter of whether to make the article about him or the event. Rapidosity (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His song continues to climb on the iTunes chart and his notability only continues to grow. Quite worth of an article on here. --71.185.62.217 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• - — 71.185.62.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. Because of "how Antoine Dodson himself has responded to the situation in recent days... don’t discount how Antoine Dodson is trying to reclaim ownership of the meme by embracing various social media platforms. Let’s face it – he's literally become a brand overnight." NPR – all tech considered blog -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:47, 14 August 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 redirect to Saccharin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saccharine (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)

Dictionary definition. Also, "saccharine" is an adjective, not a noun. Neither of the two references support its use as a noun meaning "sweetener" — the first uses it consistently as an adjective, and the second obviously refers to sodium saccharin. —Keenan Pepper 18:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems that at the very least
  Saccharine should redirect to Saccharin, as it did for a peaceful seven years. But wait, it is better if there is an explanation of the relationship between the two words. So, all in all, an article like this seems helpful. Whether some policy statement lurks which supports an argument on these lines, I do not know. If not, a redirect would suffice since Saccharin also explains the terminology. Thincat (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Hmmm - good points. It does appear to only be used as an adjective, which weakens the case for a separate article. Redirecting to
  talk) 20:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The explanation is in footnote #2 of Saccharin. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete.
  WP:MADEUP. "Saccharine" is an adjective meaning "sweet" -- AFAIK it has no technical meaning. The nom is correct in saying that the literature mentioned in the article uses the word (a) consistently as an adjective, and (b) as a misspelling of sodium saccharin.-- Radagast3 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  supposed to be about nouns). Baileypalblue (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Agree on the redirect (which is what we had!) and agree on some form of rewording of saccharin to clarify the issue. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect to
  R from mispelling}} 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge or redirect to saccharin, merge only if someone can find an example right now of this being a scientific term (a noun). if its just an adjective, redirect. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  talk) 15:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect This is an obvious
  wp:dicdef. But it's a reasonable misspelling, especially since it's a real word. Saccharin defines saccharine, so this seems perfect. The footnote is fine as-is. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:18, 9 August 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 redirect to Political aspects of Islam. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Politics (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 poor unreferenced unfinished essay; tagged since April with no improvement.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Essay/original research. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to Political aspects of Islam, the closest related article. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:37, 13 August 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) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deranged (wrestler) (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)

Recreation of previously deleted article, but not eligible for G4. Declining BLPPROD and sending to AfD because of its history, but I don't see anything in this article or the previous article demonstrating that an appropriate biography demonstrating notability can be constructed. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless claims of notability are referenced.
  Hareket (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:ATHLETE Eddie.willers (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  WP:ENTERTAINER. Nikki♥311 03:04, 12 August 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) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Trader (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 band Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear failure of
  WP:BAND. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources found anywhere. Google asks me if I meant Dawn Treader. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in article or my searches to show compliance with
  WP:BAND. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails the Band criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn band Wiki libs (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator indef blocked, no other delete votes NW (Talk) 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republicrat (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)

Every source is from Google. As a matter of fact, it depends on the number of times a term shows up in Google Search. ☭FryPod 15:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I looked through the "References" such as they are that are currently in the article and could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Then I checked the news search and there is a large volume of hits. From many different news agencies going back to 1954. The term appears to be widely used by reliable sources. The article definitely needs work, but it appears to be a notable term. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 16:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 7 August 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 as blatant hoax. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Molly (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)

Probable

• Delete per nom. I'm the one who tagged it for speedy and prod, and I couldn't find any reliable sources whatsoever. Looks like a hoax. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 15:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Looks like the other two articles started by this article creator are hoaxes also:

speedy G3 them that would be fine too. Baileypalblue (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - article reads like
  hoaxy. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - this afd is incompelte. In any case, delete per
  WP:CRYSTAL, as even if such a movie is being made, it's still in preproduction, and will probably be named "Private Detective Molly". Bearian (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sorry, I can't tell what I missed in forming the AFD -- if someone else could fix whatever's wrong, I'd appreciate it. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually found those SPS on "Private Detective Molly"... a grown up... and not a seven-year-old. Heck, maybe a child's father or big brother wrote this one for a child named Molly. Regardless, it is unsourcable, a very likely hoax, and fails every applicable notability criteria. DELETE per
  WP:NO WAY JOSE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:32, 8 August 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. I find persuasive the arguments of the majority of participants that the article is insufficiently sourced to support an article with that scope without veering into

Buddhist terrorism (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 This is a subject derived as a conclusion from several isolated incidents listed to support a personal point of view. Most of these case seems to have other factors contributing, such as political, racial, geographical, etc hence no reliable sources are given to provide a conclusive link between these incident and the existence of Buddhist terrorism. The details of the incidents should be transfered to their own articles where other circumstance that effect them could be added with proper references.Cossde (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply because there is nothing called Buddhist terrorism in the world^{[citation needed]}. And also there are no Buddhist terrorist groups in the world^{[citation needed]}. There should be a thing called Buddhist terrorism in the world to create such an article. Acts of some individual Buddhists or Buddhist monks can not be called terrorism. Buddhists never used violence to promote their philosophy. So this article does not have the potential to become a good and neutral article. Everyone should remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and it is not a Blog. These kind of baseless articles reduce the value and quality of Wikipedia. Thank you. --Shehanw (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oh please, personal point of view? Original research? Rather than saying that I'd hope you can point out what exactly constitutes as such in the said article. It's funny how many people in the West (even people in the New Atheism movement such as Sam Harris) goes out of their ways to bash the Abraham religions, but often gives undeserved credit to Eastern religions such as Buddhism. Every single religion has its fundamentalist and extremist elements. IT IS A FACT that there have been bloodshed where those involved were Buddhists, we simply need to go dig up more sources to support such arguments. Rather than deletion, I recommend we all come together and help this page grow. If this page is deleted, then how are we ever going to be able to find sources in support of it? Deletion sounds a lot like censorship at this point. Children of the dragon (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, keep wikiformatting to a minimum in your comments. Kindly have a look at

WP:TPG#YES.--Chanaka L (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

1. [demolish the house while its still being built] Regardless of your stance or POV on this article, I recommend you read this one - if this article truly has no merit then it will surely not survive the eventual obliteration.

2. The Japanese cult of Aum Shinrikyo has some real serious foundations in Buddhist (and also Hindu teachings). This cult still exist today.

Children of the dragon (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if I may add. If you are a Buddhist practitioner yourself, most likely you would not admit to the existence of Buddhist Terrorists. Similarity, as if you are a Christian, I doubt you'd admit the existence of Christian Terrorists. The same argument can be made if you are a Jew. I think your arguments to delete this article can almost be construed as a form of censorship for your POV. Children of the dragon (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an issue with practicing Buddhism. To admit the existence of Buddhsit terrorism, there should be a thing called Buddhsit terrorism in the world. Can you name some Buddhist terrorists or terrorist organizations? Are there any terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda or Taliban, which are connected with Buddhism??? Because there is no Buddhist terrorism in the world, there shouldn't be an article named 'Buddhist terrorism' in the Wikipedia too. Otherwise,what is the difference between a blog and Wikipedia?--Shehanw (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its also funny to see that the guys that create and expand this article are mostly communists and/or atheists ("my personal observation"). In reference to Children of the dragon suggestions;

1. For an article to be created/exist there should be an established basis, which has not been proven here. Wiki shouldn't be used for original research.

2. If the Japanese cult of Aum Shinrikyo is associated with terrorism it should be mentioned in its own article. What does "has some real serious" accentually mean ?

3. Chinese government has negative relations with the Dalai Lama (and the Tibetan Gov't in Exile). Hence such claims has to be verified by a reliable third party as per wiki guide lines.

There is still no conclusive data provided to prove the existence of Buddhist terrorism. Cossde (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, who has actually even read these rules before applying this AfD to this newly created article? -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many of the same objections were used to try to delete
  talk) 16:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • This web link was removed ,because it was from a Pro LTTE web site, which is blocked in Sri Lanka. Those kind of biased unreliable references should not be used in these type of situations. Unfortunately
    LTTE. Tamils are an ethnic group in South Asia and LTTE is a banned terrorist group in 32 countries. Pro LTTE web sites do not represent the ideas of Tamil people in Sri Lanka. --Shehanw (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep if the other articles on "religious terrorism" of various kinds are kept. Of course terrorism is un-Buddhist, but it is also un-Christian and un-Islamic. Is anyone starting an article on Atheist terrorism? Why not? Or more seriously Nationalist terrorism? (There is an article on that but it needs some work, the American Revolution is not mentioned.) Wolfview (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Userfy - Exactly, this is what makes me glad to be atheist, and this article looks to have a good future because the concept of a religion solely based on peace resorting to terrorism is a intriguing read. ☭FryPod 16:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frypod admits to being a sock of a banned user and so I believe this vote should be ignored. —Soap— 19:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A couple of incidents does not a
  WP:SYNTH applies here. Pmedema (talk
  )

• Delete – There isn't enough research, papers, or books on the subject. It needs further examination and exposure by scholars and experts. Basically, it needs better sources. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Move due User:ButOnMethItIs's suggestion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article seems more like original research to me rather than a encyclopaedic article. It also has a citation needed after most of the sentences, therefore most of the article is not referenced.--Blackknight12 (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Most of the article is referenced, the nominator of the AfD just dumped a bunch of citation needed templates on the article before nomination. I have since removed them.
    talk) 01:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• • • An article of this sensitivity requires citation for anything claimed. This is an encyclopedic article, as such all data in it must have proper references to stand up to out side scrutiny when verification is need. Else there is no difference between a blog and Wikipedia. Cossde (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so if that's the case, then we should all work together to find sources for this article. Simply deleting it may only satisfy (my personal belief here) your willingness to censor this article due to your Buddhist beliefs. I'll admit I haven't really worked on this article for a few weeks now, but isn't the whole point of Wikipedia's NPOV that everyone (regardless of your religious and/or political backgrounds) should work together to fix the issues with the articles here? I hope you'll help me (and the Wikipedia community at large) to do this. Children of the dragon (talk)

Wikipedia is to disperse knowledge on establish facts, not to be a platform for projecting theories. Cossde (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This seems to be an article created to function as a platform for original research. The Refs given seems to be inadequate even to the extent to prove if there is actually Buddhist terrorism . Gira2be (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This should be kept. Religions like Islam have pages with whole plethora of incidents where it is documented how Islam was used as a justification for terrorist acts (or even in some cases just people who happened to be Muslim committing such acts) All religions have their violent people and their fundamentalists. I think it would definitely be censorship if Buddhists committing such acts was not allowed to be well-documented on Wikipedia. Yes, let`s not editorialize the matter let`s just all work together to report. Your Medication —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC). [reply]

• Delete: I think this fails
  WP:RS criteria.--Chanaka L (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: Religions like Islam or Christianity having their own Terrorism article does not mean that all other religions should have a similar article. There should be a proper reason for this article to exist. For example, incidents related to Sri Lanka have remained in the article without being properly referenced for 2 weeks. Lets get together and find suitable citations.. is not a valid excuse anymore. If that is the case, anyone would be able to create articles of their own hypothetical theories and keep them until suitable references are found. Don't confuse this for censorship. And yes, all religions have their violent people. But you have to depict how these people have manipulated the teachings of religion to support their violent activities. Otherwise every crime commited by persons would have been accounted for a religion! Astronomyinertia (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments to shehanw above - if there are no instances of Buddhists committing terrorists acts that YOU know of, it doesn't mean they don't exist. If they truly do not exist, then this article won't survive, even if per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never told that I know no instances of Buddhists committing terrorist acts. In fact, you might not know that several

WP:RS? Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It's debatable, but we should only use that source to verify itself. That is, G.G Ponnambalam is a reliable source for statements such as "G.G Ponnambalam calls this Buddhist terrorism". To discuss this further, please do so on the article talk page. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move: There have been some events that are accurately described as "Buddhist terrorism", but I doubt that it amounts to an encyclopedia article. What I think would be best is integrating this content into a much broader article called Buddhism and violence (similar to Christianity and violence). ButOnMethItIs (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move – Per User:ButOnMethItIs's suggestion. She or he appears to have the best resolution to this debate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • The question here where to move, I have observed that the
    Atheists started world war 1.Cossde (talk
    )

• Merge into
  Buddhist terrorism or Buddhism and violence; or (2) within a larger, existing article such as Criticism of Buddhism. Since the amount of material is relatively small, I vote for Merge until it grows, and and content-fork is warranted. Arguments above for Deletion based on Synth or OR are not valid, because the wider WP community has repeatedly considered this issue (lists of violent acts associated with a religion) in the context of other religions, and the result is alway Keep (see the numerous existing articles such as Christianity and violence). We cannot treat Buddhism differently than other religions. --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No substantial links have been established based on any reliable sources to the existence of Buddhist terrorism, nor has it be shown any organization or group carrying out acts of terrorism in the name of Buddhism, as it has been the case with other forms of Religious terrorism or violence. The four events in the regions seems more political and ideological than with religion at closer look. The events should be moved to their own articles rather than Criticism of Buddhism. Nitraven (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable subject, yet the article needs a rewrite. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no valid sources. — goethean ॐ 03:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move or Merge: as the original autor of the said article, I would be willig to accept a move or merge for now, if there are no substantial merit for an article with the said title. I simply do not have enough time to research at this moment. Children of the dragon (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:SYNTH--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Since No RS has yet been forwarded to establish the fact at there is something called Buddhist terrorism I suggest that this article be deleted immediately. Cossde (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the debate is far from over at this point. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you still fail to provide a direct link to these terrorist act and Buddhism nor establish the existence of Buddhist terrorism. I fear this debate is on something at simple does not exist. Cossde (talk) 10:29, 14 August 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. No evidence that this is not just one non-notable event. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 hand hacking incident in Kerala eve teasing (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. Single crime without notability, fails
  WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The reason is given in the discussion page. Some of them described here:

This is a continuation to unlawful incident happening in Kerala. See an example article

2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala, which happened last month.Some gang and culprits use similar attacking policies in this event also.[7]

This issue has some political impact locally where major organizations are part of it[8], though it is not mentioned in the article -- Indiashines (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERSISTENCE prevails as it is covered by national media like NDTV[10] and numerous news reports. see[11]. -- Indiashines (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. As noted by WWGB, it's a single crime without notability. If there's a pattern here, it's best dealt with in an article about the region. Only once there's too much content for that article should it be split off to a separate article. (Comment: I have no objection if some of this content is merged to Kerala; however, I don't think this title should be retained as a redirect.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fred, there is a related, similar event, which is already a big article2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala. So it is better to keep this article and give a link to the other article. I have already linked this article to the other article -- Indiashines (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. At present the incident has only news value. Salih (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There is another news value and single crime discussion is going on in wiki 2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala , so we can link this article to that discussion (Achu 17:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazlu2010 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - per not news. Seems like a typical case of personal violence (there is "eve teasing" in the title itself). The other hand chopping incident has only the "hand chopping" part in common with this. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument and i believe that the other article too doesn't belong in wikipedia (maybe a twoline mention in the religious violence in india article)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All peoples should know what happend and these type of organzations should be banned. Police should take proper action to avoid this type of incidents in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram mohan2010 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Ram mohan2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is not just a single isolated crime event but the two articles should be combined. The proliferation of shaaria law to India is not oneevent.--Luckymelon (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep on search i could find another article of similar kind, 2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala instead of deleting this article, it is better to combine both. --DescriberOne (talk).

— DescriberOne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Salih (talk) 04:00, 11 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Siraj (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)

Open source article contributor, with no clear assertion of notability. The only sources are the subject's employer, the Bleacher Report. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 12:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Wholly non-notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:42, 13 August 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) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Prod removed by author, with no addition of sources. The article currently lacks any sources or assertion of notability. With this theatrical group having opened so recently, I am uncertain if enough press will be able to be produced to establish notability. I am certainly open to withdrawing the nomination if reliable sources are introduced. Cheers. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 11:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A simple G-search shows that it fails
  WP:N. Pmedema (talk
  )
• Delete as spam. -- Text of the article is taken in part from their web site including text on the content of the page as well as meta tags in the HTML source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 12 August 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) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —--WFC-- 13:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --WFC-- 13:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Plea for fluent Korean and/or German speakers Fails
  systemic bias. --WFC-- 13:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Does not yet pass
  WP:GNG after a thorough search of English and German articles. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:GNG
  . 12:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - fails notability criteria. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 9 August 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 G3. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Amrik Virdi (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. Subject was born in 1989; the only source contained is a book written in 1995, which doubtfully establishes any notability. Sources are alluded to, but a casual check reveals nothing. The sources are about the gang, not about the subject of the article. Delete as hoax. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 10:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had a good look for the sources mentioned but they don't appear to exist. --Errant
  Talk) 10:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Same author had also rewritten Masters of Deception, adding Amrik Virdi with no supporting evidence whatsoever. He had also vandalised all of the existing references in Masters of Deception by changing them to "censored", and then copied the doctored refs to this article. Looks like nothing more than a hoax - nice bit of detection there by OliverTwisted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax per Boing. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Either the subject was a prominent computer hacker by the time he was six years old, or this article is a hoax. I'm guessing the latter is the case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 7 August 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. —fetch·comms 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY Although they all have presence on wiki, it would make a much better category. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear case of
  WP:SALAT. Having a wikipedia article is not an appropriate criterion for inclusion in a stand-alone list.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. It's not an indiscriminate directory (it only includes the members who have Wikipedia articles rather than a copy of the entire membership listing), so
  WP:NLIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - the issue is the inclusion criterion. If the title is "list of members", one would expect all members, regardless of whether they are wiki notable or not, and that does fall under
  WP:NOTDIR. If the elements of the list are actually fellows (exclusively), then it should be "list of fellows", and again, Wiki notability should not be in the inclusion criterion, and the discussion should be whether fellows of this particular society meet the guideline requirements for stand-alone list.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Another point is that by trimming it down and making it discriminate, it's arguably factually incorrect, not including those who aren't on wikipedia. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Buh? It says at the top exactly what it is, and includes a link to the college's directory. We have lots of lists with the same property, that they only include people notable enough to have bluelinks. And being discriminate is not a deletion criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh, it seems strange to me, but it certainly doesn't carry any water in this deletion debate. Being discriminate is fine in terms of inclusion. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Because it is a list of Wikipedia pages, I suggest that we convert it to a category, and delete it from mainspace. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Shooting down my own argument,
  WP:CLN says categories work with lists hand in hand. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - every entry on the list, and the topic of the list, is notable enough for Wikipedia. The list simply makes it easier to find the information that the user is looking for. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , but move to List of Fellows... Membership is nothing special. But Fellowship is, as for most learned societies. We would probably consider being a Fellow of this society as a signification contribution to notability, though not as one of the organizations where the fellowship or membership is intrinsically notable, like a national academy of science. . I am not sure that we should make lists (or for that matter categories) for every possible organization, listing members of that organization who happen to have Wikipedia articles (we do this for colleges and high schools, though, but I suggest we continue to treat that as an exception.) I think we should do this, however, for those positions which count significantly towards showing notability , and elected fellowship in a society such as this is such a position. As for duplicating a category, unless there is some really special reason not to, we should always do so. They;re different means of navigation; some prefer one, some the other. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 14 August 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) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Walker (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. Has played zero competition games, fails
  Wikipedia:Athlete#Association football. WWGB (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. Might not have played yet, but could do later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete without prejudice. No significant coverage outside general sports journalism and nothing that covers subject in detail. Fails NSPORTS, but has recently joined qualifying club. Recreate if and when.--ClubOranjeT 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:12, 12 August 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 Macross characters. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boddole Zer (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 fictional character fails to comply with

• Keep The description above in misleading. One of the "aggregation sites" is actually the liner notes from a DVD release. Another source is not a website at all, but a Japanese reference book (and one of several). 1-54-24 (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has the same function: Aggregation (
    WP:GNG. Fleet Command (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Macross characters. When dealing with non-notable character articles, especially if they are about major characters of a highly notable series, it is always best to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. The list itself should be split along the different series and renamed to List of Super Dimension Fortress Macross characters. —Farix (t | c) 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sounds valid, viable and nice. Fleet Command (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing gained by destroying information like this. This was a major character in a notable series, and several notable movies. Almost certainly had their own toy. Nominated for being the first one on the character list in the template perhaps? Boddole Zer • Exsedol Folmo • Veffidas Feaze • Fire Bomber • Roy Focker • Bruno J. Global • Misa Hayase • Hikaru Ichijyo • D. D. Ivanov • Maximilian Jenius • Milia Fallyna Jenius • Mylene Flare Jenius • Hayao Kakizaki • Gamlin Kizaki • Quamzin Kravshera • Britai Kridanik • Macross operators • Shin Kudo • Claudia LaSalle • Ray Lovelock • Lynn Minmay • Basara Nekki • Mao Nome • Sara Nome • Nora Polyansky If you plan on nominating all of them, please just do so all at once, instead of one at a time. No need dragging this out. Dream Focus 23:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:
    • It's useful
    • It doesn't harm anything
    • Notability is inherited
    • All or nothing
  • Fleet Command (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did I make any of those arguments? You are going to nominate the rest of them eventually aren't you? That's what I usually see happening. Just save us some time. You nominated two that I know of thus far. Dream Focus 14:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Dream Focus, you did all the above discussion. You said: "Nothing gained by destroying information like this". Thus,
        All or nothing. I advise you to read them all; believe me, you'll need them. Fleet Command (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Yes, you made all these arguments and make them frequently. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of Macross characters per Farix and because there is no real-world information in the character's article (except for trivial things such as voice actor and appearances). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Farix's proposal and reasoning. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge due to lack of third party sources to
  WP:verify notability. Would be enough for deletion but will support merge for the sake of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge While this is an awesome character, no reliable sources have taken the time to cover the subject in depth. So a merge is in order. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and push for early close AfD Nom has stated that a merge "Sounds valid, viable and nice." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't spam the AfD. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions → Per nominator. Fleet Command (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is spamming? I am just quoting what you said about a merge. If you are against a merge then why would you say that in response? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 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 Macross characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno J. Global (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 fictional character has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and hence fails to comply with

• Keep I have added two independent secondary sources (including one in a media theory print book) to address the concerns above. 1-54-24 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Those sources talk about a completely different topic, namely Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water. Captain Global and another "Captain" from another story are mentioned in passing in them... and when I say mentioned, it means
    no significant coverage. I hate to say this but Wikipedia is supposed to an Encyclopedia not Trash-pedia. But if you wish to see some very good articles about notable characters and learn how to create similar things, visit these: Cloud Strife, Dante (Devil May Cry), Samus Aran and Mario
    .
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Macross characters unless someone can find more significant third-party coverage than the two trivial mentions already cited. When dealing with non-notable character articles, especially if they are about major characters of a highly notable series, it is always best to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. The list itself should be split along the different series and renamed to List of Super Dimension Fortress Macross characters. —Farix (t | c) 19:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. It is a valid and acceptable course of action. Fleet Command (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major character in a notable series, featured in the television series, movies, comic books, and toys. And out of all the characters on the list, why only nominate the leaders of the two sides? Dream Focus 00:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection. Notability is NOT inherited. See
    Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions → Notability is inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Really?! Did I do that? I didn't notice. All I saw was lack of eligibility in Wikipedia. How comes lead characters have so shabby articles? Fleet Command (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of Macross characters per Farix. The few bits of real-world information in the character's article are a start, but it's not enough to justify a separate article at this point, and it also reads rather OR-ish. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Farix's proposal, based on that reasoning. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Farix. Lack of third party sources makes it impossible to
  WP:verify notability but merge is a fair compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge There's no reason these should have been AfD'd in the first place. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that really so, Kraftlos? But my friend, per my experiences, saying such things is infinitely easier than doing them. Fleet Command (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't use XfD to push for action to be taken, if you thought a merge was in order then you should've started that process instead. I've done mass merges with at least twenty different lists, so I know from experience it can be done farily easily. It's just time consuming. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm afraid it's not always the case, Kraftlos. Articles about fiction are particularly more frequently visited by like-minded fans who hold their subject very dear; AfDs however, are nearly always attended by more neutral-minded people who uphold Wikipedia values. It is not only I that thinks so: Some people in Wikipedia had once proposed AfD to be renamed to Articles for Discussion intead of Article for Deletion. Believe it or not, AfDs are sometimes better solutions. (I can link to examples if you wish.)

        Besides, I didn't proposed this article for merger; I proposed it for deletion: I came here because I wanted it to go. However, I am open to valid alternative suggestions and it would have been very rude not to affirm Farix's suggestion after I objected 1-54-24. Right now, I'll be more happy to see this article deleted; although I respect the general consensus for merger. But again, I don't see why would you think AfD was no necessary. Fleet Command (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and push for early close AfD Nom has stated to merge: "Agreed. It is a valid and acceptable course of action" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't spam the AfD. See Arguments to avoid in deletioniscussions → Per nominator. Fleet Command (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is spamming? I am just quoting what you said about a merge. If you are against a merge then why would you say that in response? Delete per nom is usually a vote because it just agrees with someone elses statement in the example provided. Since you are the person who wanted this deleted but you had stated that a merge is "acceptable" I pushed for an early close in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 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 per

Shoreline Drive (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 band lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 7 August 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) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thiruvalla P. Unnikrishnan Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

I forgot how to add to this. So let me add by editing.

Deletion of the article was outrageous, considering the contribution of Mr. Nair. As I explained earlier, 'TEMPLE HISTORY' is a new branch in India, especially in Kerala where temples used to be the power centres in ancient times. Being a local historian, you will definitely not find anything about him from a global search. His books are published locally. His books are referred to only in Kerala. Claims are not 'glorious' ( you could have shown more civility). He doesn't need 'glory'. For my study and reference, his works have been of great help. Many others have found them helpful. He had been a regular writer in Kerala's newspapers till he fell ill. Even foreign university professors visit him. Yet people do not know that an eminent scholar lives among them! His fame is now confined to students and professors of history.

If one does not appear in the net, 'delete'!??? Note that knowledge still lies in books; you have to bring it to the notice of the world. If you have any Keralite (a knowledgeable one) on the edit-board he/she can talk to historians like Dr. Rajan Gurukkal (Vice-Chancellor, MG University, Kottayam, Kerala, India).

I noticed your deletion today when I tried to upload 2 photos.

And 'catastrophe'? Well, well.... Wikipedia is supposed to enlighten the world. It should be proud that it is the first website that introduced Temple History and a temple historian to the world!Please bring back the article, since I am collecting more data on him. I have to upload photos as well.

Click the link below; he is mentioned at many sites.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajankanjirakunnil (talk • contribs) 07:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

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

I gave it some time (March)... but this is still a catastrophe. Notability isn't established, has quite a few glorious claims, but the two possibly valid refs are offline w/o any specifications of the books in question, so I cannot verify them. Furthermore, I couldn't find much about this guy in an initial run through the internet. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing

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 both,

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

Depublican Party (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 contested the prod on this myself only because I think AfD would work better in this case. Anyway, this is a