Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 10

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michele O'Shea

Michele O'Shea (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)

Biography with no references and hardly any content at all   —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait before voting The article had much more content until a few hours ago. The original author pulled back most of the material, and writes that more time is needed. Review the edit history before voting, please. Cullen328 (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the above. Yeah, let's just wait. Delete. There's no more edits. So delete since it's not gonna be fixed.
  talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. After looking at the present and previous versions of the article it is clear that notability is not likely to be satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk).
• Speedy delete, no claims of notability, at least there should have been a subst:prod blp added to it. Corvus cornix_talk 03:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this article should not be deleted. I just need some more time to verify all the data I have. For instance, the subject of the biography has had an important impact in the field of mental retardation perception in developing countries. Gonzalink (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC). — Gonzalink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Promising student. Not yet notable, per Xxan. Gscholar and Gnews turned up little. Ray^Talk 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with RayAYang that this is a promising student, but does not currently meet our general notability guidelines, nor that for an academic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think any disinterested ed will come to the same conclusion after reviewing the article history. The subject is basically a student who is a country mile from fulfilling any of the broad collection of possible notability criteria we have here. The original article was a CV, filled mostly with
  WP:OR. The current version is a gutted shell. This is an uncontroversial delete. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Some sort of Merge/Redirect is probably indicated, but since there's also no consensus about where that should be, I don't see any other close. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1944 NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament

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 basketball tournament never existed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I say Merge with
  talk) 23:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge as Endofskull suggests. I think it's worth keeping around the information (and its citation) that there was no 1944 tournament due to the US involvement in WWII. I don't think that's enough information to warrant a whole article. Susfele (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Barring more details on the tournament, such as the structure it would have had if it had not been canceled, I'd say a merge/redirect is the best solution. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per above Vodello (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It "existed"; it didn't take place as scheduled, similar to the 1994 World Series or the 1940 Summer Olympics, all of which are notable because they are part of a regularly scheduled set of events that are notable, hence there's a template to . The background of a cancellation of an event for which preparations were made (in this case, wartime restrictions on travel) is sufficient for a stand-alone article. In any event, Wikipedia articles aren't limited to successful ventures. Mandsford 03:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless somebody has some info about the context surrounding the tournament, it should go in my opinion. This is not at the level of the Olympics in terms of how the event venue is awarded, etc. If it was just another NAIA tourney set for Kansas City, I fail to see why an entry is required. Definitely do NOT merge with 1945 - it isn't the same year. Why not merge with 1943 if you're gpoing to use that logic? Rikster2 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as stand-alone article per Mandsford. Ok, so there's no statistical information to include, but personally I'd like to know why it never occurred. I'm an intelligent enough person to figure out that it was probably due to WWII (assuming this article didn't exist), but I can't speak for every single Wikipedia user out there. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• • Comment. I went ahead and added a strike-through on 1944 on the NAIA template. It shows that the event did not take place, but if you want to know anything further, you can still click on it. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I changed my mind, this isn't worth keeping. I removed the strike-through, de-linked the year, made "1944" a light grey and also added an in-template footnote. I don't think anything more needs to be said about the tournament. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • • You could always find the reasoning at the main NAIA tournament article, which would be a good target to redirect to, if anything. The fact is, there simply isn't that much historical significance with this, unlike the two World Series. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it should be up to the reader to have to research what happened to the 1944 tournament. Providing the 1944 tournament's link/article makes it
        accessible. In terms of historical significance, the NAIA was still very much a respected governing body for basketball back in the 1940s. The NCAA Tournament was still new (only 5 years old at the time), and the NIT was the top basketball tournament. In context, the NAIA tournaments are important, whether the event was held or not. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Comment Meh, there isn't any information in this article. You could just as easily asterisk the 1944 entry on the template and main NAIA tourney article with a key at the bottom that says "Cancelled due to WWII" and achieve the same level of info given in the article itself. What's next? A 1998 Pac-10 Tournament article? I don't have a ton of passion around this eaither way, but common sense tells me there is no useful info here. Rikster2 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The lack of an event probably received as much coverage as the actualized events listed at Category:NAIA Men's Basketball Championship, all of which do not have more sourcing then this article. --PinkBull 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Common sense. We have entries for every year and leaving a blank is going to mess up the organization style. So this one is not very detailed, for good reason. But the organization scheme of the subject's coverage demands it. Don't merge with 1945, that would not be user-friendly.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It didn't happen, and for good reason. Leaving a blank makes perfect sense, if it didn't happen. I'd go with Rikster2's suggestion of asterisking. --Worm 15:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The fact that something did not happen is not by itself a reason for deletion. See Year 2000 problem, an article about something that did not happen. As with everything else, its notability and verfiability that decide whether we should or should not have an article about a subject and this subject appears to meet both criteria. --PinkBull 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Merge: As author it was the intention of all the tournament years would get pages, as I was primarily doing this by myself it was a bigger undertaking than I first thought. But as information from reliable sources comes it, it would be great to keep it. Or have a merged link in the 1945? so that there wouldn't be a dead year in the easy-directional quick links at the bottom of each page.
  • As others have said, we could simply strike the year out and asterisk the bottom. That's all that would ever be on this page. Other non-occuring pages are different, they were a huge event with a lot of planning and/or contain context as to why it didn't happen. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:46, 17 November 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 as obvious vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers

Transformers (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)

Obviously non-notable show, along with almost the entire deleted collection of characters. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a

• Speedy keep Obviously notable show. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a
  sock. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was speedy close as withdrawn nomination that was created by mistake. (non-admin closure) ----Divebomb is not British 12:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmetal Driver

Transmetal Driver (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)

Purely in-universe content with very low likelihood of establishing its notability through independent secondary sources. SeventhBase (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete. NN. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• SPEEDY CLOSE - The last nomination for deletion ended in a merge result. Someone just impliment that please, and ignore this nomination.
  Mathewignash (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• SPEEDY CLOSE and JUST MERGE IT per Mathewignash, Sadads (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, no information to cut-and-paste. NotARealWord (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Close and Smack Nominator with Trout Seriously, if you can't be bothered to read the article, then you shouldn't be nominating it in the first place. And, in the event that you did read the article, well, then how the hell did you not notice the Afd-merge tag? ----Divebomb is not British 18:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdraw and screw the

  Opera web browser for not showing the notice. SeventhBase (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • See, this is why I don't use Opera ----Divebomb is not British 12:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orangehaus Records

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

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

Non notable college record label no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 22:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable coverage.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with GordonRox24.
  talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There are two reliable sources included, Billboard and The Times. One of the links even leads to an article done by a local news station. The page has creditability and should be kept. It is informational letting people know where artists such as John McLaughlin have come from as well as informs students about potential in music programs at Universities.Meghan solo (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Anderson University, I agree with Meghan solo that there is coverage, but it doesn't seem notable enough to have it's own article. --Worm 15:56, 17 November 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

Phil Davison

Phil Davison (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 a biography, the subject fails the guideline

• Comment: The 1st deleted article had a tons of sources cited, I don't know if that history can be restored for the AfD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Phil Davison is currently the focus of eight recent news articles. This proves that coverage of him is persistent and he has become a subject of pop culture. Additionally, he is not known for just one event: he is a city official, has been the subject of numerous public interviews and has gained mention in three sources as a potential presidential candidate, which qualifies him to be listed at

United States presidential election, 2012. I request that the previous version of the article be restored to which updates can be added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

William, I can't tell if you are being serious. I mean, I love Phil and would actually love it if he had an article, but jokes about him running for president are still jokes.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Alvin Greene can run for president, so can Phil Davison.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also a joke. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete G4 We just had this AfD less than a month ago! He was non-notable and a flash in the pan then, mostly a joke in the context of the election cycle, and his notability remains no more than that. Ray^Talk 15:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False. Coverage is persistent. Speculation is real.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. We did have this AfD less than a month ago. There was consensus to delete. Casual offhand mentions of an amusing anecdote do not constitute significant and persistent coverage surpassing

WP:BLP1E, and they certainly do not constitute reasons to overturn previous consensus in less than a month. Ray^Talk 17:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

As I listed above, there are 8 recent news stories about Phil Davison thus proving that his notability is persistent. Phil Davison was slightly notable before his speech because of his status in Minerva and Stark County. The speech, national interviews, news reports and presidential speculation have pushed him beyond the threshold of wikipedia notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Please be more specific when you say "false." It seems you are making an argument that the original AfD was wrongly decided, not disputing that it happened - and contesting a more offhand observation on my part which was shared by the commentators at the previous AfD.

WP:DRV is that way. Ray^Talk 17:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ignore all rules. I didn't recreate the page or open this AFD, but it's been recreated and this AFD is open. We should understand and note that coverage is persistent and restore the article and add all the necessary updates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming troll-like, William. I think Phil is awesome and I improved his article significantly before deletion with the intention of reposting it on my blog (which I haven't done yet). The subsequent stuff you reference is just tail-end coverage of the original story.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be troll-like to delete the article simply because people think he's some kind of joke. Even if he is a joke, he's a notable joke like Antoine Dodson.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because he's the definition of
  WP:BLP1E --Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please explain. Keep in mind that I am using the statement "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" to support my argument. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain? He was involved in one event and has no notability outside of that one event. To quote BLP1E, "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. 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, we should generally avoid having an article on them." What news coverage has there been of him outside of this one viral video? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, before the video, he received coverage as a candidate for office and councilman in Minerva, since the video he has received coverage as a potential presidential candidate. If you combine this with the impact of the video, it pushes him past the threshold of notability especially since coverage is persistent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN states that being a candidate for office is not sufficient to guarantee notability. Being a councilman in Minerva is also not enough to establish notability. This video is based on the one event that establishes his BLP1E, and does not establish a "second event". This isn't "persistent coverage", this is his fifteen minutes of fame winding down. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

If you combine the four things he is notable for and has received significant coverage for in reliable sources, the threshold of notability is passed. For clarity, the four things are his position as councilman in Minerva, his candidacies in Stark County, his video and his mentions in the press as a potential presidential candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Those four things: (1) not notable, (2) not notable, (3) BLP1E, (4) the extension of his BLP1E. Clearly they don't establish notability on their own, with that I'm sure you agree. As to whether those things together form a notable subject, I say no. You pointed out the "bed intruder" guy earlier in this AfD as a comparable, but that guy spawned a single that charted. This guy is a local politician who had one moment get caught on YouTube and has done nothing since. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the four are notable as they have been covered in reliable sources. This is very similar to Alvin Greene who is notable for winning the Democratic primary for Senate in South Carolina, which spawned media interest and a potential presidential candidate. The difference is that Alvin Greene had zero notability before the one event that made him famous. Davison had some from his position in Minerva and Stark County candidacies.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't establish notability for local politicians with no national visibility. That would be unmanageable. Alvin Greene isn't BLP1E because his actions are more than just one event. Greene had all those moments that put together establish his notability. This guy had one video clip. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What moments? Media interviews? Media reports? Phil Davison received (and still receives) such coverage. The only difference is that Phil Davison is an elected official that had some name recognition in his native county before his breakthrough event.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's the questions about how he raised the filing fee with no income, the obscenity charge, the job creation idea of selling Alvin Greene action figures, being denounced by one of the top members of his party from his state, the charges that Republicans somehow rigged the primary, and that's just from the top of my head. Davison has one viral video. Davison's coverage is based on that one viral video. Therefore, BLP1E. There's not much more I can say about this. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But those all spawned from the one event and are just questions about the man. An obscenity charge doesn't necessarily make one notable. In Davison's case there are many questions as well and notable jokes made in the media. Look up his notable interview on Red Eye; much more is discussed here than just the speech.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability zero. --Data Cube (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False as proven above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close this troll debate.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very important debate about notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable local official plus non-notable viral video does not equal notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate description. Please see above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The person fails
  Location (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please reread #3 of WP:Politician. The significance of coverage has already been established. You are simply making assertions without evidence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the "significant coverage" has been established and would contend that you are making assertions without evidence.

Location (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It is your opinion that I am making assertions without evidence, however, this is not backed by evidence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The

Location (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is a link to recent news stories about Phil Davison proving persistence. Here are some articles from the past and present proving that he is notable for other things, here's some more. 7 other stories found here. Many, many others.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per

Location (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You are failing to recognize the coverage from before the video and the coverage that is currently being published, two months after the video. Being a local politician does not mean someone is automatically non-notable. It adds to their notability if they are notable for something else.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered the various news reports and find that they are insufficient to establish notability of the subject or his speech. The person fails

Location (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please explain why you consider the various reports as insufficient (there was a great quantity so I forgive if you didn't read them all). Also, it is not necessary to continuously link to guideline pages. You've already linked to them previously in this discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links are the rational. I'll forgive you if you didn't read them all.

Location (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Just as in articles, overlinking in discussion is not ideal. I know you can link to guideline pages, but that does not prove you understand what you linked to.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus says otherwise. Cheers!

Location (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Luckily, policy is formed by long term consensus rather than flawed short term consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: The issues of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT need to be addressed, and the arguments that follow such reasoning should be discounted. Clearly Phil Davison is notable; 92,000 g-hits proves this. The question of persistence is answered by the fact that there are still recent news stories about Davison, over 2 months after his speech. We must understand that he is notable not just for the speech, but for three other things, which have been listed above. Those that are voting delete have not disputed his notability with evidence, instead they have resorted to the arguments of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course,

WP:GHITS is an argument to avoid from the same essay. This essentially boils down to a balance between WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. In my opinion, the BLP1E carries more weight in this instance because it presumes that the subject will receive some coverage in connection with the singular event. Alvin Greene was a poor counter example; he has received much more media coverage over a longer period of time and received more than a quarter of the vote in the general election for national office. VQuakr (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I still stay he's not "clearly notable." The number of Google hits doesn't establish notability. He's a BLP1E. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I proved above. He is notable for four events. Coverage is persistent since he is still discussed in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've made our points and made them well. To borrow from my favorite TV pundit, you sir are a formidable opponent. Any more debate between us on this would be going around in circles. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed compromise solution: How about adding Davison to the

Comment: I have now added Davison to the

List of YouTube personalities#YouTube personalities would be a very simple task.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Albert Einstein issued one of my most favorite quotes, in the history of the spoken word,
And it is as follows:

In the middle of opportunity...oh...excuse me...
"in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity..."
I'm going to repeat that so I have clarity tonight:
"in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity."

This is the AfD of Opportunity we've been waiting for.

The Ariticles for Deletion process is a mess,
It is in dire need of structure and guidance
And now is the time to seize this opportunity,
With an aggressive campaign, and an even more aggressive campaigner.

I promise each and every person in this room,
I am hitting the ground running,
coming out swinging, and I will end up winning!

Let's send the message tonight, to all the editors of Wikipedia,
and to the public who google "Phil Davison wiki" in vain
We're tired of business as usual.

Drastic times require what?... (milo says: Drastic Measures!!!)
Drastic measures! YES! Who said that??
Thank YOU!
Drastic times require drastic measures!

We will not tolerate incompetence and irresponsibility any longer,
Now is the time to snap the Deletionist Stranglehold on Articles for Deletion process!

And I hearken back to what my friend Milo just said.
He defended William Swanberg and
Debrahlee Lorenzana in the past,
It was a problem then, Its a problem now.

AfD is not touch football,
AfD is winner take all.
It always has been, and it always will be.

If you !vote keep tonight, I want to develop and expand my campaign,
For what I believe is the greatest strength of Wikipedia,
and that is its breadth, depth, and 1000s of articles just about The Simpsons.

I believe in the axiom that all politics (including at AfD) is local (i.e., it depends who shows up).
And because of this belief, I want to harness the thoughts and ideas,
That individuals in our Project have
concerning Wikipedia and its many supposed cabals...
and use that to its fullest extent. Knowledge is power.

Lets tap into this knowledge, and use it as a tool to win for Phil Davison's survival.
Lets use this knowledge not only as a tool, but as a weapon.

We must win this AfD,
If you !vote keep tonight I will win this discussion,
And I'm going to say that again --- so there is no miscommunication tonight,
If you !vote keep tonight I WIN! (or least get a no consensus close!!!)

Tell your Friends, Tell your neighbors,
Tell Randy Gonzalez,
I'm coming, both barrels, guns loaded.

I believe in the principles,
on which Wikipedia was founded,
That this is the Encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit,
And that THIS article is surely more notable than Mzoli's.

And I will not hide those beliefs,
On my march to victory for Phil and Alvin Greene as candidates for US President.
And I can guarantee with 100% certainty, that what you are seeing from me tonight,
Is what everyone on Wikipedia is going to get over the next

• With all due respect to Will.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have enjoyed this greatly and added it to my userpage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome, this might be the greatest AfD ever. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Rollins. I agree with Muboshgu, this AfD discussion is priceless. Thanks, Milowent, you made my night. But there is still no way this guy should have an article on Wikipedia. Sure I saw the video, we all did. It was memorable, in a scary kind of way. It got some mentions in mainstream media at the time (there are a lot more that could be added to the article, ranging from CBS to PBS to the Huffington Post) and was a big hit on youtube. But his was not an enduring notability, it was a one-week wonder. The "recent articles" being promoted here are not from Reliable Sources. Nobody serious has nominated the guy for president or anything else. He did not get the nomination to minor office that he was seeking. He's simply not a notable individual in spite of his moment in the sun - living proof of Andy Warhol's prediction that "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with Rollins' compromise as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but would like to see the original page history restored before it is redirected.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not object to a redirect, or a restoration of the page history. Ray^Talk 05:50, 16 November 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. Courcelles 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pqcell

Pqcell (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 have been unable to find any coverage about this company in reliable sources. This article originally claimed that this is India's largest

• Delete - As per nom. I originally
  extensive research for sources and notability. --Kudpung (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:44, 11 November 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. Courcelles 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victory mosque

Victory mosque (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)

Original research. Xyz or die (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy delete as G11, attack page and possibly G3, blatant misinformation (The Mosque of Rome is a "victory mosque"? Pull the other one, it's got bells on). No reliable sources, extreme unbalanced POV, unverifiable. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I concur the sources given are not impartial and this article seems more like an anti-islamic rant than a source of information. -Sensemaker
• Keep but rewrite to conform to
  WP:NPOV. A quick Google confirms that "victory mosque" is a very common piece of political rhetoric about which readers would be understandably curious. Ray^Talk 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and ban creator User:Amandajm for spreading biased unsourced propaganda. --Data Cube (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a
  non-notable neologism. No attested use before this current year. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as article seems to exist to advance a strongly held
  independent, secondary, reliable source. The second reference doesn't even mention the "victory mosque" and is instead an article about the overall controversy. Both are worthless as references.Cullen328 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - the most charitable thing anyone could say about this is that it's completely unsourced original research, but I'm going to skip charity and call it Islamophobic fearmongering. (However, I would like to point out to Data Cube that Amandajm did not create the article and is actually the only editor to add sourced information. Granted, it's about the use of the neologism by racist idiots, but unlike the article creator User:Pewterschmidt Industries, Amandajm is not actually asserting that their claims are true.) Roscelese (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User:Amandajm is the one who's responsible for writing "Victory mosques include (...) the Baitul Futuh Mosque in Morden, London, United Kingdom and the Mosque of Rome, Italy." And User:Amandajm does not assert that the sentence is false. Indeed, no encyclopedia article has ever said "The above sentence is true," because that's not necessary. A statement like that ("the above is false") is only necessary if something is not true. Therefore User:Amandajm promotes racist and xenophobic ideologies and should be banned. --Juno the pregnant little girl (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right. I didn't look properly. (Wrt "the above is false," it's the difference between saying "Park51 is a 'victory mosque'" and "Racist X says Park51 is a 'victory mosque'" - both contain the phrase "Park51 is a 'victory mosque,'" but only the first indicates that the editor believes that to be true. But again, I misread the edit and didn't realize it was Amandajm who had added that content.) Roscelese (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEO and Comment Data Cube and Juno are likely socks of article creator Pewterschmidt Industries. SPI is here. --JaGa^talk 04:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Clean up I think this has the potential to be cleaned up, since the name of at least a couple of these mosques actually means "Victory". Personally I've never heard the term before (and missed most of the Park51 stuff), but it seems that an NPOV article could be written on this topic. I've added a couple of citations. --99of9 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zebra Girl

Zebra Girl (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, no sources found. Tagged for primary sources since May. Being on Keenspot is not an assertation of notability if no reliable sources exist. Precedent is also that the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award does not confer notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No sources outside the comic itself is a delete from me. Kansan (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I do find 2004 Web Cartoonist's Choice Award for Black and White Art to be a strong indicator of notability and reviews like [1] to also lean that way (though self-published, it's a darn solid source in the field). I agree it certainly is borderline. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I believe that winning a single WCCA *together* with another reliable source is enough for notability. If no additional source is to be found, this webcomic may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per
  WP:N. No coverage at all in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" are neither 1) well-known nor 2) independent. They 1) are of questionable notability themselves and 2) are hosted by the same site that hosted this webcomic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Nolan

Stuart Nolan (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 an article where the person's connection to rugby union is the main field to his notability, though no reference is given to his playing career. He only appears to have coached at under-15 (years of age) level. He has no international experience, has not played in a top flight match, and as a member of WP:Rugby union I find him not notable. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG. Subject of article is completely non-notable. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete does not appear to be a notable sports person. --Worm 16:02, 17 November 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. Courcelles 07:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wotch

The Wotch (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)

Absolutely no secondary sources found anywhere. Utterly fails

• Delete per
  WP:WEB. Entirely self-sourced and, shockingly, not even an attempt to claim notability, not even the usual "it's popular" or "it gets lots of hits" type thing that the webcomics self-promoters often try to get away with. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless something other than the comic's own website can be found for a reference. The Interior(Talk) 21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think you really should not remove “Reception” sections in articles before an AFD, even if all the references in it are not notable (such as in this case). --Novil Ariandis (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 192.112.54.2 (talk) 14:56, 16 November 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. Courcelles 07:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck Charlie (Film)

Good Luck Charlie (Film) (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

• Delete.
  WP:CRYSTAL at its finest. The only sources that this can be traced to in themselves cite no source, and most are from a few months ago. No prejudice to recreation if, well, there's anything actually worth saying. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Partially duplicates earlier premature effort to add
  an article. Sources are indeed vague, blue-sky items; Disney and Hollywood Reporter said only (in July) that a movie is "in development", so I picture the idea coming up at lunches occasionally when producers remember to mention it to each other; meanwhile we've got WP articles with cast lists and writers. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Sourced to a non-notable Disney gossip site and it takes awhile for their sitcoms to graduate to movie status.
  chatter) 05:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Only source in the article is of dubious reliability. Possibly fan-fiction based on the brief announcements; there seems to be a lot of it about, which is pretty typical for Disney articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:31, 13 November 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 Hopelessly compromised. I really fail to see how any admin can find any useful consensus from a discussion which has been so completely railroaded by a page move that for 5 days we have been discussing a different article. .

Aircraft design (neé Aircraft design process)

Aircraft design process (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)

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

Contested PROD from August. This article was created as a

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
• Keep We are not "voting" on the history of the article. Obviously airplanes have to be designed so this is a notable topic. I only skimmed over the article but the information seems solid enough and good sources are given. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable topic, but this article is a travesty and isn't even a starting point for something better. It's just boilerplate. Repeated sections all begin, "<section> design is looked into in each phase, thus allowing the elimination of errors." You might as well replace it with "airplanes have wings, so we have a wing design phase. Make sure they stay attached!"

As to "sources" ? Two coffee-table encyclopedias and a website selling its own book? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article subject is non-notable in that the minimal references do not establish
  original research and is in fact not correct in that it is so general that it is mostly not applicable to many actual real-world aircraft design projects. The whole of the Conceptual design and Structural design sections are verbatim copyright violations from the ref cited Designing Aircraft. If the final outcome of this article does turn out to be "keep" then the article should be stubbified down to the referenced text. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article has its faults, but I think that most people would say that the process of aircraft design is a very notable topic-- and, hence, deserving of a better article than this. Copyvios do need to be removed, but a general overview is appropriate for the subject. Mandsford 18:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AHunt. -
  Flank speed 03:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There are tens of thousands of books about this topic. Our
  editing policy is to improve weak starts, not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'd love to see an article on this topic. Best route to getting one is, IMHO, clean-slate deletion. This is a fairly large (10K) article, yet it says nothing. There's nothing on this page capable of being rescued. There's also a copyvio issue floating around. The quickest and simplest way to a usable article is to demolish this first. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to see the article rescue cavalry arrive as usual, but the problem is they often vote "keep" and then ride away into the sunset without actually fixing the article and solving the problem. I would say that if you are serious about rescuing the article then please show us that by starting to fix it up now. That would be much more convincing that the usual "life-ring" tagging. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love articles being rescued, but the whole premise of the ARS is that of journalism: a competent writer can write well on any topic. Whilst this response to

WP:SOFIXIT is indeed welcome when it's good content hidden beneath a mire of pooor copywriting (please someone, take a look at Resonance method of ice destruction) I don't believe that any copyeditor (a breed for whom I have great respect) can take Aircraft design process and make something good from it. It needs creation and structure to begin with, by someone who already understands its technical domain. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. It this point we seem to be heading towards one of three outcomes for this article: 1. The ARS cavalry use their "tens of thousands" of references to rewrite this into a sterling article, 2. It gets deleted here at AFD, or 3. It gets "kept" and then stubbified down to remove the copyright violations and unsourced OR, leaving about three sentences. - Ahunt (talk)

I'd be OK with just three sentences. They wouldn't be useful, but at least it would be quicker for readers to realise there's no useful article there (which a redlink could do more effectively). The worst case though, and most likely outcome, is that an article of modest size gets left behind, it takes time to read it, but it still doesn't say anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any consensus here for a keep vote followed by not removing the copyright vios and OR. I am okay with any of those three outcomes I listed above, but I agree that deleting it is preferable for the reasons you have stated: there is no useful content right now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If the article's subject is notable, then the article has a right to exist. AFD is
  WP:NOTCLEANUP. And anything is better than no article at all. People would be less likely to create a new article by this name if they saw a previous one existed and was deleted. Destroying something in the hopes that something better comes around, is absolutely ridiculous. With the massive number of books published on the subject, it is clearly notable. Dream Focus 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: User:Colonel Warden has moved the article to Aircraft design. I really don't think this is appropriate while an AfD is in process. His edit summary says "common name", but this is incorrect. An "aircraft design" refers to a specific model of an aircraft, which is created via the "aircraft design process" which is the subject of this article. This was the original title of this article and has already debated and discussed at Talk:Aircraft design and subject to consensus there. I am not sure this editor understands the terminology involved and therefore this should be reversed.- Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Update I have knocked the article back to a stub which is supported by the excellent text, Introduction to aircraft design. Doing this was a simple matter of ordinary editing, not requiring or necessitating deletion. Does the aviation project really require more help in taking it from here? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you call rescuing an article? You have moved to to an inappropriate name that was rejected by consensus (you did read the article talk page, right?) and then stubbified it in the middle of an AfD. I think this is totally inappropriete. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That was then and this is now. The source which now supports the article calls the topic aircraft design. It is a reliable source. Please produce sources if you wish to dispute the title. Opinionated discussions which are not supported by sources carry little weight here. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to have eliminated it and replaced it with a different article. Are you going to add back in all the valid information? [2] There should be a wikiproject for aircraft, so I'll go find them and get their opinions. Someone who understand the information is bested suited to comment on this article. Dream Focus 20:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already did. [3]. Dream Focus 20:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was me that posted that notification when this AfD started. I am a member of WikiProject Aircraft. Yes indeed it seems User:Colonel Warden has moved this article, up for AfD, to a new (and previously rejected) name and changed the subject of the article as well. I am assuming this is just subject matter ignorance on his part as exemplified by his answer above "That was then and this is now", indicting he isn't familiar with the subject at all. I am not impressed with this attempt to subvert an in-progress AfD, nor with his rude and dismissive response above, although it seems to be in-line with recent behaviour by this user. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (reply to DreamFocus) The only thing I'm not understanding here is why we're even discussing deleting a topic of such immense notability. Any editors who think they can do a better job than myself or the previous editor(s) are welcome to have a go — I have just demonstrated how easy it is. Deleting previous version by means of the deletion function rather than the ordinary process of editing revisions is not our
  disrupts
  the standard wiki process of update, amendment and attribution. Deletion/AFD are for hopeless topics with no merit and that is manifestly not the case here.

(reply to Ahunt) Please see

WP:BOLD. Is it a lack of such boldness which has prevented you from rolling your sleeves up and working upon this topic? Or what? I just don't get it. What do you do in the aviation project? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Colonel Warden: Just as recently as 10 November 2010 it was decided by consensus at ANI that you were being disruptive and you were instructed to stop being disruptive. Attacking members of Wikiproject Aircraft for not fixing this article is disruptive. Questioning my contributions to Wikipedia is very off-topic and is disruptive. Deleting most of the text of the article and changing the name of it so it is on a different subject in the middle of an AfD is disruptive. Please stop being disruptive. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{
  confess 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless improved - The crux of the argument is that Dream Focus and Colonel Warden (who epitomize Wikipedia inclusionism) believe that an article should be kept if its subject can be demonstrated to pass
  confess 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:IMPERFECT is policy while WP:Delete the junk isn't. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snottywong, please focus on the arguments not the editors. On Wikipedia you follow all policies, they absolute laws, while guidelines are mostly suggestions, and essays are just anything someone decides to write as their personal opinions without any bearing on things whatsoever. You should read the policy
  WP:IMPERFECT thoroughly. Dream Focus 04:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I don't agree with the renaming without consensus while the AfD is in progress and I believe the article content is as bad or worse than what was there before (and I agree that it was monumentally useless). I'm an inclusionist if possible, to me that means that the original title should be kept. The article was supposed to be about the process of designing an aircraft not how they have evolved to be over the years (see
  aircraft project (we know it has been highlighted as a problem now) and we will try to sort it out, remembering that there is no deadline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• But it doesn't have to be either/or. If you want to write about the aircraft design process then you now have a clean sheet on which to do so. Aircraft design is a larger topic of which the process forms a part. Other sections would include the history of aircraft designs and their evolution, per the current draft; educational and professional institutions and qualifications; famous aircraft designers and design bureaus; design techniques such as blueprints, CAD, modelling and simulations; artistic style or decoration in designs; the influence of materials and components; and so on. The topic seems large enough that there's room for all and a substantial FA quality article should be the goal.

Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new title seems fine. More logical. I doubt anyone noticed the old talk page discussion about this, it from over a year ago. Consensus change, different people around to comment on it, and different information presented for them to think about. The name can be discussed on the talk page if someone has a problem with it. No need to go on about that here. Dream Focus 11:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on this (further expanded below) is that, yes, there is room for articles on both "Aircraft design" and "Aircraft design process". However, this discussion here started on the "Aircraft design process" chunk and has now been mutilated into the "Aircraft design" part. Why was it decided to change the topic of an article under AfD? I'm not a Wiki-lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the AfD process isn't for changing the title and topic of an article without consensus. Colonel Warden, why didn't you make a new article at Aircraft design and let this AfD run its course? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:SOFIXIT. Bearian (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per Colonel Warden. An article needing improvement is never grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: article topic bears severe overlap with Aircraft (see the number of times that article discusses 'design') and no independent notability, and the article itself contains only a very small amount of, very trivial, information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated opinion: that this AfD is moot -- as the article that was nominated no longer exists, in name or in substance. This should not be read as an endorsement of the current article, which appears aimed more at surviving AfD than informing the reader. I can only hope that when all this settles down, and the ARS wanders off to some new quixotic crusade, somebody will actually get around to writing a decent article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both (re-updated opinion)
  WP:MERGE rationale #4 'Context'. Both topics are clearly subtopics of it, and would be more informatively expostitioned within the context of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per Kitfoxxe: I understand there used to be time on wikipedia, before I was an editor and only a reader, where almost no one would ever advocate for the deletion of a poor article on a notable subject, but would quickly work individually and as teams to replace it/repair it/improve it with a usable stub and/or article. In large part, those editors made wikipedia what it is, and I thank them for it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am a little confused right now. What article are we talking about here? "Aircraft design process" or "Aircraft design". It seems to me that this AfD started for an article called "Aircraft design process", which concievebly was about the process by which aircraft are designed and built. (See the DoD's eye sore for one aspect of that). The article was renamed and the content was rewritten to be a seemingly different article called "Aircraft design", which is not about the aircraft design process (which was the whole point of the original AfD), but is a broad article much like Aircraft. So it seems like the half (or more) of the comments in this AfD need to be thrown out because they apply to an article that no longer exists. How are we supposed to proceed here? Should we be discussing the new "Aircraft design" article or the old "Aircraft design process" article? As a practicing engineer, those are rather different topics that require different approaches. (For example, last week's Aviation Week & Space Technology feature story was about major changes in the aircraft design process, but had little to do with actual aircraft design.) Can someone clear this up for me so we can have an intelligent and (perhaps more importantly) relevant discussion? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree - this AfD process has been completely disrupted by the article being moved to a new topic and then being rewritten as a completely new article on a new subject. To even further complicate matters the new article is not of good quality and is mostly off even the new topic and deals more with

WP:POINT, as noted above, that I am not sure how to proceed at this point either. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Close without prejudice to nom of new article? The rewrite was BOLD, but wasn't reverted, so its like an AfD on two different articles right now, I gather.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are two quite separate articles, on different topics.

Some of this comes back to the nature and appropriate role of ARS and the relevance of WP:Delete the junk. There appears to be a broad agreement that Aircraft design process was indeed "junk" and needed serious repair. Opinions then vary on how to carry this out: I'd favour the clean-slate approach. Delete to a redlink and start again at leisure, as a new article. The ARS approach though seems to be different. It "abhors a vacuum" and assumes that WP cannot bear to have this article missing. The process was to stubbify it back to near zero (which deletes as much content as the redlink would have done) and then to rapidly expand the article, within the time constraints of an AfD. The intention obviously is to fix it before the AfD closes, so that everyone then changes their !vote and we all live happily. Heroic work by the good Colonel, but is this really the best way to work?

To my mind, this approach is wrong on two counts: It's obviously a hard way to work, under that deadline pressure and ongoing threat of deletion. Who wants to work so hard, so fast, when you know that some proportion will still be zapped anyway? (Believe me, I've done these). Secondly it's at variance with the whole ethos of

WP:IMPERFECT

basis that articles should be good enough and that we recognise ongoing progress to improve them, not that everything must be completed now or else deleted!

In this case, the ARS-process has gone down something of a blind alley. It hasn't even written the missing article, it has gone and created a different one altogether. Aircraft design is not the process of aircraft design! This is the sort of confusion that arises when things are rushed, and when journalism replaces structure. With the greatest respect for the hard-working and skilled editors of ARS, the notion that goood writers write well by re-working sources and without understanding the topic domain doesn't always work out, and this is one of those examples. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time we seem to be discussing the AfD of a redirect, because that is all Aircraft design process is right now. Maybe sending Aircraft design to AfD is an option, but personally, because it is an ambiguous term with at least two meanings and because the new text at that location is totally confused and of very poor quality because as User:Andy Dingley correctly points out it has been written in a hurry by someone who is not at all familiar with the subject area, I think it should be turned into a disambiguation page pointing to a new article on the process of designing aircraft and also aircraft design referring to the type definition documentation of an aircraft type. Unfortunately I am not sure a disambiguation page consisting of just two redlinks will wash. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm broadly happy with the state we're at now (i.e. ready to close and go home, no further changes needed). Adp redirs to Ad, Ad is an article on aircraft design (although not the process). The old boilerplate slab at Adp has gone. Although we might still wish to work on Ad and even to create a new separate article at Adp, that's for tomorrow. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft design needs serious work to make it into a comprehensible article, starting with deciding what subject it is supposed to be on, but I am not at all sure that that is the correct subject for this AfD discussion at all. Perhaps we should let this AfD run its course and see if the closing admin can offer some words of wisdom on what should have been done differently and close the issue out that way? At this point we could use some objective wisdom from an uninvolved admin. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What Andy is suggesting is that we should put our feet up and take it easy while the admins move in to delete the junk and make everything neat and tidy. But let's see how this approach works in practise. What's the most important article for the aviation project? It must be Aviation, right? That article has been around for seven years so one would think it would be in good shape by now — probably a FA, right? But no, when one takes a look, one finds that it is C class. The nay-sayers would tend to call that junk too - riddled with POV, OR, all sorts of bad stuff. So should we haul that off to AFD too?

• Now Andy's other observation is that this discussion now seems incongruous. This is not surprising because AFD is not meant for this sort of article. We know this because the
  relevant process
  says emphatically "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". The traditional slogan which is used here to convey this is that "AFD is not cleanup". And it's no good complaining about the ARS because the ARS exists precisely to address this situation - fixing up articles on notable topics so that they need not be deleted and can be put back into the production line with all the other putative FAs. If people don't like way this has worked out then like the old joke puts it when the patient says that it hurts when he does something, "Well, don't do that then!".

Colonel Warden (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS. I think Aircraft design process is potenially a more useful, and more managable article to write than Aircraft design

. I think you've removed one bad article (which could be improved) and replaced with worse article.

I suggest that the move/editing be reverted, that Aircraft design process is reduced to the stub, and that it is allowed to grow as article normally do. I'll even start writing it you want a volunteer. But there are tons of issues with a an "Aircraft design" article that make it a much different beast to tackle. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SidewinderX - I agree with that proposal, it is a good way to resolve the mess that has been created by taking a bad article, changing the topic and all the text to a worse article on a completely different subject. As I indicated above this is not "rescuing" an article, it was simply subverting the AfD process to make a point. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As explained and evidenced above, aircraft design is the common and natural title for this article, just like
  not invented here. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The original article, and I'm talking about the Sept 2009 version, is undeniably about the aircraft design process. It is dicussing the conceptual, preliminary, and detailed design phases. It discusses several aspects of aircraft design (such as propulsion and structures) in the context of the aircraft design process. It is an article about the aircraft design process. Poorly written and sourced, sure, but it was about the aircraft design process. That fact was noted soon after the article was created, and it was moved with WP:Consensus. You're right in pointing out that the article was not improved very much after the move, which wasn't good. But the only thing that needed to be changed in the lead was a to add a bold "process", the lead clearly depicts the design process.

Your move completely erased any aspect of the design process, deleting any mention of the design phases. It went from an article that described certain aspects within a context to article that discusses those aspects without any context (which is why it will be a difficult article to write and manage). It is an article on a different topic, plain and simple. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahunt indicated at the outset of this discussion that the text of which you speak contained a substantial copyvio and so should be reduced to a stub supported by sources. The copyvio and lack of sourcing indicated that that text was not a safe basis for development. I therefore reduced the article to a stub as recommended by Ahunt and started again from consideration of good reliable sources. The sources call the topic aircraft design and that seemed simple and clear. But if you want an article which focusses exclusively upon the process then this can be done too. I shall make a stub of the title Aircraft design process and support it with good sources which will point the way to expansion of that aspect. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and suggest further discussion takes place on article talk pages. It seems we have two notable articles here, one that's currently a redirect and one that's going to take a lot of effort to get to a decent standard. No worries, there's
  no rush, and discussions on content and naming would be better at the article talk pages for easier reference by the editors who will eventually improve these articles. Bigger digger (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question Which article is being debated here? Aircraft design process, which appears to be a newly created stub, or Aircraft design, where the nominated article was moved to? AniMate 05:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I just noticed that myself. It appears to be a

  content fork, which IIRC isn't a good idea in most circumstances, much less during an AFD. I'll make sure an admin knows about this. - BilCat (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I would also suggest that moving an article (particularly unilaterally, against article-talk consensus) in the middle of an AfD is also not a good idea -- and might be considered the root cause of this forking. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously, which article is being debated here? I have no clue. AniMate 06:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This should answer your question. The article under discussion is the one currently titled aircraft design. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Which

  content fork, though probably in good faith, and ingnorance of WP policies and guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC) - NOTE: the user has been around a long time, so probably knows this isn't quite the way to handle things on WP, though I am assuming he ment no harm. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Not a great move, especially considering the current stub he created seems to still have the problems the nominator was concerned with. I've left a note at CW's page asking for an explanation. Whoever closes this is going to have a lot of fun. AniMate 06:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If it were me (and lucky for me, I'm not an admin), I'd simply close it as 'no consensus' (somewhat of an understatement, given what's happened) and not even attempt to summarise these shenanigans. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That, of course, is the intended outcome of the disruption; 'no consensus' as an implied 'keep' and two articles instead of one deleted sow's ear. In the big picture, none of these

  wage war on the 'Evil Deletionists'. This has been going on for easily four years, now. Jack Merridew 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Then why is it always the "Evil Deletionists" that are making the personal attacks against the ARS? Silverseren^C 00:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  {{citation needed}}. And see where I said that this is not an ARS-issue, it's an editor-issue. Anyway, the 'ARS' is not a person, and criticism of ('attacks' on, if you like;) the ARS would not be covered by NPA ;) Jack Merridew 00:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to close This is no longer a debate on the same article that it started with. For that reason, I suggest that we should now close this AfD (as nominator, I believe I also still have the option to simply withdraw it). For neutrality, I would suggest asking an uninvolved admin (directly via their talk) to do this.

Reasons to close this now are as follows:

• It has become confused, as its basis has shifted. If there is any AfD-like issue remaining, it would be best handled by starting a new AfD / candidate for GA as needed.
• Whatever does need doing next, this isn't the best forum for doing it.
• There is no clear call for any further major change from where we are now, at least not within the scope of AfD. Further editing and development is of course welcome, that's just what we do.
• There is no call to reverse any of the changes made here: i.e. anything resembling DRV or "Deforking by ArbCom" or whatever it might be called.
• Any potential copyvio risk has now been addressed by excision of all affected content and we're safe to proceed further.
• I'm sure we're all grateful to Colonel Warden for his efforts here.

Reasons to not close at this point might include:

• Disagreement that we are indeed "done" yet.
• A view that the process by which we've arrived here was so counter to policy that it has to be backed-out, rather than just proceeding forwards.
• Disagreement with my pro-closure comments above.

However I don't see either of the following issues as reasons to continue this AfD. Whatever their appropriate response is, it's not more of this:

• Aircraft design scope vs. Aircraft design process scope. Take it to the articles (please do - clear definitions of scope beforehand are usually helpful).
• The ongoing need to tar and feather the members of ARS.

Unless anyone has issues related to this AfD (so speak up below), I suggest that the best thing for all of us is to close this and move forwards. Whether that involves two new AfDs or a GA nomination and barnstars all round, it's the next problem, not more of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that the concerms raised that the article was improperly moved during an AFD, and a C-fork created in its place, be addressed by an admin before or during the closing this AFD. Also, assuming the objections to renaming/forking are upheld, and steps taken to ensure that the user in question, who is clearly not a newbie, doesn't attempt to do this again with other AFDed articles untile they are clearly closed. That has just caused confusion that probably should not have occured. - BilCat (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's go round the houses all over again. That's useful. Not.

Whatever this was, it isn't a deliberate policy-problematic content fork. Yes, Colonel Warden shouldn't have blanked an article during the debate (that's even re-stated on the page tags) and it's a strange action for an ARS member to carry out, even though I might personally agree with it. The two articles, under their separate names, are indeed different in scope. No-one disputes this: some say they're different, CW has himself created them, so they're presumably how he wants them. Yet still, none of this is about forking or POV. They're just not an issue as far as this debate is concerned. Argue their scope outside, without the threat of deletion over them, or AfD these new articles if you think that's necessary. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate or not, CW's interference in the AFD process has been disruptive. I'm sure futher AFDs will be considered, but without assurances such tactics won;t be allowed again, the same thing will probably happen again. You're free to oppose me, as you seem always do of late. - BilCat (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Bill. User:Colonel Warden has been completely successful in totally disrupting this AfD process. He has been recently cited at ANI for being disruptive on other issues as well. We now do not know which of the two articles we are even discussing, even though both of them are of very poor quality and serve only to maintain the article titles in existence. User:Colonel Warden's completely unacceptable behavior here needs to be addressed at the point that this AfD is closed, or at ANI again or at Arbcom or some other venue. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some background. I patrol AFD daily and usually participate in one or two per day. This sort of issue rarely arises because the usual basis of discussion is whether the topic is notable or not. This case is quite unusual because the notability of the topic is so great. The last case I recall which seemed similar was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyalty - a broad topic but difficult to write upon because of its philosophical and opinionated nature. In that case, Uncle G set a good example by boldly rewriting the article. The nominator, Jimbo indicated that such bold rewrite was a good move and so it was decided. The Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard tells us that it is a long-standing custom that attempts may be made to dramatically improve articles during AFD. By all means take this to Arbcom to confirm that this is still proper. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CFORK, in the middle of the AfD -- nor does The Heymann Standard (itself merely an essay), envisage such disruptive conduct. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The discussion included some disputation as to whether the topic should be merged with the dab page or split as a separate philosophical topic. These seem to be similar structural questions to the case we have here. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, it is easy to distinguish between proposing a restructuring in an AfD (which is perfectly unexceptional) and unilaterally performing one (which is disruptive). I think the 'similarity' exists only in your head. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aircraft design and start over
  Delete Aircraft design process
  Block User:Colonel Warden for blatant disruption of this AfD à la User:A Nobody and for disruption elsewhere. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Colonel Warden: So what you are saying is that in the middle of an AfD you moved the article to a new title, against an existing consensus and without any consultation, wrote a new article there on a new subject, then took the redirect from the article being discussed at the AfD and wrote another new article there totally different from the one being discussed, both articles are of very poor quality and show a lack of understanding of the topic or detailed reading of the refs used to create the articles, that it isn't dissruptive but bold and that it is Jimmy Wales' fault? I think User:Jack Merridew is right here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's about it, I think... the very fact everyone is having to sort through what the fuck occurred here establishes that this was *disruptive*. We now have this AfD moved to

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design process

  (to follow CW's move of the article).

  The AfD was supposed to be about a specific article-text at the title "Aircraft design process".

  WP:POINT

  ... he ripe for resolution.

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fixing salvagable articles is a good thing. There's no reason to delete this instead of improving it.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to
  talk) 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I had a look at aerospace engineering and quite liked the section about education and qualifications. But the rest was too much about "rocket science". These subjects are quite enormous and, the more general you make them, the harder they become to get written - there's too much to summarise and balance. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is rather silly. Aircraft design is clearly a notable topic, shown from the sources now used in the article and the myriad of available sources from a Google news and books search. Aircraft design process also looks promising in being its own valid article as well, so long as it is carefully distinguished from the former article. I don't understand the comparison with Aerospace engineering made above at all. That article has practically nothing about design or design process of aircraft and focuses far more on rocketry than aircrafts anyways. Silverseren^C 21:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as i said that article sucks too. But it's the right place for improvements to be made, not generating 3X the suckage. Of course this afd was originally about Aircraft design process before the gaming and disruption. Separating the "process" of designing aircrafts from the article on "designing" aircrafts is among the dumber thing's i've seen here, which is saying alot.
    talk) 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I think you are confusing the current state of articles with what
      notability is. The topic of aircraft design is clearly and overwhelmingly notable. The topic of the process of aircraft design has the potential to be notable if enough information can be gathered about it (otherwise, it should be merged into the aircraft design article). The state of either article (and aerospace engineering for that matter) has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of the topic. If you feel the articles are atrocious, then you should help improve them, but that has nothing to do with this AfD. Silverseren^C 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • They're both inappropriate content forks. One of them, i might be convinced some day could become an appropriate fork when a high quality, lengthy section on aircraft design resides at the engineering article. The second fork should never stand; it's sublimely ridiculous.
        talk) 22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I don't believe that aircraft design should be incorporated into the article on Aerospace engineering. The topics are fairly separate. What should be done is that the section in Aerospace engineering should be summarized and then direct readers to the main article on aircraft design. Furthermore, aircraft design deals with the types of designs of aircraft and the history behind it, while aircraft design process deals with the actual process of designing aircraft. They can clearly be seen as two separate things. Silverseren^C 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topics are fairly seperate. Wow. You have no idea what Aerospace engineering is, or what Aerospace engineers do, do you? Ok, I won't leave you in suspense. Aerospace engineers design, manage the process of construction for, and otherwise build airplanes and helicopters (and sometimes missiles and spacecraft, but far less often).

talk) 01:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I know what Aerospace engineering is. But there is a huge difference between aerospace engineering, which is a branch of engineering, which is in itself a profession, and aircraft design, which is the history of how aircraft design has changed over the years and the types of major designs of aircrafts that there are. Like I said, they are fairly different. What you're proposing is akin to saying that Biomedical engineering should have the article on Biotechnology merged into it. Silverseren^C 02:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I see no "History of" in either article's title (and

Aviation history). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep When all is said and done, and all the intervening bickering is ignored, we have an article which is soundly referenced, and which clearly is on a notable subject. Quibbling over names belongs on the article talk page - and is not, in itself, grounds for deletion. Collect (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. What we started with, and what we now have, are so different that no real consensus can be found in this debate. No consensus, with leave to speedy renominate if anyone feels it necessary. Courcelles 20:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan Bushnaq

Suzan Bushnaq (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)

Major COI issues, highly promotional tone, all the references are in Arabic and unverifiable. Should be a speedy, but there's a claim of notability. Still, the top relevant Google hits are her Facebook account.

• Delete.
  WP:A7 Even if the claims are correct, I agree that it's highly promotional and fails to assert sufficient importance. Msnicki (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  WP:A7. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete; I'd have probably tagged it for A7 myself, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've removed the speedy tags (a7, g11), as I think this should be properly discussed. The sources in Arabic are allowed, as far as I know. Here is a link to the G-News Archives search result for her name in Arabic (سوزان بوشناق). --
  Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: I think the Arbitration Award Biennial Kharafi, the Qurain Cultural Festival shows/awards(?), the Personal Exhibitions at the Art Gallery under the auspices of the National Council for Culture and Arts (the Kuwaiti arts ministry) and the verifiabilty and notability provided via the Kuwait press cited (albeit sporadically) is sufficient for notability via WP:Artists (Creative proffesionals) #4b has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition and perhaps #4c if the newpapers count for significant critical attention. I think there are some obvious problems and it might be best to cut the article right down to a small article with just the verifiable information. Our coverage of Kuwaiti art/artists is very limited and it would be a shame to reduce it further given we are trying to build a truly international encyclopedia. Also I think it is part of our job to try to verify sources in other languages when they offered. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I completely agree with you (particularly with the last part of your comment). However, the article in its current shape is very bad and unacceptable for an encyclopedia, it is someone's promotional personal essay. Can you translate the sources from Arabic? I'd like to help you with the clean up, but I can't read the script. --

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment More important than diversity on Wikipedia is our ability, as a community, to
  verify the significance and facts claimed in the article. If we can't get a sufficient number of Arabic-speaking editors to verify this article and the subject's notability, it should be deleted. Ray^Talk 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The sources are all web-flotsam and it's unclear what the level of
  WP:RS. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It does, see this: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No sources are quoted in this article.

Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Beg pardon, but what are all those links at the end of the article. If they are not sources, then this article is in worse shape than I had thought. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Those sources are cited, not quoted.

Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but that seems to me to be splitting hairs. I think the common-sense interpretation is that having foreign-language sources exclusively, whatever their context, on English-language WP is worth little without the framing of proper translation. Most of us here clearly do not speak, read, or understand the language. How in the world are we to assess this case without that ability? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It's not splitting hairs at all. The point is that translation of short quotations is allowable under fair use, but to post a translation of a significant amount of a source, i.e. enough to demonstrate that the subject passes notability guidelines, would be a copyright violation. Many sources are inaccessible to many readers for many reasons - most commonly due to them only being available in libraries in one part of the world - but that doesn't mean that we can't use them.

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Phil, we just differ in opinion here, I guess. I don't see this as the same accessibility issue at all. The "availability" impediment that you mention is pretty rare, I would say. Sources are almost always available from mainstream publications which are documented online, or, at worst, available from large, say academic libraries, which at least a few commentators in an AfD can easily check physically. In other words, there is no impediment to the AfD commentators as a collective group. The "language" impediment is something quite different. Saying that a proper translation "i.e. enough to demonstrate that the subject passes notability guidelines, would be a copyright violation" actually places us in the obviously contradictory position of having to assess notability without having any material upon which to base such an assessment. Unless one of us reads and speaks the language, we're out of luck as a group. And even then, such testimony might not be considered

WP:RS. So, unless there's something readable that all of us can actually make an assessment upon, it would seem we should err conservatively, since this is a BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You contradict yourself. If you are prepared to accept offline publications that "at least a few", but not all, editors can verify, you should equally accept non-English sources that "at least a few", but not all, editors can verify. I, along with many other editors, can't understand many of the English-language sources used in our articles on, say, molecular biology or advanced mathematics (even though I have studied the latter subject at undergraduate level), but that doesn't mean that we should delete such articles.

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but you're now obfuscating "understanding" in a language sense with "understanding" in a content sense. It's obviously not necessary to understand the work of say some physicist (content). What we understand (in the language sense) is some secondary source written about that person or some database that tallies citations to their work – and these we accept as reliable sources. With databases like GS, GBooks, etc. etc., we almost always find this information on-line, so there is very little "availability" bias, as you're alleging. I don't ever remember a case where some editor went off, found an obscure source, brought it to the group, and had it accepted on that basis alone. Good sources are widely found in libraries and thus easily checked. That's the crux! If you, I, and other can't even understand the language that a secondary source is written in, how exactly are we supposed to assess it? To me, this is obvious nonsense. Suggest concluding this discussion with both of us (acceptably) remaining unconvinced of the opposing position. Closing admin will sort this out. Over and out, Agricola44 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete.
  WP:A7 Not reliable references(Facebook, twitter,flickr). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertzerox (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — Robertzerox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Keep. Has significant coverage in sources such as such as
  Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I have tried to remove all the unsourced stuff and produced a short stubb using verifyable sources which seem to me to indicate clearly sufficient notability. Hope this is OK, best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment: That stub looks far better than the original. I'm leaning toward changing my vote to keep based on the sources cited. --
  talk) 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]