Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Article has been improved to meet notability standards. C679 06:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Sports F.C.

Brett Sports F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication why this topic is notable. C679 14:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment played in the FA Cup which is generally considered notable. GiantSnowman 14:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - although their tenure in the English league system was short, they played in the FA Cup and won the Kent League, both of which make them notable in my opinion. I'm sure this article could be expanded. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - played in FA Cup and at level 10Babylon77 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see in the link provided that they only played in the qualifying round of the FA Cup (and qualifying round of the FA Trophy) and not in the main draw. The
  WP:GNG to be found. C679 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I have added a load more content, all reliably sourced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article has been massively improved, now up-to-scratch and notability not an issue. GiantSnowman 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dot commercial

Dot commercial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. Possibly falls foul of

• delete Once I got the Department of Transportation out of the picture, I got some usage of a term, but nothing that suggested anything like agreement on what the phrase means. The best hit was a thirteen year old Tufts U student paper hit that talked about dot-com ads. I saw no hit that used this specific definition. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whatever this is, it's not sourced at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Although valid issues requiring editorial discussion have been brought here, the consensus here is to keep. J04n(talk page) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

A list of sources that might be used in other articles is not itself an article, and does not belong in the main namespace. Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• too soon I'm not sure what this article is, and where it's going.

• Is it a simple biography list, following a split? That seems strange practice – surely we list such a biography in the articles where these sources are cited, as necessary to support those article? It would be a problem for them if readers had to trail across multiple articles to check sources, let alone the maintenance. The only reason to split the content seems to be either because it was previously too big (we're just not that restricted for space) or because many of these were cited across multiple articles (and we can't afford to ever duplicate a byte). If this really was boilerplate content for multiple articles, then that's what the template namespace is for – although that would be unwiedly unless the lists were known to be staying the same across both articles long-term.

• It's not an article. It's a bibliography. That is, it is an
  appendix from another article; it is not article content. There's no precedent in the manual of style for forking out appendices such as 'Bibliography' or 'Further reading' to separate articles. And it is unclear how anyone would know to find it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If this is a literary critique of the many and various sources that are widely used in the study of Witnesses, then I think that would be an excellent article topic. However such an article relies on sourcing, and there's probably WP:CaseLaw on how such bibliographies are handled. Clearly the current article is nowhere near this as yet, but it's early days following a split and the author should be given opportunity to develop it.

I would appreciate comment from Alan Liefting on just why he's split this and what he's trying to aim for. I'd also say that whatever needs doing to this article, so soon after its split, a discussion of its deletion is not appropriate or urgent at this time. We surely don't want to blank this list from WP space altogether, other articles are depending upon it (wherever it's stored). As to tagging it for speedy deletion, then that's a far from helpful move. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bibliography list articles are permitted per WP:L (see also Category:Bibliographies and Category:Bibliographies by subject). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the bibliography lists contain works by a particular author (and we already have

content fork. There still doesn't seem to be precedent for a separate article giving a bibliography about a very specific subject, especially where it is an attractive target for bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

As can be seen in Category:Bibliographies by subject there are all sorts of arcane topics so topic such as the Jehovah's Witnesses is deserving of its own bibliography. And it is not a content fork - it is a split. And having List of Watch Tower Society publications is not a replacement for a wider set of publications. And finally, your concerns about "an attractive target for bias" are misplaced. That goes for all of WP and we have ways of dealing with it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think looks like an experienced/respected/sensible User has hived off massive bibliography from another article into Category:Religious bibliographies. So what? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"experienced/respected/sensible User"? You obviously don't know me very well! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK then Alan, "crazed near-vandal, hell-bent on personally destroying Wikipedia's categorization system", if that makes you feel any better. I do happen to think you're right on this one though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's better! That is exactly what I want to do! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The title is encyclopedic but the annotations make this original research. Some sort of subdivision by date or topic would be beneficial, but as soon as opinions (very short unsourced essays) are offered about this book or that, it crosses the line, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the annotation would be an improvement. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing the annotations would be an even bigger one. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the books serve as sources for their own annotations? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're an acceptable source for their own publisher, ISBN etc., but not much beyond this. Where a commentary on the books (which is why an article like this would become valuable) extends to "Prof. Deicide's book is a valuable history of the early development of the church, but his own opinions get out of hand when he accuses the Archdruid of sacrificing kittens", then that needs secondary sources, where

WP:RS support the detail of why the book is important and what can be said about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• I am not too concerned if it is deleted but I am leaning towards keep. Most of it was stuff commented out in a "Further reading" section the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. It was too much to have hidden away. And I am a fan of bibliographies. I was concerned that there would be a bias in the list but I added other stuff, and it can be fixed of course. The annotation should be removed as an improvement. I have to admit that creating the article was a sloppy job, and I am far from proud of it, but in my defence it is not my topic area. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this pseudo-article is retained, it does not mean that Further reading sections should be removed from other JW-related articles (as you did at the main Jehovah's Witnesses article). Also, books appearing in the various Further reading sections (if present) at different JW-related articles should be within the scope of each article rather than duplicating the same broad list across multiple articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets call it a bibliography rather than "pseudo-article" shall we? And note that there are a number of biblio pages so it seems the community is in favour of them. As for splitting info out of the Jehovah's Witnesses that was a valid move. What I should have done is left a link to the new article. Articles grow so we create new ones to avoid them from becoming bloated. I see that you have reverted my removal of the "Further reading" in the Jehovah's Witnesses article. If the new biblio is retained having that section is unneeded repetition and a link to a more extensive biblio would be better. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Further reading section is an

appendix, not content to be forked out to a separate article. Also, as previously stated, different JW-related articles may have different sources for further reading for each article's own scope. It is not helpful to point such articles to an attempted one-size-fits-all bibliography.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

A Further reading section is just that - a list of publication recommended by WP editors to the readers. They are not the same as references or sources, which are actually used in the article. A Further reading section can therefore be split of without affecting the integrity of the article. I am not suggesting the individual articles should not have a Further reading section, it is just that an overview biblio page is a good thing. BTW, I note that you are a fellow atheist (not that it has any bearing on this discussion). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:APPENDIX

until you understand that the Further reading section is not part of the main article content.

Why would you add something that has no bearing on the discussion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Further reading section is an

appendix

, not content"

If we all accept that statement, then does it not indicate that this appendix could quite reasonably be kept as a free-standing page, under a title that equates to "Reading list on Jehovah's Witnesses"? That's an article that could have its own sections: doctrine, theological commentary, pro- and contra- critiques from outside. Such a topic certainly has value to readers (given my doorstep traffic in recent weeks, I'm actually in need of it myself).

In physical book publishing, an appendix is bound at the rear of the book, traditionally printed on separate signatures. In some large publications, the appendix is often a separate volume. I see no a priori reason why a section, even online, being an "appendix" means that it can't be a separate page title in wikispace, rather the contrary in fact.

Some disjointed comments:

• Such a reading list should (modulo WP:IMPERFECT) include commentary on the texts listed, as such reliable, sourced commentary is made available. It should also group the texts according to their publisher (at least as official Witness or non-Witness) and by the broad slant of their content. A reader looking for social history vs theology shouldn't have to wade through the lot.
• Each Witnesses article still needs its own Bibliography and Further reading sections. These are big articles, both are justified. This article as a stand-alone doesn't remove those sections. I see real problems (as already noted) with doing so, because it makes the bibliography less accessible and because the relevant per-article reading list is probably a small subset.

However an overall list, as a stand-alone, this article still has its own value.

• I'm puzzled by some omissions from this list (I've recently been tidying technical cite formats in
  Hoekema
  are frequently cited in that article, yet they're not in this bibliography. Is there a deliberate reason?

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for those omissions is that, as stated before, the author of the page (Alan Liefting) lifted the content for the Bibliography 'article' from

JW WikiProject itself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The semantic arguments about the word appendix and comparisons with a printed book are irrelevant. Wikipedia's Manual of Style fairly clearly indicates where appendices go.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley acknowledges that the presence of this 'article' does not remove the need for the Further reading sections at the individual articles, which I've pointed out from the outset. Yet when this article was created, the author removed the Further reading section from other articles. The other articles should indeed have their own bibliographies, making this article a redundant orphan. If not deleted, on the grounds that it may provide a resource for research for additional content, a suitable alternative would be to move it into the WikiProject namespace, as already suggested. However, since such a list would also be present at the main JW article, that also may not be necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your points here seem like directions for editing it, not deleting it. I see value to a "reading list", as a stand-alone article, for topics that are as large and complicated as the Witnesses. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about editing it were in response to your query about obvious omissions. However, the main thrust of what I said was that if it is retained, it is not a replacement for the Further reading sections at the articles themselves, and is likely to be orphaned anyway. Whilst it may be useful to have such a resource for editors, that would probably be more helpful as a WikiProject subpage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we bring it to standard as a resource for readers, then it serves editors too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've stated that you agree that the other articles should retain their own Further reading sections (though Alan seems to disagree). On that basis, why is there any need for a separate bibliography, when it is unlikely that people would search for "Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses" anyway?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you note above, the article bibliographies would be topic-specific for each article, thus small. There's value to an overall bibliography, annotated, on the overall broad topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so worried about whether the bibliography is retained (though hardly anyone will find it), so long as Alan understands that it does not mean hacking the Further reading sections out of other articles. I maintain that if it is retained, it would serve better as a subpage of the

JW WikiProject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You are for some reason making assumptions on what I intend doing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to what you had already commenced doing.[33] And you also stated your intention to split the Further reading sections from other articles rather than each article retaining its own section.[34][35]--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - now that I have added citations, this list satisfies the
  verifiability. The name is a little confusing, though - I wasn't sure if it meant by or about the Jehovah's Witnesses. I recommend renaming it to Bibliography of works on the Jehova's Witnesses. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The page is essentially a list of references. The References section that has been added is quite awkward, and it's unclear how the items that have been added as 'references' inherently 'justify' any of the other items on the list. Or, if they do, why any un-'referenced' entries should remain.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The page is a bibliography. They can be used as references of course. I agree that the reference added are awkward and I will be changing it. Watch that space! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of you need to read the link I provided (

WP:LISTN). The point of the references is to establish the notability of the list as a list. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

A bibliography does not need refs in the same way the facts don't. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does! A bibliography is a stand-alone list and the rules and manual of style requirements for the latter apply to it. Again, read

WP:SAL, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Relevant_guidelines_and_manual_of_style. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The links you give are not really related to referencing. W:LISTN is for notability and the other are for MOS and I fully agree that biblo pages should meet both these requirements. Also, not that many of the other biblio pages do not have refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to hear you say the links are not related to referencing. How do you establish notability, if not by referencing? The kind of notability I am establishing with those "awkward" references is described in

WP:LISTN

: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ..."

True, many other biblio pages do not have third-party refs, but that is mainly because the notability criteria for lists are not as well known as those for articles. Have a look at any of the featured bibliographies and you'll see lots of third-party refs. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that there are only featured bibliographies of works by a particular author, not about a topic, which is far more arbitrary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with many of the above criticisms of the list, but they are not relevant to a deletion discussion. They can be addressed separately. In particular, the sources I have provided can help with the question of neutrality. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created with the stated purpose of removing the existing Further reading appendices from other JW-related articles, which the author then proceeded to do. That action was not and is not appropriate. There is some latitude for the article to become something more than its original purpose—as a resource for editors—but that still doesn't serve much purpose as an (orphaned) article and would be better associated with the JW WikiProject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, that is not true at all. PLEASE keep to the facts and PLEASE read what I have already written. I created the article because there was a large number of publications listed in an article and they were useful for readers (and editors of course). Why do you want to deny

readers of Wikipedia, you know - the vast majority of visitors here and the reason why we are here, the opportunity to find what I would hope will soon be a definitive list of JW-related publications? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

When you created the article, you stripped out the existing Further reading section from Jehovah's Witnesses.[36] Why are you now claiming you did not? I haven't 'denied' readers anything at all. It's fairly unlikely that anyone would search for Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses, and you deleted the list of sources from the most likely place to look—the main JW article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per
  WP:POVSPLIT. The content is redundant, because it is already included into the JW main article and articles related to JW practices. If there is a disagreement about what to include to the literature list in the main article, it would be a POV fork to start a new article to be in control of what to include. I cannot see a comparability to lists of artists and authors complete work, is of relevance to this discussion, as this is an open topic with an unknown and possible huge number of possible relevant works, rather than a limited list. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think you have put your finger on the biggest concern, but I think it is fixable if the notability guidelines and manual of style are followed. See
  my comments on the talk page. If proper selection criteria are identified and adhered to, neutrality should follow. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comments re removal of appendices from main articles. Particularly in relation to these two edits: [37] & [38]

Can we all agree at least the following points:

• All articles need a Bibliography, within the article. This expands the reference detail for the cites used on each page. It would be wrong to make these short-format cites link to a reference off-page.
• Any WP articles may have a Further reading section, suggesting texts for a deeper look at the topic. These may either overlap or not with the cited bibliography.
• A Further reading section for a narrow article might be rather narrower than the general Bibliography across a broad topic. However such a Further reading section for the broad topic would not differ from a Bibliography for that same broad topic.

Now in this particular case, we have disagreement over the Jehovah's Witnesses main article (and I doubt that agreement is likely to happen over that). I would contend though, despite initially seeing this as a mistake, that Alan Liefting's replacement of the Further reading section with a link to this article [39] was correct.

• It left the cited Bibliography intact (It's inlined into the References list here, but could be extracted into its own section)
• It removed the bulky Further reading section. That's not a section needed immediately by readers, so following the link is acceptable. The linked section is much bigger, but given that this is the top-level broad-scope article, that's not a problem.

Overall, I would still support the existence of this article, and also its use from the main article, as the main Further reading section within it. Obviously I'd support its linkage from the other articles too, although those narrower articles may still require their own Further reading sections. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no precedent in the Manual of Style for forking out appendices, and no good reason to do so. Where there are other Bibliography pages on other topics, the main article for that topic is not split from the main article, e.g.

MOS:LAYOUT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see this article as a fork, but rather as a justifiable topic for "A reading list on a very broad topic". Once we have it, then it makes sense to link it from elsewhere. It also makes sense (although I agree, this isn't the use that would justify its creation) as a replacement for the Further reading section on the top-level article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much interested in the semantics of fork or split. The appendix should be within the article. If the bibliography page is to be retained, a link to the broader reading list would properly be in the See also section, as stated above, and would not mandate removal of the article's own Further reading section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think hiding the bibliography in
  WP:POVSPLIT (see Grrahnbahr's comment above). RockMagnetist (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Indeed. I hadn't recalled who had hidden the bibliography in that article, but when I checked your link I was unsurprised. I've had considerable problems trying to work with that editor and reaching compromises has often been difficult.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Personally, I like the idea of having bibliographies on Wikipedia, however this could cause problems. First, what to add and what not to add? Let's say it is an articles about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In this article/bibliography there are questionable tabloid style "works" listed. It thus becomes a medium to publicize articles, "journals," books, etc...that are extremely bias, possibly defamatory, and essentially unreliable. But there really isn't a rule I can think off that would prevent them since they are not "sources." In essence, this sort of article opens the door for some nasty issues. I say Delete into oblivion for this reason. Also, there seems little in Wiki policy in favor of this article.Fordx12 (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So should we delete Bibliography sections from articles too? Your issues would apply equally to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is a long list of problems related to an article like this. Let's start with the criteria for inclusion: How to determine what works that is related to JW? A lot of books about JW may seek to discuss classification of JW (sect, cult, NRM and so on), and lists books about sects and cults within its reference list. A book about cults is may not NPOV nor correct when it comes to JW, but it still fulfill the requirements for being listed ("each entry be in more than one of the third-party references", from the talk page suggestion). Another problem is the classifications within this article: Pentons book about JW and the third reich is listed under «Persecution in Nazi Germany». It may not is wrong, but it is containing quite harsh criticism to JW policies and JW leadership, esp. Rutherford. Why isn't it listed within the «Critiques and personal accounts»-section? Is it NPOV to classify it at all? These concerns are not even touching the POV-split concern. Grrahnbahr (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a particular source is relevant to two aspects, then list it under both - the second can be a short-form cite, as we already use widely. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 13:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a lot of discussion of problems that aren't relevant to a deletion discussion, particularly criteria for inclusion. Selection criteria are discussed in the
  selection criteria and discuss them on the talk page for the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies). We need more historians and scholars participation not less - don't drive them away Category:Bibliographies. Got a problem with certain content take it up on the talk page.Moxy (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I maintain that the criteria for inclusion in this bibliography are far too ambiguous. However, so long as the page's author desists from deleting (or forking, splitting, or any semantic equivalent) the Further reading appendices from other JW-related articles, it may not be necessary to delete the page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand what your saying - are you suggesting that compiling the bibliography from articles is forking? I cant comment on what is being moved or deleted as there are no explains here of the problem being described. But - we compile bibs for people (normally the ones we use in articles as they have standing credibility) so they - our readers - can do research be it for Wikipedia or not. They are also usefully in helping expand the encyclopedia itself - for instants for our students at Wikipedia:Canada Education Program we made bibs that link from main articles like Canada#Further reading - History of Canada#Further reading - Military history of Canada#Further reading .... this has lead to the books seen at the individual bibs being used by editors all over Canadian articles to expand the encyclopedia (yes they are all digital copies and can be seen and this helps - this can be done for most bibs). Having all the resources on one pages is the point of a bibliography and leading our readers to it is as valid as any article.Moxy (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See earlier response to the page's creator here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see this before - my apologies. I can see how that could be problematic - odd he did not link the page he just created :-) . However I do see why it may have been done - the page is full of refs already. I see why you/or anyone may be upset at the edit. PS Jehovah's Witnesses was a nice read very informative.Moxy (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2013 (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.

Dualis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Article about a non-notable monthly newsletter. - MrX 13:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Symbiosis School of Economics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 12:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filmlook

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

This is a redundant article to Film look. Both articles are about a technique that can be described in a few sentences. Suggest merging into a section in digital cinematography and/or color grading. NickCochrane (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Update As of now, the article has changed in focus and in topic after the AfD nomination. It is now about a non-notable company from Burbank. Say what you will. NickCochrane (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for the change of article focus and topic made by Oakshade after the AfD nomination NickCochrane (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, the dif and the version just before this AfD does stipulate this is about the company Filmlook Inc. in the second sentence and it later even goes on to explain the company's founding. The lede and later content in the article was confusing as to mean the general film look term. I have brought clarification to ensure editors aren't confused as the nom was.--Oakshade (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The basis for this AfD is factually inaccurate. "Film look" is the post-production process of filtering a video image to appear it was sourced from film. "Filmlook" is the name of an actual company in Burbank, California that has long specialized in the film look process and even has registered the word "Filmlook" (not "film look"). This company has had extensive significant coverage over the decades. A couple of examples include The independent film & videomaker's guide, which while you can't see all of it online, gives very in-depth coverage and this one.--Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More external sources demonstrating passing

Emmy Award. [42] --Oakshade (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You cannot claim the basis for the AfD is inaccurate if you change the entire title and the focus of the article immediately after the AfD nomination. I'm not sure the protocol on this, I respect the right to edit during the AfD, but you have seriously confused editors and the edit you took part in was disruptive to the AfD. NickCochrane (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First article improvement and clarification was "vandalism" and now it's "disruptive"? Have a read of

WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM before you start attacking editors for fixing a problem. This article was about a company and you didn't notice that. You were confused. I clarified this for you and other editors. You're welcome.--Oakshade (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete No external sources to show that this company is notable. Fails
  FurrySings (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How are the external sources above that show in-depth coverage of this company "no external sources"?--Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Shortly after th AfD nomination, the page was vandalized to become a page about some company called "Filmlook". This is an AfD discussion about the technique and as it relations to the other redundant article Film look. NickCochrane (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Starting clean-up and clarification is vandalism? Say what?? The article was already about the company "Filmlook" and before this AfD started, the Development section began, "In 1986, company founder Robert Faber began researching..." You made an honest error with these AfDs. But attacking other editors making improvements to an article as vandals is bad form. --Oakshade (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm not quite sure how this company just popped up out of nowhere. Neither the company, nor the technique are notable and need a page. The emmy award should be in an emmy award list somewhere, but the company is just like a thousand other film post production houses. NickCochrane (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nick, I have no idea what your intention is? You've opened an AfD for both names, citing them as a duplicate of the other, but then talk about merging them into a different article? Why are they not in the same AfD then? You've reverted a perfectly legitimate edit by Oakshade which cleared up confusion - this article was about the company in the first place. This article should be kept for the company, which appears to be notable from Oakshade's sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article definitely needs a lot of work and cleaning up, as there is overlap and confusion caused by it - but they aren't, necessarily, one and the same. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to get rid of these two pages that are chalk full with original research, and place a description of it into digital cinematography perhaps. NickCochrane (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you'd looked at this article correctly, you'd have realized that it was about the company, not directly about the process - although it did go on to describe how the process worked. The fact is, you can't AfD both as duplications of each other - that's just absurdly confusing. Also, you marked Oakshade's legitimate, good faith edit as vandalism, hence why I undid you revert. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I DID look at this article correctly, and it was AFTER the AfD that the focus was changed to this company. Why don't you LOOK at the evidence yourself. NickCochrane (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lukeno94 is correct. The version just before you put this up for AfD indicated it was about the company Filmlook and even when into the company's founding. [43]. The poorly written lede mislead you, but had you read on, you would've realized it's about the company Filmlook Inc.. The article film look is correctly about the film look process and not about the company. --Oakshade (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oakshade is correct; if you look at the small magnitude of his edit (which was only to the lead anyway), you would realize that all he did was clear up confusion - and I had already looked at the edit history before I made my comment. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.NickCochrane (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well perhaps he was editing at the very same time I was nominating the article for deletion, it was on my list to do. Regardless, the AfD still stands. NickCochrane (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was always primarily about the company, with an outline on the process included as well (as far back as 2010 in a random diff I looked at). It's never been layed out well, so I'm not surprised you were caught out. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Was not editing as the very same time you AfD'd this. According to the article edit history, I didn't make the clarification edit until over two hours after you started this AfD. You were confused of what this article was about, Nick. It's now clarified.--Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it appears that the company is notable. A simple
  search engine test in Google Books shows results about the company and its founder. Google News is a little more sparse, but I suspect that additional coverage is more likely in industry publications which are not much available online. The article just needs cleanup. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, and for clarity's sake retitle
  WP:CORP. Now that issues of topic separation have been dealt with and multiple independent sources found, there is not much more to say. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I second Michael in that if the article is to remain (however I still question notability), the article should be renamed, and film look remains the primary topic. NickCochrane (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent, thank you. And toward the Film look article, there are processes other than the one created by Filmlook Inc, and used by other filmmakers and productions companies, to emulate a "film look" to a non-film project. That article will benefit from expansion to cover other film look processes, just as this one on the company will benefit from expansion and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable company. Their one award is not significant enough to be notable. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]