Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 20

< 19 April	21 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Redirect to Caroline Manzo, per capitalization. But, since that redirects to The Real Housewives of New Jersey, I've just gone ahead and pointed it directly at The Real Housewives of New Jersey. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline manzo[edit]

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

Should be uppercase M for Manzo Misterdanny (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2011 (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. Jclemens' arguments below are rather conclusive. The list only includes notable items, and the organizing concept of the list happens to define what all of those entries fundamentally are (these books are all about bacon). As noted below in the discussion, the notability of the list itself is irrelevant when it indexes notable topics in this manner, and per WP:CLN, lists as well as categories can be appropriate for organizing article content (see generally Category:Books by topic and Category:Lists of books by topic). postdlf (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about bacon[edit]

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

Non-notable topic and completely lacking in scope (and references). Fails general notability guidelines, notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, WP:NOTLINK/WP:NOTDIR, and probably several other guidelines or policies I failed to mention. Tiny esoteric topic, with a tiny esoteric list, that could probably be merged into a List of cookbooks, if such a thing existed. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable list that fails WP:LISTN. --NellieBly (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with this list: the topic is clearly defined, the list items are bluelinks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A notice of this AfD has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each entry is bluelinked and half of them are GA-class! In this case, the fact that it passes LISTN can be derived from the list elements themselves: If there's enough sources to GA four separate books on Bacon, there's enough for a list of such books. Sure, it could work just fine as a category, but there's no reason per WP:CLN to move it to that. List criteria are distinct and need no cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the notability of the content of the list, just the notability of the list itself. If GA status of most members was all that was necessary to engender notability for a list, then we'd have a List of Harry Potter books that didn't redirect straight to Harry Potter. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 05:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different issue, because all those different books belong in one article. These are a diverse set of notable books linked by topic. There's not a whole lot more said about them at the moment, but that's no reason why the list couldn't be expanded to document e.g. bacon's resurgence in the face of a national diabetes/obesity epidemic in the US. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined inclusion critetia for a notable topic, that works hand-in-hand with the category (per WP:CLN). Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't, for the life of me, imagine how deleting this list could possibly make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, whatever interpretation anyone tries to put on any policies or guidelines, which are all subservient to the basic task of building an encyclopedia for the benefit of its readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree that the individual items of this list are fine alone, the Notability guidelines for stand alone lists clearly state that the list will be "considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" which I was unable to find for this particular list. SBHans13 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a navigational list, helping readers to find what they are looking for, rather than a stand-alone list. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deepside Deejays[edit]

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

Prod contested (by the creator, who of course is a single-purpose account), but why, exactly? Where are the independent sources, and where is the evidence that any of the WP:BAND criteria are met?

To give just one example of the dubiousness of the claims made, we are told that "Beautiful Days" was a #1 hit in Romania (in 2008 or 2009). Well, according to the List of number-one singles of 2000s in Romania, that's simply not the case. So if we're to even consider keeping, WP:V needs to be met for the article's text. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I've just added three refs but I leave it to others to assess their worth as sources. Mark^Dask 19:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A sale page for a CD, a YouTube video, and a forum post are textbook examples of what does not constitute a reliable source. So I'm afraid your "references" are pretty worthless as sources, and notability remains unproven. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair comment - I've removed my Keep. Mark^Dask 22:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:BAND, unless better coverage in independent sources can be provided. Robofish (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A YouTube video is not a reliable source but there is nothing to prohibit citing the content of the uploaded video, namely the MTV Romania Music Awards which show that this band won a national award. illegal link The claim to winning the award passes WP:N. My guess is that there must be other Romanian sources verifying this, but just the MTV one is sufficient. Blue Rasberry (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense. The video (uploaded by the band itself, I might add) isn't a reliable source, so its contents can't be cited or used to verify anything, period. (As WP:SOURCES says, "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".) A reliable, third-party, published source demonstrating they won some award would at least be a starting point for a discussion of their notability, but that hasn't been forthcoming in the 10 days since this discussion began. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video is not a reliable source and its contents cannot be cited. The content of the video shows a homemade recording of the Romania Music Awards in which the Deepside Deejays win an award and collect it on stage, but this is totally irrelevant. The reliable third-party published source is the official televised video of the Romania Music Awards. This video is not a YouTube video, and I have not actually seen it, and I do not know where a copy can be seen. But in the same way that I WP:AGF that when someone cites a book or article which is not available online, I am going to assume that this video wherever it may be is also legitimate. I just added an appropriate citation to the article. Does that make more sense? I think that this satisfies WP:V, and I think the award and other article content already more than satisfies WP:N. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything is mentionable, it should not be from a youtube source. The argument about AGF is contrived: the policy works on and for wikipedia editors, not for youtube uploaders - there is no requirement, indeed there can be no requirement to AGF on how videos are uploaded on youtube, no matter how natural it may seem to the naked eye that the Deejays actually received that award. If it's just mentioned on youtube, it doesn't exist. For what it's worth, youtube video or no youtube video, I was able to track down a tabloid article (which looks like a reprint of MTV's PR, btw), which does mention the DDs as award winners. Whether this validates the article or not, I don't know - I get a sense of nausea just at the notion that I would be digging up the sources on kitschy Romanian bands. Incidentally, I find WP:BAND (in general) way too permissive. Dahn (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting kitschy Romanian bands gets Romanian kids interested in Wikipedia where later they edit other articles. Be proud of yourself. This band is big in Romania.

The source you provided is for the 2010 awards and I added your link as a reference to the article. I totally agree with you that anything from YouTube should be discounted entirely. What I am not discounting is that a Wikipedia user has made a claim that in 2009 the article's subject won a major national award for music performance and that anyone can verify this win by reviewing the award results, which were published nationally in Romania. The citation is for the award show, and not for anything from YouTube. Even if the 2009 citation is disputed the 2010 link you provided seems like a solid verifiable indicator of WP:N. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm not sure if anyone clicked the "Find sources – news" link at the top of this AfD, but it leads to a long list of potentially reliable third-party sources. This and this and MTV all seem to say (I'm using Google Translate) that they had a #1 hit in Romania (and Poland and Tunisia). Other coverage includes this interview with the group, coverage on Apropo.ro, and more. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but tag for lack of references. I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt and suppose that this could be supported by the articles that are not in English. -MrFizyx (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for better referencing. With respect to the youtube video, it probably isn't a good source for the article, however, we are not trying to source the article here at AFD, we are trying to determine notability. The youtube video is evidence of notability, and indicates that sources (probably in Romanian), are likely available. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2011 (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. New Scientist and Encyc. of Life Sciences coverage indicate notability Firsfron of Ronchester 20:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Periannan Senapathy[edit]

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

Non-notable genetic scientist. Third party reliable sources are not in the article and don't appear to be available from the usual sources. Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have you even checked his h-index? His papers are heavily cited. Because of this, it is very likely that he meets criteria #1 of WP:SCHOLAR. Regardless, his research and theories have been heavily discussed in various publications, such as in a number of publications from New Scientist. Not to mention in other places. Silver seren^C 22:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silver, the sources xe found seem to satisfy Senapathy's notability as a scholar. I will also add that whether his theories are crazy or not isn't relevant to his notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails both WP:GNG & WP:PROF. No reliable third party sources cited in article, and the only one I could find elsewhere was a 25yo New Scientist article. The only argument presented to date, that of citations, is malformed as (i) mere citation is not "significant coverage" & (ii) Senapathy is merely the co-author of the exceptionally highly cited article listed in Silver seren's search. I would further point out that, unlike reliable sources substantiating that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed", which is what WP:PROF(1) explicitly demands, and which is wholly lacking, WP:OR conjectures based upon mere citations do not provide any usable content for inclusion in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is a list of notable publications from Senapathy.

1) The most important of them published on Science (along with Nature, considered as the top journal in the field of biology) as the first and only author,

P.Senapathy. Introns and the Origin of Protein-Coding Genes, Science, 268 (5215), 1366-1369 (1995) The article can be found here http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5215/1366.extract?sid=5c7b8ab4-10b4-454c-bd87-a4f9ab19548f

2) Senapathy P, Tratschin JD, Carter BJ.

Replication of adeno-associated virus DNA. Complementation of naturally occurring rep- mutants by a wild-type genome or an ori- mutant and correction of terminal palindrome deletions. J Mol Biol. 1984 Oct 15;179(1):1-20

3) Shapiro MB , Senapathy P.

Automated preparation of DNA sequences for publication. Nucleic Acids Res. 1986 Jan 10;14(1):65-73

4) Senapathy P.

Origin of eukaryotic introns: a hypothesis, based on codon distribution statistics in genes, and its implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 Apr;83(7):2133-7

5) Shapiro MB , Senapathy P.

RNA splice junctions of different classes of eukaryotes: sequence statistics and functional implications in gene expression. Nucleic Acids Res. 1987 Sep 11;15(17):7155-74

6) Senapathy P.

Possible evolution of splice-junction signals in eukaryotic genes from stop codons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 Feb;85(4):1129-33.

7) Harris NL, Senapathy P.

Distribution and consensus of branch point signals in eukaryotic genes: a computerized statistical analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 1990 May 25;18(10):3015-9

8) Rahul Regulapati, Ashwini Bhasi, Periannan Senapathy et al.

Origination of the split structure of spliceosomal genes from random genetic sequences6. PLoS ONE (2008) 3(10):e3456

9) Senapathy P, Bhasi A, Mattox J, Dhandapany PS, Sadayappan S..

Targeted Genome-wide Enrichment of Functional Regions . PLoS ONE (2010) Jun 16;5(6):E11138

10) He had published a book also, Independent Birth of Organisms, Senapathy, P. Genome Press, Madison , WI , 1994

These are all publications in very noteworthy publications, such as Science, PNAS, Nucleic Acids Research etc, all concerning his theory on PDA. It is lame to rubbish all these publications away and say there is no third party reference. Rahul R (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (IST)

why are these articles and the contribution to genetic work not included in the article? (also, isn't Genome Press Dr.S's in house publisher?) I would really really like for a notable scientist with a notable fringe view to be included. In this context fringe does not mean pseudoscience (like it does elsewhere). At one time Darwin's view was a fringe theory, but one based on scientific observation. If Dr.S's work is similar, PLEASE SHOW US HOW IT IS. I freely admit to only a layman's knowledge of the subject, and to having not nearly enough time/access to materials to do the reasearch needed to make this article work. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First off, the Science citation is only a letter (PMID 7761858)! Discounting this obvious non-peer-reviewed citation, an [au author search] on PubMed--far more reliable than Google Scholar--brings up only 17 peer-reviewed publications since 1981. It's also abundantly clear that the bulk of the PubMed citations have nothing to do with his Parallel Genome Assembly, at least not directly. In fact, "Parallel Genome Assembly" is not a term that can be found via PubMed search... — Scientizzle 13:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any worthwhile content into Parallel Genome Assembly and delete this article. Anything notable here is about the theory, not the man. Jd2718 (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ [duplicate !vote] If the theory is notable, then the person who proposed it is also notable, since the theory was proposed by a single scientist. In addition, Senapathy also has several credits to his name, including publishing articles in respected journals, well before he proposed this theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulr7 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you haven't demonstrated that "the theory is notable". A few "articles in respected journals" does not meet WP:PROF. And a self-published book adds zero to notability. Oh, and you just !voted twice -- so I'll strike the duplicate !vote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was a response to Jd2718's comments. I have given a further detailed response on the notability of the theory in the discussion page on PGA. Rahul R (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2011 (IST)

Nope, your lengthy ramble is neither relevant to WP:GNG nor WP:PROF -- both of which require reliable third party sources. And replying should not include re!voting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Silversiren makes a good guideline supported case. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Using Google scholar as a determinant of notability is laughable at best. I just chose a random biochemist who does not have an article on Wikipedia, but whose work was instrumental in understanding insulin-like growth factors, one of the keys to aging and development. He has ten times as many cites and at least 10X as many peer-reviewed publications. I guess we should do a scholarly search of all scientists and if they have been cited 20 or more times 20 years ago, that's the standard of notability. Now I can buy the argument that he is notable because he's not very well respected and his science isn't accepted very well, especially since only one of his articles has been cited a lot (and I will admit, it's been cited over 1000 times, which is quite impressive). But it was published over 25 years ago! I would also consider him notable if you want to add him to the list of "creation scientists" because his discredited beliefs. Even his creationist conclusions haven't been published in peer-reviewed journals, because they wouldn't pass the peer review. So, if we keep, it's going to get a thorough NPOV rewrite. I'll try to keep from laughing too hard adding all of his creationist support. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your example kinda falls flat. If this random biochemist was truly instrumental in something as important as insulin-like growth factors, then he should have an article on Wikipedia. Silver seren^C 22:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why the creationist angle is brought into picture. The theories Senapathy have developed have got nothing to do with creationism. It just deals with a theory that the most primitive genomes had random characteristics. I think anyone who has read his papers, can easily see that this is science and not creationism. I think the argument above is very misleading Rahulr7 (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because fans of Senapathy, like 86.10.119.131 (who has been heavily involved on this article), insist on promoting Senapathy's ideas as "anti-evolution". This is what happens when articles get written without third party sources -- the primary source material becomes a Rorschach test through which individual editors' ideological biases express themselves. That is why it is Wikipedia policy not to have articles on topics lacking third party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GS cites are 1636, 74, 68, 66.... h index = 12. Probable pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: all this emphasis on citations (even assuming that this meets WP:Prof#C1, which I would question) avoids WP:PROF#General notes: "it is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard [i.e. WP:Prof#C1-C9], and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." Mere citations provide no usable material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That claim has long been held to be incorrect, see WP:Prof#C1. However this case is marginal on citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:PROF#General notes: which specifically refers to C1-C9 in making the above-quoted statement. MERE CITATIONS PROVIDE NO USABLE CONTENT! For example, one of the citations to Senapathy brought up on article talk turned out simply to be one of two citations for "In the exponential distribution λ_R is the probability that a given nucleotide triplet is a stop codon", another is one of four citations for "The subsequent loss of introns in pro-karyotes alone then occurred through selection for more streamlined genes and genomes". How do either of these citations provide useful information on Senapathy? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senapathy's theories discuss at length about the exponential distribution of nucelotide triplets and stop codons within genomic sequences in the context of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. His theory also extensively deals with the intron-loss thoughtwork (a point of view based on the introns-early model). His publications are being used as primary references when someone talks about these points of view. Hence they are relevant. I have provided a more detailed analysis on the talk page of Periannan Senapathy Rahulr7 (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to me to pass wp:prof via having been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have tried a slight "toning-down" of the Parallel Genome Assembly (PGA) section. And added the unsourced line The theory has, as yet, no widespread support within the scientific community. I hope this is the sort of thing that might be acceptable to most editors. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Yes, a technical weak pass on the basis above but the article is so tendentious and POV ridden that it needs a complete rewrite. Rahulr7 is not the person to do this. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Question Putting aside WP:PROF-driven measures of citation indices, can anyone direct me to secondary coverage of this individual in reliable sources? I've failed to find anything of use beyond primary or self-published sources...[1][2] The closest I came were an extremely in-depth critique by Gert Korthof and a brief skewering by Larry Moran, neither of which are likely to pass WP:RS. — Scientizzle 14:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave links at the top to New Scientist articles that discuss him. Silver seren^C 14:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some other examples would be this, this, and this. Silver seren^C 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I did see the New Scientist links; they're short, but certainly meet WP:RS. The Google Books you provide immediately above are presently useless to me, as I cannot determine whether the mentions are non-trivial and have no present interest or ability to locate hardcopies, and the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SCIENCES publication is rather shallow coverage of Senapathy's work. What I was implicitly getting at in my question above was whether Senapathy himself has received any coverage, or whether all coverage is actually coverage of his scientific work which may be better-covered in one or more scientific articles. I'm only slightly leaning towards a keep right now because I personally find WP:PROF to often be a problematic side-step of WP:GNG... — Scientizzle 17:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mainstream work clearly meets WP:PROF. scientists are notable because of the work, not the routine details of their biography. Coverage of their work or demonstration of its importance is fully sufficient. WP:PROF was written specifically to make that clear. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no secondary coverage of Dr S's work that has been found. There is only his self-published theories (which as soon as an RS journal publishes them they should be here, no doubt in my mind), his preliminary work that is cited somewhat by others (but not really reviewed), and a couple of mentions in 'whose who' type books. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I see the citations (listed above, and at the article's talk page). How do we determine if "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." from those cites? Is being mentioned N number of times an indication of significant impact? For what value of N? Or does there need to be something else, as well? Jd2718 (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Standard sometimes adopted on these pages is that something like 1000 cites is needed for notability but it depends on subject and other things. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2011 (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 Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film)#Sequels. Not enough information to justify a separate article, redirect will be useful until the subject can pass WP:NFF (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 21:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid:The Last Straw (film)[edit]

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

Protested PROD (but of course the deleter does not state a reason, per usual). Production has not even STARTED for this film. Per WP:NFF filming must began for an article to be created. —Mike Allen 22:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —Mike Allen 10:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It will be notable if it goes ahead but this is not certain and there is not enough for a verifiable article yet. Given the tendency of articles related to future Wimpy Kid stuff to be bulked up with speculation and hoaxes I don't even think we want a stub at this stage. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film)#Sequels where this has all the mention it currently needs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as MQS recommends. Obvious right result.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note It the result is to redirect, perhaps locking the article will also be done? Until, and if, the film does begin an active phase of production, like filming. —Mike Allen 03:19, 27 April 2011 (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. Neologism. May catch on as an Internet meme, but even then unlikely to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) unless it ends up in independent third-party sources, which will require substantial time. May require salting if NC fans persistently re-create. Dcoetzee 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frying the coke[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, more appropriate for TV Tropes, where it is currently under discussion. Note that this article has been linked from Nostalgia Critic and seems to be attracting a bit of attention at the moment. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, neologism with no sign of notability. Wickedjacob (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Way too new a term to warrant an entry here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A two-day-old forced meme is not notable at all. Loginer (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately. Just a forced meme; created for fans of the Nostalgia Critic; supported only by the video that was released less than 24 hours ago (which is when the term was first used, thereby it has zero notability). As well as violating WP:NEO, it also violates several instances of what Wikipedia is not, including being a personal invention and being a first news source, promoting a meme, and expecting to become a popular saying when it is currently not. All sources are non-credible, namely fryingthecoke.com, a fansite consisting of nothing but a YouTube video containing a snippet of the Nostalgia Critic video and created shortly after this article was made in order to be used as a source. Basically, if it is a "legitimate" article, then the fifth bread slice I ate this afternoon can warrant an article too. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 02:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no argument compelling enough to allow this article to stay. I mean, really. I'm a fan of the Nostalgia Critic, but anyone can plainly see that this does not deserve a Wikipedia article. Geez, this better not be like "malamanteau" all over again. I am the 0dd1. (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Move to Nostalgia critic wiki. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable WP:NEO. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but not speedy). This is a clever turn of phrase for an improbable product placement, and I might use it myself sometime, but I find no evidence to suggest it's anything more than a minor neologism. By the way, we do have an article about Fried Coke, a semi-edible that will be familiar to anyone who's been to the Texas State Fair.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Who cares if theres a wiki article for now, if it doesn't pick up in a week or two then delete it 01:58, 22 April —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.126.186 (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it It's logical and memorable, I would use this in a conversation as it denotes holywood's attempts to make profit through advertisement without proper context to the scene. The page is well written and there is no real need to delete it. Don't be so uptight, it doesn't need to be ancient history to be part of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.84.158 (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a forced meme. By putting it here, you are forcing it further, hence making Wikipedia both a soapbox and a crystal ball. Also, it is not "memorable" three hours after it was first stated by a relatively obscure internet celebrity. It doesn't matter who the Nostalgia Critic is; Wikipedia has guidelines. It is a personal invention that has no press outside of Internet meme blogs, all of whom are fans of the Nostalgia Critic and not credible sources. No one is being uptight; none of these things are what Wikipedia is for. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 13:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but... Perhaps the article for Jumping The Shark could have a section talking about the alternate terms, such as "Nuking The Fridge." Alternatively, we could add this as a section in the article for The Nostalgia Critic or Double Team, but I don't think it is enough for a full wikipedia article 15:50, 22 April —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doeville (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. So far it's a forced meme overall with no cultural base. --130.83.82.76 (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it Will probably only be used by fans of the Nostalgia Critic, so not notable, not to mention it's a forced meme less than a week old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griper (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of stuff people made up one day. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- this is a valid term to describe being saved (rather unusually i'll admit) with product placement, it is a term that says alot about money making ways in films. It also fits right along in with the new movie about product placement in films. And By the way wikipedia is a community about stuff people made up because the names of everything in our world people made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swsanders (talk • contribs) 05:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Delete: per all above delete voters. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2011 (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. J04n(talk page) 14:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Roberts (AVN Media Network)[edit]

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

No independent notability outside of AVN (magazine). Article seems to be mostly original research. Independent sources cited (not AVN since he was their CEO) mention his position and merely quotes him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most references given in the article do not meet reliable source guidelines, and most do not appear to be independent of the subject of the article. A google news search only gives 16 hits, and not all of them are about the individual, and some are from AVN news, a source not independent of the subject of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. tedder (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G11. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applyezee[edit]

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

Jackol ๏̯͡๏﴿ 20:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam and copyright violation. So tagged. --NellieBly (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2011 (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) 14:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Parker[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Not covered by non-trivial third part sources. Damiens.rf 19:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not appear notable to me.-RHM22 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Keep, but only barely. I changed my !vote after reading about Big Country, which does seem to lend some notability.-RHM22 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information Damien. Wikipedia states that a musician is notable if they have played in a name band, or have had a hit record on the country's National Music Chart, has released 2 or more albums on a major label or notable independent label. This musician has done several of this things - see 'Do a Runner' chart placing, along with membership of Big Country. http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Notability_(music) The sources seem to be verifiable and taken from Big Country pages, Spizzenergi Wikipedia page, etc, etc. it would also seem to comply with the requirement (quote) 'Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known'. In formation like this is invaliable in piecing together Punk rock | Rock music genres | Underground culture | Youth culture in the United Kingdom. If this page is deleted then dozens of others would have to go as well, like this, http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=June_Miles-Kingston. Also it complies with BLPPROD policy. I hope you can retract the deletion flag you have put up, as there has been a huge amount of work to piece together the bits of this musician, who links many genres and bands from the 70's / 80's fulfilling the following criteria; 3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Thank you.

Debbiereynolds (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per arguments put forward by Debbiereynolds. The usual way these pan out is for the AFD to run its course (the deletion tag will be there for a week) unless there is a consensus for speedy keep Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article lacks citations for various claims, the subject clearly meets #6 from the topical notability criteria found at WP:MUSICBIO. The topical criteria allows for musicians who have been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Parker has been the member of four notable bands, having recorded with three of them. Yes, there is a lack of independent sources, but the article is not devoid of them. I have been working with the article creator and while there is a learning curve (as we have all traversed) I am confident that these issues will be appropriately addressed. Cind.amuse 02:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why this article is still being considered for deletion? Looking at your criteria: '1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself' '2.Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.' Clive Parker has had top slots in the UK independent charts for over one year! Clive Parker was a member of several reputable bands. This has been proved. His work as a musician and producer with artist 'Kasie Sharp' resulted in slot 5 in UK Dance Chart. Do you need more examples please? Ninabrem (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed someone that recommended the deletion changed their mind after a couple of hours. I'm new to Wikipedia. Is this normal? Seems really whimsical. Actually they have said 'Keep', but only barely.' What does that mean? Also says 'some notability'. Are they reluctant to keep the article? Ninabrem (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These deletion discussions run for seven days, or until such time as consensus is reached. At that time, another editor will assess the discussion and close accordingly. You can find further information about these discussions at these links: WP:AFD, WP:AFDEQ, and WP:DISCUSSAFD. The forum is provided for editors to make recommendations on the notability and viability of an article, supported by policy. Editors often revise their recommendation according to the strength of the presentations made by others in the discussion. When an editor chooses to change their recommendation, they reflect this change by striking out the previous notation that they made. Feel free to ask questions any time. Cind.amuse 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article confirms Parker as the original drummer for Big Country at its formation. I'm sure there's other stuff ot there that can confirm his membership in the other bands which allow him to meet WP:BAND. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just to try and back-up what I previously said - about a week ago... Whilst this seems like a slightly weird entry because of citations from punk to pop, electronic, and dance, Parker was obviously a major creative character having forged a style in major punk and new-wave groups. These included inaugural line-ups of The Members and Big Country (namely at a sensitive time between The Skids and the 'bagpipe sound'), and hit new wave band SpizzEnergi. To this end one cannot really ignore the major contribution to a number of important cultural/music movements in the UK that ultimately had worldwide ramifications. I'm certain with continued work, and citations, the article will improve, but that doesn't detract from the notibility of the person as it stands. Thank you! Debbiereynolds (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2011 (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) 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping out[edit]

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

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. This term is better off left to dictionaries. Extensive references "prove" that certain people belong there. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY to these individuals listed for some incomprehensible reason. While high school drop outs may be a problem, these should be discussed under "Education in X" articles, not here by individual. Seems like WP:COATRACK. Being extended to non-high school dropouts. Definition allows lists to continue indefinitely to include anybody and anything. This article does not provide useful information and is, at best, an almanac. Student7 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been expanded upon substantially and thoroughly sourced since the first AfD resulted in a 'keep' closure. It is well beyond a dictionary definition, contains 49 sources, and has several external links that further discuss and expand upon the phenomenon. I'm not sure how this article is a WP:COATRACK for any other article? I understand that you have taken issue with this article in the past, however saying that it needs to be deleted as it "does not provide useful information" appears to be more a matter of opinion than grounded in any policy. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources are WP:COATRACK sources, meant to add yet another "notable" to a lengthy list, not to justify the article itself. Student7 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources are COATRACK"? I don't think you understand what that essay (and it is an essay by the way) states. In articles about specific subjects, cities, universities, it is common to list notable residents, alumni, or examples of the topic. I know that the page as it currently exists is not in the format in which you would like to see it, as evidenced by the talk page, however deleting it under the argument that it is a coatrack is not the way to affect the changes you desire. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term isn't much more than a dicdef at first glance, but it is more. The article is properly referenced and the list of notable drop outs adds credibility to the article as well. The term is more than a 'word', it is a topic of discussion, of contention, and a method of measuring the success or failure of schools or programs. Could use a little more content, but it would appear it belongs at Wikipedia for the reasons stated. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The definition is sloppy, allowing for the inclusion of any and all groups as the next commenter mentions. This is why Wikipedia should not be a dictionary. Student7 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if and only if content not relating to school dropouts is removed; otherwise it's a glorified dicdef, but it could be developed into an article on dropping out of school. It would need to cite background and analysis and so forth, though, and not be just a list of dropouts. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea of dropping out was part of a sociological movement as in turn on, tune in, drop out.--Penbat (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes. Cute. But not really the gist of the article. Student7 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isnt the core meaning but still an important dimension.--Penbat (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is real meat to the concept of "dropping out", distinguishing it from topics worthy only of dictionary entries. Skomorokh 21:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meat? Huh? There's nothing here but a vague definition and a list. Student7 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a dictionary definition. An encyclopedia article would be about leaving school early, (School leaving age for example), and those issue, or other similar things. This article, despite claims it's been improved above, is nothing more than a long dictionary definition with a list of people who left school early. Why do we have this obsession to duplicate topics under slightly different names? It creates more work, creates more opportunity for inaccuracy, and makes it harder for people to find relevant information. This is a great example of that effect in progress. If there's anything relevant here (maybe the list of drop-outs, but i question that separately) then merge it into a relevant article that talks about a subject, not a word. Shadowjams (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be addressing the current state of the article and not the viability of the topic at hand, and thus rather misses the point of the discussion. Skomorokh 00:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I addressed that point. We have articles that deal with that particular subject. Did you read my extended reasoning above? As much as you might wish otherwise, this is articles for deletion, not ideas for deletion, or article names for deletion, or even subjects for deletion. I'd like to improve the quality of this encyclopedia and in some cases, this is a great example of that, improving an encyclopedia doesn't mean upping its page count by one. If you'd like to go back and read my explanation I'd appreciate that; and if you have a response considering my explanation, then I appreciate that and I'll respond accordingly. But I don' really think your answer even remotely addresses the underlying issues here, and it betrays a certain ambivalence about a quality that I think is important. I'd hope you address that, instead of me. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unresearched time-wasting AfD with false policy citations. COATRACK does not apply here, NOTDIC does not apply here because it is a sociological phenomenon. It is a topic with enough academic studies [3] The article is expanded with enough source, and there is potential to add information from the academic studies. --Reference Desker (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Academic studies? Where are they? Vague definition and a list of whoever someone wants to throw in there. Next: Nixon, for "dropping out" of the Presidency? Student7 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize he provided a link to some of the studies, right? Under Google Scholar. And Nixon didn't drop out, he quit/resigned. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes there are tons of academic studies relating to dropping out which makes this a clear keep. --Penbat (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vagueness of the article overall does not make it clear that there is a difference between quiting/resigning and "dropping out." What is the difference BTW since people have started to place people leaving college and graduate school in there? Some of these people already had a viable job. Student7 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 or 3 citations to justify the traditional view of dropping out of high school - that it is not a good idea. There are 38 footnotes justifying the addtion of "notables" suggesting that dropping out might be a very good idea. That is what makes it "COATRACK." A place to insert notables, and not much real substance. One of the worst examples of "Lists" that I have seen in Wikipedia. Great almanac. Lousy for an encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing Alert: The nominator Student7 (talk · contribs) is now trying to canvass vote [4]. --Reference Desker (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And replying to every comment, he is getting close to bludgeoning the process. Bad form, however, I would be shocked to see the article deleted, given the broad rationales and support given it during this discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the first AFD, so I think it's unfair to criticize Student7 for informing me about this newer AFD. Vicarious (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid any appearance of canvassing, it would have been more appropriate for Student7 to inform all of the editors involved in the first AfD, not just the original nominator who would be more likely to argue for deletion. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - posh enough, well-enough cited. I do not know what policy this violates, and the comments have not clarified why it must be deleted. Vagueness or poor writing can be fixed by normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Rogowski[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. He hasn't played since 2008 and didn't have any stupendous accomplishments while playing. As a whole, he just isn't notable. Alex (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable--Yankees10 01:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only seems to have a minor league career, not showing much notability, hasn't accomplished anything very significant yet. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:43, 23 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Robnett[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. He is 27, currently playing the independent (unaffiliated) baseball and it is very unlikely he will reach the majors. He has not done anything particularly notable to merit an article himself. References are sparse. Alex (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable--Yankees10 01:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing I can say that would be an argument for notability is that he was for a time on Oakland's 40 man roster (possibly Chicago's also). We don't treat that as an automatic qualifier any more, and I don't think there's enough beyond that to establish notability in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (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. The sources are indeed important, because the more notable the parent concept (JD/MBA) is, the more of a case this list has. However, there are valid concerns about this list being indiscriminate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of JD/MBAs[edit]

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

This list is based on a meaningless intersection. There's nothing magical about having those particular two academic degrees, and it doesn't make any more sense to have this article than to have List of DDS/MFAs to cover the all-important dentist/scultor demographic. Since there is no encyclopedic value to this list, this nomination is essentially under WP:DIRECTORY. -- Y not? 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as each entry was cited (they aren't) or had an article on Wikipedia (still better cited), then I don't see a particular reason why the list shouldn't be here (and List of DDS/MFAs or other advanced degrees, for that matter.). The only problems I see is in editing, which is a topic for the article's talk page, not here. We have a List of humans, and this seems to be less indiscriminate than that. I would argue that there is encyclopedic value if I want to find JD's that have a similar educational experience as someone I am reading about, and the article does list by alma mater. Since only notable people (by definition) would be on the list, this is just another way to differentiate them, and just makes sense to me. Shouldn't even be that hard to police since most would have article on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable intersection, a fact which is further strengthened by the very large proportion of list members who are not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Roscelese says it well. It's a pretty common intersection too... It'd be a little bit like having a List of people who went to college... common doesn't = meaningful in this case. Shadowjams (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article serves no purpose and is of no value. as Y states, it is a meaningless intersection. What is it about the combination of a JD and MBA that deserves a page? There are many joint degree programs in this country and others, and the JD/MBA seems to be a popular one, but not notable in and of itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.207.126 (talk • contribs)
Keep the list, delete the non-notable entries. A JD/MBA is a significantly different kind of educational track that has had a significant effect on the legal and business worlds, especially in the United States. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have an article about this significantly different educational track: JD/MBA. To the extent that track is a social phenomenon worth describing, we already have it described. But this list does not add any value to the encyclopedia. We don't need a directory of maybe-notable people who have no connection to each other except by virtue of having the same set of degrees. -- Y not? 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Observation Not to be difficult, but if the degrees are notable enough that we have an article called JD/MBA, would that indicate that a list of people who have achieved this might be encyclopedic and noteworthy? The existence of that particular article would seem to bolster the argument to keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, no, the article is in fact quite marginal. The concept of a JD/MBA as a separate phenomenon (i.e., more than just the combination of its constituent degrees) is a marginal one as well, and that fits in well with there being just one proper reference in that article - the WSJ piece, which is actually about the combo degree, rather than the rest of the refs, which are basically pages that note the existence of a JD/MBA. What I'm saying is this: while the JD/MBA may be notable to warrant a standalone article, we certainly don't need two. Note that there was a category earlier as well, which was deleted. -- Y not? 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can see why it shouldn't be a category, which is much broader thing than a list, from my perspective. A list would be infinitely better for this anyway, as it would allow adding some context and other information instead of a raw listing, which this list does. It is simply grouping together pre-existing information in a way that makes it more usable, and as long as the criteria is narrowly defined (pretty hard to get more narrow than this), I fail to see the issue. As an aside, as an editing matter, what if the JD/MBA article had a section of 'notable people', wouldn't that be acceptable? And what if that list became too large? Wouldn't we end up with the article? Dennis Brown (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meaningless intersection. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supplemental comment to note that the JD/MBA has been the subject of substantial coverage. GScholar turns up a number of studies and articles, for example [5][6][7][8][9][10]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of which should be added as references to the JD/MBA article, the deletion of which has not been proposed. These cites are off-topic here. -- Y not? 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, several editors have opined that this is a "meaningless intersection". I respectfully disagree based on the existence of sources like these. What other objective basis exists to evaluate this contention?--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a commonly-offered joint degree, and has some interest in law. That said, I think the inclusion criteria are strange. Vault 100 instead of AMLAW? Cool Hand Luke 15:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current criteria are off; as mentioned above, I'd limit the list to persons with existing Wikipedia articles. Maybe it would be OK also to include a few persons who don't have an article just yet, but who are shown by cited source to be very clearly notable enough to deserve one, but I wouldn't carp if those names were excluded until their articles are written.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't seem to be a list that would be of much use and the criteria is rather arbitrary. Also, those listed are on Wikipedia not because of their JD/MBA. A comparable deletion discussion (to me, at least) can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts (rather arbitrary distinction, many redlinks), which ended up in deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2011 (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. Marasmusine (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dance Dance Revolution lists[edit]

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

Seems to attempt to an article that the navbox already takes care of. No notability what-so-ever. Obviously no potential for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bread Ninja (talk • contribs)

Delete Most of the "Music in x" links seem to not be full articles, so this list has little use, and just links to sections in the main game articles. Such a list makes no sense, and would only work if it was a Music in Dance Dance Revolution article with a list and prose. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a navlist, which means it doesn't need to be notable. That said, I see no reason why this can't be incorporated with List of Dance Dance Revolution video games as an extra column to point to the list of songs. It's basically a "Department of Redundancy Department" issue. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a navbox though.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean anything. There can be lists, navboxes, and categories all at the same time. The point is that the bulk of the articles this list points to have been merged. Thus, it should not list them. But then the list would only have a few items that don't need a whole list article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to read the implication a lil more. It's not only redundant, but not needed. there's a navbox taking care of it, and are dependent to it's own article. a list of supporting material of the individual main articles seems highly unnecessary. common sense, readers would look for the main article before looking in a navlist for supporting information.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem having duplication between tabular page content (in this case, the list of games with this list appropriate merged into it) and navigational aids. The Navbox, for ease of use, omits details covered by the game page so if someone knows they're looking for a specific DDR game but can't tell by name alone, the table (with bluelink to list of music) would allow them to find it better. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that still doesn't explain how necessary that would be. If the Navbox does the same but the reader who's looking for the specific list doesn't even know the name. Than the navlist will do nothing different than the navbox. There's also categories to help with this.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy is just not a problem unless it is a WP:CONTENTFORK of prose. This is not the place to be talking about this though. The fact is that this list of lists is not needed, and we all agree on that point. Right? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree....but i'm not so sure masem does as she wants a merge as it could help navigation, but doing that will still cause the same thing this list-article is doing.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

("He" not "she" btw). I'm pointing out that we have this article List of Dance Dance Revolution video games which, given the number of DDR games out there, seems completely acceptable as a list article. It's not a well-made list and begs for improvements, but its a list where all these individually music lists can be included as a new column for each game, such that there would only be one "list" of DDR games and their music in one place. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But those are the main articles. why list the main articles, then list supporting material in the same place?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because... it makes sense? Now, let me step back and say that given the state of many of the main article games, most of the individual list articles (not this one under discussion but any of the lists listed on this list) can prbably be merged into the game article. But right now, we should assume that the editors that work on DDR had good reason that for each game, there was a game article, and a list of songs list-type article. If you are providing a navigation page for all the DDR games, and you know each has this list associated with it, there is zero harm and infinite benefit for including the list article links on the same table row as the game it belongs to itself. This removes this list article. --MASEM (t) 06:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if they didn't have a good reason? not saying i'm assuming bad faith, but we shouldn't assume good reasons, along with good faith. You realize it does the same thing. A list of lists is practically WP:LISTCRUFT. We don't have to make the ultimate navigation list. If we provide DDR games, we don't have to provide the the list along side. You realize how that will look like? A list of video games, and a list of songs in the next section of those video games. its just too tedious and redundant. For one, that info is just supporting the main articles. Zero harm? one, too long, unnecessary, and the list of DDR video games isn't suppose to provide just navigation. i tihnk your missing the point to list of media articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So Masem, what exactly do you want to do? For the games that have separate song listings, we put a (Music) tab right after the name? That seems reasonable. Note that all of the links on this list of music do not have split articles, but only about 10. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why i said there is already a navbox. Plus i don't think we should merge it just for navigational purposes. we have categories and a navbox that helps with that. we don't need it listed on the list of video games. Though thinking of it now. they might not be notable to stay as a supportive article. So it's best just to delete it. Zero harm will be done if we delete thisBread Ninja (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are only 8 music articles as seen here. I don't think it would be worth it to add links on the "List of video games" page. Could we get a quick consensus to merge the "unreleased video games" list to the main game list? Then remove the music links from the template for the ones that don't have full articles. Then this page will be deleted, and we have greatly improved a somewhat sloppy series of articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have before, but at the time a certain editor was against it. I think this time things will run more smoothly though.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. The navbox and the categories take good care for easy navigation. One list less to maintain. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does seem to be redundant; should focus editing on the nav box and maintaining the cats. Cool Hand Luke 14:37, 29 April 2011 (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 Suicide mission. The Helpful One 00:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicidal courage[edit]

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

Not a real topic. Damiens.rf 18:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can find plenty of usage in Scholar, and elsewhere, so it certainly isn't WP:NEO. The only question I have, is it more than a dictionary definition? Dennis Brown (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Questionable even as a dicdef, because it can be used for kamikaze/suicide bombers (killing themselves on purpose), soldiers going in against long odds, etc. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The use of this phrase in the scholar articles clearly show that "suicidal" is an adjective to the word "courage," not an established concept of the existence of the phrase. One can find similar entries for "incredible courage" or "amazing courage," so I see no evidence that there is actually a concept of "suicidal courage" any more than any other commonly applied adjective. Wickedjacob (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Reference Desker (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suicide mission which is the same topic. This is the essential point of WP:DICDEF - that we should cover topics which are known by different words together rather than separately. The DICDEF policy does not provide any support for the idea that we should delete short articles and goes to some length to explain the opposite. Editors should please read policies to understand their meaning. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopaedic. A valid phrase but not one worthy of an encyclopaedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to suicide mission as the term "suicidal courage" clearly refers to the same topic as suicide mission. Anybody searching suicidal courage will get an article describing the concept that they were searching for. That's a darned good reason for a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to suicide mission: the meanings are essentially the same. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:08, 27 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-hipster[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to establish notability of this neologism. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here that can't easily be covered in hipster. I also like the completely unexplained photo. Shadowjams (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hipster (contemporary subculture). The nom should have opened a merger discussion, not AfD. --Reference Desker (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator should have... the nom's just the messenger. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - yet another AFD for something that could have just been redirected with a note on the talk page. Bob talk 08:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable neologism verging on a hoax, in my opinion. And who is the dude in the picture? Carrite (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2011 (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. Early closure. Marasmusine (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong 64 3DS[edit]

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

As per WP:BALL and WP:HAMMER... little more than a rumour. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No confirmation I could find that the game's even in development, much less that it has a release date. More WP:BALLsy than Ghostbusters 3. No prejudice against recreation if and when the game's actually made. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. here is a source from UGO about them wanting DK64 for 3DS, but I haven't found anything stating there is anything in the works. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Complete lack of verifiability. –MuZemike 19:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Obvious hoax. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per everyone above. No reason at all to think this game exists right now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 21 April 2011 (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book Backwards[edit]

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

Non-notable website/magazine. Site was created very recently, too young to have become notable. Despite much effort, no reliable sources establishing notability have been found. Does not meet WP:WEB, WP:NJournals, or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-notable web content. Outranked in the questionable top 50 neuroscience blogs by several other non-notable blogs (e.g. wordpress, blogspot hosting) Jebus989^✰ 17:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Found this website and thought interesting and worth inclusion. My first wikipedia article though - but thought more notable than other other Literary Magazines, due to this interview with neuroscience editor of this website. Also found this discover article mentioning the neuroscience behind this creative site - both of these links are erased immediately when I include them. Was hoping include these as references and thought it made the site substantially more notable than others, and recent inclusion in list of neuroscience blogs might also contribute to notability. I respect wikipedia and the guidelines if deletion is consensus, but believe it should be kept according to those guidelines - Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)— Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I removed those links, for the simple reason that this site is not even mentioned in them, so they are absolutely irrelevant for this article. At best, they might show some notability for some of the people behind the site, but that does not make the site notable. I have linked to the applicable notability guidelines in the nomination above, please have a look at them to see what is needed to show notability. --Crusio (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) Please read the general notability guidelines. None of those links give any claim of notability to the site. Neuroscience, as a field, is of course article worthy (as are glial cells) and the interview possibly goes some way to giving Andrew Koob a claim for notability (though he does not yet have an article). None of them, however, give any reason that this website is, in any way, notable. If a notable person starts a website, it is not inherently notable. If a website writes or publishes about a notable field it, too, does not inherently become notable. You need reliable secondary sources which report on the website itself to warrant an article in this encyclopaedia. Established editor's have tried to inform you this, and have spent time looking for such sources but have not been able to find them. There was a reason, explained to you, that those links were removed; they're not relevant to establishing notability of the website Jebus989^✰ 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks - according to the guidelines, it seems those references are not establishing notability, but I see nothing in the guidelines against including them in an article about a website created by these people, and wonder why they needed to be removed, for my future understanding as I get more involved with wikipedia. I hope the article will be kept simply due to better notability when compared to articles about similar content and websites, but as a novice I am definitely just learning how to contribute to wikipedia - Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)— Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Recentism plus commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Website is definitely recent, but article not commercial spam. Deletion looks inevitable - sounds like I'll need to think of a different article for wikipedia perpetuity - Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)— Detectivefirstgradesamspade1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Notability has not been shown and so far there is an inherent lack of WP:V. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2011 (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. I'm aware that there was some WP:Canvassing going on during this discussion, but even discounting some canvassed 'keep' rationales, I cannot find that there was a strong consensus one way or the other Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Latin American[edit]

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

This article creates an ehtnic group out of a synthesis of statistical artefacts, and should be deleted per WP:OR WP:SYNTH, WP:NEOLOGISM and merged/redirected to Demographics of Latin America or Race and Ethnicity in Latin America. The precedent was set in the deletion discussion of White Argentine where it was shown that there is no such group except as a statistical artefact of census data. The same holds for this group, indeed for some countries it is not even that - for example Mexico has not included race in its censuses since 1921 - that means that there osn't even reliabel statistical information about any group called "white" for that country and indeed the literature on race (e.g. Nutini and Isaac 2009) stress that racial categories are completely fluent and situational, and mostly correlates with class and certain folk definitions that are not consistently applied.

There is no body of literature that considers "white people" in Latin America to form a coherent whol about which it is possible to make general statements. Rather the literature on race in Latin America always states that there is wide variability about what being "white" means in different latin american countries. The only source that supports this usage is A source by a minor Mexcian sociologists Francsico Lizcano who openly admits that his usage of "etnia" for racial groupins is non-standard - and then of course the CIA worldfact book which just analyses demographics in all countries according to American racial categories, but has no scientific credibility. The fact that the term has been "occasionally used" does not mean that this justifies an article about the subject, especially not in the face of an ample literature that testifies to the non-existence of the concept as a valid group.

The article also has the OR, POV problem that it uses a very narrow folk definition of "white" which stresses genetics, descent and phenotype - ignoring the vast literaturew showing that in most of Latin America the main correlate of being White is social status and that classification into the "white" depends more on economic than on biological heritage.

It also incidentally violates WP:EGRS through its picture cavalcade by attributing people to the category "White" based solely on their appearance or others evaluation of it.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC) ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- -- Favonian (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article covers a significant proportion of Latin America's population. Here some reasons:

1) Afro Latin Americans and Amerindian Americans already have their own articles, so it is fair that Euro-descendants have it too.

2) There are several countries in the region that conduct ethnic/racial censuses or surveys with categories that allow people to identify themselves as White/Branco/Blanco. The existance of official figures on this matter already justify an article about it. The countries with racial censuses/studies are:

3) In the cases of countries which do not conduct racial/ethnic censuses, there are international sources that provide fair estimates. The CIA Factbook and Encyclopaedia Britannica are well reputed sources, among others. In the case of Argentina, for example, I have at least five sources that confirm that at least 80% of its population is European/White: World Statesmen.org: Argentina Argentina: People: Ethnic Groups. Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI by Francisco Lizcano Fernández. page 218, UAEM (2005). Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook. by David Levinson. Page 313. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. ISBN 1573560197 World Fact File. Dorling Kindersley Books Limited, London.

4) Lizcano Fernández's work Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI is always misvalued. Whether you like it or not, the man is an eminence in its field, and his work was published by a well-reputed university. You are intitled to dislike his work or conclussions, but that does not diminish the value of the study.

5) There are other studies that deal on how many Latin Americans self-identify as "Whites". For example this survey named ECoSocial done in 2007. I provide links for both versions in Spanish and Portuguese: Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación. (Spanish) and EcoSocial 2007 (Portugués)

6) Recently I found this article: Whiteness in Latin America: Measurement and Meaning in National Censuses (1850-1950) written by Mara Loveman. Journal de la Société des Américanistes. Vol. 95-2, 2009. I planned to add her conclusions to the article, but I was bussy and had no time to do it. I think that further studies on the matter of Whiteness in Latin America exist: they have to be found and add to the article.

7) If what bothers detractors of this article is the template of "ethnic group", I may agree in its removal and replacement by another template that suits the content of the article. I also may agree in a name change to "Latin Americans of European descent".

The way I see it, there are plenty of sources to back up the existance of White people in Latin America, and to assess very fairly its demographic importance. This article surely needs improvement, but by no means it should be deleted.--Pablozeta (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that there ar enot people who identify as white in Latin America - what is debated is whether they can be meaningfully treated as a single group. None of your sources show this to be the case.Your statements that some individual countries have white groups in their censuses or in the national demographic classification cannot be used to justofy the larger concept. Whether or not "African Latin Americans" and "American indians" have pages is firstly irrelevant for the merits of this article, secondly wikipedia has no such concept as "fair" - but operates only on what can be showe in sources. "Fair estimates" from the Factbook may be enough to provide circumstantial mention within an article - it is by no means enough to show notability of a subject and the factbook do in anycase never treats latin american whites as a single group but only as demographic segments within single latin american countries. The Lizcano source is fringe and uses the concept in a non-standard way - and even admits to do so - he is by no means eminent in his field and the Universtiy of Toluca where he works is a minor state university within Mexico and has no international credentials to speak of. Your source number six is the closest thing to a passable source that you have produced, but it treats the ways in whiuch Whiteness is different among Latin American nations and does not at all pretend to establish the unity of "white latin americans" as a single group. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Maunus notes, this is OR/SYNTH and violates WP:BLP policy. Frankly, Wikipedia would be well rid of racist nonsense like this in any case - it is pushing a POV based on nothing but discredited 'science' and on a systematic misinterpretation of ethnicity - it is an insult to the people of Latin America that their identity should be presented in such a way by a group of contributors clearly intent on ignoring the complexities of Latin America, and instead painting a picture of racial distinctness and superiority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From their statements it is clear that Maunus and AndyTheGrump see this as as poll on whether there exists a race of White Latin Americans. Consistent with their long-term POVs against race as a biological concept they therefore wish to delete this article. That is irrelevant since it is clear that the concept exists as an important social phenomenon in many Latin American nations. Similarly, Maunus spent a great deal of effort in trying to convince others to get Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White American (2nd nomination) deleted. Which is even more absurd, that many people identify as white American is beyond doubt and the concept is obviously important. This is similar.Miradre (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fcat that there exist groups that identify as white in individual latin american countries does not mean that the larger grouping is justified. Note that policy based arguments surely will be than ad hominem arguments. On that note maybe I should note that Miradre is a Single Purpose Account dedicated to pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint across a wide range of articles. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will briefly allow you to retract your personal attack before reporting you. I personally believe that races are exists and are important unlike yourself. I am not a "White Nationalist". How do you even know that I am white? Miradre (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not called you a white nationalist, nor have made any speculations about your race. You could be Samuel L. Jackson or Jon Stewart, but that would not change the fact that every edit you have made in your brief career here has been made in the context of pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint. Whether you agree with that viewpoint on a personal level I could not care less about, and I have not made any statement to that effect. If do not feel that my description of your editing pattern is unfair in the least, nor do I mean that statement as a personal attack, but as a rebuttal to your characterization of my views made above, meant to put your offered opinion of me in its proper context. If you decide to report me I urge you to remember that you have in fact previously made a statement[11] to the effect that the Miradre account is an sockpuppet account that you use specifically to make controversial edits that you do not want to be associated with your main account - I would consider that in itself an admittance of SPA and advocacy status - the pov that you are pushing is obvious to anyone familiar with your edit. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not stated that I am a SPA so that is another incivility. I am not a "White Nationalist". Regarding for example immigration, I prefer systems such as in Australia and Canada, where those with education and skills that are needed are selected, regardless of skin color. Now that I have clarified I ask you to take back your personal attack.Miradre (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attack to retract. I have made no comments or speculations about your beliefs or personality - I have made a characterization of your edit pattern that I believe to be completely accurate. regardless of your viewpoints each single edit of yours that I have seen you make has accomplished one of x functions: 1. Present arguments supporting hypotheses ascribing inferior innate abilities in persons that would in the US be classified as black. This includes supporting a particular hypothesis regarding the nature of intelligence and a particular hypothesis regarding the biological classification of humans and supporting a particular hypothesis regarding that explains social phenomena such as crime and migration in terms of those particular views of intelligence and race. 2. edits that either provide minimal context of opposing views or directly misrepresent them. These hypothesese regarding intelligence and race that you have provided supprting evidence in favour of - and specifically the combinatoin of these two hypotheses to explain social phenomena are only commonly advocated by groups that I can only try to describe somewhat neutrally by calling them "White nationalist". You may have made certain article space edits outside of the mentioned areas, but this, but I will generously estimate that they make up less than 5% of your total article space edits. That is all.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself stated quite clearly that your intention for creating a new account was to conceal your identity while you edited these controversial topics: "Yes, I have edited under another username before. But I did not change the name because I was banned. Obviously when editing such a highly controversial topic I want to remain anonymous.". aprock (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also stated that I edit a broad range of article which excludes SPA.Miradre (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have stated that, but your edit history states otherwise: [12]. aprock (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is. Yes, I think races exist and are important. But not for individuals, there is to much overlap, I judge them on personal merit. Race is only important as a group phenomenon. Maybe we should get back to discussing the AfD? The personal attack was Maunus's and can be solved if he retracts it.Miradre (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that you must find my descriptions your edits uncomfortable, I am sorry for this and making you feel uncorfortable is not my intention or purpose here - only as I say to put your comments into what I believe to be the correct context. I will however mention that you could have avoided this digression from "discussing the AfD" had you not opened your participation in this AfD with an logical fallacy ad hominem[13] that I had no possibility of letting stand without proper contextualization. (Also let me note that you do in fact make a characterization of "my pov" (which I can only take to mean my personal political stance - whereas I only make statements that characterize your edithistory and which can be verified or falsified by anyone who bothers to look))·Maunus·ƛ· 20:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think he (or I) have breached civility, by all means take it up at WP:WQA. aprock (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated I hope he will solve this by retracting his attack after I have now explained my position. I again suggest we get back to AfD while waiting for this.Miradre (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the AfD, if you yourself admit that "there exist groups that identify as white in individual latin american countries", then it is appropriate to have an article to discuss this phenomenon.Miradre (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No that means that those particular national groups may have sufficient third hand coverage to have their own articles. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the careful reasoning offered by Maunus. Mathsci (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I felt almost lonely with only Maunus here and not you.Miradre (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the point of this comment? There are several editors who have some expertise in anthropology in Central and South America. Maunus is one of them. There are others and wikipedia is lucky to have them as editors. Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Maunus does not apply to any applicable grouping Kotorian1 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has made 14 edits to Wikipedia including the above.Miradre (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - A search on Google books reveals more than enough coverage: [14]. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible that we should have an article on Betty White's Latin American Dance School, I don't think this is it though.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's amusing but I must say also more than a little disingenuous. Of the 258 results by no means all are on point - and I never said that they were - but more than enough are to prove the existence of 'White Latin American' as a commonly used concept, and one worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. There is also undoubtedly vastly more coverage in Spanish and Portuguese language sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally no coverage there. All you have are "word matches" -- that's not the same thing as "undoubtedly vast coverage." Bulldog123 21:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as synthesis of published material that advances a position (the position is a specific definition of "white people"). "White Latin American" does not appear to be a coherent self-identifying people. Quigley (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -(sarcasm on)- Ah, this recurring topic is up again. Obviously some users here don’t think that we should have an article on White people in Latin America, because its not like they are White Americans, White Australians, or White Hispanic and Latino Americans who are at least good at Acting white. I mean if we let every Angry white male with White guilt who thinks because he fits the Stereotypes of white people and considers himself a White Brazilian that he can get himself some White privilege like the Whites in Africa, then the whole notion of race on Wikipedia will suffer and could lead to White flight. Moreover, this is obviously not a topic for your run of the mill White trash with White pride, but should be left to Whiteness studies departments, perhaps in places where White nationalists know what it is like to be singled out for being white, such as the White people in Zimbabwe or White people in Kenya. If that doesn’t work, we can always ask a White South African without Missing white woman syndrome. -(sarcasm off)- Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an argument in there?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, yes there is. At the expense of clashing with WP:OTHERCRAP, it seems that "white"(ness) is only a "delete(able)" issue when applied to Latin Americans. Many of these "white categories" are not scientific, or even academic – but they are part of the popular parlance and represent notable phenomena’s with the always tricky, disputed, and controversial issue of "race". You are obviously an intelligent person, but I think you may be letting your anthropological "hat" (with its own embedded esoteric vernacular and definitional parameters) in conjunction with your closeness to this topic as it relates to Latin America - cloud your judgment on this issue. You are right to demand that we address and accurately reflect the many nuances of people who self-identify or get labeled "white Latin Americans", but I don’t believe that deleting the article altogether is helpful in furthering the understanding of our readers. Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. White happens to be an official category in some Latin American country censuses. White is how tens of millions of Latin Americans self-identify. SamEV (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning at White American when it was up for deletion, if it is an official census category we need an official entry in Wikipedia to explain it. It is not synthesis to use "White Latin American" as the article name for what has a half dozen synonyms, we have to choose one for the article title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an official census category - there is no Latin American census. Several countries in Latin America do not have race in their censuses at all. Mexico for example has not had that category since 1921. White American is not the real parallel - the real parallel would be if there was a "White North American" page. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you already know from your previous campaign to purge Wikipedia of articles on national diasporas, we use descriptive titles for articles. Not a single reliable source uses the term "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests", yet it is one of the top viewed articles in Wikipedia, that is the nature of a descriptive title. You used the same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish diaspora where you wanted to preserve the meaning of diaspora for a select set. Now it seems the term "white" is a target for your purges. Why don't you try and discuss things before deletion and try and change Wikipedia rules globally instead of going to deletion first. If you can't delete one why not start a global discussion instead of just nominating a second one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White American (2nd nomination). That way everyone can respond globally to the issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever voted "delete"? Perhaps rather than accusing other of conducting "purges" maybe you should reconsider your automatic inclusionist stand and start working to improve wikipedia instead of just keeping articles regardless of their merits. Given my previous negative experiences with interaction with you I shall refrain from further engagement with you here. I would appreciate if you will do the same and refrain from further arguments ad hominem.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Every article that is up for deletion that I do not cast a "keep" !vote for is a tacit !vote for the deletion consensus. If there are 50 articles up for deletion each day and I read each article and each AFD nomination and !vote "keep" for one or two, that means I have left a tacit vote of delete for the 48 others. How many articles do you think I !voted "keep" and ended up being deleted? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. 'White Latin American' isn't a 'national diaspora'. In fact, it doesn't seem to be anything except an arbitrary intersection of a vague and contested term ('white') with another social construct ('Latin American'). Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about topics discussed as a topic in external sources, not topics cobbled together by POV-pushing contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Official census category. Agree with others on this. Dream Focus 06:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHere? In the Latin American Census? I wasn't aware there were any such census.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'White' is also an official category on the UK census... do we need an article to explain that? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 06:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be White British. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would seem to be... Carry on... nothing to see here! Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the 2011 UK census distinguishes between 'national identity' and 'ethnic group', though it asks for both to be self-described. Within the 'White' ethnicities, the choices are: 'English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British', 'Irish', 'Gypsy or Irish Traveller' and 'Any other White background, write in'. Even within England (the other UK censuses may differ regarding questions), a considerable complexity is allowed for - though it could probably go further. As this indicates, ethnicity within a single country can be a complex issue, even for census compilers, who have to reduce complexity to manageable terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems quite notable, e.g. The idea of Latin America. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale is not notability.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is incoherent in that it proposes both deletion and merger - please see WP:MAD. The objections seem to be correctable by means of ordinary editing per our editing policy and the availability of sources seems adequate for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing incoherent about that. The material about individual countries can well be merged to their respective articles. That has nothing to do with the fact that the wider topic is a neologism reached through OR and SYNTH.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms are new words. There is no new word here as the title uses ordinary English in an ordinary way. The article is just taking the topic of White people and looking at it for the geographical/cultural segment of Latin America. This intersection seems quite reasonable and is covered by third-party sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, neologisms are new concepts, which often use combinations of existing words into new phrases. Read WP:NEOLOGISM if you want to know what wikipedia's policy is regarding what counts as a neologism when creating a title for an article.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I can't tell whether it's canvassing or if there is a connection between all of these users, but Pablozeta seems to have contacted quite a few editors about this AfD (in a neutrally worded way, though).--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except they are all editors who voted "Keep" in the recent "White Argentine AFD" - where Pablozeta was also admonished for canvassing.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, then this should absolutely be taken to ANI and this editor should certainly face administrative action.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the list of editors was of people that had contributed to the article, with the notable exception of an editor that had removed links to similar articles. The closing admin should take note of User talk:Pablozeta#Canvassing block.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his contributions, the most recent one he canvassed (and therefore maybe others, although I don't have time to check right now) did not contribute to the article but were just previous !keep voters.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you mean "keep !voters"

Favonian (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most admins that deal with AFDs would consider the motivation of notifying ((everyone that had edited the article) minus (everyone that had removed links to articles beginning with "White") plus Colonel Warden) pretty shaky. If I were going to choose one editor that would be most likely to result in a "keep" !vote, Colonel Warden would be a strong candidate for the role.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other AFD that I've opined on lately is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between conservative and liberal brain and the nomination in that case has similar grounds of improper synthesis. In that case I agree and !voted to delete. I have no particular axe to grind in these cases and just call them as I see them. User:Kww should please refrain from making personal attacks, per the warning given to him previously at ANI and the group notice for this discussion which states "that commenting on people rather than the article is considered disruptive." Colonel Warden (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack made. I generally caution people against inviting me to AFDs, for the reason that it will inevitably appear as an effort to get an article deleted. I also evaluate articles individually, but that doesn't change the fact that I weigh in as "delete" or "redirect" in greater than 90% of cases. You were an exception case in the notification list, and that means the motivation for the exception needed to be examined.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: Notable [15] Also create Black Latin American. --Reference Desker (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of those sources are American medical studies that use Latin American classified as "white" by the American racial system as a control group. They go nowhere to show that this group exists. It would really be nice if people were more careful when they present random google results as evidence.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Latin American already exists.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only substantive argument seems to be based on census data and census data is largely self-reported. It has little, if any, encyclopedic merit. If the "Keep" contingent would like to replace "White" whatever with , say, Welsh-Latin American or Russian-Latin American, that might have an organizing principle worthy of an encyclopedia. Mixing nationality with skin colour, which is a construct largely dismissed in human scientific sorting, seems without merit. Bielle (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your confusing an encyclopedia with a science textbook. A science textbook would not have articles on God or Alien abductions. That is the difference between the concepts of WP:truth vs WP:verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't whether the combination of racial and national constructs seems to you, or to anyone else, to be without merit, the issue is whether this topic has sufficient coverage to be notable. And that is indisputable.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in you identifying the policy or guideline that states that coverage in reliable sources mandates inclusion as a stand-alone topic, and that editorial judgment plays no role in the selection of topics to cover.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy doesn't mandate creation of any article, of course, but this article already exists and the question is whether it should be deleted.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article imposes a USA notion of racial categories which is not used by the people of Latin America. It is synthesis and distortion. Any useful information should be moved to some form of article which covers the range of racial categorizations used in those countries. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These references [16][17][18] prove existence of a separate white Latin American culture. --Reference Desker (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this indentation meant to imply this is a riposte to my delete vote? I looked at the references. They look like minor uses of the phrase "white latin american". Are you seriously claiming that these people have a separate culture? I thought everyone was in agreement that there is a common culture with social divisions mixed up with racial divisions. I'm very surprised that you think these snippets "prove" anything. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. [19] "hegemonic white Latin-American culture". If this is not evidence of a race-based culture, then what evidence do you want? 2. [20] This also says existence of race-based consciousness, though less prevalent compared to the US (in past). --Reference Desker (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random, contextless, snippets are not very strong evidence of anything. If you really believe that there is a white Latin-American culture separate from the rest of Latin-American culture you would need to find an academic paper claiming that. I am confused as to what you are trying to say. I am saying that race or skin-color is not totally irrelevant in Latin America, but that it far less important than in the USA. Our articles in Wikipedia should be careful not to impose US prejudices and categorizations on other regions of the world. This article, from its title downward does so impose. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maunus laid it down pretty clearly The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In accord with the majority of the above reactions to the nom, which are also keeps. Especially compelling to my mind are the references to White Latin Americans set forth above, including those by Pablo, and the rejection of much the same argument in a number of prior AFDs, as is also indicated by some commentators above.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks to me like the sources provided by Reference Desker and Colonel Warden are enough to satisfy the notability of the topic. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, this article is largely WP:SYNTH of self-identification surveys that do not demonstrate a cohesive cultural identity, a problem further exacerbated by the fact that what is considered to be "white" varies by country and culture, and that recent genetic surveys have found only a highly equivocal and inconsistent basis for such self-identification. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Combinatinations of statistics not gathered under the same criteria do not make for a strong article as a minimum. Prior discussions have reached a general consensus that such categorization articles do not benefit the reader, which, after all, is the sine qua non of any article. Had the discussions reached the opposite consensus, I would have supported that consensus. My !vote here is based entirely on the fact that a consensus appeared to have been reached in the past, and having islands of contradiction do not make sense. Collect (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin - User:Pablozeta a major contributor to this article has been blocked indefinately for canvassing in regards to a keep position during this AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominators rationale says it all. WP:OR WP:SYNTH, WP:NEOLOGISM and merged/redirected to Demographics of Latin America or Race and Ethnicity in Latin America. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article tries to objectify an ambiguous concept. There is no serious source that says "white population of Latin America" is an ethnic group, this article becomes a primary source. Mix, without rigor, biological, anthropological, sociological concepts and demographics. Manipulating the few valid information available. If some one can read spanish, look at this Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Población blanca en América Latina (2ª consulta) --Jcestepario (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Maunus and AndyTheGrump. Hopefully, in a due time, we reconsider this monstrosity too. Bulldog123 21:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maunus' arguments are completely borne out in the reference book Ethnic groups worldwide by David Levinson (a reference already used for Ethnic groups in Europe). There is a general discussion of Blancos which is repeated in separate articles. Here for example is an excerpt from the entry for Ecuador.[21] "Blanco or White is more a social-class designation than an ethnic one, as identification as a Blanco is based on a combination of white skin color, European features, speaking Spanish, residence in the western part of the nation (especially in a city), and enough wealth or education to be classified as middle or upper class. However, in some rural regions, Mestizos refer to themselves as Blancos, to distinguish themselves from Native Americans and Quechua speakers. Blancos form the ruling elite in Ecuador, and categorization as a Blanco is considered desirable by people of full or partial European descent." Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So — what of it? It doesn't matter to us whether it is an ethnic classification, a social one or some sui generis hybrid. All that matters is that the concept and topic is reasonably well-supported by third-party sources and so it seems. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The information shown in this article, even when needs to be probably reorganized and improved, is valuable and is not possible to find anywhere in Wikipedia, and it would be a pitty to lose it. After reading the argumentations provided by supporters and detractors, I consider the ones provided by supporters are more valid. Furthermore, even when it is disputable if White Latin Americans are properly categorized in the censuses of each Latin American country (in many cases are wrongly not taken into account), they indeed represent an evidently existing ethnicity. So I strongly vote for keeping this article. --Rusoargentino (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep article is well-referenced and the subject is meritory. The rationale provided by the promoter of the deletion, Maunus, is merely another POV, a personal opinion of what "white" should be. If there is enough references, then subject is meritory of an article, as in this case. The bias, POV of promoter is evident when he calls author Lizcano a "minor author" just because he does not share his POV about ethnography. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you choose to employ an ad hominem argument leaves me no choice but to go back on my selfimposed interaction ban against you. It may be an opinion, but my opinion happens to be based based on actual knowledge of the sociological and anthropological literature relating to race and ethnicity in Latin America whereas yours is based on a petty nationalist agenda. Lizcano is a minor researcher at one of Mexico's minor universities, he is never cited in the international literature about the subject and he admits quite frankly that he is not using the common definitions of the word ethnicity and that most researchers disagree that there is any bases for making the claims about transnational racial groupings that he makes. This is probably bcause he is trained as a historian and he works in demography. No work he has ever done has been characterizable as "ethnography", I don't think that word means what you think it means.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an ad hominem attack, and everybody can read it. Your personal definition about what race, ethnicity and especially what "white" should mean is just that, an opinion, even if it is based in books. Other authors differ with your prefered view. So my argument is that we must not delete the article based in a single POV given the fact that there is not the only one and not the prevailing view. That would be cherry picking POV. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - from the very first line of Race and ethnicity in Latin America: 'There is no single system of races or ethnicities that covers all of Latin America, and usage of labels may vary substantially.' This article seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH, trying to artificially impose a North American conception of race across a vast and diverse region where it is arguably not wholly meaningful. Not all Latin American countries categorise some of their people as 'white', and in those that do it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it does in the US: as such this article does not have a clearly defined subject. For those that think it does, I have to ask, where does the identification of 'white people' stop? Are there plans to create articles on White European, White Russian (not the drink), White Arab, White Jew, White Indian and White Chinese? If some or all of those ideas sound silly to you, have another think about this article and ask, is it really any different? Is there, in fact, an identifiable subject here? I think not. Robofish (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented by Pablozeta and the fact that "White" or "Blanco" is indeed a classification on many legal forms in Latin American countries. In the state of Oaxaca, Mexico, for example, "Blanco" on the drivers license application , along with other classifications as "Negro" and "Mestizo". Its also on the Mexican census form, and its often a qualifier in other official documents. When discussing heritage, "blanco" is also often used as a "blanket term" for people of USA/Canada/European ancestry.-- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 00:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INEGI has not collected or published data on race since 1921. I highly doubt that the state of Oaxaca does either.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can "doubt" what you want, but the infobox was there when I renewed my Oaxacan drivers license in January, and on the last census form. When was the last time you participated in a Mexican census or renewed an Oaxacan drivers license? You seem to be failing to Assume Good Faith, and as you are an administrator I find that troubling. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 02:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use Mexican census data quite regularly in my professional life and I know that INEGI does not publish data regarding race, it may be that they still include it in the census forms but as I say I doubt that. Especially since I have a reliable source saying that they don't. It would take more than your word to convince me otherwise - that is not a failure to assume good faith, but adherence to WP:V.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone for RS to support their position is WP:V, telling someone you "doubt" what they say is a failure of AGF. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 02:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is ridiculous - asking for you to provide a source is of course the same as expressing doubt. I doubt that you are correct. I strongly suspect that you are mistaken, that has nothing to do with good faith. I think you are the one who assumed that when I talked about doubt that I was implying that you were a liar. I don't expect people to lie, but I know from experience that they are frequently wrong none the less.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't know what "Blanco" "Negro" or "Mestizo" under a heading titled "Raza o nacionalidad" means when it appears on a drivers license application. So now you are implying that I don't know what I'm talking about? Maybe you should be more careful in your word choice and not automatically assume everyone you are talking to knows nothing about what they speak. Regardless of how you are classifying your response, your word choice/phrasing/approach can be interpreted as insulting to other editors and is not conducive to the discussion process. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 02:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is filled with material that violates , WP:NPOV,WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. The images used in the article are a prime example of the problems with the article. The subject of racial identification in Latin America, which would include categories such as white, black and Native American, does have merit. But this subject of identification as white isn't dealt with in this article. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Whether or not all Latin American coutrie use the term "white" or "Blanco" or "Branco" on their census forms today is irrelevant. Also, if some feel that this has the supposed "North American conception of race" that is somehow radicaly different to the ones in Latin American countires then im sure this could be dealt with. To say that there isnt the usage of the term "white" in many Latin American countires is wrong, even in Mexico where they only asked the raza/race once back in 1921, many Mexcans when asked to describe someone by their appearence...they use Racial terms, like black, white etc...Just because it isnt asked, does this mean that the terms arnt used at all.

Cuba has always asked peoples race by colour in thier Census, the last one back in 2002, 65% SELF-IDENTIFIED as white (see www.cubagob.cu). In the most recent 2010 Census in Puerto Rico, over 75% self-identified as white (they had all the other races to choose from!)2010.census.gov. Brazil, asks this in their census also. This has been used as a racial term since the mixing of people and European influence on the region. The Spaniards and Portuguese used it for hundreds of years. Even if many dont ask this in the census, Latin Americans centainly know what the terms mean and use it. In France or Spain for example, they dont ask the race question on their census like they do in Holland or the UK. That doesnt mean that ethnic french people dont see themselves as white europeans. Just because many dont like the subject of the article, isnt really a good enough reason to delete.Puertorico1 (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To end the disscussion, can this not be called Latin Americans of European descent or European Latin American, something along those lines. Sure, it leaves out many that are classified as white of Middle eastern origin but this would be a start.Puertorico1 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering this proposal for deletion and this deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Argentine, all these articles about "white latin americans" as ethnic group should be deleted:

White Mexicans or euphemistically Mexicans of European descent
White Colombian
Peruvian of European descent
Venezuelan of European descent
Argentines of European descent--GiovBag (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I honestly believe the article should not be deleted because it is well sourced. Also Reference Desker and Colonel Warden make an excellent point. I also do not think that this is an attempt to impose an American-based race view on Latin America. I do know and references prove that there is a category named "blanco" (portugues "branco") in Latin America so deleting this article is just wrong. Karnifro (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)— 50.22.201.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Given that this IP (they signed it with a username, but that name does not exist) which just started editing these contested articles, is very likely the recently blocked editor who canvassed this AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article even if it is well sourced but is simply a large amount of original resource. It is really just self identification. A person who is white in the Dominican Republic may be black in Venezuela or black in north america (a prime example is Vanessa Williams or Mariah Carey. individuals like Marcelo Ríos who is obviously not White but mestizo (a mix of european and native american) took it as an insult when asked if he was part native american. [22] . this is the problem with self identification. see pic of Marcelo Rios

24.239.153.58 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons given for deletion above, as with a number of the other deletion votes in this discussion, focus entirely on the merits of the 'White Latin American' concept. Whilst interesting, this is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I personally feel that the classification does have merit, but even if I felt that it had none I would still be strongly in favour of article retention because it addresses a topic which has more than sufficient third-party coverage to make it notable. 'I don't agree with it' is no more valid an argument than 'I don't like it'. If people feel that the concept is flawed or worthless then they should add those viewpoints - properly cited of course - to the article itself, rather than try to get the article deleted. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

don't think a dekation is what this artical desevres, , but maybe just change the page title as Latin Americans of European descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.197.116 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — 203.171.197.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Since we seem to have a lot of new editors !voting here: I don't think that closing admins typically weigh Strong Keep or Strong Delete more heavily than run of the mill Keep or Delete !votes. It's the strength of the argument that is important to them. (Not to say that there's really anything wrong with using the word Strong though) Qrsdogg (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename - Regards. First of all, I want to make clear that I am new here; I was looking for an article on the White population of Latin America, and when finding the article, I also learnt about this deletion consult. I created this account to participate in it, so I have no previous contributions -I see some contributors to this consult have been checked their antecedents. I've read this consult and the article's talk page thoroughly, and I consider that the article should be kept for the information it contains is quite notable, but it also should improved and modified signficantly.

First, it should be renamed "White population in Latin America" or any equivalent such as "Eurodescendants in Latin America", or "Latin Americans of European/Middle Eastern descent". Though the two latter titles would not be very accurate for they might include Mestizo people, they might be acceptable for those who dislike the word "White" in the title.
Second, the ethnic group infobox/template should be removed and replaced by other that suits the content. It seems to me that the very debate is that "White Latin Americans" is not a single ethnic group, so the ethnic group infobox should not be there.
Third, there are plenty of evidence of the presence of White people south to the Río Grande, so I think that the information this article displays is quite notable and it certainly reveals that certain stereotypes on the inhabitants of the region are wrong. I've met many people who did not know that there are many euro-descendants in the subcontinent; they thought that it was only populated by Mestizo, Mulatto and Amerindian peoples. Given that the main function of Wikipedia should be to inform and correct wrong stereotypes, I think this article is relevant to fulfill that purpose.
Fourth, Some users allege that this articles is a Synthesis of others. It is true that some of the information contained in this article also appears in the articles on Demographics or Ethnic composition of every separate country, but it is also true that Latin America is generally perceived as a "unity" (there is a separate article for it), so having all the available information on White people living in the subcontinent in one article is quite adeccuate, as there is an article on the Afro-descendants of the region, too.--Parmeggiani (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)— Parmeggiani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep White Latin American is listed on multiple censuses in the area, as has been shown above, and has been discussed in [numerous sources]. I don't understand why people keep trying to delete article on ethnic and national groups. The article uses the definitions given in the sources and isn't a synthesis of anything. Silver seren^C 22:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"White Latin American" is neither an ethnic nor a national group. If it is anything, it is a synthesis imposed largely by outsiders - though there is little evidence of a 'white' identity (as opposed to the complexities of ethnicity in general) being studied in Latin America by academics for example, which would seem to be the appropriate criteria (see WP:GNG). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting this interpretation of policy? A synthesis imposed by outsiders? Since it's not being studied by academics in Latin America, it's inappropriate? None of that has anything to do with notability on Wikipedia. If book writers and people studying Latin America are synthesizing such things, that doesn't matter, because we only reflect sources and we're not the ones making the synthesis. And it is only your interpretation that it is a synthesis. Furthermore, are you seriously saying that we can only use sources by Latin American academics? That is so far outside policy that it is utterly ridiculous. Silver seren^C 23:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I evindently could have written that more clearly. What I meant was that I saw little evidence of 'white' identity in Latin America being studied as a subject by academics. Where these academics are from is irrelevant. There have been studies of ethnicity, certainly, but these emphasise the complexities, rather than assuming that 'whiteness' is in any way a meaningful universal concept: instead it is part of a much more complex discourse, which also revolves around issues of class, and of national identity, in which ethnicity and descent is only a part of the picture. An article in Wikipedia that takes as read that a particular ethnic (or 'racial') grouping is real, and meaningful, in such a context can only be a synthesis - and a synthesis built on a distinctly dubious POV at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several studies on "Whiteness" that include Latin America in its scope: Whiteness in Latin America: Measurement and Meaning in National Censuses (1850-1950), Whiteness: an Introduction. Chapter 5, Whiteness in the Caribbean and Latin America, and Working through Whiteness. International Perspectives. Chapter 3.. I think these studies make the topic notable and so it is worth an article about it.--Parmeggiani (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC) — Parmeggiani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

-

An article on "Whiteness in Latin America" is a completely different issue, I have myself suggested creating such an article in stead of this one on the article's talkpage. The point is exactly that there are differences and commonalities regarding how being white is defined within Latin America that makes it possible to discuss the abstract concept and how it has been conceptualized in different parts of LAtin America - but that there is no basis for making an article about a group of people thus defined because that presumes both that there is a single criteria of whiteness that is valid throughout Latin America and that people so designated use this as a prime identifier among themselves and in their relations with people in other countries - these assumptions are squarely contradicted by the vast majority of literature about race and ethnicity in Latin America.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A quick look at the three sources provided by Parmeggiani suggests that each article makes the very point that I did: that 'whiteness' in a Latin American context is a complex issue, and that there is no universally-recognised 'white' group within that context. To quote from the last of the sources cited (Levine-Rasky, p. 73):

"Money whitens" If any phrase encapsulates the association of whiteness and the modern in Latin America, this is it. It is a cliché formulated and reformulated throughout the region, a truism dependant upon the social experience that wealth is associated with whiteness, and that in obtaining the former one may become aligned with the latter (and vice versa)".

'Whiteness' exists as a concept, rather than as an objective reality. A concept that has no real consistency even within a single Latin American country, never mind the whole region. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some policy against having articles on complex subjects? Can there only be articles about subjects on which there's unanimity, near-unanimity, or 'substantial unanimity' (whatever that is) among sources?

Andy, I urge you to review WP:V. Wikipedia articles are not limited to things that have 'objective reality'. SamEV (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC); 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be (actually, must be) about subjects recognised as such by outside reliable sources. None have been given. 'Whiteness' in Latin America is clearly a recognised subject, with excellent coverage by academics. And as these academics note, the suggestion that 'white Latin Americans' exist as a unified group is untenable. Therefore, an article based on the premiss that it does is a breach of [[WP:SYN], WP:POV and common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about this phantom, uniform group of White Latin Americans of your imagination. It's an overview article, with a section for each country. I.e. it summarizes the content of White Cuban, White Brazilian, etc. The choice of title is only logical; if not "White Latin American" (or "White Latin Americans") the title would have to be 'White Cubans, White Brazilians, White Puerto Ricans...' etc, with 20 or more white populations named in the title.

Scope. The article centers on demographic data from official censuses and scholarly sources such as Lizcano (who provides total figures for the region, btw), and estimates from more general sources such as the CIA Factbook (accepted by WP as a reliable source). There's also much immigration data, which provides some history by explaining how whites got to Latin America. It's meant to be a fact-centered article, not an exposition on the subject of whiteness, an abstraction, though there's room for some discussion of the abstraction (it's just that that's not its main purpose). If the article should say more about how whiteness may differ among and within countries, fine. Each country has a section, so that poses no difficulty.

So, if complexity is no obstacle to an article's existence, if lack of unaminity isn't either, and since the figures are clearly sourced, then the real objection to this article would seem to be that it isn't currently a perfect article. That doesn't demand an AfD. SamEV (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article lede makes the manifestly-false claim that 'white Latin Americans' are a "racial-ethnic group". That it then goes on to compile statistics (of varying credibility) from multiple sources to put numbers to this 'phantom group' only compounds the problem. And the suggestion that the CIA Factbook figures for ethnicity should be accepted as WP:RS is frankly absurd, as has been pointed out in an earlier AfD: [[23]] - they are nothing more than a mishmash of dubious and inconsistent 'statistics' with no indication of sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Keep. We have White Africans, which would seem to discredit Maunus's claim that using the term to describe a large ethnic group or ethnic groups is not acceptable. If the term White Latin American is distasteful to anyone, you could move it to People of European descent in Latin America... but I think White Latin American says the same thing in much fewer words. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any such claim. I am saying the sources doesn't support the existence of such a group. PErhaps it does for White African's but that is irrelevant since WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:35, 1 May 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Junkies[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this band. lacks charting, awards. releases not on "important label". coverage is limited to local interest pieces, nothing significant. nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be zero coverage outside of one local rag, silive.com, and its associated weekly "Advance Weekly Entertainment". Albums are self published, not actually on any notable indie label, so it looks like no criteria of WP:BAND has been met. May have to consider salting at one point, as the article was recreated after the first AfD's deletion result, but apparently no one was looking. :/ Tarc (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Padmanabhapuram Palace[edit]

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

Unreferenced, poor style and no indication of notability. Also written as if it may be a copyvio. The PROD-tag was removed because these are "not valid reasons" for deleting the article, suggesting that Shyamsunder (talk · contribs) has never read Wikipedia:Notability, which is a pity. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 11:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator would do well to read WP:Notability before suggesting that others might need to. The gbooks link above gives significant coverage. If there are concerns about copyvio, then identify the problem and fix it, mark it for G12 if it qualifies or take it up to the copyvio noticeboard. If there are concerns of style then clean it up or tag it. —SpacemanSpiff 11:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As should be obvious, I recommended Shyamsunder (talk · contribs) to read our notability policy since he clearly believes that being non-notable is not a "valid reason" to delete an article. Those were his words. ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 11:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As should be obvious, I recommend you to read our notability policy and understand when a topic is not notable, especially when the gbooks and gscholar links are spoon-fed with the nomination. —SpacemanSpiff 12:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're still not reading what I wrote. Being non-notable is a valid reason for deletion. Official. If Shyasmunder disagreed with my assessment that the article was non-notable, then he should have said so. He should not have said that non-notability was invalid grounds for deletion. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 12:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's look at the reasons given for the nomination, shall we. "Unreferenced": Not true. It does have references. And a simple Google search will produce many more. "No indication of notability": It's a palace; of course it's notable. Why on earth shouldn't it be? "Poor style": Not particularly, and in any case this is not a reason for deletion. It may just need rewriting. This is articles for deletion, not articles for cleanup. "Written as if it may be a copyvio": Not particularly. And even if it is, that doesn't mean it is a copyvio. And even if it is a copyvio it should just be reduced to a stub, not deleted (see notability above). May I endorse the suggestion that the nominator reads (or rereads) the notability and deletion policies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have visited the palace. it doesnt really look like what you would expect a palace to be. but, the place like any other palace is notable. --CarTick (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have visited the palace. This almost calls for a new addition to WP:ATA, maybe WP:IVEBEENTHERE or something? I've visited the Subway branch in Sisters, Oregon, so that's notable too I guess? ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the reason why voted "keep" was explained in my third sentence. you can ignore the first two sentences if you dont like them. --CarTick (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'm intrigued as to why you intentionally typed out two sentences which you knew to be irrelevant. Or, as I guess I should say, Penguins are exciting. I like tea. In that case, I'm intrigued as to why you intentionally typed out two sentences which you knew to be irrelevant. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ha ha ha. :) you are kidding. right? --CarTick (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The travel book "South India" published by Lonely Planet says that it is "the largest wooden palace complex in Asia" which, itself, makes the palace worthy of an article.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 05:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The palace has fairly obvious historical and cultural significance. Even given the vagaries of transliteration, a Google Scholar search shows that the palace has been the subject of serious academic works. The prose and references could be improved; show me an article this isn't true for. It seems reasonably neutral nevertheless and free from axegrinding or promotionalism. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of references both in the article and elsewhere. Clearly passes our notability requirements. Generally palaces do, because palaces tell us a lot about their builders and inhabitants. --NellieBly (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a historically significant place with lots and of academic coverage. As a prominent tourist destination (oh yes, i have been there and it is even more exciting than penguins and tea) it has received continuous news coverage.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-A Google search for Padmanabhapuram palace returns 152,000 hits. A Google Books search returns 1,490 hits. Besides, there are also articles in Tamil and Malayalam. Being an inclusionist, I feel that bad quality of prose is not reason enough for deletion. And unless copyvio is proved, the article cannot be tagged.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 04:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources proves its notability. A well-written and well-referenced article though there is some scope for improvement which is true for any other article on wikipedia.Shyamsunder (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2011 (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 following improvements to the article and per nominators request. Mjroots (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Somalia[edit]

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

I have checked google for info about tourist attractions, but no results other than this article, even under alternative spellings. Significantly, too, there is no mention of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers for Somalia here, contrary to the claim made in article. Almost certainly a hoax, albeit a clever one. LordVetinari (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources given; information in the article is deeply suspicious, e.g. the implausible, and implausibly precise, "tourism [is] 89.23% of the country's gross domestic product". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Article from The Economist exclusively about the subject. Book which looks like it probably contains decent coverage. Has the nominator checked out those potential sources yet? ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 13:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that someone wishing to create an article about tourism in Somalia may indeed find resource material. However, for how long will this article remain in its current form until those potential sources are studied, mined and utilised. Therefore, the question here is not whether the topic is worth keeping but whether the article is salvageable in its current form. I say it isn't on the following grounds:

Percentage of gross domestic product: Unless I'm extremely ignorant about the social and political climate in Somalia, I doubt the accuracy of the uncited figure. As for which Somali government is developing tourism, last I checked there were about three, none of which could claim to be the government for a clear majority of Somalis, let alone to have any control over the tourism industry throughout all or most of Somalia.
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP): I assume this is a mistaken reference as there is no mention of such a paper here.
Tourist attractions: There's a curious emphasis here on subjects that would be likely to spring to mind if all that is known about Somalia relates to piracy, warfare and weapons.
Districts: The districts referred to in the article are not mentioned in any of the Somali region articles, all of which list their constituent districts. Incidentally, I have a passing familiarity with the customary transliteration of Somali and I wouldn't be surprised if several of the presumably-Somali words in the article are indeed Somali. However, I suspect "Haaah-Khaaah-Raaah" is just as Somali as "wao yu sum dum gai" is Chinese.

In other words, pending reliable sources, I stand by my nomination of this article (in its current form) as being worthy of deletion. Incidentally, I should point out that this nomination is not to accuse the article creator of vandalistic intent. I credit him/her with more intelligence than that. LordVetinari (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand WP:DEADLINE and WP:BEFORE, which is unfortunate. If the topic is notable, the article should not be deleted but improved, for which there is no deadline and no obligation on you to do so if the topic doesn't interest you. If you don't like the current article, and aren't prepared to clean it up but know that it can be cleaned up, don't nominate it for deletion. ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 16:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Speedy perhaps First of all, "how long will it..." is meaningless, the article is only one day old, if the topic is notable, it is unreasonable to expect it to be fully sourced in less than 24 hours. Second, not all of Somalia is in shambles, just most of it, so the idea of tourism being the leading source of income in a country half torn apart from civil war and without any heavy industries is plausible. This economist article would be sufficient to demonstrate notability. I had already tagged the article for refs, which should have been sufficient. It doesn't belong at AFD at all and not sure why it is here. The primary complaints are about content, which is an issue for the talk page, not AFD. Subject matter is obviously notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the topic and it certainly isn't a question of notability. This is about content that is almost certainly fake to the point of being a hoax. I agree the topic is notable. That's blatantly obvious. But a topic and an article about a topic are two different things. I've already described my reasons for suspecting a hoax so I won't repeat them. I would have thought, though, that the fact that most of Somalia is in shambles (as you stated above) would make tourism less plausible (as supported by the first paragraph in your source). If anything, I suspect the black market would account for far more of Somali GDP than tourism. As for the AFD nomination, I did so on the recommendation of the person who declined the original speedy delete.
To summarise, my argument is that a hoax article is still a hoax article regardless of the page title and, thus, should be removed. What those who want to keep this article appear to be saying, though, is that a hoax article should be kept simply because the title may also happen to cover a notable topic. LordVetinari (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the UK and US governments (and others) currently advise against any travel to Somalia, so the 89.23% figure is utterly implausible and makes the rest of the article suspect. I agree with LordVetinari that, while there may well be an article to be written on the subject of Tourism in Somali, this isn't it and it should be deleted. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:DEADLINE, then come back and provide an explanation of why we should delete an article covering a notable topic rather than repairing it if needed, please. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 16:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Consistent with other articles in the Category:Tourism by country. There are travel guides that include Somalia, so apparently it is true and notable, as implausible as it seems.—RJH (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or incubate - It seems the problem is one of being able to properly quote the content available, or to find other content that is readily quotable. I would guess that for Somalia in particular it may be hard to come by, so while the subject of the article is perfectly suitable this may be removed until such content comes up - frankie^MR (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not for poorly written or inaccurate articles on notable topics. I was easily able to find a number of good sources on Google News Archive:[24][25][26][27][28] Qrsdogg (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been advised by Qrsdogg that the article has improved, for which I'm glad. When I nominated this article, I was under the impression hoax articles are to be deleted but clearly I wasn't aware of alternative (conflicting?) policies. However, I still question why an article should be kept simply on the grounds of a title's coverage. As I tried to point out earlier, if the hoax hadn't been detected and so much attention drawn to it, it may have remained for months before being corrected, hence my preference for deletion. Nonetheless, as the article has been dealt with, I'm willing to support what apppears to be the consensus here and ask for this AfD to be closed with a Keep result. LordVetinari (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben wilmot[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTENNIS; no search result on [29] and [30] ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite possibly an hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reference to him on any news site or specialist tennis site. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. Rlendog (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources at all so WP:V is not satisfied. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:47, 20 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Lion Day[edit]

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

I find nothing stating June 7, or even where Mlpearc powwow 09:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete now per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and who is "We"? I can't find anything to confirm this.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I google'd this and found nothing at all for National Lion Day. I have tidied up the page, but I would be happiest to see it deleted I'm afraid. Philip.t.day talk 09:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. I'd love there to be a National Lion Day, but if there is one, nobody has written about it except in this WP:MADEUP Wikipedia article. Shame. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I'm not going to take this lion down... Yep, drivel/hoax/made-up ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 13:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe they meant National Lying Day. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails rs [31] --Reference Desker (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2011 (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 Black Veil Brides. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jinxx[edit]

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

Non-notable individual member of a band. While the band itself appears to meet notability requirements, a Google search[32] does not provide evidence - in my opinion - that this individual band member meets WP:MUSICBIO. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 08:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black Veil Brides. The sources I found are either interviews or plain news references, but they all relate to the band and are not independent sources. Minima © (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is a fairly obvious candidate to be redirected rather than deleted, and I can't imagine why the nom went for AfD. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion, Wikipedia has too many pointless redirects. If the subject isn't notable enough for their own article, then why are we wasting kilobytes on them? As a general rule, I lean toward the deletionist side of things in instances such as this. I fully expect this nomination to end with a result of redirect, but am interested in a debate. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is neither here nor there. See WP:PERF and WP:NOTPAPER – there is no concept of "wasting kilobytes" here on Wikipedia. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 07:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it would appear that you missed the point of my statement. I am well aware of the two pages that you linked to. The "wasting kilobytes" statement was not intended to be taken literally. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 08:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How should it be taken then? ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Fair City characters. The Helpful One 00:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Kavanagh[edit]

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

Unrefererced page with no notability. It consists only from unverified plot. We have a list of character which serves the purpose. Magioladitis (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fair City characters per Magliodatis.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Magliodatis/S Marshall. Scolaire (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2011 (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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 U.S. Lecce season[edit]

(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)

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

Contested PRODs. These articles are for lower table teams that had uneventful seasons (won no silverware, did not qualify for European tournaments, etc. Simply put, there isn't notability here. Also, the articles have not been updated since August. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If notability depends on significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, then they're notable. The season of any club in Serie A, the top division of Italian football, is covered to death, not just in terms of routine match reporting but also in analysis of how their season is progressing, what they're doing right and wrong, what they should be doing, both on the field and off. Though I do sympathise with the nomination, in that it annoys me when editors go round in the close season creating season articles for every club regardless of whether they'll have time or inclination to keep them going.
Don't think the Sampdoria article should have been bundled with the other two, as the deletion rationale doesn't apply to that article. Sampdoria competed in Europe in 2010/11 for the first time in 20 years, in the preliminary rounds of the Champions League, and then in the Europa League. The Europa League section hasn't been updated, but the Serie A matches are up-to-date.
At the moment, the content of the other two adds nothing to the encyclopedia, although they deal with a notable subject. I'd suggest a practical solution would be to redirect them to the club article. Then if someone comes along who actually wants to update either of them, all they have to do is undo the redirect and they've got a decent basis from which to build a decent article.
What this comes down to is Keep Sampdoria, Redirect Lecce and Genoa. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Serie A teams are notable enough for stand-alone season articles, no matter what they achieve. We even have a task force for this area of work - see WP:SEASONS. —BETTIA— ^talk 08:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —BETTIA— ^talk 08:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - As I said when I removed the prods, these articles need improving, not deleting. – Pee Jay 12:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Serie A seasons are notable; articles need improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. As much as I dislike season articles with little or no referencing, these are notable and need improving. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – Season articles for top-level teams are generally notable, according to WP:NSPORTS. All three teams are in Serie A, meaning that they meet that standard. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue here is that they might qualify for being articles, but no one is writing them.
- U.S. Lecce has never had a XXXX-XX U.S. Lecce season article before.
- U.C. Sampdoria has a bunch, most are horribly incomplete.
- Genoa C.F.C. is on it's third, and the first two are horrid (lacking even dates).
There simply is no quality here. Articles are started inconsistently, barely maintained, and left incomplete. No one is going to go and fix all of them, and really no one is ever going to go looking for them (if they did, what they would find would not be helpful anyways.) If you all are so keen on saving these, fix them please, because they are embarrassing now. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though they are not updated since ages and just look "bad" there is no reason to delete them as those are season articles from serie A teams, so certainly worth an article. Kante4 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It qualifies for an article, but no one is ever going to make it into one. Even if the arguement that it's not notable falls through, this will be incomplete - misinformation - forever. I don't see any volunteers who are going to try and fix it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I disagree with this, but the proper venue now is the village pump. I have proposed something there, at the policy page, FYI. I will be nominating other seasons for deletion soon though, per them failing "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory." at Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Organizations_and_games_notability. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Manguard Wha? 02:42, 22 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy Survival Guide[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (books) Fails all five nutshell points. While this book may become notable at a future time, currently it is not, therefore Delete. Safiel (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too spammy, a very clear COI, and none of the major significance needed that might excuse this. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not a single news/book hit. Spam. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 13:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Author of the book is Capt Michael R Pierce. Author of the article is too. Promotional. Bob talk 22:04, 26 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gael Bigirimana[edit]

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

Filed at DRV by MrHorse1982 with the rationale: "Not a notable sportsperson, has not represented at any levels, thus not meeting Wikipedia requirements"

Moving here to the appropriate location; I am neutral. NW (Talk) 04:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate- no indication that he meets WP:ATHLETE or the GNG at this time, but if the article is factually correct, that could change in the near future. No sense in losing the article in the meantime. And if it turns out he never does get on the field, it can be deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 22:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above but also this quote: "The Burundi-born player has not made an appearance for Coventry yet." CycloneGU (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above, he clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 10:32, 26 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lane (entrepreneur)[edit]

(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)

Only claim to notability seems to be having won £80,000 on the TV show Dragons' Den (UK), and having invented a product which is sold in many "high street retailers". I am also nominating the product in question (not to be confused with the FoldIO, an iPad case). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete vanity piece and attempt at walled garden; subject is WP:ONEEVENT, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2011 (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open source governance[edit]

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

A not yet notable topic, with original research, unreferenced, and it has had all of these issues since 2005 Reboot (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How did it survive that long? I mean, the content sounds encyclopedic and believable, but then again, there's absolutely no reference. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, after reading some of the comments below I am now unsure. The article definitely needs more reference and possibly a major re-write. I think that it should be userfied and worked on until all the references are up to date. Or, as Fæ suggested below, strip it down to basics and start again from there. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well argumented article with a potential to expand. – George Serdechny 08:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's written as an encyclopedic article, but it's a piece of original advocacy from open source enthusiasts. Lacks sources and misinterprets external links. It's really strange to see how it survived so long. --Damiens.rf 12:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've had this on my watchlist for a long time. I think I meant to try to do something with it some day. In any case, most of the people looking for information on "open source governance" will be looking for information on open source software development, not an obscure proposed political system. Gigs (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy for a massive re-write but only keep if someone strips this back to basics for a re-build. There is sufficient material in reliable sources for an article about the topic, not necessarily under this title as Open source democracy or Open source government (currently a redirect) are probably better bets for a term used in various reliable sources, e.g. Rushkoff, Douglas (2003), Open source democracy: how online communication is changing offline politics, Demos, ISBN 9781841801131 and Shiels, Maggie (21 January 2009). "Calls for open source government". BBC News. Fæ (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a article that appears to have been written by some well meaning idealists to advocate their idea. It circularly references their site, but has little relevance or third-party sources. Maybe in a few years if they are successful it will go somewhere and have enough third party coverage to warrant a wikipedia page. At the moment it is not there. It doesn't matter if it is a "Well argumented article with a potential to expand" (above) because it is an essay of original research. It may belong somewhere...just not on wikipedia. Reboot (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Note: User is also nominator Gigs (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources [33] and academic journals [34] A poorly written article needs improvement, not deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These searches show that the term "open source governance" is in practice not about a political philosophy (the topic of this article) but is invariably used in publications about managing software. There are many technical descriptions that put words in front of "governance" (e.g. "telecoms governance", "factory goverance", "sexual governance" can all be found in multiple reliable sources) but this is not a reason to create an article about these words slapped together, particularly when the sources have a completely different meaning to the article and so do not address the validation policy. Fæ (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The book gives a clear definition of the concept. This paper discusses the concept. --Reference Desker (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hubbard and Paquet's book has a tangential mention as part of a discussion of regional platforms and has to explain the meaning, presumably because it is not a commonly accepted term. The PDF of a presentation given at a conference that you point to appears to be unpublished original research (the document is a draft) and though the term "open source governance" has their own original definition in that text, does not point out to any particular reliable source for an independent definition. Fæ (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are three subjects here, only one of which is covered. This material is at the right title, but there is still need for disambiguation. Make two disambiguation pages, Open source government and Open source governance (disambiguation).

Open source government should have this article on it, and also Government transparency on it, as these articles show: (Online sunshine: Open database of state spending a great idea, The San Diego Union - Tribune - San Diego, Calif, San Diego Tribune) and (UK government backs open source, 25 February 2009, BBC). It also seems likely that the type and storage of government records are a large and well covered enough issue to deserve an article of its own, separate from Government transparency, in which case the former might replace the latter on the dab.

Open source governance (disambiguation) should have this article, and Open source governance (software) on it, as Reference Desker's search for open source governance shows.

I would also support making this article the one about software, and moving the current content to Open source governance (political philosophy), but it is more practical now to keep the article as it is, given that there is no content for software.

There are two sources in the article given as external links rather than inline citations, and a boatload of references, under External Links. There may well be a corresponding rationale to Keep for every rationale to delete, and this article suffers from the reverse of WP:RECENTISM; the notability of the article exceeds the memory and knowledge of WP editors. As time goes on, I see more and more articles where the title has been coopted by another subject, and/or whose topics are notable enough, but require real research to find sources for. Anarchangel (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that this topic "exceeds the memory and knowledge of WP editors"? My first job for a software house was in the 1980s and at school I was the first person in my county to take an O level in Computer Science as it was in the time before this was a topic taught in schools. I don't claim to ever know enough, but my memory is at least that far back and as a rationale this seems flawed and verging on the ad hominem. Fæ (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not ad hominem. The construction of it is neither simplistic and obviously erroneous, nor directed at a single person, nor directed at evidence of past misdoings. As for how editors should receive the criticism implicit in arguments in general, I advise the reverse of a common phrase: if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Anarchangel (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case your argument would only be unverifiable being based on a claim about the general incompetence of all Wikipedia contributors, presumably including yourself. Fæ (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from the Stars[edit]

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

This crop circle does not seem to have received significant coverage outside of UFO groups and such. If we take out the uncited claims like "it is considered to be one of the best pieces of evidence for alien visitation to Earth", then we are left with no explanation of why this crop pattern is more significant than all the others. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage appears to be limited to unreliable sites maintained by people who believe the circles are evidence of extraterrestrial life. Of the sources cited the only one that doesn't fall into this category is [35], which doesn't mention this crop circle. Hut 8.5 12:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable outside of UFO groups. JDDJS (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V [36] --Reference Desker (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any significant mention in literature outside of dedicated crop circle web sites. Maybe would've been a little impressed if the NatGeo ref turned out to be legit but it doesn't even mention this specific crop circle. The other sources do not mention the specific name "Answer from the Stars" either. This may be worth a 1-sentence mention in the Crop circle article, but of the thousands of popular crop circles out there I doubt this one is so notable to deserve it's own separate article. And the "best piece of evidence for alien visitation to Earth" claim is laughable, even if it can be attributed. -- œ ^™ 09:30, 27 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Artists Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, appears to be unremarkable company, even with claim of being around since 1945 (sounds fishy). One news hit only mentions they represent "Vanilla Ice", web hits are not reliable sources. Creator has worked on it several times today, I finally did some searching and found nothing after tagging for other issues. Obvious problems with the article aside, simply doesn't meet criteria. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable organisation; Hoaxish; the principal, Raph Berko seems to be a non-notable TV/stage producer, scoring 302 unique Ghits. Among those, I found nothing to indicate that he was the least bit notable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fun game; follow Ohconfucius' link, then hit the Search button. As if by magic, the 1 result shown on (for me) "Page 30 of 291 results" becomes page 1 of 2,000 hits. Anarchangel (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... - As he didn't properly link a google search. Found several passing mentions of him in WP:RS, but the article isn't a BLP of Rapheel Berko. . Dennis Brown (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nfl card rules[edit]

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

Looks like rather incomprehensible instructions for a card-based game of some sort, but I can find no article about the game itself, and I've no idea what the game is. In its current state it's clearly not acceptable and possibly a PROD candidate, but I thought I'd better bring it here in case anyone knows more about it than I do - if it's a notable game, is there anywhere it might be redirected? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, appears to be made up.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. NFL cards? What kind of game is this? (And it doesn't help that it's written in the second person.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even tell what this is describing. It almost strays into WP:CSD#A1 (no context) territory. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is written by a new editor who does not yet understand our policies or how to write a comprehensible article. The edit summary refers to Topps so perhaps it is a game played with commercially available NFL Football cards. The article in its current state is too poor to stay, but let's show some kindness to a new editor who may have made a good faith attempt here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we wait for someone to try to translate this article? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Grammatically-atrocious WP:MADEUPINONEDAY. This is why new users shouldn't have the ability to create articles. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the obvious reasons.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2011 (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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Over the Limit (2011). The "keep" !voters haven't really addressed the issue of WP:CRYSTAL. But it would be kind of silly to delete it six weeks before the event, so let's incubate it until it happens. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Limit (2011)[edit]

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

Non notable future sports event, references are simply listings of the event, nothing to indicate notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's scheduled to happen in what, six weeks? What's the point of deleting it now? It would be more productive to tag it, wait six weeks, and see if enough press was generated. After all, it should be trivially easy to make a decision after the fact. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand it might be considered more productive to create such an article in main space after the event, if it wre proven to be notable. Before the event it looks rather like spam, if no references to establish notability were provided. Perhaps it would be best to redirect to WWE Over the Limit. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we need to wait until after the event since we will have info about the matches and the events that led up to the matches. It may be best to redirect it at this point but I think recreation should happen before the show airs. I don't see why this should be different than future shows, movies, books, video games etc (none of which only have articles after their release)--76.66.187.132 (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we wait until after an event to decide to delete an article, Wikipedia would be (more) littered with every album release, movie, book, event, goat roping and other garbage because we want to "wait to see if it becomes notable". The whole idea is it must be notable BEFORE an article is created, and the guidelines here make that crystal clear. If it isn't notable, it doesn't need to be here, no matter how notable it MIGHT BE in the future. I'm tired of hearing that same tired excuse in AFD from people who won't take the time to read the guidelines and at least attempt to make a valid argument. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BALL Agree with Dennis Brown... waiting to see if something becomes notable results in embarrassments like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Tide (album) (2nd nomination) Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Keep Keep~~ This event will take place in a month and a half, what's the point of deleting. Tickets are on sale at Ticketmaster.com [37] and at KeyArena's website [38] so why delete.--Voices in my Head WWE 20:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There event is not notable now, and regardless that it is scheduled soon we cannot assume that it will be notable in the future - frankieMR (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Delete as per the precedent set with Sacrifice (2011). If no notability can be established....NXT Fan (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since when has future notability for a pay-per-view event been a reason to delete? And why is it...why is it you all are talking about deleting an article? For God sakes don't you idiots have better things to do than sit in front of a computer all day?--Voices in my Head WWE 20:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But you haven't actually presented a case for its notability. Do you have a link to a reliable third party source? That would count as notability. Also, there's no need to refer to people with a different take to yours as "you idiots". NXT Fan (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a confirmed WWE pay per view event. All confirmed WWE pay per view events are notable. It would only fail the test of notability if it was not confirmed, like "Capital Punishment" which is supposedly taking the place of Fatal Four Way. If someone can provide proof that it's not confirmed I'll change my vote. Ultra X987 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you deleted Sacrifice (2011) which is the same thing on Over the limit page Zanwifi (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It'll be created in under a month anyway, so there's no WP:CRYSTAL violation. In the case of PPVs such as these, third-party sources would become more frequent after it takes place, it wouldn't be posted when there's still the April PPV to wrap up just yet. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as every WWE PPV is a highly notable event. Just because there are no strong sources as of yet, that shouldn't be a reason to delete it. ArcAngel (talk) ) 11:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is being discussed here is whether the article meets the general notability guideline or the sports guidelines. Opinions as to whether it is notable without sources are irrelevant. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your stupid bullshit reasoning every future WWE PPV article isn't notable. WWE PPV's are always notable. So notable that we always have to lock the damn pages because of vandalism and unhelpful edits.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite apart from the issue at hand(whether the article meets or fails to meet the notability guidelines) is it really necessary for this person to keep making comments like "you idiots" and "your stupid bullshit reasoning"? NXT Fan (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps it would be helpful if everyone would remain WP:CIVIL in this discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It will probably be notable in the future, but WP:CRYSTAL applies here. This article contains little information aside from what professional wrestling is and when/where it is being held. Once some matches get confirmed at least, then I can see it getting an article. ScottSteiner ✍ 17:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys not realize that WWE focuses on one PPV at a flipping time. There's already another WWE PPV event just 7 days away so of course attention isn't on Over The Limit YET DUMBASSES.--Voices in my Head WWE 18:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported this latest abuse at WP:Wikiquette alerts#User:Nascarking. I note that this user has also been reported for canvassing on this AfD at WP:ANI#Repeated canvassing for AfD. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to ScottSteiner, the thing is that the above (matches added) will happen in about a week, since that's when the current PPV will occur. We'll basically end up deleting this article only to recreate it maybe a week later, which just seems like wasting time on both sides to me. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is a colossal waste of time, especially if this article gets deleted. Someone will just remake it, word for word, on May 2nd when WWE starts promoting the event on TV and making the matches. Then we involve ANI, WQA, a bunch of WP:CRYSTAL votes that will be completely be moot in six days, and we have a useless AFD. I'm not sorry that I'm calling this AFD pointless because that is the truth. Don't call the Wikiquette police on me as well. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly, not yet notable. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to provide a verifiable, encyclopaedic article at this time. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Chzz ► 04:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, third party sources like PW Torch are covering Extreme Rules this Sunday which means of course their not gonna have anything on this yet. Can we at least wait till next Monday, they will announce matches for Over the Limit next Monday. WWE does their storylines one PPV at a time, that's how they've always done it.--Voices in my Head WWE 05:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect redircting would be better then deleting Redirect to WWE Over the Limit--SteamIron 20:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that Over The Limit redirects to Trout Fishing in America (band), perhaps a disambiguation is required - frankieMR (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not until this event is notable enough to have an article. Later, yes, possibly/probably.~~ Chzz ► 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait - there is WWE Over the Limit - so, yes, we could disambig it. Or just hatnote, if there's only the 2? Chzz ► 22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge does seem the best idea. I'm a big fan of ~~pro wrestling~~ entertainment with tremendous athletic prowess, but I don't see why each and every PPV needs its own article. NXT Fan (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you absolutely must delete an article that will be notable in like one week, please userify so that we can copy-paste the exact same article once it starts getting promoted on May 2nd, SIX DAYS, on WWE Monday Night RAW. Otherwise, Keep as utterly pointless nomination. All of these people commenting, including myself, shouldn't have to deal with AFD noms like this that will be rendered completely moot in less than a week. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the love of god, why would you delete this event a week before it starts getting promoted? Crisis.E X E 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing to establish its notability? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because users should not disregard policies and then say "oh, well, it will be notable soon, so now it is here, why not just wait a while?" - as happened last October with Survivor Series (2010), WWE Bragging Rights (2010), as has happened with many others since, and as is happening now with WWE Capitol Punishment - all of which waste an inordinate amount of time. Because Wikipedia does not have articles on non-notable topics. Because we do not promote events that, to date, are not notable - we do not advertise. And because Wikipedia discussions should be evaluated according to rational arguments referring to policies and guidelines, and not affected by mere loud, vocal appeals from large quantities of fans. Please respect consensus and policy. Chzz ► 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz, you DO realize that there are tons of unsourced articles out there, right? Most are probably not notable, yet here they sit with few (if any) taggings on them. ArcAngel (talk) ) 14:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; please help fix it. Chzz ► 16:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon deletion, I nominate you, Chzz, to rewrite this article from scratch when it clearly meets all notability requirements on May 2nd. Three days. Three goddamn days. This is one of the most pointless AFDs I've ever participated in. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to try to help with that, if there are enough reliable sources - give me a shout on my user talk page. I'm sorry you think this is pointless; I do too. But so were all the previous incidents - and I really don't want Wikipedia to advertise non-notable(yet) future events. Chzz ► 16:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It should be noted that, even after all of the above, including some pretty bad violations of WP:CIVIL, there is yet to be one WP:RS added to this discussion... NXT Fan (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion on this article is pointless. Monday on RAW they'll be moving on to Over the Limit and render all these deletion comments pointless.--Voices in my Head WWE 23:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a notable PPV date with a venue booked and a poster promoting it. Plus televised promotion will start later today during the Extreme Rules PPV. Hardly worth taking it down and then restarting it. Steveweiser (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But do you have a Reliable Source for any of that? This is not a vote. It is a discussion as to whether the article meets Notability and whether there are Reliable Sources to verify that Notability. Thus far you're 0-2. NXT Fan (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WWE's next PPV, which will be held in 3 weeks. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:33, 1 May 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Joy Lim[edit]

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

Her "most well-known" role is in a YouTube webseries which doesn't seem to be notable (no Google news hits, 3000 views for the first episode and 600 for the second). Aside from this she played minor characters in two notable shows, What's Up Warthogs! and Degrassi: The Next Generation. There is an additional possible conflict of interest as well; the article's creator was listed on the crew page for the web series under "Special thanks", but this may be due to the creator's fanart submissions. ScottSteiner ✍ 01:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I'd just like to say, while I do know her from the internet, all the info written there on the page is accurate, and if anything, her "minor characters in two notable shows" should be enough of a reason for her to have a page, since Warthogs' page has a link to her previously non existing page. Lucas irineu (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Lucas Irineu[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:ENT and WP:GNG. While a editor's opinion of what someone may or may not be "best known for" seems to plague articles on Degrassi-related actors, I looked beyond that shaky assertion and found only a 2001 article where this actress is mentioned[39] I will note that her involvement as creator, writer, and producer of, and actor in the TV series Trapped in Terra might have pushed at WP:CREATIVE, that series itself currently fails WP:N. While I wish her well, the article is WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON covers it well. Just hasn't crossed the line between 'known' and 'notable' yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that she hasn't amassed sufficient number of credits with significant roles in notable productions under WP:ENT Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:51, 20 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works Everywhere Appliance[edit]

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

Non-notable PC. Searching Google News and Scholar returns no results, searching Google Books returns only four results, all of which cannot establish notability as they are copies of Wikipedia. Searching Google Web for "Works Everywhere Appliance" -Wiki -Wikipedia -forum -forums -book -buy returns 49 results, none of which are non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The nature of the topic further suggests that it is non-notable — it is a relabeled OEM PC with a pre-installed Linux distribution offered by an insignificant PC vendor. It is not something which is likely to be interesting from a commercial or technical point of view, and recieving coverage in reliable sources as a result. Rilak (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2011 (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main Event Championship Wrestling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero google news hits. Only 'coverage' is MECW's own website. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the previous decision. Went for CSD. We can keep this open just in case though. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it will probably be speedily deleted. If not, it still fails WP:A and WP:N, just as the original did: Google is full of dubious hits, essentially clutter, and has no news sources whatsoever. Mephistophelian † 03:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, with help from MECW fans and internet savvy people (unlike myself), we've gone from zero references to 24 very valid reference links of reports, coverage, news and history. Will this help keep this page online? Also, there have been multiple updates waiting for response under the articles discussion page. Thanks Jason Briley 04:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbriley (talk • contribs)

Keep: I believe that the sources added do assert notability. I think this shows that the article has potential and should be kept; on a separate note, the article will need some fixing to incorporate the references into the text as inline citations rather than just a list at the end of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryColemanFan (talk • contribs)

Updated with inline citations. Should be good to go. --68.179.137.105 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the improvements have justified inclusion. Shiva (Visnu) 06:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, most of those sources aren't reliable. However, the Courier Press and Slam are reliable and are enough to establish minor notability. Nikki♥311 22:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the improvements along with the sources are valid, as they include history, news and results of past events. this page should be kept and the deletion and citation tags should be removed. also, already relisted once and it's been 14 days since creation 68.179.137.105 (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Amateur Bodybuilding Championships medalists[edit]

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

It does not appear as though any of the individuals or individual competitions in this list are notable. The main page of the topic likely adequately covers it without this large list of names. No references of any kind. N419 BH 05:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't the fact that it is a list of "Amateur" anything pretty much tell us it is likely to not be notable? Dennis Brown (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of these amateurs have gone on to become professionals and others have gone on to become notable in other sports such as boxing. Either way this is still a World Championship and as such is a notable event. The event itself meets WP:GNG from the media coverage of all the championships. Google has more than 30k hits on this series of championships. This list also supplements the article called World Amateur Bodybuilding Championships. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 02:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nipsonanomhmata. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as of Nipsonanomhmata. Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An example of the beginnings of a good list--the kind of list article that Wikipedia needs more of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make mine Milk[edit]

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

News release about an advertising campaign which is too recent to have gained any notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a close connection between editor and article. Article reads like an advertorial and lacks notability.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no demonstrated noteworthiness sufficient to merit a standalone article. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The quickest of Google News searches shows that this is a high profile campaign attracting non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. The article doesn't appear particularly spammy to me, and certainly not enough to qualify as "using Wikipedia for self-promotion". "Appears to be a close connection between editor and article" is not, and has never been, a deletion criterion. – iridescent 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Zarezadeh Ardeshir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Under 1,000 Google hits, many of which are self-published either directly or indirectly. The guy is a radical activist & so SPS is to be expected. Sitush (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanity article. Was amused by the fourth citation, however (his blog in Farsi). LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 00:19, 20 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hazara Singh Ramta[edit]

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

No significant coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources to show notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 00:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:15, 22 April 2011 (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 Sonia (singer)#Singles. The Helpful One 00:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fool for Love (Sonia song)[edit]

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

Not notable. Didn't chart anywhere and it doesn't look like the article will grow to anything beyond what is there. Certainly not worthy of its own article.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources can be added (the first one is broken and the second one leads to a fansite), weak keep. If not, redirect to Sonia (singer)#Singles. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sonia (singer)#Singles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG completely, at least as far as the article shows - only refs are her website and record company website. Sonia herself is not exactly the Beatles to begin with, and this song did not make the charts at all even at the lower depths. Unless we change WP:NSONG to include "any song released as a single by anyone", this song is not going to qualify. Herostratus (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Wajsbrot[edit]

(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)

This (auto)biography is of a film director who has directed one short film. Although there has been some coverage, and I believe this individual may meet notability guidelines at some point in the future, I don't think he does quite yet. There is nothing here that satisfies WP:FILMMAKER. He has won a "Directorial Discovery" award at the Rhode Island Film Festival, but this doesn't seem to be a major award. Notability then seems to rest on "significant coverage in reliable sources". There is a bit in Le Post, but I"m not sure this counts as significant coverage, and I'm not even sure how reliable it is as a source. All other mentions that I have found seem to be trivial. It's not clear cut, but I don't think notability can be established at this time. Beloved Freak 17:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding (the short movie by the director) Red Balloon (2010 film) to this nomination. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the bio article, based on the above sources plus the nice interview of him in Plus Magazine [40] plus some consideration to his extensive credit list. At the moment, I am neutral on the movie article, although it has been screened extensively in festivals. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that interview helps, and I'm leaning towards keep for the bio. I'm not sure how relevant the "extensive credit list" is though, a list of visual effects credits doesn't tend to confer notability. --Beloved Freak 19:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant only that his long experience in FX, which is commented on by some of the sources, contributes to an overall sense that he's become notable. I agree that current practice wouldn't find notability based solely on a list of crew credits.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A rewrite has been promised to improve the wording, and I'm suggesting they improve refs too. Peridon (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've done a rewrite, put some reference and update the festivals with some links, would be also good to add the poster to the filmbox : http://redballoonthemovie.com/redballoonthemovie/gallery_files/Media/PosterRedBalloon_halfRez/PosterRedBalloon_halfRez.jpg --Alexis.wajsbrot (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

updated all the capital letters to lowercase, and fixed/update few links , let me know what you think , thanks --Alexis.wajsbrot (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

added the poster, and updated few links--Alexis.wajsbrot (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What could we do in order to remove the deletion process ? Otherwise, i am having issue posting the poster of RED BALLOON , i ve got all the right, as i did the poster myself , same for the pic of Alexis wajsbrot : http://redballoonthemovie.com/alexis/others/PosterRedBalloon2010.jpg http://redballoonthemovie.com/alexis/others/photo.jpg Could anyone help me to upload it ? --81.57.56.19 (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i guess i managed to add the pic, what could i do to remove the deletion process ? thank you very much --Alexis.wajsbrot (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 2010 he won the Directorial Discovery Award at the Rhode Island Film Festival says it all. keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree that winning this award "says it all" (is it a major award? I'm really not that familiar with it; Just winning any award does not generally make the subject automatically notable. WP:FILMMAKER may be helpful to check out) this is looking like a keep with the coverage in secondary sources that has been added. I kind of wish the film hadn't been added to this discussion though, as the notablity for the director does not necessarily make the film notable. (Try and stay signed in Alexis, I presume that's you below! And don't worry about removing the deletion notice, it will be removed soon enough when this discussion has ended.) Beloved Freak 09:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i agree :-) --81.57.56.19 (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i Will --Alexis.wajsbrot (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem, you're allowed to edit anonymously, it's just less confusing in discussions like these, and makes sure people don't think you're two different people! --Beloved Freak 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When do we decide a discussion to be ended ?--Alexis.wajsbrot (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Machinery Hall[edit]

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

Original PROD with the rationale "Seems to be mostly built on lies, not notable otherwise"... indeed, there appears to be very little coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, and it seems that some of the possibly exaggerated claims may add up to a hoax. Created by an apparent single purpose account, PROD contested by new editor with the summary "This band headlined in the boston garden 3 times with up to 20,000 screaming people and a police escort I think that that meets the notability standards." "Machinery Hall" gets a total of 33 Google News results between 1990 and 2000, most of which are from Boston-area sources... hardly the coverage expected for a band which claims seven national tours, ten albums, and a number of notable awards in the 1990s. Kinu ^t/_c 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The awards seem to be purely local in scope, and it isn't clear that even the awards are notable. I wasn't able to find any evidence that this band meets WP:MUSIC. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think Aerosmith won some of them-SheafromME

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, could it be made into a stub. Plus I found this it may help, just search for Machinery on the page... http://www.bostonphoenix.com/supplements/bmp/99/GALLERY.html -SheafromME — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheafromME (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a stub is to serve as a short article for future expansion about a notable topic. The issue here is that this subject is not notable, and the fact that the award you link to is called "Local Rock Act" seems to agree with that. It also doesn't address the fact that most of the article seems to violate the policies on verifiability. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this notable and its a stub http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Daybrook,_West_Virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheafromME (talk • contribs) 17:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article has nothing to do with this one. (To wit, the Wikipedia community considers designated geographic locations like cities inherently notable.) --Kinu ^t/_c 18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like this is a very local pub band. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:04, 20 April 2011 (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 Poodle hybrid. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pugapoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources found. While the result of the last deletion debate was merge (in June 2010), I don't see how any of this info could be worked in there.

It could theoretically be added to the List of dog hybrids page, but I think only those with articles should be listed -- there are endless possibilities for mixes and if reliable sources aren't required, any mix -- even if it's a one-off -- could be added. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of possible combos. — anndelion ※ 22:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — anndelion ※ 04:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We already had this discussion and the result was clear. The tag on the article which is still unresolved says "please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion". Colonel Warden (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned above why I don't think the merger is feasible anymore, if it was then -- I was going to merge it myself until I realized where it was supposed to be merged. (Not that I think my opinion is above anyone else's -- it's certainly not.) Where would any of this information be put in the Poodle article? It's an article about the Poodle breed first and foremost, not a repository for various -doodles and -poos.

The mix still lacks sources that are considered reliable and give it more than a passing mention. — anndelion ※ 19:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no sources can be found, Merge as per previous discussion if they can. Miyagawa (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the previous AfD consensus. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just get an explanation here: can you give a good example of exactly how the article in its present state is supposed to be merged into the Poodle article? Where will the information fit? — anndelion ❋ 03:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest trimming the information down, expanding Poodle#Poodle_mixes and including it in that section. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I see with that is that that article's topic is the Poodle breed, which is very important on its own; I don't think it's really a place to brief all of the poodle mixes (there are hundreds of them -- because of their "hypoallergenic" coat, almost every breed is being crossed with a Poodle, the puppies advertised under names like "Cockapoo" and "Doodleman Pinscher"). I do think a more realistic place to merge it, if that's the consensus, is List of dog hybrids, but that page says:

"There is a very large number of possible combinations, and the following table only lists those most often bred deliberately."

I haven't seen any sources indicating the Pugapoo is among those most often bred deliberately, considering I couldn't find reliable sources at all. — anndelion ❋ 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question What about merging these "-oodle" pages all into the existing Poodle hybrids page and expanding that? As for the other designer dogs, has a designer dog page been considered? since there are sooo many (there are something like 400 recognised breeds of dog, a cross for each one would be something like 79,800 articles about designer breeds). - Keetanii (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it cannot be merged into an existing article. Finding good sources at this stage for designer breeds would be impossible. There would be nothing in terms of academic research done on health or genetics, history is extremely limited, there are (minimal?/no?) breed standards to go off for general appearance sections. - Keetanii (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2011 (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 whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bagle hound[edit]

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

Another designer/mixed breed dog with no reputable sources. — anndelion ※ 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more, all under the same rationale. I was unable to find any reliable sources that mentioned any of these, beyond some of them receiving a passing mention in a book or being listed along with numerous other designer breeds (in print and/or on web), no further details given.

— anndelion ※ 23:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — anndelion ※ 04:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I have the Zuchon article on my watchlist because of vandalism, and that is how I found this nomination. I've notified WikiProject Dogs (perhaps unnecessarily?) and the creators of the affected articles, all bar three of whom were basically single-purpose accounts. Graham87 05:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I notified all of the creators except the IP editor who unredirected Labbe (dog). Graham87 06:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for doing that -- I was meaning to but evidently forgot. — anndelion ※ 07:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search on Google Books revealed The Complete Poetical Works of Elizabeth Barrett Browning with the lines "To front the sun while Zeus's winged hound, The strong, carnivorous Bagle, shall wheel down" but sadly it turns out to be a mistake for "eagle". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And here I was hoping it was a mistake for "bagel". --NellieBly (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem with these fancy names for mutts is that anyone can make one up, and only some become commonly used. I'm not seeing any notable third-party notice of Bagle Hound, so I believe this is one of those that hasn't stuck. --NellieBly (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All As per above Keetanii (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2011 (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.