Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 23: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Es-won (talk | contribs)
1,151 edits
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Lava}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacky Jules}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacky Jules}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiba (Family Magazine)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiba (Family Magazine)}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 11:13, 23 February 2010

< 22 February 24 February >

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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Lava

Hot Lava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band does not satisfy musical notability criteria; article also created and edited by same small group of users Es-won (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News comes up with a trivial mention in a NY Times article that focuses on one of the members [1]. The rest I could find is about two bands with similar names (Lava Baby and Hot Lava Monster) which seem to be more notable. It's a pretty neutral article and done in good faith, but they do not seem to meet any of the WP:BAND criteria. Smocking (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upon further review, I think the article may be inaccurate. The article says they released a record in 2007 by the name of "Hot Lava Owns You", but I cannot find any sources that says this album actually exists. If they truly have only released one, I will change my vote to Delete. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had the same problem, so I though it might be an early single or something. I've done some more digging and finally found info about the other album here: [2]. It exists, but was released by the label "Pop-Hop", which is not a notable one as far as I can tell (unlike Bar/None Records). Let's delete this for now. If they release another album with Bar/None an editor could always request a copy of the deleted article from the closing admin. Smocking (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Jules

Jacky Jules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no notable references to this album (lots to the song "Jacky Jules") - nothing on their label's site. And even if it is on the cards, an article for an album not due out for another 10 months seems like pushing WP:Crystal a bit. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. On a search I found multiple links for lyrics and mp3 downloads, but no discussion of this album in a reliable, secondary source. LeilaniLad (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation a bit nearer the time. I'd be surprised if the title of an album, never mind its contents, or even the specific release date, really has been confirmed ten months prior to the release -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba (Family Magazine)

Hiba (Family Magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This magazine appears to be non-notable. It has been tagged for reference improvement and for notability for well over a year without any improvement. Despite good faith searches (possibly in the wrong places) I have been unable to identify any significant coverage. I would welcome improvement to the article based on sources I am unable to find. Bongomatic 11:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 09:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid van der Veen

Astrid van der Veen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to be notable. The two albums she made (which can't be found anywhere) were self-produced and recorded (it is claimed), and no record labels are mentioned--and I can't find any. The work she did with Ayreon, guesting on an album, that's not enough to warrant an individual article, and she is an unlikely search term. For the record: here are her Google results, and here are the results from Google News. In short, nada. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 09:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

IMO this artist is noteworthy. Google search shows many pages containing her name and referencing her. Ambeon and Ayreon, while not "notable" bands you say, nonetheless created complete albums of quality original music. To me Wikipedia is a universal encyclopedia containing all topics and to disinclude an artist of this calibre based on who did the album production or whether or not those albums are currently available to purchase from a record company is wrong. If anything self producing an album shows even greater talent and makes an artist MORE noteworthy, not less and many well recognized artists have albums that are not readily available as well. Maybe the original page needed an edit to correct wording but a complete delete is unfortunate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.47.110 (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhau Panchbhai

Bhau Panchbhai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable poet. DimaG (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bhau Panchbhai is author of two published poetry collections and an essay collection Marathi. He had received Government of Maharashtra's poetry

collection award for his first collection हुंकार वादळांचे. He may be non notable poet for the English-speaking world, he is certainly notable for Marathi language. Also, he is one of the key figures of Dalit Panther, the social and political organization of Dalits in India. I would like the editors to find sources about him in Marathi before decision to delete this article. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Sources might be few because less spread of internet in Marathi, but you will note that he was a president of a few All India Marathi Poetry Meets. I strongly oppose the deletion. Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 09:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While English sources are preferred for English wikipedia, there is no policy that I am aware of making them required to estabilsh notability. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources --Joe Decker (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep This case leans itself to obvious WP:BIAS problems, there are some apparently RS-like hits for भाऊ पंचभाई (assuming this is his name?) [5] [6] [7] and in Gbooks [8] - I just cant evaluate them. The article IS sourced, we have a case of unclear notability, for which deletion is the last resort. Under such circumstances, I lean towards keep. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge back to Foreign policy of the United States. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily

History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely POV title ("exporting democracy"???) ... topic doesn't need to have an article anyway ... current mess is in blatant violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR ... why these categories? Which reliable source says that you can break up arguments about this topic into these categories? Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was wrong to cite WP:SYNTH and WP:OR -- I meant that the way that the article was laid out, seemed like the author cherry-picked certain arguments and created his own categories and then chose arguments to fit within them. That is, he found reliable sources to back statements up, but synthesized them in a way that none of the original sources did (hence WP:SYNTH). Sorry about the confusion. Basically, I was trying to point out that I think the categories are totally off and that the author made them up (hence WP:OR), in addition to the other problems. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest -- I spent some time last night trying to think of a better title and am at a bit of a loss, at least without going to an extremely long name like "History of Debate over Whether or Not the United States Exports Democracy by Military Intervention" or something insane like that. I may be leaning towards re-merging this with the original article. Based on other people's thoughts here, it seems as if this article comes across more POV-ish and problematic as a standalone article than it did as a part of a larger (much, much larger) article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "History of foreign U.S. military interventions" or "History of governments forcibly installed by the U.S." or "History of governments installed by U.S. military force"? That way we don't include the POV viewpoint that they are "exporting democracy" in the title? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Awkward title for a very sensitive topic. The topic as such may be made notable by a coherent definition of the term "military export of democracy" and a sound structure of the article, but now it is still not much more than a poutpourri of loosely related opinions.Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very subject of this article is a "point of view" of US Foreign Policy, and a false one at that. After all, the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. It doesn't matter if you "retitle" it, it's still going to talk about a particular point of view of how the United States conducts foreign policy. The onus of proof is on those that want this kept to provide sources and reasoning that show how this meets notability standards. Once they do that, I'd like to see some non-POV sources that show this is anything but propaganda. Rapier1 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how an article that provides three distinct and conflicting points of view is "propaganda." The very subject of this article is not -a- point of view, it is several points of view, and it is hardly the only article on Wikipedia to present multiple points of view on a historically notable point of debate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of promotion of democracy during U.S. military interventions is highly notable, however. Google Books is filled with publications that discuss the issue in detail and even Google Web immediately shows a number of WP:RS results with significant coverage of the subject: [9]. Aside from the article's title and such horrendous section names as "Opinion that U.S. intervention does not export democracy", the article's actual contents do not seem to fall under a clear-cut violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. I think that renaming the article into something along the lines of "Promotion of Democracy and U.S. Military Interventions" or at least merging the well-sourced parts somewhere else would be a much more sensible solution. — Rankiri (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to parent articleNo reason this needed to be split. The simple fact that the author is at a loss for a concise and clear title supports that this information is best left as a section in the foriegn policy article. While I don't agree with the WP:SYNTH statement there's definately a claim for WP:OR to be made as well as POV issues. Here's the test I used to come to POV conclusion. If this article exists could there reasonably be another article exactly in its negative that also has reliable sources? If you don't like the merge suggestion then rename to "Exportation of Democracy" and write the article to include multiple different methods and historical examples. Nefariousski (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it a POV coatrack. Marge what is salvagable into other articles and then kill it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote...sorta: Keep/Retitle or Merge back to parent I think this article's content, when read in the context of a larger article on the history of the United States (or similar), loses much of its perceived NPOV issues. I am still fine with the article as-is if the title is changed. I really still don't see how the article itself is pushing a POV with the exception of the inadvertently POV-pushing and inaccurate title...it's reporting on the history of criticism on a notable topic, and giving each POV its due turn without taking a side. But -- big but -- (big but? did I really just... anyway) I can definitely see how this article, on its own, -can- be viewed as expressing a POV. Out of context, I concur that it is very easy to at least think of it in POV terms. In the context of a bigger article, less so. I think that's my final opinion on this, but this is certainly an interesting conversation and one I'll probably check in on again. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full Scale

Full Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail notability, is promotional in tone. Their only claim to fame appears to have been supporting several acts in Australia, then spectacularly failing, well outside the glare of any media or press which would constitute an RS. Orderinchaos 06:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not in "The Australian", it was in a magazine liftout from the newspaper, which is more "lifestyle" in focus and not subject to the same editing constraints as the main newspaper (which speaks to WP:RS). I had read the article when deciding whether to AfD or not (I have Factiva access) and decided it was entirely promotional in tone - the sort of thing an agent can get done for you with enough money. The fact that this is the only article about them in a 7 year career (ironically the lead singer's new band has received significantly more media attention), and that they've never had a charting album or hit (even Top 100) either here or stateside is more relevant. Orderinchaos 21:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You knew about an article in a liftout produced by The Australian and claimed they were "outside the glare of any media or press which would constitute an RS"???
Success or lack of is only one possible part of notability. Charting is not needed. (ps look up what irony actually is) duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A single promo piece in a component magazine (which, btw, does not constitute an RS for this purpose - read WP:RS) is hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (straight from WP:N), considering they had a 7 year career. Apart from their apparent belief in themselves, they seem to be entirely indistinguishable from literally hundreds of other bands in Perth. Orderinchaos 14:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does it not constitute an RS. In what way is Kerrang, Beat Magazine and AAP General News not RS. How is the Australian component magazine article simply a promo piece. As to the bands notability past the coverage shown, Triple J (national radio station) appear to have placed them in rotation, a clear claim to fame beyond the nominations claim (although a independent source needs to V that), also playing live on Triple J [10]. The claim of fame being supporting several acts in Australia is the nominators reading and is not relevent to wp:music. They have also played with acts outside Australia, see [Full Scale Heist]. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If these sources exist, then the article should be rewritten around them. The Beat Magazine link, for example, is dead. Orderinchaos 15:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be available online (replacement link [11]). Dead tree sources are good enough (and are kept by the national library. . duffbeerforme (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) More on nominators claim that "Their only claim to fame appears to have been supporting several acts in Australia". The Australian article that nominator had read talks of a gig in the USA, contridicting the claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've played a gig in Canada (I'm Australian) - does that make me notable? I doubt it somehow, especially given the number in the audience :) It's not in dispute that following their distinct lack of success here they thought they'd try it on in Hollywood, and for whatever reason broke up there. It would be assumed that somewhere in between, they played at least once. Orderinchaos 17:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Parent band, Full Scale Deflection, is in Spencer's Who's Who in Australian Rock (ref now supplied in article). Mammal and Ezekiel the Ox are in there too. Hence the band is notable enough. Certainly the article has tone / pov issues but that's not sufficient for deletion.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 23:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage appears to be sufficient for Mammal (band) from what I can determine, but I am struggling to find anything else at all beyond the promo piece that would constitute "significant/independent coverage" for Full Scale. What are the listing requirements for Spencer? I know for example that a listing in the regular annual Who's Who in Australia does not count as independent sourcing as the information is usually supplied by the individual or their agent. Orderinchaos 14:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage for Mammal is irelevent and more than sufficient (charted). Spencers requirements appear to be less than wp:music so listing itself not good enough although listing is based on independent sources. The listing can provide evidence of further coverage depending on what it says. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The on-line version of Spencer's book is self-decribed here and the ref entry on FULL SCALE DEFLECTION (FSD) leads to entries on , Ezekiel the Ox] which leads to Mammal. FSD entry also leads to [Kelly, Rob who was a member of WAX TADPOLE (released at least three CDs). FSD also leads to Savell, Forrester] who has worked with Shannon Noll, Human Nature and other bands. The upshot of all this is that FSD is notable because it has two (or more) members who were themselves notable.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 02:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore Both Chris Frey (another member of FSD) and Forrester are notable per here where they won a West Australian Film Institute award for work on a short film. This article further reinforces Forrester's notability as the record producer for Butterfly Effect. Clearly the parent band of all these notable persons is itself notable.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frey more: Frey was a nominee for 2009 J Awards per here which adds to his notability as a video director for Karnivool. The article on FSD needs re-writing and these notables should be in the Lead however the articl should not be deleted because of poor formatting.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 05:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "notability is inherited" is listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Forrester may be notable, Frey may be notable, but is the band notable? One does not automatically flow to the other. At the end of this AfD, should it pass, I will be stubbing the article and expecting those here to rewrite it. Orderinchaos 06:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However consider WP:BAND and particularly criterion #6: Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, I'm assuming that Ezekiel Ox is notable (no AfD there), are you arguing that neither Forrester nor Frey is notable? If either is independently notable (which I believe and have supplied refs for above) then according to criterion #6 FSD is notable and thus so is FS.
If the article is saved from deletion and subsequently stubbed by you then I'm expecting your input in helping to rewrite it: we should be working together to make wikipedia better.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 08:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would see stubbing the content as improving the encyclopaedia, which was my original reason for nominating for deletion. The reason for my activity on this article was that this article was pointed out to me by a Western Australian non-Wikipedian active in the music scene who used it as evidence that Wikipedia is unreliable and a vehicle for self-promotion. I found that quite sad, given my own efforts to improve the quality of political and local government topics here. (Same points have been made at various intervals to me about articles in the Home & Away / Neighbours / etc category.) I then searched my available sources, including Factiva, and found very, very little indeed. If others have sources (I don't - otherwise I would have fixed it myself rather than nominated) which can help in writing a decent short article about the band that meets Wiki criteria, I'm all for it and would even withdraw this nomination if that were the case. Certainly if someone wants access to something which is in a WA library (either university or state library) I'm happy to get it. Orderinchaos 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I have seemed a little short, by the way - it is our fifth day of ~40° maximums and ~25° minimums, and the house's air conditioner is now failing to combat it - it's 28.6°C in my room as we speak. Orderinchaos 09:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. One problem is that we'll get your weather in about 2-3 days, grrrrr... BTW, I've already started cleaning-up the article and supplying refs as I go.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've looked into all the references and I've looked through the article, and I simply can't establish the band's notability. There is neither sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources nor sufficient claim of significance. Neelix (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please note the statement "I would see stubbing the content as improving the encyclopaedia, which was my original reason for nominating for deletion" from the nominator. Sounds like a bad nomination. AFDs are not for cleanup. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concern here is the band's notability, not the nominator's intentions. If the band is not notable, it doesn't really matter what the nominator's intentions were; the article should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think duff may have misunderstood my intent. I wished to have the article deleted, not to have it cleaned up. I saw the article being gone as improving the encyclopaedia (for exactly the reasons I stated in my nom). My other comments acknowledged the reality that it hadn't gone WP:SNOW delete as I had expected when nominating, so I was stating what I would do if it was kept. Orderinchaos 15:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Teen Media Institute

Alaska Teen Media Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. most of the gnews listing is events listings not in depth coverage. [12]. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Significant coverage in independent reliable sources here and here. Some several hundred cites of them as a news source/news organisation rebroadcasting on a range of TV and radio stations both in Alaska and elsewhere. Also note that since they are a news source that apparently exercises editorial control, and that their journalists have won notable awards, this is a case where having an article on them enriches Wikipedia in ways other than directly through content (by allowing a collection point for discussion about their reliability as a source). - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 07:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence for now. The links provided by Dust for Worms are pretty trivial coverage, and I'm not sure that the Alaska ICE site could be considered a reliable source anyway. My own search found a lot of content produced by ATMI, but not much about the organization. Perhaps if we keep digging some better, more substantial sources could be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 10:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The majority of the delete arguments cite problems with the article that can fixed by editing it. Any cleanup/renaming/merging/splitting/whatever can be discussed on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communist antisemitism

Communist antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article entitled "Communist antisemitism" was added to Wikipedia a very short time ago. While I would not dispute that there is real encyclopedic merit to articles that explore links between Marxism and anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, and other related topics, this particular article does not rise to that standard. This is a polemical work that violates WP:SYNTH and WP:N, and I'm inclined to think that the title does not belong on Wikipedia at all. For that reason, I'm suggesting deletion.

Addendum: The sole author of this article has linked it to several other pages related to anti-Semitism and has attempted to add it to the antisemitism template. This strikes me as both promotional and very inappropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think that any encyclopedic content in the article should be spun off to separate topics. The current framework strikes me as pretty close to an inherent WP:SYNTH violation. CJCurrie (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A google book search for "Communist anti semitism" [13] proves there are plenty of scholarly sources discuss this topic. Search for "Marxist anti semitism" also return many ghits [14] --Defender of torch (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt there are plenty of scholarly works that debate the topic of communism and anti-Semitism. What I'm suggesting is that the current article is incredibly polemical and may be an inherent violation of WP:SYNTH. CJCurrie (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the references it is clear, there is a link between communism and antisemitism, or communist regimes displayed antisemitism. I don't see SYNTH in the article, but as a compromise the name can be changed for example Communism and antisemitism. But blanket deletion is not a solution. --Defender of torch (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Communism and antisemitism seems to be much better title. I have moved the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defender: Right now the article does not define its scope at all, so every partisan can bring in RS to back up any point. Academic research on the topic addresses different aspects of it, in fact different topics. Consider the case of grassroots nationalism in the Eastern Bloc countries that frequently evolved into outright anti-everything. Was it part of communist ideology? no. Part of regime? Rarely, rather the regimes simply failed to control it. Part of the history of communist nations? Definitely yes. Any given academic source (say, Reinventing Russia: Russian nationalism and the Soviet state, 1953-1991 by Yitzhak Brudny]) will be on topic for some scopes and off topic for others. The fact that this book exists (and is fully recommended by yours truly) does not mean it's usable in each possible scope.
  • Comment: While I agree with you that the article should be deleted, I don't follow your rationale. You're saying that communism and Judaism are antithetical. That's also (in essence) what the article is trying to say. How is agreement with the article a reason to delete it? Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Well, since anti-religion is a defining characteristic, there's no point in singling out Judaism, since it's just another religion of out of many. It's core concept should already exist on the main communism article. So this article is pointless. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Given the extensive citation in the article, I would have said to WP:USERFY until the article's WP:SYN and WP:COI blemishes become sufficiently removed (assuming that they can be removed). However, given that the article's main contributor is no longer interested in being a part of the WP community, I see no reasonable option save for outright deletion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The article has problems -- in some places bordering on severe -- but the topic is notable, the content is well-sourced, and the re-title helps. I would be a very strong supporter of this being kept if the article's author hadn't just retired, however...indeed, I'm practically neutral on this. I can't quite endorse deletion, however -- the topic is a notable one, and the sourcing is excellent, if in places SYNTH-y. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrow scope and Rename to evade the nonsensical oxymoron in title (how come "happiness for all /even if they don't want it/" ideology exclude one particular ethnicity? it did not). IMO, Communist ideology and antisemitism, Antisemitism of communist regimes, and Antisemitism in Eastern Bloc are three different scopes that only marginally overlap (the latter topic, for example, also covers antisemitism of anti-communists and grassroots antisemitism barely tolerated by the regimes); each has lots of academic research behind it. While all three can be merged into one summary-style pile Antisemitism and Communism, I don't see any chances of it happening in the near future. Start with one manageable topic. NVO (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too think the article should be Renamed; remember, Marx himself came from an (ethnically, not religiously) Jewish background. It should be noted that while the Soviet Union, etc., did frequently engage in antisemitism, it wasn't truly a "communist" regime, at least not in Karl Marx's original sense; Stalin strayed quite far from Marx's teachings, and in some respects, the Soviet Union also had many of the characteristics of fascism, including, of course, antisemitism, which is a common feature of fascist ideologies. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember about Jewish Bolshevism, which makes this article rather odd.Biophys (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Girl (My Story)

Slave Girl (My Story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources found. Also Titles in the "My Story" series. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afco-Skynet

Afco-Skynet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable: there is only one article, one reliable source to establish notability (besides sources that prove they exist), and this is it. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sura Studies

Sura Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Original research based article. Lack of even one Reliable Source. Request AfD delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Tower (My Story)

Bloody Tower (My Story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book by redlinked author. The book ranks 1,505,863 on amazon. No reliable sources, and zero mentions in Google news. Woogee (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 10:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Oak Kim Academy

Young Oak Kim Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined with addition of sources. Sources include two directory listings, a blog, and one non trivial news source. I don't know if that's enough to carry the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to C.O.P.S.. The "votes" below are quite divergent, making a clear determination of consensus difficult. However, I feel that a redirect meets the primary objection that their is insufficient notability for a separate article while allowing for a selective merge as determined by consensus at the target page. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Krusher

Rock Krusher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article needs deletion or merging to C.O.P.S. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @192  ·  03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Fearsome Five. Any verifiable content can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nano (comics)

Nano (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to warrant own article, and is orphaned, sloppily written, etc. Should be integrated into main article for comic. Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @192  ·  03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The fact that the nominator is also the original author is compelling, and the "keep" arguments are of a general nature and not specific to this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Holcberg

David Holcberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this article some 3 years ago when I was new here, and before I even knew that there was such a thing as notability criteria. I'm older and wiser now, and I don't think this person qualifies as notable under WP:BIO. Specifically, I can't find any independent reliable sources about the man. A google news search reveal plenty of articles by him, but I can't find anything about him (other than bios on websites that publish his writings). Yilloslime TC 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @190  ·  03:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dj jagz

Dj jagz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. DJ with sketchy notability. Only primary sources are used in the article. Google News returns nothing. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @184  ·  03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After weighing up the opinions on both sides, I see a consensus to delete here. Many of those arguing "keep" failed to give reasons why the sources provided were reliable. Others did not base their arguments on policy or the article at all, only basing their vote on the fact that they knew it, so I discounted those completely. Those commenting to delete backed their arguments and gave well-reasoned opinions, hence this close. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.T.A.L. (role-playing game)

F.A.T.A.L. (role-playing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, ephemeral roleplaying game. While I can attest that the game's existence was a heavily debated subject on a particular online forum, the article is sourced almost exclusively from that forum, and so fails WP:V and WP:RS. I'm not remotely sold that it clears any notability bar. There are zero Google News hits for the subject, and no evidence that print sources exist discussing it. What elements of WP:N would anyone like to claim this fulfills?  Ravenswing  15:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are independent reviews listed as sources, (whether they are high enough quality is another issue.) This game is notorious for how bad it is, but that may not transfer to Wikipedia notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable Smappy (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notably infamous among RPG hobbyists. Check this review, or this one, or here. Or here or here. The poor prose of the reviews is unfortunately typical of RPG coverage on the web and commenters shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that there are other, better presented sites on this topic which are notable by their absence. On a more practical level, it's notable enough that if it's deleted you're going to see enthusiasts keep recreating it for years to come, so you're better spent on getting this version up to standard rather than revisiting it every six months or so in AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify the above - as far as web searches goes, this is it. There isn't any great authoritative editorially controlled site on RPGs in existence that we could reasonably expect to have covered this game. Print RPG magazines (if you can get your hands on them) are by and large either mouthpieces for particular publishers or eclectic local interest rags and fanzines. The only possible higher indicator of notability you'd see for an RPG is it winning an annual award or being picked up by a major publisher, neither of which leave room for games which are notable for being bad. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point. There is this curious notion floating around Wikipedia is that if reliable sources don't exist for a subject, the provisions of WP:V should somehow be suspended. Nonsense; WP:V holds clearly that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." RPGs aren't exempted from the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. Blog reviews that are poorly written, self-submitted and unedited don't signify that we should accept poorly written, self-submitted and unedited blog reviews as reliable sources; it's why we don't accept such submissions as reliable sources in the first place.  Ravenswing  11:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability is relative; the purpose of WP:V is to establish whether a source that makes a claim can be trusted to be accurate in that claim. The fact being sourced here, however, is that an opinion exists - in this case, that FATAL is so notably bad as to be a meme within the RPG community. WP:V isn't relevant here because the linked source is itself the opinion, much as in the same way as the statement "A video of a cat can be found on YouTube" can be sourced by linking to the video on YouTube. We don't care whether the person filming the cat fact-checked the cat or was subject to editorial control; the mere fact of the video's existence supports, in this case, the claim. Besides, I refer again to my practicality argument - it will require less work on the part of the Wikipedia community to get this article right now than it will to keep taking it back to AfD each time it gets re-created. It may not be a victory in principle but it will be one in real terms. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if the article was about the opinion, then yes, a case could be made that a source about that opinion might be valid for it. This article is not about any controversy about FATAL, but about FATAL itself, and therefore sources which fail to meet the reliability bar are invalid. In this particular case, you're claiming that the subject is notable solely because some blog posts yell at it, which is a desperately low bar to notability; m That being said, that there's a ready remedy to non-notable subjects being recreated after deletion, presuming there's any such problem. It isn't as if we don't have an active deletion process, despite the risk that someone might choose to recreate the many articles deleted every day.  Ravenswing  16:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no reliable sources to show the notability of this. None of the sources given constitute a reliable source. If we had to rely on a user submitted review on amazon to try and show notability for a book there wouldn't even be any debate about it. This is no different. Quantpole (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete claims like "worst ever" and allegations of racism and misogyny against a living person would require some really rock-solid sources backing them up. Not only doesn't this article do so, it can't even manage regular reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reviews cause it to meet WP:N. BLP issues probably need to go however. (I'll tackle that now unless someone has already done so). Hobit (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @183  ·  03:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will admit, my primary objection here is that I've heard of it and I'd considered its notoriety a matter of public knowledge. It's personally notorious among gamers I know and internet communities I frequent. I know what policy says about the worth of that argument, and I'm using it only in the sense that despite Google searches not returning hugely reliable sources, I have reason to suspect that reliable sources nevertheless exist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another argument totally without substantive value, note that typing "Byron Hall F" into Google returns the suggestion "Byron Hall Fatal", which again leads to a reasonable suspicion that notability exists which we're merely having trouble locating the sources for. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recall a statement in policy that where reliable sources establishing notability are suspected to exist, but cannot be easily located (often a problem in foreign-language or esoteric subjects) the community should hesitate to delete, especially where the statements in the article are themselves uncontroversial. However, I confess I'm unable to find that reference and even if I were there'd be a question as to whether this falls in that category. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I found it at WP:FAILN - "It is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. [...] If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." Which isn't quite as strong as I hoped or remembered but is at least relevant for consideration. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right that the guideline's relevant for consideration, but considering it does your position no favors; do you consider it likely that any coverage can be found in reliable, independent sources, never mind "significant" coverage? That's the sole relevant definition of notability here, not whether those of us who participate in a particular Internet forum know about it, which is in the same category as an WP:IKNOWIT argument.  Ravenswing  13:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- regretfully. The sources include a blog, a wiki and the game itself: none of which is sufficient. The only other source is a lengthy review from rpg.net, and I am not convinced they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And since attempts to find more stuff have failed, I am forced to conclude that deletion is the only option. I say regretfully, because the review I just mentioned is extremely funny. Go read it. Reyk YO! 12:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reliability of the sources is extremely dubious, meaning anything coming from a secondary source is not verified, so we have problems with original research, lack of notability and neutrality. If sources are found then there's nothing stopping the article being brought back. The question of notability was brought up on the article talk page more than 6 months ago, which is more than enough time for someone to have a good look for sources if they were so inclined. Someoneanother 12:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Game of some infamy in the RPG community - requiresd an additional source other than RPG.net of course, I;ve added the resuce tag accordingly in the hope that sources can be found. Artw (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 00:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watashi Wa

Watashi Wa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally PRODed this article, which was removed for no reason I could see. Fails notability criteria for bands. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets criteria 5 of WP:MUSIC for bands. 2 albums released on Tooth & Nail Records. Also, most of these 151 Google News hits seem to be about the band. --Smashvilletalk 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @183  ·  03:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poe Darli Theintan

Poe Darli Theintan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @182  ·  03:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nickson

Chris Nickson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fixing broken AFD for another user. Apparently I'm the only one who ever notices redlink afds. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin McClure

Dustin McClure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable runner. Orange Mike | Talk 02:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RECOMMEND IT STAYS: I'm a World Record holder recognized by several organizations throughout the world and see no reason why my page can not stay. If there are problems with my page, please assist me in correcting the issues; but to consider me "non-notable" I think not. you can google search my name and find several pages on internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.215.21.2 (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrholder (talk • contribs) — Wrholder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I do not understand why this page is being considered for deletion, if it needs help correcting certain issues, let me know so that I can address these issues and correct the situation. Thanks!Wrholder (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)— Wrholder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Winters Tracey

Rosemary Winters Tracey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poet, with one self published work in amazon, & nothing on worldcat. She boasts on her homepage "Recently I was honored. I have had my name included in Wikipedia! " Already deleted by PROD, but rewritten. Not a blp; apparently recently died [15], no obit in G News, nothing usable in Google. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Contrary to the single "keep" argument, WP:N is an editing guideline at en.wiki, and one of the most common reasons for deletion. It's status as a guideline, not a policy, but not just an essay either, was upheld by consensus at an RFC last year. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kerika

Kerika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As detailed as this article is, it covers a wiki application (Kerika) that doesn't seem to have any real notability. Kerika, the company and application, seems to have been active from around 2002 to 2007, and during that time never had any notable usage or press coverage, as far as I can tell. Yaron K. (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 07:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find independent coverage in reliable sources. Pcap ping 08:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed to deletion. The software and the company are still active, and new users continue to use the product, particularly in the academic and non-profit communities, so it is not correct to state that the company and application have been inactive since 2007. The Kerika article doesn't meet any of the criteria for deletion, which, presumably is why the proposal for deletion is based upon the fuzzy concept of notability, which itself is poorly defined, changes constantly, and lacks any consensus within the Wikipedia community. If this is all that's the foundation for this proposal, it makes for a very shaky proposal indeed. Note: I am the original author of this article; everyone contributing to this debate should disclose potential conflicts of interest. Spy99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment Alright then: I'm a MediaWiki developer, which is a potential conflict of interest. By the way, lack of notability is one of the criteria for deletion in the list you linked to; and I think it's the most common one. Yaron K. (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Not all conflicts of interest are the same, and having a potential conflict of interest isn't a red flag in itself; it is important to examine the specific conflict of interest that may apply in a specific situation. In this particular situation, the person proposing the deletion has an direct, commercial conflict of interest since the company that he founded and leads (WikiWorks) gains whenever Kerika or other wiki software are marginalized by being tagged as "non-notable". Furthermore, the timing[1] of the original proposal for deleting the Kerika article raises concerns that the conflict of interest is actual and not just potential: the request was made less than a week before WikiWorks started its marketing campaign on Twitter[2] and its blog[3]. Spy99 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true, yes, I also do MediaWiki consulting, which I should have mentioned. The timing is coincidental; I've been working on improving wiki-related articles here for the last few months. Not that it helps me to have the timing be coordinated. Thanks for plugging my company, though. Yaron K. (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Lester

Seb Lester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really sure if this guy qualifies as notable or not. He has created a number of "big-user" fonts, but not much turns up as far as WP:RS. No big academical or philosophy contributions that I can tell. -Zeus-u|c 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 02:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larken Egleston

Larken Egleston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable culinary columnist for a local magazine. GNews, naturally, turns up a few articles by him, but no significant coverage of him.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 'speedy delete' under WP:CSD#A10, as redundant to movement DES (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What creates movement

What creates movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article that is completely unnecessary—just see movement. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. (See Wikipedia:No original research as well.) Wikipedia is also not an FAQ., which this article apparently is. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If the author wishes, I will userfy it so that he can work on it in his user space, but I invite him to consider that, if so much effort has not succeeded, the subject is probably in fact not (yet) notable by Wikipedia's standard, and further effort spent trying to make him appear so may simply be wasted - see WP:OVERCOME. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Pollara

AfDs for this article:
Francis Pollara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second time around, same problems as last time. Speedy nom as recreation of deleted content was declined. This is mostly puffery to make it look like this guy is some big player in the film industry when in fact he is mostly just another member of the crew on most of the projects he's worked on. The sources are mostly YouTube or IMBD, although there's also a high school paper thrown in and a few other sources that are not exactly reliable. I would also like to see the page salted so we don't end up here again in another few months when Mr. Polarra and/or his friends decide to try this again. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the references are pages created by the subject of the article. He has worked on noteworthy projects that have wiki pages, but his involvement in those projects was merely as a behind the scenes crew member, which are important but usually not WP:N. Everything he has produced is a youtube video, and the only references he has for these videos are the links to youtube, I don't see nor could I find in a quick Google search any independent news covering these videos. MATThematical (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: Is there a policy on wikipedia that refuses my right to post an article if I happen to know the person? Also I understand feedback but what good does it do for the wikipedia community to merely shutdown articles you don't want to have posted. I have spent many hours on making this a solid piece with many references and serious data. I mean there are many articles out there that are ridiculous compared to the serious content I am trying to post. And yes its in the eye of the beholder so who is to say people agree with you? Lets take a second to look at previous topics: Delete. Creation of a WP: SPA, not sourced, no reliable sources available. No bias against re-creating in future should source/notablity issues be addressed. --Whoosit (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed There is a beginner's guide to properly sourcing your article at WP:REFBEGIN that may be of some use to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed Is IMDB not a reliable source? Johnart111 (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are missing there is the most important one, you need reliable sources. And no, IMBD is not considered one of those, it's content is generated by users, and is often inaccurate. Also, several of the linked entries do not mention Mr. Pollara at all, just like last time. And since you asked, creating articles about people you know is in fact strongly discouraged as you have an obvious conflict of interest in such a situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a perfect example of what's wrong here, you just added a link to [17] to the article. That is a website intended to promote this film, it is not independent from it in any way. And, as if that weren't enough, I don't see any mention of Mr. Pollara on the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that makes sense. In the frenzy of trying to prove everything is true I have posted so many references. And I changed that just because before it was IMDB. But now its completely removed as you mention the site without his name is irrelevant.Johnart111 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to: Everything he has produced is a youtube video, and the only references he has for these videos are the links to youtube, I don't see nor could I find in a quick Google search any independent news covering these videos. MATThematical (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Releasing video content virally is equivalent to it being distributed. In addition I have added links to Future Shorts and Ad World who have written on these productions numerous times. Regardless of the fact that he has won an Emmy. Question: If I have a document in print that seems to be unavailable on the internet but comes from a reliable source like the Television Academy of Arts & Sciences could I simply make it available on the web then reference it as a PDF? If so I can do that as well.

Please Keep: Agreed Francis is not some world renowned cherished man. He is 20 years old but please tell me what you where doing when you were twenty. I am six years older and find his determination not only impressive but inspirational. That is why I reached out to do this in the first place he is unaware of the article actually as I have been attempting to complete it officially. To me his story is an important one and although it seems he hasn't made a huge effort to publicize himself on the web I am working with what I have and I do not agree that because I dont have "links" to share to direct content it makes this article unworthy of being posted. Johnart111 (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO! Don't Delete! Johnart111 (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, could I ask you to calm down a bit? Yelling "No, Don't" is simply contradiction and does not help your case. Your desire to tell his story to the world is not wrong, you are just directing it towards the wrong place. The purpose of Wikipedia is to share information that has already been published elsewhere in a reliable source. There are other websites, some of which are listed here, that would be happy to help you share his story with the world. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bee, please don't missinterpret my pleading with you to bother someone else, not yelling. There are plenty of other people on wikipedia that deserve this more than I. This is not a story I concocted. As much as the wikipedia page of other filmmakers is a story of their lives this one follows the same format. These are facts that I have done my best to reference but because there is little content online this article becomes irrelevant. I have references so lets see are there a minimum number of references required per article? If not then I have them. And I will continue to add them accordingly and I will see to it that this article works one way or another. In my opinion you have yet to concretely explain how this article violates Wikipedia policy and requirements.Johnart111 (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried, and I'll try one more time to maker it clear to you. A reliable source for an article like this would be an article in a reputable newspaper, magazine, or website, not a high school newspaper, a website whose content is generated by anonymous users, or a website that is promoting something. Also, these sources need to verify facts related to Mr. Pollara, not simply verify that the projects it is claimed he worked on existed at all. There is not a specific minimum number of references required, but there is a minimum standard of quality and relevance of sources required if the article is to be kept, and so far I'm not seeing such sources. If this gentlemen is such a player in the industry, surely such sources would exist online, but it is not actually required that they be online. If there is a book or print-only magazine or newspaper that has published significant, non-trivial content regarding Mr. Pollara that indicates his notability, that would be fine too. No one is claiming this is a story you made up, just that it does meet the minimum standards to be on Wikipedia regardless of the factual accuracy. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it you win. I am exhausted with you and this impossible barrier. I guess it is up to Francis now. He just has to be a bigger "player". Then it will all be gravy. I will be back though. So I hope you enjoyed deleting another article.Johnart111 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not nice to have to go against such passionate pleas, and I do feel for someone having clearly spent a lot of time working on an article, but I really can't see anything here that's notable by Wikipedia rules. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, despite the protestations of the author. Only one GNews hit, from a minor, non-reliable source that appears to be a high school paper. No major awards. Being a worker or intern on a major film does not confer notability. (GregJackP (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: To address the life story approach, I would point out that there are many readers and researchers who would be interested the the life story of Stanley Kubrick. But the life story of the subject here is presented in lieu of notability. I don't mean to suggest that only a Kubrick deserves Wikipedia presence. But clearly, in the case of someone who is notable, the scenario can almost write itself based on the notable achievements themselves. Besides, this individual has production assistant credits listed under the cinematographer heading. I don't see a "key" crew listing anywhere. (Rudybowwow (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy back to impassioned author. The article definitely needs a rewrite to eliminate the inclusion of so much background on family and friends, and to make it feel less like a diary page, and the subject may merit inclusion in a year or so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your response Michael. Unfortunately I am still learning all the wiki editor terms userfy and user space I am not sure their meaning. I assume you mean that within my user talk page I can post the article until it is appropriate and trimmed for mainspace? Thanks again. Johnart111 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essentially yes. A workspace can be created by editors as a place where they may create and work on articles until they are better ready to survive in mainspace. You create a page with a title "(Username)/sandbox(or workspace)/(article name)". As soon as you add something to the page and hit save, it will have been created. In this case here, keep track of it being closed and {likely) deleted. Then referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Pollara (2nd nomination), ask the closing administrator on his talk page if he would please userfy the article for you. He can then "undelete" it long enough to move the entire article and its editing history into the sandbox or workspace so it might be worked on. I also offer that you might take a look at a page I am myself developing as a primer for new editors at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Newcomer's guide to guidelines. Its not complete, but it should help a bit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naw... not a party-pooper. Local individual written about in local news and article not picked up for reprinting in major papers. In determining its validity, I found that the La Canada Valley Sun is part of Tribune Publishing and that it could be pretty much be accepted a reliable in context to what is being sourced,[19] but yes... the article represents just one article from a few years back in a local edition paper with a small circulation. I'm still willing to work with User:Johnart111 is this gets userfied. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Butcher

Ed Butcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Orange Mike | Talk 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Henry Fry

Peter Henry Fry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can find no significant coverage of this anthropologist/college professor. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:PROF. J04n(talk page) 00:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was  no consensus. Today, Johannes Jaar made a major edit to improve the article's sourcing and quality and I think there is a good chance that this edit will make the article more palatable to those who have voted to delete it. Since the article has been relisted several times, I won't continue to drag out the issue. The article may be renominated at some point if someone feels Jaar's edit is insufficient. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Roodt

Dan Roodt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A possibly self-promotional biography of a white nationalist of questionable notability. The only third-party source linked mentions Roodt almost as an afterthought, and really isn't about him. All other links are to his own websites and blogs. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Above is a whole bunch of nonsense, it is without fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.schoeman (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This should be kept at all cost, he is a true icon of the Afrikaner. This is not about anyone else except the protection of our culture. Dr. Roodt is a respected member of our community and a leader.
  • Delete: I agree that this entry should be deleted. I can read Afrikaans, and would therefore rewrite it - but I do not consider Dan Roodt as noteable enough (nationally and internationally) to be entered into Wikipedia. This is only supported by the fact that he would probably not have been added had he not written so much of the page himself. Furthermore, the article mentions that he "is cited in both Kannemeyer (1983: 241) and Van Coller (1998: 83), being the two most recent and authoritative literary histories on Afrikaans literature." The use of this information is questionable. Both texts are viewed as leading literary histories of Afrikaans, yet the information is incomplete. Simply stating that Roodt is mentioned is redundant if there is no clarification of why he is mentioned. The text from 1983 is not the most recent edition (as claimed), and an updated edition was released in 2005. In the 2005 edition, Kannemeyer states that Roodt's book Moltrein (2004) is testimony of a severe ineptness regarding the use of the Afrikaans language, and that his oeuvre makes no significant contribution to the Afrikaans literature whatsoever. The publication of his most recent books seems to be the simple result of his organisation (PRAAG) having its own publisher, as is also stated in the article as it is at the moment. None of the other respectable South African publishers who publish Afrikaans books have published any book by Roodt. His entry into these literary histories is most likely because he published a book through the major anti-apartheid underground publisher Taurus at the beginning of the 80s. Johannes Jaar (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This person has been editing Wikipedia (including this article) as User: Danroodt. He has also attempted to advertise (spam) one of his own blog entries on the Nelson Mandela article. The article's creator, User: Tertiavanreenen, may also ties to Roodt, as it appears to be a SPA who has only contributed to this article, not any others. Also, if you Google "Tertia van reenen dan roodt", you get quite a few pages with both names on them. However, most of those pages are in Afrikaans, and I can't read Afrikaans, so I don't know for sure if they are linked in some way or not. Many of those pages have the word "praag" in the title, though, and according to this article, PRAAG is the name Roodt uses to refer to his "organization". So it's possible that Tertiavanreenen is affiliated with PRAAG, and would therefore arguably have a conflict of interest if this were true. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See [21], [22] and [23] for evidence of what I was talking about. Interestingly, the anti-Mandela blog has the country code ".tk", which is associated with Tokelau! Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup I think. GregJackP's comment leaves me puzzled. If there are "plenty of reliable sources", shouldn't the article be fixed rather than deleted? I'm thinking that someone must once have said that AfD isn't cleanup. Google News does indeed have a fair bit of coverage of the subject, and he is a member of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, and that should count for something too. If Mr Roodt won't mend his autobiographical ways, we have ways to deal with that. Has anyone pointed WP:COI out to him? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - clarification. The article as written appears to be a COI and AB. The WP:AB link states "Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted." It appears to me that the article exists primarily to advance his interests, without a single mention of the controversies that surround him. There is no mention of his views that blacks are by nature violent [24], faces or faced a hate-speech charge [25], or any other blemishes. I don't have any desire to edit it myself, but I would not object to it being rewritten to Wiki standards. As the article is currently written, it meets the test for deletion under WP:AP. (GregJackP (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete unless somebody can find some reliable sources. If this article was brought to afd soon after its creation, i'd say it just needs to be cleaned up, but due to the time that has gone by, I don't know if it can be cleaned up, but I am not an expert on the subject, so i'd be glad to change my comment towards someone who is if the situation changes. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference you gave appears to be from a publication ("Socialist Worker") that pushes a particular POV. The very name sounds decidedly slanted to me. This doesn't necessarily mean we can't use it as a source, just that we have to be careful when doing so. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me one publication that doesn't push a particular POV... the main difference is how much the POV is mainstream or not. However I agree with you that this article can be only a starting point to search for broader, and therefore more reliable news coverage. PanchoS (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup - In spite of the article currently being mostly his own work, most of the content is uncontroversial and verifiable - even objective truth. There is plenty reliable information available about him - from opponents, supporters and neutral sources. His notability is established as a well known and highly controversial figure in political, literary and cultural (battle)fields in South Africa. A "nobody" doesn't get nearly 200 000 Googlehits. The article's main problem is about what is not in it rather than what is in it. The Afrikaans WP article[26] is much better and can be used to help fix this one. Roger (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP: GOOGLEHITS. Search engine statistics do not guarantee notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the content of WP:GOOGLEHITS. I did not claim that google hits per se make him notable. All I meant is that the fact that the name gets over 200 000 google hits at the very least implies that this person is not a "nobody". WP:GOOGLEHITS does not forbid mentioning the number of hits a subject gets. But that is in any case not the core of my argument - the subject's notability comes from his prominence in the South African media in terms of the high profile role he plays in ethnic politics in the country. The fact that the current article is largely edited by the subject himself does not nullify his notability either. Roger (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Roodt is not a nobody, yet I think that many of the hits on Google are a result of websites either owned or operated by Roodt, or websites owned and operated by supporters of Roodt (or those who agree with some of his views, not necessarily supporters). The following are owned by Roodt: roodt.org, www.praag.co.za, www.praag.co.uk. Searching on Google Scholar results in 80 hits. Not really huge. I also did a search for Dan Roodt on the websites of major South African newspapers (Afrikaans and English) with the following results: Beeld (Afrikaans daily, Northern parts of SA) - 16; Die Burger (Afrikaans daily, Cape area) - 25; Volksblad (Afrikaans daily, Free State/Central) - 5; Rapport (Afrikaans weekly, national) - 21; City Press (English weekly, national) - none; Mail & Guardian (English, national) - 15; Pretoria News (English, Gauteng) - 4; Times Live (all news papers owned by The Times, including Sunday Times) - 26; Sowetan (English, national) - none. Unfortunately much of the subject's notability seems to be generated by him via his own websites (which are often copied from and paraphrased elsewhere on blogs, etc.), and by writing letters to newspapers and South African e-zines (like www.litnet.co.za). I don't think his part in the South African media in terms of ethnic politics is that big. His prominence is utterly questionable, and hardly probable. Delete Johannes Jaar (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got the same result when I Googled him; nearly all the hits were from websites linked to Roodt or PRAAG. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the second relist, done in the hopes that a more conclusive consensus can be reached. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this repeated listing is achieving anything at all. I'm not even sure that it should in principle be allowed as it can be interpreted that the proposer is pushing a particular POV. Roger (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a debate. Pushing a point of view is expected behaviour in a debate; indeed, it's a central aspect of debating, and nobody should be censured for doing it.

    I think Dan Roodt is controversial enough, and well-known enough, that people might search for "Dan Roodt" on Wikipedia. This implies that Dan Roodt should not be a redlink. It could be a redirect to a different article, or to a list of activists, rather than an article in its own right. In other words, whether or not Dan Roodt is notable enough to deserve his own article, his name is a plausible search term.

    This means that what we need to decide is whether to replace his article with a redirect (and if so, to where), or whether to keep a shortened version of the article.

    This is not a decision for AfD. You don't need administrative tools to do any of that, so the normal talk-page discussion route is sufficient.

    Therefore, this debate can safely and correctly be closed as "no consensus" and the matter continued on the article's talk page until a conclusion is reached.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This should be kept at all cost, he is a true icon of the Afrikaner. This is not about anyone else except the protection of our culture. Dr. Roodt is a respected member of our community and a leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.schoeman (talk 17:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)• contribs) 16:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Malik Shabazz. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darth skaro

Darth skaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obviously non-notable fanfiction element. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web content? Since it's more about the fic than the character? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Records

Colonial Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The label is simply not notable.. Musiclover212 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After Nine series

After Nine series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about three recently uploaded amateur web videos, each 10-14 minutes long. Many references and external links, but none to reliable sources or to evidence for encyclopedic notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (web)). HaeB (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by SarekOfVulcan with rationale of "Attack page created in violation of solemn pledge not to make controversial edits on Jewish issues." Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish sex abuse cases

Jewish sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Unlike the Catholic case, which was treated as a single issue concerning the reaction of the Catholic church to various accusations, this article is a collection of various unrelated cases lumped together for what seems to be prurient and provactive purposes. Notable cases are already discussed in the articles of the people involved. Wikipedia is NOT theawarenesscenter, which has in the past been considered a non-reliable source, and this can be a BLP disaster to boot. Individual cases, if notable, should be handled as they are now, in the articles about their protagonists, and non-notable cases should be removed forthwith. The implication that there is a relationship between the cases is incorrect, unlike the other article, mentioned as "somewhat" similar. Avi (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:POINT. If anything, this article shows how rare sexual abuse is in the Jewish community. The parallel article about the Catholic church discusses an endemic phenomenon; this article is just a shopping list of isolated cases, which is unencyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 07:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. (I'll preface my remarks by saying that this is a topic that can easily be a case of "I don't like it" or "I do like it" so I am consciously trying to avoid such arguments.) As pointed out in the nom, there is no commonality tying these people together other than their ethnic identity as Jews. The article also does not establish "Jewish sexual abuse" as different from any other type of sexual abuse.
    This seems to be a violation of WP:FORK by trying to create an image of a large phenomenon where there is only individual actions. This impression is reinforced by closing the list of offenders with a list of watchdog organizations.
    Any information that is here should be in the individual articles. At most there should be a category of "Sex offenders" and a category of "Sex crimes watchdog groups". Joe407 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be a list of cases of sexual abuse by people who just happen to be Jewish, which doesn't seem any more notable to me than, say, "Sex abuse cases by tall people" would be. The Catholic church article, by contrast, is about alleged systemic cover-up by the church hierarchy, which makes it more than the sum of the individual cases. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The commonality is not simply that the abusers were Jewish, but that they were teachers, school officials or Rabbis, who were convicted of or pled guilty to having while in positions of trust, authority and responsibility, sexually abused children. The incidents are referenced in reliable and independent newspapers. The article also notes organizations set up to deal with the problem. Edison (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For teachers and school officials, I don't think it's their religion that is the notable issue though - I would have thought the fact they happen to be Jewish teachers and school officials is incidental -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most of the Delete votes are by Jewish partisans and zealots, therefore they have a conflict of interest and their votes should be discounted. This has been in the public domain for a long time, it is widely acknowledged in respective communities themselves and should absolutely not be censored for biased motives. By the way, I did not add any original content and was just borrowing from earlier material that was already in Wikipedia. ADM (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the above editor's (also the architect of the article in question) comments speak for themselves regarding his/her POV and intent when framing said article. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I was refering to was your inappropariate use of the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. I maintain in all honesty that this page allows for partisans to gang-up on a subject and purposefully bias the result of a deletion vote. ADM (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject talk pages and notice boards are the preferred way to inform participants in projects about issues that may interest them. -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with that notion, especially when it involves controversial subjects tied to politics and/or religion. You can't have an objective discussion about a controversial issue when people who have vested interests all want to intervene at the same time during a critical moment. ADM (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all sections of the article, per nom, except for the sections on Mark Dratch and The Awareness Center; those sections seem salvageable to me and should be spun out into their own articles. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TheAwarenessCenter has, in the past, been ruled a NON-reliable source, as it is Vicki Polins personal hatchet site, and is not even remotely neutral, and thus cannot be considered accurate. At least a newspaper/magazine ostensibly has journalistic integrity. Whether one agrees with Polin or not, she is not an acceptabel source for anything other than herself, and using theawarenesscenter as a source for anything about a living person would be a gross violation of BLP. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, articles already exist at The Awareness Center, Inc. and Mark Dratch, so am I correct that you agree that there is nothing worth keeping in this article? -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't citing the AC as a source, but rather as a party in a dispute. That's an importance difference and it should be taken into account as entirely legitimate. ADM (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it's quite fair to label the creator (User: ADM) as being a "SPA" dedicated solely to bashing Jews. I myself have had only one interaction with this user in the past, and it was a discussion concerning the article Mandingo Theory, which has nothing to do with Jews. Also, isn't it a violation of WP: NPA to call another user antisemitic? Even if it isn't, I don't think it's fair to label this user a SPA. However, I'm certainly not defending ADM's "Jewish partisans" comment above (which was definitely over the line and itself a violation of WP: NPA) nor am I defending this article. After all, I, too, voted Delete. Having an article about "Jewish sex abuse cases" makes no more sense than having an article about so-called "Black crime"; when the only thing the cases have in common is the religion and/or ethnicity of the perpetrators, and there is no evidence that the crimes themselves were motivated by religion and/or ethnicity, what purpose can the article have other than to stir up prejudice at the group in question? That's another reason why I think this article should be deleted. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I do think the sections on The Awareness Center and Mark Dratch are salvageable. Those two sections should probably be spun out into their own articles when the rest of the article is deleted. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cases all involve pedophile rabbis who abused underaged males. It has destroyed entire communities in and around Brooklyn. Therefore it is appropriate to call them Jewish sex abuse cases. You should change your vote when taking into account the evidence that these are real abuses, not made-up abuses. ADM (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they were "made up"...I just think that grouping them all together here pushes the boundaries of WP:SYNTH. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no synthesis involved, since most of the content comes from reputable media sources such as the Baltimore Jewish Times and the New York Times. [28][29] ADM (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Please review WP:SYNTH; putting together true statements in an original way to make a point NOT made elsewhere in a reliable/verifiable source is a violation of WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should accept that the Baltimore Jewish Times is a reliable source. For you not to accept this is a great moral failure. ADM (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did the BJT/NYT make the connection between all the cases you brought and discuss the concept of "Jewish sex abuse cases"? Or did it just discuss one case, perhaps already on wikipedia under the name of the protagonist, and it was you who decided to start weaving a thread of original research to combine these disparate cases? Reading the articles demonstrates the latter answer to my question, or a SYNTH violation. -- Avi (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. They're not stupid, and they know what they're talking about, especially since it involve dozens of articles over an extended period of time (many years). ADM (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles to which you linked each discuss one specific case. It is you who created the concept "Jewish sex abuse cases" and are bringing the laundry list in the article. You may have a wonderful paper to publish in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere, but wikipedia is not the place to create relationships as such, it is called original research/synthesis and goes against our core policies, even if it is true. Once again, this article is a violation and needs to be removed. -- Avi (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're accusing me of making it all up, which is blatantly false. Of course, I could mount a counter-accusation about you trying to cover all of this up, and protect the reputations of noted child abusers, but I won't, because I'm kind of tired right now. ADM (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please 'carefully read both wikipedia policy, the articles in question, and the comments above. You are being accused of creating the concept of "Jewish sex abuse cases" within wikipedia. None of the sources you bring discuss a larger scheme, the way the sources discussed the Catholic sex abuse cases as being all one interconnected phenomenon. Despite even if each and every case you bring is true, the fact that you created a thread linking them is original research/synthesis and forbidden. Simple. -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, we have articles on Dratch, Gafni, Lanner, the awareness center, so your implication of a cover-up, despite being an unfounded personal attack of a rather disgusting sort, which is, I guess, in line with your comments about partisans and zealots, is also completely false. If anything, I've protected various articles from being whitewashed. The difference is that I am acting in accordance with policy and guideline, and you are not. That is forbidden. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reflection of other relibale/verifable sources and NOT used as a platform to create either smears or whitewashing of people. However, as your unfounded accusations clearly indicate, you are not interested in furthering the project, but your own agenda. There are plenty of places on the web for that; wikipedia, however, is not one of them. -- Avi (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to your strange logic, even if 6 million Jews did really die in the Holocaust, this does not mean that the Holocaust happened, only that 6 million murders occured on an individual basis. This is a grave logical fallacy, one that can ruin the lives of millions of people. ADM (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides being a classic response of those interested in their own agendas (bringing in Nazis/the Holocaust when it does not apply) I fail to follow ANY thread of logic connecting the above statement with the total discussion. I hope the closing admin reads ADM's comments; they are rather clarifying. -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find this to be controversial at all and did not expect ANY controversial responses. So, if I was involved in such a debate, it was purely on an accidental basis. I also forgot about my pledge, and was not aware that it was still binding after over a year without problems. I think most Jews on Wikipedia should not consider me as their enemy, and should also peacefully acknowledge that there have been abuse problems in the Jewish community, just like in the Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:ADM violating the terms of his unblock from_indef?. The user has been informed. -- Avi (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerika&oldid=341293620
  2. ^ http://twitter.com/wikiworks
  3. ^ http://wikiworks.com/blog/2010/02/09/welcome-to-the-wikiworks-blog/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_February_23&oldid=345855560"