Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m rm malformatted entry - no reason for deletion given, no edit summary. Will contact the nom as to what the rationale is, then resubmit.
Line 75: Line 75:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Vago}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Vago}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Teufel III}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Teufel III}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in the Philippines}}

Revision as of 14:06, 3 March 2010

< 2 March 4 March >

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. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweep Glass

Sweep Glass (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)

Nonsense made-up slang term. Prod removed by creator. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:52, 3 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) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Zika

Jan Zika (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've prodded the article with a rationale: No substantial and independent sources neither in Czech nor in English language. The subject of this article doesn't meet basic notability guidelines. Prod template was removed without significant improvements. It is quite clear that Zika works for Z1 TV, however, I can't find any evidence of notability or a notable contribution in his field of work, noted by reliable and independent sources. Not notable TV anchor. Vejvančický (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A director? Could you add any links, please? There is one notable Jan Zika, a communist politician murdered during the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia [1]. I forgot to mention him, thank you for reminding me this important fact. Btw, I notified people fluent in Czech language at WP:CZECH. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough, also, I don't think this can be merged to Z1 TV for the sole reason that its not a developped article which is sufficiantly long to contain Jan Zika. -RobertMel (talk) 03:39, 11 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 to US F1 Team. I will redirect, leaving editors free to merge pertinent material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 15:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US F1 Type 1

US F1 Type 1 (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 US F1 Team has ceased operations on building this car. It will not be finished or compete in the 2010 Formula One season. [3] [4] Any useful information can be salvaged in the US F1 Team article. --Midgrid(talk) 12:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: The FIA has released the official 2010 entry list without US F1. [5]--Midgrid(talk) 21:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cs-wolves(talk) 12:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tubefurnace (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Redirect to US F1 Team, as a completed Type 1 doesn't appear it will see the light of day. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to US F1 Team - there doesn't appear to be much which can be saved here, but if anyone feels the information shouldn't be deleted it should be merged to the team's article. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to US F1 Team. I agree that it might not merit it's own article, but we should keep the information. 83.161.196.242 (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The team that never was just about rates a short article on notability grounds, but the non-existent car does not. Little to nothing has ever been written on the car, and now never will be. Merge anything worth saving - but the only bit of real information in the article about the car as opposed to the team is that it was to have a transverse gearbox, and a year from now I doubt even the most rabid F1 fan (me, for example) will care. 4u1e (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The car was never fully-built. Had it been, it could have an article as I believe there is a precedent here (with DAMS maybe?). Merge anything important to US F1 Team. It should not have been created until launch anyway. - mspete93 18:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be fair it may, like the DAMS and several others, pop up in a future book on "F1 cars that never raced", but until it does... 4u1e (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to US F1 Team, rather than delete outright. The information is relevant but not on it's own article. The359 (Talk) 23:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to US F1 Team, per The359 and others. DH85868993 (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the team article. It's part of the history of the team. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to US F1 Team, then re-edit. There's very little here of note, but USF1 is worth an entry, and some of this info might be worth having.Tubefurnace (talk) 19:38, 5 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) 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ribbon Device

The Ribbon Device (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 a band that started in 2004. Notability anyone? –BuickCenturyDriver 11:22, 3 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sheldon

Jonathan Sheldon (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 due to previous PROD deletion. Reason given this time was "Non-notable film producer, little reliably published biographical information" Current article has no RS, just IMDB. Even if this were sourced, the current assertions clearly fail WP:CREATIVE. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jonathan Sheldon, while not a household name, is notable on various fronts both as an author and producer. For example, he was quoted in a 2008 New York Times article on filmmaking ""Twin Hopes: Satisfying Movie, Low Costs"". regarding his work with The Polish brothers as a producer, (for example, listed as producer of a notable movie reviewed in Variety ""Keep Cool"". Retrieved 2010-02-26. Stay Cool); he is also listed at Amazon ""The Declaration of Independent Filmmaking: An Insider's Guide to Making Movies Outside of Hollywood by Mark Polish, Michael Polish, and Jonathan Sheldon "". Retrieved 2010-02-26. as co-author of 'The Declaration of Independent Filmmaking: An Insider's Guide to Making Movies Outside of Hollywood by Mark Polish, Michael Polish, and Jonathan Sheldon (Paperback - Oct. 17, 2005) with reviews listed in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal. Notability established to my satisfaction. Jusdafax 23:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The original (poorly written) article on Sheldon now found at 'Deletionpedia': [6]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find a small amount of coverage of this person's work, and all of the articles cover the subject in depth. However, I can find absolutely nothing on the man himself. As far as I can see general notability hasn't been met. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. The Polish brothers are definitely notable. The book might be notable. (Interestingly, the copyright page shows the book as "copyright by Mark Polish and Michael Polish" - but not by Sheldon, even though he is credited as the third co-author.) But he himself doesn't make the cut. There just isn't enough independent coverage of him. --MelanieN (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MelanieN. Notability is not inherited from his work. I don't see significant coverage of the man himself. Jujutacular T · C 15:48, 10 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Houseman

Tyson Houseman (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)

seems to fail WP:Bio Alan - talk 05:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note - artcile creator is under investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexx Alan - talk 22:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that's a true shame... really... as the article in question does appear to have potential despite its creator. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
article can be easily recreated when notable.. i't's been tagged for over 2 months with no additions to improve it.. If someone has good context to add with reliable references, the article can be saved Alan - talk 23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you contending then that despite sources toward its possible improvement, that the article should be deleted because of WP:NOEFFORT? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article based on whats there and what I was able to find, which is not much of anything, just a few mentions here and there. I don't see how the article will be more than a stub, but I can be wrong, which is why there are these discussions to begin with. the fact that the creator is a sockpuppet doesn't help, but some admins will leave the article providing it can be made notable Alan - talk 03:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that even with sources, it will come down to whether or not appearing in a significant role in the two Twilight films is seen as enough to meet WP:ENT, and if even if currently a stub, whether or not editors think the stub could ever grow as the actor's career advances. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's more about finding referances where the actors notability can be presented and verified. One lead role may not qualify.. if he gets no other significant acting parts, he'll be forgotten. It may qualify under stub for the movie itself, which would be a whole other debate as everyone will interpret the guidelines in their own way on that Alan - talk 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup... the quibble will be if two verified roles in two notable films for this newcomer count as multiple per WP:ENT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:29, 28 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 08:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - You can argue that he has a significant role in a major work. The sources don't seem to cover him in depth, but he is mentioned in a lot of places. Here I think breadth makes up for a lack of depth. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:04, 3 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Influencer marketing

Influencer marketing (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 was written by User:Duncanwbrown, who, in my opinion has written the article as a plug for his book (which is given as a reference: I question the legitimacy of writing an article on a subject that you have written a book about, and then referencing your own book; that seems to be stretching the definition of reliable source somewhat.) As a result, the article, although long and well written (although its tone becomes unencyclopaedic more than once) can be summed up as original research, pure and simple. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Forgive me for turning around your deletion rationale, but aren't you stretching the definition of original research somewhat? OR refers to unpublished facts or syntheses (emphasis mine). Yes, caution is to be exerted if an editor cites his own book. But first, there are numerous other refs in the article, and second, I would like to see an evaluation of the respectability of the publisher before having the book disqualified as a reliable source. (Even then, one could maybe check how much of the article could stay without citing this book). As for the implicit CoI accusation, don't we here have the rare case of a subject expert editing his expert topic? That's not necessarily bad, I daresay. --Pgallert (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In "On the Mall" from The White Album, Joan Didion wrote that "One thing you will note about shopping-center theory is that you could have thought of it yourself, and a course in it will go a long way toward dispelling the notion that business proceeds from mysteries too recondite for you and me." This seems to be yet another such Elk theory, with its now-traditional lists of arbitrary and tautological labels ---

    Influencer Marketing, as increasingly practiced in a commercial context, comprises four main activities:
    * Identifying influencers, and ranking them in order of importance.
    * Marketing to influencers, to increase awareness of the firm within the influencer community
    * Marketing through influencers, using influencers to increase market awareness of the firm amongst target markets
    * Marketing with influencers, turning influencers into advocates of the firm.

    and jargon-laden texts whose meaning is ultimately elusive:

    Sources of influencers can be varied. Marketers traditionally target influencers that are easy to identify, such as press, industry analysts and high profile executives. For most B2C purchases, however, influencers might include people known to the purchaser and the retailer staff. In higher value B2B transactions the community of influencers may be wide and varied, and include consultants, government-backed regulators, financiers and user communities.

    There is, of course, a fairly broad literature about theories of this kind. What distinguishes one author's from another's is not really substance, but only branding. The real problem is the lack of actual information, as opposed to tautology, hair-splitting, and logorrhea, in the texts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 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, Wine Guy~Talk 08:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article clearly written to promote the book, but as previous commenter noted the concept is probably notable itself. Perhaps somebody who knows the material better could find an article to merge it with? --Ktlynch (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable marketing technique covered by numerous sources, as shown by the search links above. The rest is a matter of article editing using ordinary tools, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to word of mouth which seems to be the standard jargon -free term. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 6 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 no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wemmick

John Wemmick (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)

John Wemmick is not an important character and does not need his own article. DrBat (talk) 00:56, 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, Wine Guy~Talk 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect - The article appears to be original research. If anything is to be merged, it must cite secondary sources. PDCook (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research and Merge the rest into the right character list. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been the subject of scholarly papers[7][8] and has plenty more coverage in the sources found by the Google Books and Google Scholar searches linked above. Let's not open ourselves to ridicule as being the encyclopaedia that covers the minutiae of Star Wars and Pokémon but deletes articles about important characters in the accepted literary canon. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 4 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) 01:09, 11 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue hair

AfDs for this article:
Blue hair (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 random, unsourced list of fictional characters that have blue hair. Additionally, there is nothing in the article to justify why "blue hair" is notable. AniMate 07:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actully it is not orginal research as the characters listed can be referenced too in pictures as well however it would have a hard time passing WP:V - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You never know, wiki is a work in progress. Im sure when this was first deleted editors didnt expect to see it up again for AfD yet here we are. Deleting the article is fine, a redirect wont hurt for those readers looking for those blue haired celebs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you no of any celebs that have blue hair? Didn't think so. —Farix (t | c) 02:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But those are either blue hair dye or wigs. It's not a natural blue nor is it a permenent feature of the celeb's attire. —Farix (t | c) 15:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With no sources describing a phenomenon, this is just an OR list of people who happen to have blue hair. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:22, 10 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of US politicians with Confederate ancestry

List of US politicians with Confederate ancestry (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)

Poorly defined list with potentially massive scope. "US politicians" embraces everyone from the President to an unsuccessful candidate to local office. Under these parameters, this list could include most white, southern politicians from the South who have ancestors from the South. My guess is most politicians don't play up their family's connection to the Confederate Army, and this would require some excellent sourcing for whatever politicians added to the list. Currently there are zero sources. AniMate 07:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero sources, zero value. Possible WP:ATTACK: apparently, the Democratic Party is the only party that accepts members with Confederate ancestors. — Rankiri (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep(with necessary expansion and qualification for membership on list). Creating such a list and only including Democrats makes it look like an attack article. Perhaps the article creator just had not gotten around to including John McCain and countless other prominent Republicans]. A list such as this should be sourced to reliable sources such as this one for Georgia Republican Representative Dan Ponder, Republican U.S. Representative Joe Wilson member of Sons of Confederate Veterans [or SenatorStrom Thurmond, [11] a Democrat/Dixiecrat/Republican, rather than user-created genealogy sites such as Ancestry.com. The list should have some lower cutoff, so it includes Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Governors, and members of state legislatures, but not city council members, mayors of small towns, or unsuccessful candidates. Important politicians' biographies may tell who they had as ancestors during the Civil War. We have a great many lists including U.S. politicians organized by their religion or where their distant ancestors immigrated from. Confederate ancestry (especially publicly taking pride in it) seems as relevant as their great grandfather coming from Ireland or having been a Mormon. Edison (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that your criteria is what is wrong with this list. If we have to limit it in a way that isn't obvious from the title, it isn't a good list. AniMate 08:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worthless list. Impossible to limit or define. 150 years after the Civil War, with all the moving around that Americans do, probably a high proportion of the entire American population has a Confederate somewhere in their family tree. I'd guess more than half of us do, whether we know it or not. --MelanieN (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As noted, the article cites no sources, and I just deleted one of the five names (Woodrow Wilson) because sources contradicted the information. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 10 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) 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Staff Development Network

Alaska Staff Development Network (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 coverage verifies that it holds some events but no in depth coverage. [12]. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. The organization exists. It puts on events. That's about it. It shows up on Google almost entirely in the form of either calendar-of-events notices or directory-type listings. It seems to receive zero independent coverage even within Alaksa, much less on a wider scale. --MelanieN (talk) 07:17, 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) 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mae Reid

Mae Reid (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)

part of a series by someone who liked to create Coquitlam councillor articles. fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. nothing really notable about this councillor. limited third party coverage [13]. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, although there is coverage of this woman it is extremely shallow and doesn't cover anything about her career or her life in depth. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long way. In my view, coverage would have to be quite significant to surmount that hurdle. It isn't. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POLITICIAN clearly points out that city councillors (with the possible exception of those in major cities) are not generally deemed notable just for holding office. I'd suggest that listing them in Coquitlam City Council would be the appropriate solution here, but even that title seems to be a redirect to Coquitlam rather than an independent article. Delete, though if an article about the council itself is ever initiated it would be acceptable to redirect the councillors' names to it. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely agree with the above. -- œ™ 13:23, 7 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) 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl-Alt-Del (band)

AfDs for this article:
Ctrl-Alt-Del (band) (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 was nominated in late 2006 and the result was "keep". Since then, virtually no serious edits have been made to the article, and it's gone without any third-party sources whatsoever since (the only external link is to the band's website and no sources are given aside from this).

It has also had the Orphan and Primary Sources templates on it since June 2008 and has shown no signs of improvement. Notability could perhaps have been established, but no one has provided sources for any of this information despite having had years to do so; the probability of this happening, at this point, seems extremely low. G-Flex (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first AfD concluded as keep, but no third party sources for notability were mentioned. The argument for keeping it was basically WP:GHITS. The band has released an album of the same name, but the label (Animage [14]) seems to be unnotable. The primary contributor looks like a WP:SPA (contrib log here). Smocking (talk) 15:00, 3 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 userfy to User:KrebMarkt/Nononono (manga). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nononono (manga)

Nononono (manga) (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)

Lacking notability and sources DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I'm the one who deprodded it, I'll repeat here that this is a series by a notable author that has lasted long enough to suggest it's a successful hit series. Neither of these things establishes notability, but I figured it was worth a look at least. At this point it looks like the page was probably created prematurely. Doceirias (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Nononono (manga) for the discussion leading up to this AFD. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My position is roughly that of Doceirias (whom I keep tyoping as Dorcerias, dang it) -- that it has survived serialization as long as it has strongly suggests it's a hit series, but I've found precious little in English to substantiate this, meaning I've got nothing that proves it to the letter of wikilaw. Am not !voting one way or another, pending whether sources supporting notability in other languages (particularly Japanese) can be found. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, it isn't notable. How long it runs might be an "indicator" of success, but without the sources it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to decide it is notable anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Japanese page for this series mentions that it was featured in an episode of the TV program "Manga no Genba"[15] which reviews manga. This can be confirmed by their episode listing which shows the episode as having been aired on December 23, 2008[16]. I was able to find a little less than 20 minutes of video from that episode on youtube, and the coverage is not trivial and could help create a "production" section for the article. There is also a review of sorts on Livedoor news of a Nononono Glove which Young Jump gave away as a prize recently to celebrate the Winter Olympics[17]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMimas (talk • contribs) 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy on me. After pondering it, i think it would be better to have it on my userspace. The minimum requirement is the equivalent of 2 non-trivial reviews from sources of good standing (RS) for a keep vote from my part. The NHK TV show review counts for 1. --KrebMarkt 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Krebmarkt. No harm in keeping hold of the content outside articlespace for future use if sources arrive.Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on SMimas's find, and the fact that it has been ongoing for years in one of the most popular manga magazines there is. Dream Focus 09:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, no one might work on it to establish reliability and it might just be afd again. That seems to be the biggest problem. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:29, 7 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. Amidst all the noise emitted during this discussion, there is a quite clear consensus that the topic is both notable and documented enough to justify an article; and that sufficiently reliable sources do exist. At the same time, at least a few people agree the article requires editorial attention. This close neither endorses nor opposes the rather widespread idea that the nomination of this article was made in bad faith. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial

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

This is an obvious POV fork. A screen shot of this article should be used to illustrate Wikipedia policy on POV forks. JohnWBarber (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: It appears that numerous editors only read the very top of the AfDs they vote on, because !votes are being added below that indicate they didn't look much at the discussion. I didn't realize the importance of detailing my reasons at the very top when I started this AfD (mostly because I thought this article was such an obvious case for deletion), but I'll lay out my reasons more clearly in this spot, summarizing what I've said below. Overall, it should be obvious what a WP:POVFORK is when you look at it: Either it can't be WP:NPOV because of the nature of it or it's very difficult to maintain as NPOV. I've shown below how the article is stuffed full of any rhetorical weapon or smear that can be used against one POV area in the debate (one I don't happen to agree with). Its sourcing, especially its most prominent sourcing, comes from op-ed articles that use "denialism" as a simple club to beat people whom the partisan commentators disagree with. This is combined with large, baggy sections (taking up most of the article) implying that most of the denialists are either shills for special-interest groups or are fooled by them. I agree that these machinations by special interests exists and have some influence, but the article covers that out of all proportion to their influence. Various other factors, ignored or downplayed by the article, also contribute to denialism: conspiracy theories, the past cold winter and the various embarassments of the IPCC and the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Various reliable sources recently have discussed most of these influences (links are lower in this post).

Although all of these problems with the article are technically fixable, in practice, according to WP:POVFORK, it's a bad idea to have an article based on one segment of a controversy. It automatically implies that there is no reasonable case to be made against Anthropogenic Global Warming, when, in fact, skeptics (as distinct from denialists) have made (various) reasonable cases that global warming is uncertain, may not be caused by human behavior, may not be as severe as some say, etc. etc. (My own POV: I'm neither a denialist nor a skeptic; I'm an uncertain believer in AGW who doesn't pretend to understand the whole thing.) An article on denialism taints all opposition to global warming, since Category:Denialism is basically a subcategory for Category:Insanity. If Wikipedia did a great job keeping contentious topics in NPOV form, then this article would be a good idea, but this article is proof we don't do that kind of thing well at all. Everything worth having in it can be fit into the already existing Global warming controversy#Funding for partisans, which already covers the important topics of this article. Covering fringe elements of a debate we already cover is best done in other articles, partly because they help us and the reader to get a better perspective by considering context.

Reliable sources tell us [18] that the embarassing conduct of scientific organizations associated with the controversy has lowered support for AGW and increased the numbers of both denialists and skeptics. [19] [20] [21] So has the recent cold winter, they say. If special interests were so important (they take up two thirds of this article) then denialist opinion wouldn't vary so much over the past few months due to the weather or the recent revelations (I agree we should cover the influence of those special interests, but in some rough proportion to their importance.) The article doesn't adequately reflect that, I assume for POV-pushing reasons -- which is precisely why WP:POVFORK suggests we avoid these kinds of articles. This entire subject can be adequately incorporated into Global warming controversy. Now don't tell me this is a WP:POINTy nomination. Please feel free to respond to my points, and I'll adjust my opinion if you can convince me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as POV fork. Sole Soul (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The industry-funded denial of climate change has been documented both in the popular press and in academic studies. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply clicking on the Google Scholar link reveals a wealth of publications on this topic. Guettarda (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:WIKILAWYERING, Clauses 2, 3, and 4. It's an encyclopedia. Not an op-ed page. We all know exactly what's the matter with basing an article on a point of view. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on a point of view? All else aside, when people have actually published peer reviewed articles examining the phenomenon (e.g., McCright & Dunlap 2003 Social Problems 50(3): 348-373) it's a little more than a "point of view". Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS some of it by scholars. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mmm, no. Stop linking to essays. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Notability. There's more than enough to demonstrate the notability of this topic. Guettarda (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Mmmm, yes. Stop wikilawyering. The relevant policy here is WP:POVFORK: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." There's more than enough to demonstrate the POV nature of this fork. The industry-funded denial of climate change has been documented both in the popular press and in academic studies. The government-funded academic promotion of the idea of global warming has been documented in numerous reliable sources. Be careful what principles you base your POV fork article on -- they're just as useful for the other side. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)added comment -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • The government-funded academic promotion of the idea of global warming has been documented in numerous reliable sources. - Name three. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My full response, with quotes, is on the talk page, because this is a tangent and I don't want to distract from the main issue. But here are three sources that are at least as good as the ones used in this article, and they could be used to create the same kind of POV fork:
    ONE:: Wall Street Journal 2/26/10 (get it before it goes behind the subscription wall [22])
    TWO:: The Guardian 2/10/10: [23]
    THREE:: The Times of London 11/29/09: [24] What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.
    -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this must have been a misunderstanding. I was talking about sources about "the government-funded academic promotion of the idea of global warming". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you don't get to choose your facts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Nothing has changed since last three Keeps; nomination is apparent retaliation for an apparent drama fork from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration PhGustaf (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why PhG! Mustn't WP:ABF! I actually voted to delete that one, too. How did you stand on that one...? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why PhG! An apparent drama fork!?! Who's personalizing the discussion on this page and who's moving the discussion toward policy, facts and reasoning? You're trying to counter an intellectually consistent position with a (second) personalized accusation. Why not discuss the actual subject? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Would everybody who votes differently on keeping or deleting this article vs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration please note why they voted differently? It'll save us all the trouble of going back to see what you said there. And please be WP:CIVIL: Instead of telling other editors that they're hypocrites, ask them how their position on one article squares with the other. They'll either have a good explanation or they won't. Believe me, everyone will get the picture. Here's my vote there. [25] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, please do be civil. Your reply to my comment is anything but. Guettarda (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing uncivil in pointing out the weakness at the core of your argument. I eagerly await your scolding editors below for calling this a WP:POINTy nomination. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guettarda. A well known and well documented movement and an established article. Far more than just a concept. I have voted differently on climate change exaggeration. I am not aware of a similar well established climate change exaggeration movement therefore I strongly believe that the article on exaggeration is a POV fork. Also please note CCD is not the opposite of CCE and it does not need to somehow be weighed against it for balance. Polargeo (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had a look at merging the article with climate change consensus but came to the conclusion it really did cover a different topic and didn't fit in well. To compare with 'exaggeration' you'd need to show there was a campaign by some companies to exaggerate climate change to promote their own sectional interests and which have nothing to do with the science. I think the problem causing these AfDs is that the term 'denial' has also been used to label skeptics so if you can find a better term a rename might be reasonable. Dmcq (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.. as per others, nothing has changed from the last AfD's, and this nomination seems to have a WP:IDONTLIKEIT character, as well as a (poorly thought out) WP:POINT to stall the AfD at CCE. As opposed to the CCE article: This article is well-defined, has a wide variety of reliable sources that explain and describe the subject directly, all of which documents the notable character of the subject. It doesn't take a stand, but describes what secondary reliable sources state about the subject (as opposed to being a coatrack for POV) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • to stall the AfD at CCE Why Kim, your bad faith assumption is showing. I voted to delete the other article. Which I would also like deleted. Because I want it deleted. Can't be deleted fast enough for me. <knock><knock> Hello. Hello! ... Am I getting through yet ...? Hello? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and verifiable. Previous AfDs have shown it not to be a POV fork. Suggest speedy close. -Atmoz (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well sourced, relevant, notable. Article has survived three previous WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations, and the nomination appears to be a WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nomination from the Climate change exaggeration deletion nomination, as suggested by the nominator's above request and comments on the other nomination page. Framing Climate change exaggeration and Climate change denial as equals goes against WP:UNDUE, and we don't have a Holocaust exaggeration article for good reason. StuartH (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Well sourced, relevant, notable, verifiable--and also a POV fork against policy. If there is "industry-funded denial of climate change" and a "well known and well documented movement", Wikipedia requires that movement be described neutrally. "Denial" is not neutral, and this article's framing of the discussion appears to me to be non-compliant. Incidentally, since each person gets one equal vote here, Strong Keep carries the exactly same weight as Keep, does it not? If I am mistaken, please note my vote is actually Super-Double Plus Mega-Delete With No Touchbacks. --DGaw (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comments here aren't "votes" exactly; whoever closes the discussion is charged to consider the merits more than the number of the arguments. But you're right in that Strong is unhelpful. PhGustaf (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is just an expression of the user's feelings. Snow Keep is not generally considered acceptable anymore :) Polargeo (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - would be better under the heading of Skepticism of climate change, "denial" makes the article seem biased towards proponents of climate change. --Crablogger (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pointy and pointless nomination. Agree with Guettarda, Atmoz and Polargeo. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — topic is well sourced in media, and there are also many scholarly papers that mention it (eg [26], and Heavyweight attack on climate-change denial Current Biology, Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages R109-R110) as well as books (eg Climate Change Denial Alphascript Publishing, 2009, ISBN 613004514X ). ► RATEL ◄ 10:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alphascript publishing just reprints wikipedia articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep on two counts. First, frivolous nomination. Nominating an article for AFD so you can gather evidence to accuse people of hypocrisy is WP:POINT to the max. (And no, I'm violating WP:AGF, since (1) this was the nominator's stated intention (see diff), and (2) he/she already asked people how their votes here compare to their votes there.) Second, this is an article that has already been here (three times) and this AFD presents absolutely no new evidence to support its deletion. — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, how do you get around the fact that it's a WP:POVFORK created to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.? I, ah, did mention that at the top of this page. Minor detail? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the first three AFDs for an explanation. Simply repeating claims against which there has demonstrably been a consensus is not a valid AFD argument.— DroEsperanto (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my responses at 19:47 and 20:15, below. My "stated intention" is at the top of this page and doesn't conflict with my statement about enjoying watching hypocrisy revealed. And of course inconsistent reasons for supporting one article and deleting the other is something that a closing admin should find useful in considering whether good-faith encyclopedia-building was behind some comments or squalid POV pushing was all that backed them up. It is extremely useful for this AfD in particular and for Wikipedia in general that editors who can't separate their POV from their editorial judgment start thinking seriously about that flawed thinking.
There is no prohibition against bringing up for consideration an AfD after some time has passed, especially when the climate-change controversy has changed so much. For instance, we now have (1) this statement from the UK government's top science adviser on why so many are skeptical: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed. [...] Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. [27] (2) plummeting support in public opinion polls in recent months, none of it attributable to industry machinations but instead to the series of revelations about bad science and bad practices (and probably a cold winter)[28] [29] -- and yet, despite the power of public facts to change public opinion (a power that hasn't been demonstrated with the industry machinations, which I believe exist), the article doesn't reflect this reality. And in fact, this article isn't the best spot for Wikipedia to report on any of this -- the main controversy article is the spot, because skepticism has increased just as support for AGW theory has decreased and there is no reason to concentrate on one side of that equation more than the other side. Here's what an article in yesterday's New York Times had to say: [30]
The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research. They say the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work and has badly damaged public trust in the scientific enterprise.
This -- the set of facts before the public -- seems to be what counts. The point of this Wikipedia article is that irrational factors or conspiracies to propagandize are what count. It's probably a mixture of many things, and that indicates the subject is best addressed in the overall controversy article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate skepticism and denialism are not mutually exclusive (both exist), nor does this article support that notion (and if it does, it can be fixed), so neither (1) nor (2) are really issues. My question for you now is: what POV do you this topic promoting in an unfair and irreparable way? — DroEsperanto (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit like WP:BURDEN. I don't see a legitimate need or purpose for this as a separate article, but there are all sorts of inevitable problems and temptations because we have it. What NPOV-compliant purpose do you see this article serving that wouldn't just as well be served in the overall controversy article or other AGW-related articles? Why do we need a special article to examine this particular part of the spectrum of opinion? (And why not other parts of the spectrum of opinion? And how do you split up the spectrum in an NPOV way? And frankly, why bother to cover segments of the spectrum anyway?) The news articles I've linked to above give several sources for denialism (and skepticism), but the existence of the article tempts too many editors to add to the evil-business-machinations aspect, despite the fact that it appears other factors are at least as important. But POV-pushing editors will always want to emphasize the most nefarious aspects of the other side, so there will always be pressure to keep expanding the business aspect until it reaches the grotesque size it does in this article. The article is a natural battleground (or worse, a POV haven). The overall AGW controversy is better covered in other ways -- particular reports or particular controversies, for instance. It's easier to monitor and counter POV pushing that way. You say: nor does this article support that notion (and if it does, it can be fixed) You're kidding, right? Are you familiar with the POV conflicts at the AGW articles? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this nomination was made in bad faith to make a point about another AfD. Not all criticisms are equally noteworthy, and if some editors were to finally come to understand that, this topic area would be much less tense than it is now. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And thank you so much Tarc for doing your part to reduce tensions with your accusation of bad-faith. It's so reassuring to see our recent differences at AN/I and ArbCom couldn't possibly have colored your reaction to my wanting both articles deleted. If we did move from personalities to substance, however, we might note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has this interesting statement in it: In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia. In other words, issues about one article may naturally bring up important insight into articles of the same nature. Whether or not that applies to notability or POV, the implication is obvious: We want the same considerations used fairly in treating the same issues involving similar articles. That's what the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK is all about. We all know that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a seriously flawed understanding of WP:NPOV...a trait that shared with the creator of Climate change exaggeration, interestingly enough. It is a simplistic, black-and-white approach of "if the Wikipedia will allow no criticism of A, then there can be no criticism of B". You place !A and !B on exactly equal footing, but with this topic, that simply is not the case. Much of this is rather similar to the drive last year to ram fringe criticism into the Bill Ayers article. You didn't get the point then, and don't get the point now. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're getting better, Tarc, but you still haven't got that discuss the edits, not the editor thing quite down yet, or even stick to the topic, have you? Try to keep working on that. To address the substance: In a political debate, which is primarily what this article is about, you strive to emphasize balanced coverage and you scrutinize sources. Tellingly, the first four footnotes are from op-ed articles and much of the rest of the coverage is from a Newsweek article, from a magazine known for its bias. Look at who's covered and quoted in the article: It's all negative. Even the Luntz comments are presented as if there's something sinister in a political operative suggesting that his clients do a good job in making their case. There is industry lobbying in every political debate that involves industry. That there are special interests involved in this debate is no more important here than in any other political debate, and it would be a rare subject where Wikipedia devotes even a whole section of an article to that kind of topic, never mind a whole article -- so what's so different about industry machinations here? There is certainly a time to simply follow what reliable sources say, but that doesn't mean we remove our own editorial judgment from the process. The importance of industry lobbying should be weighed against other influences on public opinion and public policy in this debate. The crack-up over at the CRU and the string of embarassments over at the IPCC are bigger factors that most reliable sources are citing for the recent meltdown in public support for climate-change legislation. Unlike this POV fork, those are subjects around which we could (theoretically) craft fair, NPOV articles. The purpose of this article seems to be to advance a political position -- to smear the opposition by tainting it as corrupt. Most opposition to the AGW consensus is not corrupt, so we shouldn't have a whole article meant just to emphasize that. The newspaper article links I've provided near the top of this page (expanded version on the talk page) show that two sides can play at that game, because there's plenty of corruption (of various types) to go around. We should not be examining the faults of one side in depth while ignoring the faults within the other side -- certainly not in our choice of what article subjects to have in the encyclopedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TL;DR. Cobbling together a few disparate stories to craft the "exaggeration" article is not at all comparable to an article on those who deny a broad scientific consensus on global warming. Apples and oranges. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In light of Climate change consensus, Climate change denial is an appropriate subject discussed by a number of WP:RS sources.
Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine, Newsweek.
Resisting Change: Global Warming Deniers, Newsweek.
The Psychology of Climate Change Denial, Wired.
Now climate change denial is a psychological condition, The Australian.
Climate change denial is the new article of faith for the far right, The Guardian.
Denying Climate Change, Outlook India.
Etc. — Rankiri (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is not an adequate answer to objections based on WP:POVFORK. Probably almost all POV forks have reliable sourcing. I mention near the top where there are reliable sources essentially calling climate scientists political campaigners. Is that worth an article? Do we create articles on all POV-based subjects if we can find reliable sources -- especially ones with their own bias? If you allow it in one case, you'll find it cropping up in some other, very uncomfortable cases. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I did read it. Here's your evidence:
  1. WP:POVFORK: Lead paragraph: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts Examples from the article: (a) First eight words: Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative (b) Second sentence emphasizes the pejorative nature of the term (which is essential to it, or the title would replace that word with "opposition") by quoting only left-wing opinion columnists: Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[1] and Ellen Goodman,[2] among others,[3][4] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.[5][6] This is reliable sourcing? This is NPOV treatment? (c) First sentence of second paragraph emphasizes corrupt motives of those who are "denialists": activist George Monbiot states that he reserves it for those who attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial interests. If that were the common understanding of the term, then we'd be committing WP:BLP violations left and right by calling almost anyone a "climate change denier", and yet this is how the second paragraph of the article opens. There's more, but this shows how the article highlight[s] negative ... viewpoints. It could be edited out, but you wouldn't have much to replace it with -- it really is the nature of the term to be pejorative in one way or another. The rest of the second paragraph is a vague comment with a bunch of footnotes attached.
  2. From the first sentence in the section you link to: Note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork – only that it is not necessarily a content fork.
  3. I think this is what you're getting at: Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. (a) No. 1, above, shows the subject is not presented neutrally. (b) Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, though others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate. That's kind of like saying, Some say that Barack Obama is "The Anti-Christ". Others have decried the claim. With a bunch of footnotes after each. Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial. It's a smear with footnotes. (c) The three longest sections of the article are about industry efforts. The longest section in the article is titled "Connections to the tobacco lobby". Something tells me that the subject of that section isn't quite so important in the overall picture of the denialist POV. In fact, all this emphasis on industry machinations is an effort to prove that denialism is mostly not a POV but simply a special interest. There is something about the business interests for Wikipedia to cover, but not that much.
You wanted evidence of how WP:POVFORK applies to the article. Now you've got it. Removing the offending parts would get you a section-sized stub that belongs in another article (and probably is already there, I haven't looked). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article may have some WP:NPOV-related issues but I believe they all can be addressed through regular editing. I also wouldn't mind renaming the article as long as the new, more neutral title won't make it a soapbox for propagandists of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE views. — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my earlier comments. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad faith, tendentious nomination. Climate change denial covers a notable and well-documented topic, i.e. the issue of denialism as it applies to climate change, just as Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism cover denialism as it applies to those issues. The nominator's disruptive WP:POINT-scoring is a significant violation of the article probation regime in this topic area, but that's best dealt with elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has become less a deletion debate than a WP:COATRACK. I suggest a quick cloture. PhGustaf (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the article, a WP:SNOW close would be appropriate here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- obviously notable, massively represented in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - merge some sections with Climate change controversy. Otherwise fails NPOV, even quite simply through the article's title. Moves away from science (which climate change, being part of climatology, should be focused upon) into the realms of media speculation and (quite frankly) witch-hunt. Talk of industry backing of climate change skepticism is notable, but ill-proportioned. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, Rename would be a good compromise --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topical subject on wikipedia, even if it is not discussed in the Encyclopedia Britannica.Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Denial When there is weak scientific evidence, then starts the personal attacks with pejorative terms to intimidate. At least this article validates that cause and effect. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This topic is not a POV fork; if it has POV in it, then fix those spots. This topic has been covered extensively in the media, and in research. Climate change denial has become a trend, and as the article states, has affected the political debate on the subject. There is no reason that such a topic cannot be covered neutrally, and it would most likely be undue weight to try to cover it completely in other climate change articles. The lowdown: climate change denial is a broad movement that has been covered in the press extensively, so it meets WP:NOTE, and as to it being a POV fork, the article has some issues, especially in the lead, and yet, both sides of this argument are covered in the article. It does not try to say that climate change denial is correct, merely that it exists, how it may have come about, and how it affects the world. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - Also, as others have pointed out, the same argument has been the primary reason for no less than THREE other deletion discussions. While consensus can certainly change, this is beginning to look like a piñata party featuring everyone's favorite dead ungulate. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've ignored everything I've said, here's the argument in a nutshell: My arguments at 19:47, 20:15 and in the thread ending with 02:59 above were not covered by the previous AfDs. Much of the article is years old, and doesn't take into account recent developments affecting the denial types and the skeptics. The news articles I've linked to in the 02:59 thread show varying reasons for the recent changing poll numbers and the dramatic changes in the AGW controversy, none involving the business machinations that take up most of the article. It's incredibly hard to keep POV-fork articles in an NPOV state. This article is an excellent example of that problem. It's Wik-op-ed-opedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The argument you made above is an argument to avoid at AfD. You say the article is out of date, but this is NEVER a reason to delete. If an article needs improvement, then improve it; don't delete it. Also, you seem to think that just because an argument is no longer prevalent in the news, it is no longer notable; a widespread claim is still encyclopedic even if people no longer use it. Lastly, to all those voting keep because they believe the nomination is pointy: while JohnWBarber should probably not have mentioned his interest in seeing the dichotomy of votes in the two debates, he also consistently espouses the view that this article is POV, and THAT is the reason it should be deleted. Even if I disagree with his reasoning, I completely believe he acted in good faith. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your points have already been addressed, many by my post at 02:59. The only reason I pointed out that the article is out of date is because I believe updating it would be opposed by some editors on the side supporting AGW -- in other words, it's a POV problem for active reasons, not passive ones. It's impossible to think anybody actually believes this article reflects the subject, and yet ... there it sits. Thanks for the AGF. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This partisan editorial tries to make an impression that the whole "global warming" hoax has some credulity behind it. I suspect that there's too much money at stake to leave this piece to "the commumity" (i.e. propaganda depts of the climate-change-bureaucracy), so the chances of bringing it to a neutral POV are too slim. Better delete. NVO (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Once again, just because you believe that this article is troubled beyond repair, does not mean that it is. If an article needs work, it is fixed, not deleted. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork should be merged with Climate change controversy mark nutley (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sympathetic to the idea that there is a deletion case to be made for this article, or more likely for merging the contents into a more suitable target. A suitable case is not made here, no suitable merge candidate has emerged, and I remain in doubt as to the wisdom of removing the existing unique content from Wikipedia. For that reason I still oppose deletion. Dmcq's opinion most closely matches my own. --TS 07:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. They raise the level of the discussion. The suitable candidate you're looking for is Global warming controversy#Funding for partisans where the most important content of this article is already summarized (or could easily be summarized). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Easily meets WP:GNG and is the WP:COMMONNAME of this phenomenon. Nomination gives no reasoning, and is clearly disruptive. Verbal chat 08:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly a comment that resulted from ignoring the discussion, which contradicts points about reasoning and WP:POINT. GNG and COMMONNAME are irrelevant to POVFORK. There is no requirement that the full reasoning needs to be given in the nomination statement. The reason was given and elaborated later. It's trivially easy to find. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is headed for a clear, overwhelming keep, perhaps an invocation of the snowball clause would be in order at this point. --TS 08:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the situations at Wikipedia:Speedy keep really fit here unfortunately. Oren0 (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The snowball clause is most closely related to Ignore all rules, so whether or not we invoke it does not depend on other policies. I do grant your point that such a close would be irregular--to the extent that such things matter. --TS 08:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's more important to let normal processes work so that more editors actually think about what they're supporting or rejecting. Perhaps that's healthier for Wikipedia in general and for our coverage of this subject in particular. Perhaps we should respect facts and ideas more and our own comfortable opinions less. It's one way of building a better encyclopedia. That's what we want, right? To build a better encyclopedia regardless of whether or not it promotes our own, personal points of view? How would you do that other than by encouraging examination of the facts? Why the urge to shut down discussion, even if it's going your way? What's the harm? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because, of course, the discussion is not free. It saps time from all involved. The purpose of the AfD is to determine if an article should be deleted or not. If that aim has been achieved, its unproductive to spend further resources on it. Any minute spent monitoring or arguing this AfD is a minute not spend in some other, probably more worthwhile, endeavor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring evidence is what saps time from all involved. Discussion of actual evidence (see the links at my "Further comment" now at the very top of this page), actual facts (see my dissection of the POV problems with the article at 20:15, 3 March), actual polices (WP:POVFORK, which has been ignored) and actual reasoning (see the top of the page, for more see the 19:47 3 March comment and the thread ending at 02:59, 4 March) is a timewaster only to POV diehards. If editors either can't or won't address reasonable points made reasonably, it isn't the fault of the one bringing them up. Feel free to point out to me where I'm wrong, though. I am listening. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This misses the point. You asked an abstract question and I answered it in the abstract. If you want to get concrete, I understand that you know the truth and are therefore right. However, I, and about 95% of the editors commenting here, seem to think that you are wrong. Of course this means that we all ignore evidence and fail to respond to reasonable points reasonably, while you are still right. Too bad. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've missed the point. Consensus doesn't decide AfDs, "rough consensus" decides it. Rough consensus depends on strength of argument. See WP:DGFA#Rough consensus. That's policy. I didn't say I have the truth, so please don't exaggerate: I said I have what you're supposed to have in a deletion discussion, or any WP:TALK page: facts, reasonable argument, policy. If you can counter it, it would be better for the article, for Wikipedia and for the rest of the editors to counter it. If you don't, and if I'm continuing to discuss the merits of the article with others, then please step aside. It's only wasting your time if you're spending time at it unproductively. The value of the article isn't so certain that a snowball close is proper. Feel free to take it to A/N. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a bad faith nomination, per this. There are problems with this article, but this is just WP:POINTmaking. Oren0 (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you couldn't have read the discussion, which contradicts each of your assertions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:POINTy nom, notability is off the charts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per numerous editors above. A pointy nomination of a well-sourced topic seemingly in response to the parallel nomination of a badly-sourced, POV-fork neologism. --PLUMBAGO 09:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know if the nom was bad faith or not - I assume not - but it does seem POINTy. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you couldn't have read the discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's refreshing to be accused of bad faith right after I defend your good faith in nominating the article. A one-line nomination calling something an obvious violation of policy, when it is not, seems POINTy. If the violation were obvious, then the article would have been speedied and that would've been that. Obviously, there's more to it - but that wasn't how the nomination stood when I commented. Do have a look at WP:AGF, if you get a chance - it's clear that you feel strongly about this issue, and that's fine, but we need more light than heat here. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No question about it, or everything else in Category:Denialism would have to go too. WP:POINTy nom, discussed mostly by our current crop of people who do things like this. --Nigelj (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - bad faith nom William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteTreacherousWays (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you know WP:OTHERSTUFF. I participated in both discussions and I think there is a world of difference between the two. For example, this article doesn't seem to quote (actual) 9-year-olds. — Rankiri (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge and redirect Note the current lede sentence of the article: "Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior." In other words the subject of this article is a pejorative term used by persons on one side of a debate to discredit those on the other side. The existence of such a term might warrant a paragraph or two in an article about the overall controversy, but not an article of its own. We don't have separate articles on "Obamacare" or "Climategate" or other such coined pejoratives. Contrast with Holocaust denial, which is a crime in some jurisdictions. The rest of the article is essentially a WP:COATRACK for allegations against individuals and organizations based essentially on opinion articles that use the term denial. There's even a section arguing an analogy to the tobacco industry. Also note that there is no AfD tag on the article at the moment.(fixed, thanks)--agr (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Climate change denial, whether pejorative or nor, is an independently notable topic with 120 Google Scholar hits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it independent of the climate change controversy in general? Note there are about 120 google scholar hits for climate change hoax and 65 for climategate. Climategate has over 2 million hits on vanilla Google. So what? We should have one NPOV article on the controversy, not separate articles on every pejorative term each side manages to popularize.--agr (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you authored the WP:Advocacy articles essay and added Climate change denial as the only example into the essay (which I removed, and you'll no doubt replace), don't you think you should state that here? Your whole essay seems to be a coatrack to attack the climate change denial article. Someone should propose that essay for deletion. ► RATEL ◄ 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your rather unhelpful comments seem to be irrelevant here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

random convenience break

  • Keep substantially covered in reliable secondary sources. Merges and renames are not done through AFD - while I might support a merge or rename (I do not currently,) the venue to propose such is a talk page. The content on this page, even if it is a "POV Fork" is encyclopedic and reliably sourced. As such, deletion is not the solution. I look forward to reasonable discussion as to what should be done with the sourced, encyclopedic content. Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. WP:POVFORK is meant to prevent articles that "advocate a different stance on the subject" whether for or against. Since the subject is already covered at Global warming controversy, in the "Funding for partisans" and "Political pressure on scientists" sections, there's not much of value left to merge. If "Climate change denialism" were some independent philosophy of some sort, it would be worth an article, but everything about the subject is part of the larger "Global warming controversy" (the real-world debate, I mean). Support for denialism goes up or down depending on the overall debate. So I don't see how "encyclopedic" it is to have a whole article on this.
    2. Reliable sourcing is a totally separate issue from WP:POVFORK problems, and I don't have a problem with the verifiability of much of it. But you see the partisan nature of the article just by looking at the first sources from the second sentence: "Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[1] and Ellen Goodman,[2] among others,[3][4] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.[5][6]" We're using partisan columnists to define the term, not just to source their own opinions. Even the Newsweek article that the WP article relies on is only partly reporting because it's also partly advocacy. I'm guessing that it's probably possible to create an NPOV article from partisan sourcing from both sides, but we already have an enormously hard time keeping AGW articles NPOV, so this doesn't make the prospects look good for this one. A lot of WP:POVFORK is about what the reasonable prospects are for an NPOV article.
    3. Definition of the term is also difficult. If we look at the lead section, we see Monbiot's definition of the subject, which appears to be different from Ellen Goodman's, which may or may not be the same as unnamed "writers", while two other unnamed writers (Robert Samuelson, Dennis Praeger) apparently object to use of the word. Sounds like a partisan attack word. In fact, it will always raise hackles because it has a partisan feel about it, even if it is a justifiable name (I think it is justified, but that's not my point). Keep in mind that we don't use words like Climategate (a redirect) for article titles. Why distract readers and editors by treating this subject with a partisan name and its own article, as if we were enshrining it and as if Wikipedia were taking a side in it? Even if we're not taking sides, it naturally looks that way to a lot of people. That matters.
    4. Every ongoing, big public debate has its denialists, exaggerators of one side or another, apathetic noncombatants, principled adherents, radicals, nutballs. It is a very bad idea to cover the subject by covering individual segments of the spectrum of opinion on a controversy. I don't want an article on "Climate change skepticism" or "Climate change believers", either (some partisans call them "Warmists" [31] [32]). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read Wikipedia:POVFORK recently - especially the part that goes "do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it."? You feel there is no information in the article in question that should be merged back to Global warming controversy? None at all? You feel there's no topic that could be written neutrally about? Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any information in this article that is not already in Global warming controversy#Funding for partisans section, it's trivial. I wouldn't move it anywhere. Any editor can go through the sources and pick out any bits of information that might be worth saving, and that can be done by getting a copy of it from an admin, even after it's been deleted. It would be better than simply moving anything from this article, because the other article already covers the valuable aspects of this one. Potentially, Politics of global warming might cover some subjects. Other things should be removed whether or not this article stays, including these whole sections of minutia: "Connections to the tobacco lobby" -- trivial; "Kivalina v. ExxonMobil" -- pointless ("The suit was dismissed"); "Effect of climate change denial" -- unencyclopedic blather; "Public sector", I do like the second paragraph, but I wonder how important it is five years later; "Overview" -- worthless. I think that covers the entire article. Even the "Private sector" part, which I kind of like, is a summary of Business action on climate change. You haven't addressed any of my comments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The views of a particular group on a controversial subject generally deserve an article, the controversy deserves another, and the generally accepted view (if there is one) deserves a third. For example, Anabaptism, Mormonism and Catholicism are examples of articles about particular beliefs, Eastern Schism and Protestant Reformation are examples of articles about arguments and Christianity as an example of a discussion of a broader body of opinion.
  • Keep -- CCD is a concept that I come across every day in the media, both as a self-evident fact and often openly named as such in so many words. Arguably one of the most important phenomena in human society today, given the potential consequences. Move to delete seems to be self-serving and has nothing to do with the good of the encyclopedia. Keep please. Unit 5 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this looks like a tendentious nomination of an article on a commonly used and well sourced term of description for those denying the existence, impact or human influence on climate change, a rather common political movement with only fringe scientific acceptance. It's a legitimate article topic, and well sourced. . dave souza, talk 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious POV fork. If this deletion nom fails I will happily re-list it shortly. JBsupreme (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious POV fork being pushed by paid alarmists. rossnixon 01:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. There are three different concepts here: Climate change, controversy over the subject, and views of those who consider it is not happening. Three different articles: what is currently known or thought to be known about the subject, what debates or arguments have occurred, what are the view of supporters of one extreme position. Is the earth round? Does life evolve? Does communism work? We need to separate articles on the "fact", on the debate about the "fact", and on the views of the proponents of each position on the debate. The articles on Evolution, Reaction to Darwin's theory and Biblical literalism are completely different. This article, the one on the controversy and the one on the concept need serious clean-up to remove overlap. But this is a legitimate topic, well sourced. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article attacks the subject rather than describes it, and cleaning it up would create a stub covering what's already in Global warming controversy#Politics. Theoretically, it's possible for Wikipedia to have articles on subjects that are POVs. Technically, it could potentially be done within policy, and WP:POVFORK mentions that. Practically, it is incredibly difficult to do it with any fairness in an ongoing, big, hot controversy (we do a better job when the POV is historic or very old or at least not that controversial). Realistically, it's currently impossible -- and this article is proof of that. Only a POV pusher could love it. It enshrines minor details with the effect of tainting a particular point of view when the reasons not to hold that point of view are adequately covered in other parts of the encyclopedia. The effect of the article, in the words of WP:POVFORK, is "to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". For instance, there is an entire paragraph in the article detailing how one U.S. think tank supposedly offered $10K to scientists to counter an IPCC report. In 2007. The article is mostly this kind of trivial political point scoring that has little to do with why some people are denialists. Wikipedia hasn't proven that it is capable of writing a real encyclopedia article on this subject. This certainly isn't one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, this is a poor quality article, far from an objective and impartial description of the viewpoints and perhaps motives of people who deny that climate change is happening. That does not mean the article should not exist, just that it needs improvement. The topic is legitimate and clearly notable. The whole theory of Wikipedia is that over time editors will improve all articles. If not, there is no point to the project. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point to the project when it comes to big, hot political controversies. There are too few editors willing to set aside their own POV and too many who aren't. When you remove the rotten pulp from this article, you're left with a kernel of about two, maybe three short paragraphs that partly replicate information in other articles. And before you get to the kernel, you'll have a POV fight on your hands. And lose. And nobody should attempt to edit it without being aware of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. It isn't edible and we shouldn't put up with the smell. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has articles on many controversial subjects from Abkhazia to the Woodward effect that require constant patrolling. Articles on subjects that do not seem controversial at all, such as Cactus, are repeatedly vandalized. But over time the quality of the encyclopedia does steadily improve. With a complex and important topic like climate change where there are many different opinions, it is best to have separate articles on each aspect. This is one. It will be difficult to bring it up to a good level of quality and to maintain it at that level, but not impossible. "Difficult" is not a reason to delete. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another random break

  • Keep. Not a POV fork, and it's a notable topic w/plenty of sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a valid encyclopedic topic with innumerable references in mass media and academic writings. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • Keep - This is getting political. Shadowjams (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it got political when this was put in the article: Monbiot has written about another group founded by the tobacco lobby, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), that now campaigns against measures to combat global warming. In again trying to manufacture the appearance of a grass-roots movement against "unfounded fear" and "over-regulation," Monbiot states that TASSC "has done more damage to the campaign to halt [climate change] than any other body."[3] That footnote leads to an extract from a book by activist and opinion columnist George Monbiot, cited four times in the article. I suspect Monbiot is on the money, but I doubt this is important enough to cover. This is not neutral coverage (it seems meant to "highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts"), but it's typical for this article, and it's been in there since Day 1. [33] I guess that's when it got "political". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 06:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important topic, adequate article. Cardamon (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Funny that JWB accuses people multiple times of 'wikilawyering', when that's all I see him doing. Per POVFORK, which he cites ad nauseam, "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view." If there are problems with certain parts of the article, change it. Tan | 39 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Help me out here, Tan: Which part of WP:WIKILAWYER applies to my comments? The "change it" idea flies in the face of the fact that AGW articles are so contentious that we have a general sanctions regime set up for them. The article has been around for years without its massive flaws being fixed -- in fact, they've been expanded. It's one of the prime situations WP:POVFORK was meant to avoid. In an article that covered more than one segment of opinion on AGW, it would be easier to argue that standards be fair throughout the article -- if an opinion columnist like George Monbiot was used to reference facts, it would be easier to say "well, should we use an opinion columnist to reference facts about the other side?" and proposals to do just that could be brought up. When you do articles about segments of opinion, that kind of fairness is harder to implement. On a hot topic, harder still. On AGW, impossible. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article covering well-documented form of denialism, which is a separate subject from global warming controversy. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article represents a legitimate, notable subject, independent of climate change itself. That said, I agree with the nominator that there are POV issues. For example, the sentences in the first paragraph "Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term." Readers can easily come to the article to learn about legitimate scientific scepticism about climate change, but the article does not address that, or even let them know where to find the information they are looking for. I added a link within the article, but perhaps a hat note explaining the situation up front would be better. But these are concerns that can be addressed through editing, not deletion. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject, reliably covered in numerous sources, sufficiently distinct from related topics to merit its own article. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Artw (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep w/ WP:SNOW. If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again eh? -- samj inout 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep rather than name a bunch of sources and whatnot, I'll just point out that this is the fourth nomination of this article. It seems to me that there is some serious POV pussing when that amny editors try 4 times to delete an article on a contraversial topic. And yet your reson this time is "POV fork"? A one word reply to that should be "hypocrite"--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can tell the nomination is based on climate change denial denial, the content is fully compliant with policy (give or take the occasional POV edit). Guy (Help!) 09:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In many ways Climate change controversy is the foil to climate change denial. However, it would not seem as objective if Climate change controversy were named Climate change conspiracy. Controversy means that there is controversy. Denial means that the area is settled and not open to debate, and those that do advocate debate are (irrespective of their perspective or position) in denial, which means that they are stupid or mad (or both!). Now, if the article, Climate change denial were constructructed such as to say: 'this is what the peception of climate change denial is' that would be fine. Instead it provides an extended argument to PROVE the existence of Climate Change Denial. The article of God should not be a podium for those who wish to prove the existence of God, but rather document the views of society and different creeds upon their perceptions and interpretations of divine being(s). A general rewrite of the Climate change denial page is possible, but rename would clear up a lot of these outstanding issues (even if there is a perceptible polarity, even here, between advocates and opponents of climate change thoery, that is becoming increasingly volatile)--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article as discussing people or groups who are "denying" climate change for political or economic reasons, presumably with a somewhat cynical attitude as to whether or not climate change is a reality. With that focus, the article should discuss identity, motives, funding and activities, and should skim over the arguments advanced. Possibly a better title would end in "lobby groups" or something, but I can't imagine getting consensus on such a change. This is quite different from an article on skeptics who sincerely dispute that climate change is real, or if real that it is caused by human activity, which would mainly describe their reasoning. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't make it up, those are your words. I have looked at the other reasons you have presented and they don't seem to hold water. Really, what do you expect when you say it will be a joy to behold the hypocrites reaction to such a nomination, and that it would be wonderful to see their twists and turns of logic, and then go and nominate it, and then make an effort to point out said perceived hypocrisy? I am simply quoting you, let people make up their own mind as to what your words mean in relation to this nomination. At this point I support the nomination running its full course, not because I think it is in any way valid, but simply to deny the opportunity for claims of unfairness. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect you to be able to Explain how the article meets or violates Wikipedia policy. as it says on the top of the page when you open it up to edit. I expect you to be able to address the actual policy issue, not a single comment made before the AfD started. Otherwise I expect the closing admin to ignore your off-topic, irrelevant comments. That would be WP:DGFA#Rough consensus policy. Really, what do you expect I would expect? You wouldn't be trying to make a WP:POINT about my pre-AfD comment, would you? I mean, that would be a reason for the closing admin to ignore your comment, wouldn't it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first sentence: "A well sourced article about a real and well documented phenomenon". Lets just let the closing admin decide what to ignore and what to pay attention to. Amazing how you can accuse me of a "point" violation, sort of poetic. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • addressed in the response at 21:44, immediately below yours -- irrelevant and off topic to the stated reason for this AfD. I'll have even more to say later about the sources and the way this article uses them. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article seems slanted toward climate change supporters (those who feel it is a real scientific process). To me, even just the name alone seems to be bias. Immunize (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and Theory of gravity is slanted toward those who feel that the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth is a real scientific phenomenon. Not that it matters, according to WP:FRINGE. — Rankiri (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down! Aymatth2 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a fringe comment for you (one I don't happen to agree with, but never mind):
I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed. [...] “Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, ‘There’s a level of uncertainty about that’. [...] When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.
WP doesn't have the right to go beyond what the reliable sources say, even about the denialists. And AGW ain't quite the law of gravity, according to this guy. [34] He uses the word "skepticism" here, but "certain unqualified statements" (like, say, comparing climate change to the law of gravity) hurt the believability of the scientists saying global warming is a real problem, and that's inevitably going to lead to support for both the skeptical and denialist POV. If you have a problem with this statement by the "personal adviser on science and technology-related activities and policies to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet" in the Labour government of the United Kingdom, please take it up with him. (I assume that the source, the Times of London, simply didn't report on his support for the idea of AGW.) Our article skews what the reliable sources say about the sources of denialism: We highlight years-old charges that industry-financed groups did some PR work against it, but completely ignore the reasons given in these reliable sources -- colder weather and the recent embarassments of the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit
  1. New York Times ("A survey conducted in late December by Yale University and George Mason University found that the number of Americans who believed that climate change was a hoax or scientific conspiracy had more than doubled since 2008, to 16 percent of the population from 7 percent."), [35]
  2. The Guardian ("Public conviction about the threat of climate change has declined sharply after months of questions over the science and growing disillusionment with government action, a leading British poll has found") [36]
  3. BBC ("The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since a similar poll was conducted in November."). [37]
These reliable sources are quite explicit about the reasons for the public opinion numbers. Oh, yeah, we do have a little bit of this in a sentence or two in the fourth paragraph of the article. Fourth paragraph from the bottom, that is. If the BBC poll is right, 40 percent of the entire denialist camp in the UK came to this belief since November. What's happened in that time? The cold winter and the embarassments of the IPCC and CRU, as the three articles mention Our coverage in this article is skewed. Our readers are likely to know about the IPCC and CRU embarassments, but they're missing from this article, making it an embarassment to Wikipedia. (edited to add) This (yet again) shows how this article functions to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. which is yet another way it violates WP:POVFORK -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)added comment, as noted; minor tweaks -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have identified useful information, with sources, that I encourage you to add to Public opinion on climate change. I do not think it is clearly relevant to this article, which is more about lobbyists. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I should do that. (just tweaked my comments a bit and added a comment above) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major environmental issue. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 15:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the article title suggests an article about a common pejorative. So long as the article remains on topic about the pejorative (rather than about the science or "fairness" of application) then it can be neutral and informative. However, I'm not convinced the article currently lives up to this standard - and if it can't remain POV, then it should be deleted. Rklawton (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am starting to think the article confuses two different concepts. One is the meaning and usage of the pejorative term, which is sort of a dictionary definition. The other is the activities of lobbyists who try to create doubt about climate change for financial or sectional reasons, as opposed to genuine skeptics. The bulk of the content is about the second concept. I am leaning towards a rename to something like "Climate change lobbying" followed by an overhaul to also cover activities of groups with an interest in increasing alarm about climate change. It would need very tight patrolling to avoid POV, but does seem a legitimate subject, different from both Business action on climate change and Global warming controversy, although with some overlap. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning the same treatment for AIDS denial and all the other articles in Category:Denialism too? --Nigelj (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Denial and Lobbying are two very different concepts. Denial is passive or negative, where a person takes a fixed opinion and refuses to listen to any counter arguments. A denialist may seem stubborn and irrational, but perhaps deserves respect for their conviction. "The holy book says it is true, so it must be true, whatever you say." Lobbying is an active and positive attempt to influence people's views in favor of the person or group who is paying for the lobbying effort. The lobbyist may be relatively indifferent to the the validity of the position they are promoting. The content of this article seems to be mostly about lobbying, not denial. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is possible to write an article on the history of the phrase, tracking its politics and history, and the intentions of the people who use it, and the reactions of those so attacked. However, this is not that article - this is a pure political advocacy article dutifully repeating the point of view of those who use the term. As an advocacy article, this has no place on Wikipedia - put it on a blog somewhere. RayTalk 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —JohnWBarber (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —JohnWBarber (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is almost certainly responding to the substantial violations of WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK that comprise the majority of the article. That said, the solution to that is to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards: "climate change denial" meets WP:NEO, and, as is plainly evident in the coatrack sections of the articles (and in numerous available sources), is a term used to marginalize legitimate critics of the public policy proposals by some environmentalists, even when those critics don't actually deny the existence of climate change. Keep and clean up. THF (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title of the article "Climate change denial" would appear to be on the subject of a segment of the spectrum of opinion on the climate-change controversay. But currently, the article's lead defines the subject as something much more restricted: Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Some writers apply the term to all climate change skeptics. Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term. If improvement of the article, rather than deleting it, is the answer, then one set of improvements would be made by following the implications of the title and another set of improvements by following the restrictions of the lead. So the title/lead conflict should be ironed out. I've proposed doing this at Talk:Climate change denial#The title "Climate change denial" seems to conflict with the definition in the lead. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I think the article needs to be narrowly focused on source material that discusses "Climate change denial," and not become a coatrack for criticism of climate change skepticism or skeptics. Mackan79 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

random break 3

  • The bad sourcing and what you're left with when you clean it out Theoretically, an article about a POV can be NPOV, and in some surface ways, this article is -- it does cover those who criticize use of the term, for instance. But the article is a WP:POVFORK in part because of the poor sourcing, which violates WP:RS, particularly WP:RS#Statements of opinion. The article describes a partisan subject, identifies the name "climate change denial" as often pejorative (at least in some versions of the lead, which has been changing in the past few days), and then gets information from sources primarily from the opposition to the subject rather than from standard news stories in which journalists and editors try to cover a subject with a neutral point of view. This is important, because writers trying to make a point may be tempted to ignore, highlight, downplay or otherwise misrepresent the subject -- precisely the problem we want to avoid under WP:POVFORK policy. The reliance here is so heavily on partisan sourcing that we can't rely on basic elements of the article. Another problem is that in certain spots our article covers specific criticisms of named "denialists" but we don't always include the defense of these people, even when that's covered in the sources we cite, so we compound the problem by our lack of commitment to NPOV.
WP:RS#Statements of opinion does allow for some sourcing from opinion pieces: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author. This article does attribute information to authors (except we say Newsweek instead of the author's name, implying that the source is a normal, unproblematic news article). However the basic structure of an article -- it's necessary parts, most prominent parts and passages that are used to show what's important, should not rely on this kind of problematic sourcing from opinion pieces. I don't know that reliable sourcing in regular news accounts or elsewhere actually exists. The parts of the article that remain after you remove these can be either deleted or put into various other articles -- in most cases they already are (see the See main article notes at the top of some sections).
Some parts of the article are very solidly sourced: There isn't a problem with most of the "Private sector" and "Public sector" sections, parts of the "Overview" section simply report on others' opinions, and the first paragraph of the "Effect of climate change denial" section. The "Kivalina v. ExxonMobil" section seems solid but "Connections to the tobacco lobby" is entirely built on unreliable sourcing. But the solid sourcing doesn't cover the basic structure of the article: the important, defining parts and the passages that tell us what's important. I've created User:JohnWBarber/Climate change denial, a copy of the article with the three most problematic prominent sources shown in boldface (I used boldface italics mark passages that could remain, ranging from somewhat problematic to not a problem at all in terms of WP:RS policy). This shows how much and how prominent the bad sourcing is. There are a few minor bad sources as well, but they don't amount to much and don't need to affect the way we see the article as a whole:
  • Newsweek, "The Truth About Denial" This magazine's articles combine opinion, news reporting and analysis. I'm inclined to want to use newsmagazine pieces as reliable sources as long as we're careful with them, and, as RS says, even an opinion article may be reliable on some facts. However, this particular article is more problematic than most: It was sharply criticized not just as wrong but as biased and unreliable on the magazine's own pages by its columnist, Robert Samuelson, who said: We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's NEWSWEEK cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as "good guys vs. bad guys" can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story. [...] NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. [38] That is very severe, unusual criticism for a magazine to run on its own pages. We do mention that criticism prominently ("Overview" section), but we still rely on the Newsweek story for information, more than any other source (four times directly; two other footnotes that make up most of the "Effect of climate change denial" section rely on a sidebar from the same issue). Also unusual, The New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Jeff Jacoby which criticized the article. Sample quote: [W]hy is the tone of Sharon Begley's cover story - nine pages in which anyone skeptical of the claim that human activity is causing global warming is painted as a bought-and-paid-for lackey of the coal and oil industries - so strident and censorious? Wouldn't it be more effective to answer the challengers, some of whom are highly credentialed climate scientists in their own right, with scientific data and arguments, instead of snide insinuations of venality and deceit? [39] By relying so strongly on the Newsweek coverage, Wikipedia implies that we endorse it, at least for its facts. When we say, the Newsweek report attributes American policymakers' failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to consistent undermining of science by the "denial machine" at the bottom of the article, introducing the prominent "kicker" quote (an important spot [40]) we're citing an unreliable, unusually highly criticized source on a key fact that the article seems designed to support. The first sentence of the "Public sector" section, critical of Frank Luntz, a BLP, relies on the Newsweek article, as does much of the second paragraph, which criticizes another BLP, Philip Cooney (roughly half of that small section relies on the Newsweek article).
  • George Monbiot, "an English writer, known for his environmental and political activism", according to our article on him, currently Footnote 3, cited four times (ever since Day 1 of the article [41]). The source is an excerpt from a book of his, which seems just as much an opinion piece as his column in The Guardian. In the "Overview" section, Monbiot is one of the most prominent sources, and in the "Connections to the tobacco lobby" section, three of the five paragraphs rely on this source (with the other two relying on an opinionated magazine piece). Take a look at the bottom paragraph of that section: George Monbiot wrote in the Guardian that this petition, which he criticizes as misleading and tied to industry funding, "has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth." How can we trust that claim from a biased source? The type of sourcing we'd want for statements that put elements of the subject into perspective should be rock solid -- in this case, regular news articles. Monbiot's book would have had that information to make a partisan point, and we don't know how hard he was straining to make it. I don't know if there are news articles that could replace this or replace other sourcing.
  • Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair [42] Hertsgaard is environmental correspondent for The Nation, a left-wing opinion magazine in the U.S., and what he's written for Vanity Fair is a combination of reporting and his own opinion. His article is used in the overlong and tangental "Tobacco" section, and the main purpose of it is to introduce negative information about Frederick Seitz. The original opinion piece at least had the decency to quote Seitz defending himself: ("We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent.") It was a WP:BLP issue to use an opinion-piece source to attack a living person on Wikipedia, particularly while omiting that BLP's defense of his own actions. The only reason why it hasn't remained a BLP violation is because Seitz died -- but up until that moment, the BLP violation remainded. It is now merely an unreliable source to rely on for information.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)added material -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right-leaning newspaper columnists like Robert Samuelson and far-right newspaper columnists like Jeff Jacoby not liking something does not make it unreliable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, to your modification and additon, just because Mark Hertsgaard is left of center does not make him unreliable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hertsgaard piece is full of opinion. As I say, we can use opinion pieces for facts, but it's problematic to use them so much -- and to use them exclusively in the "Tobacco" section. In my copy of the story, the entire section is in boldface, although some of it might be used. We rely almost exclusively on the left for opinion pieces here, but I don't think that getting more from the right is the answer -- getting news articles for sources would be the answer, but it's very problematical: we don't know if they really exist. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hertsgaard piece is a featured article in Vanity Fair, a publication with an undisputed record of fact-checking and accuracy. It is a reliable source for facts. It is not an op-ed. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I've just added a bit to my comment, but it doesn't affect the part you replied to.) I agree that it isn't conclusive, but the fact that editors at Newsweek and The New York Times op-ed page would publish those very prominent critiques does matter. Their important objections are about professional journalism more than merely their opinion that the piece was wrong. Samuelson's criticism of the piece in his own magazine that it did not note the defense of the American Enterprise Institute is a journalistic flaw in that article that cuts to the core of its reliability as a whole. As I say, one reason not to rely on opinion pieces for so many of the facts in a WP story is that they can leave out important information. Samuelson found that, and it's a fact that we should, actually, use in the WP story for fairness (it would be even better to get a news source for that, as with anything). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. Op-Ed pages publish opinions of people who are paid to have opinions. Those opinions are theirs alone - Op-Ed pages state that prominently. Not including a rebuttal of something does not invalidate Newsweeks record of fact checking and accuracy. That a right-wing editor at Newsweek didn't like a peice the magazine wrote is not a retraction, rather it's his opinion. With that, you can again have the last word, but you know the article's not getting deleted, so give it up. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the piece. This is how it ends: But it could still be a livable, even hospitable, planet, if enough of us get smart in time. If we don't, three feet of water could be just the beginning. Mark Hertsgaard is the environmental correspondent for The Nation. Name of the article: "While Washington Slept" -- that title is about opinion, the kicker passage is about opinion. There is reporting in the article. We may want to use some of the facts from it, and it's certainly more fair than our own use of it is fair, but we don't want to rely on this kind of thing so much. Would you want the same for a "Global warming alarmism" article? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To respond further, it's unusual that a Newsweek cover story would get that kind of reaction from the magazine itself and from the Times. Why are we using an article that is itself controversial as the backbone of our story? The Newsweek piece was also opinion, and we don't know where exactly the opinion and argument-making ended and fair reporting began, since the piece as a whole was used to make a partisan point. If the same article had been done by a New York Times reporter, there wouldn't be this problem. We have examples of some very good reporting in the article, such as Cushman's great article in the "Private sector" section, but it isn't enough to hold together this article and it can be put in the main article on that subject (there's a link at the top of that section). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you know the article's not getting deleted, so give it up Either the closing admin will see this article violates WP:POVFORK, or a future AfD will, in which case it's good to have these problems on record, or they can be used to create a much shorter or much changed article. But the much-altered article will be made up of trivia: an old lawsuit that has been dismissed, an overview section saying "some opinion writers have said this" and some polling results that will either have to be updated constantly or (as they are now) be out-of-date or trivial history. The bits that are left will be in other articles already. These are the problems of a content fork. The only thing that holds it together is the opinion-piece meme. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment (I hope): I'm sorry it took so long to post this long analysis at the tail end of the AfD. I'd have done it sooner, but to show that a lengthy article is a WP:POVFORK you really have to show that the problem sourcing is a huge amount of the whole, so that took a lot of reading and research and then a lot of writing to put together, and the copy in my user space, User:JohnWBarber/Climate change denial, which really graphically shows how big the problem sourcing is, took time as well. I was also delayed by activity outside this AfD. I think this research shows that Wikipedia would be just fine without this article and with the small amount of good coverage transferred to other articles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Business action on climate change is only 31K, and most of the worthwhile information could go there, so we have plenty of space in other, proper forks of Global Warming controversy that can properly handle this. Even the Washington Post piece you cite is an editorial from that newspaper (noting the effect of the recent scandals on denialist opinion -- something still not in the article). This article concentrates on business interests funding one side of the issue, when there are governmental and business interests and groups funding and politicking on the other side as well -- what you would expect in democracies. One of the few really good sources, Cushman, writing a news article in the New York Times, is misused by our article in a POV way: Cushman is writing about a proposal, not something in place, as we describe it for our own POV pushing purposes. The Newsweek piece is cited as reporting, giving it respect it does not deserve as a piece unusually criticized for its reporting. Where are the news accounts and similar reliable sources that could be used to back up the main points of this article? You haven't linked to any that I've seen. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:43, 10 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) 03:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moon science

Moon science (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 appears to be some combination of WP:OR and WP:Synth. The references initially gave me pause, but they don't reinforce whatever the point of the main article. Even if the synth concerns were removed, this would be a poor amalgamation of what we already have a category about: Category:Lunar science. Shadowjams (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean redirected. Shadowjams (talk) 03:27, 5 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) 03:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda L. Beall

Amanda L. Beall (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)

Minor writer fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). — TAnthonyTalk 05:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Minor writer, completely non-notable. I was at first impressed by the claim that she had been nominated for an Emmy, but that claim is deceptive; sources do not support it. Here is the nomination she claims, for best writing in 2004; the nomination is for the writing team for All My Children, and 17 writers are listed by name as members of the team, but her name is not among them. --MelanieN (talk) 07:36, 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) 03:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Dansby

Susan Dansby (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)

Minor writer fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). — TAnthonyTalk 05:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. Not everyone who writes for a living is notable. She writes for soap operas and has written an apparently self-published book. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 07:43, 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) 03:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Donato

Judith Donato (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)

Minor writer fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). — TAnthonyTalk 05:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. At least this time her name DOES turn up in the long list of members of a writing team which received an Emmy. But this is definitely fine-print stuff, not general notability. --MelanieN (talk) 07:48, 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) 03:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Dunn

Christopher Dunn (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)

Minor writer fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). — TAnthonyTalk 05:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Again, he writes for soap operas, and sometimes his writing team gets nominated for an award. This does not make him individually notable. --MelanieN (talk) 07:50, 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 Non-admin speedy keep. Nom is banned as sockpuppet, no delete votes. Clearly passes general guideline.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Shaya

Carol Shaya (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 not notable, or at best notable only for one event, not substantial}

Cunextuesday (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Cunextuesday[reply]

  • Keep Meets GNG handily, which should be sufficient. Notable for a series of events (modeling, dismissal, lawsuit, and documentary). Well developed article. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have everything we expect notability-wise. And DAMN look at all of those references. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Meets GNG easily with all of the references. BLP1E does not apply when she has gone on to do other things since her Playboy appearance. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well sourced article showing subject's notability. Nominator's good faith claim of failing WP:BLP1E is inapplicable, as BLPIE instructs "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events... ... fit into this category." Her persistant coverage in multiple reliable sources over a 14 year period show easily meeting of notability through WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BIO without problems. Warrah (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's see if we get the equation right: Being a Playmate does not automatically make one "notable" (according to a few Wiki-blowhards). Therefore simply being a Playmate means one is automatically "non-notable". DELETE THEM ALL!!! Why am I not surprised?... Dekkappai (talk) 03:25, 4 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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew, no other delete votes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright controversies of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Copyright controversies of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (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)

Unwieldy and completely unnecessary rehashing of information already found on the film's main article. Such a glut of information runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. Withdrawn per SarekOfVulcan's explanation below. Seregain (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the consensus was to merge to the parent article. It was spun off per WP:SUMMARY back when it looked like there might be more to the issue. Over time, there was less there than met the eye, so it's appropriate to merge it back. As has been done. There's no pressing need to remove the article, and since material has been moved back and forth between the articles, it seems better to preserve both histories for copyright reasons. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect, as info has been merged. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to add that the article now has no major links to it anymore, which makes me question why it needs to be kept even as a redirect. Seregain (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP licensing pretty much requires that the history of the edits be maintained. If significant content was generated here before merging back to the original, we need to keep the redirect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. I question the significance of the material, but I understand now. Thank you. I will withdraw the nomination. Seregain (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that makes this easy. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 3 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. Clearly not appropriate content. I don't think any purpose is served in leaving this open any longer, it'll just be more pile-on deletes. Fences&Windows 17:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patterns in dimesions

Patterns in dimesions (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 is like an poorly written high school science paper. It is not, by any means, a Wikipedia article. Ems24 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Meaningless, OR-ish drivel. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 04:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fun but largely unencyclopedic gee-whizzery. The reference to relativity is a groaner Hairhorn (talk)
  • Delete Yeah, original research. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: but the author should be directed to Flatland where these ideas are done in fiction. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very badly written. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Not even wrong" is about it. In some senses it's right, but everything in it that's right is covered elsewhere and it is written childishly. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly written OR essay; nothing worth keeping. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Paul August ☎ 00:12, 6 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) 03:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Azam Zanganeh

Lila Azam Zanganeh (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 be a nonnotable professor. PROD removed by IP with a comment that amounts to "it's useful". Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 3 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 No Consensus to delete. If anything, there is a rough consensus below that some of this content should be kept but uncertainty about whether a stand-alone article is better or a merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall & Riot: The Ultimate Orgasm

AfDs for this article:
Stonewall & Riot: The Ultimate Orgasm (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 may fail to meet the notability requirements though Joe Phillips is a well established and notable gay / gay erotic cartoonist. Recently raised for PROD by another editor, I have converted to AfD for wider discussion. Ash (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary says "(Convert to an AfD rather than PROD due to new sources being found fairly easily)". If you don't believe it should be deleted through Prod, then you don't send it to the AFD instead. That doesn't make any sense. Only nominate something you believe should be deleted. Dream Focus 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new source was to substantiate the award nomination. The fact that this nomination existed was already in the article that was PRODded. Nominations where the nominator is neutral are common practice. In this case I have upgraded the PROD to an AfD nomination in order to ensure wider discussion. Ash (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Keep as noted below this seems to be the first American "fully-rendered and unsensored gay pornographic feature film". AfD should be kept open to allow this to be sourced or closed allowing article to be renomed at a later date if needed. -- Banjeboi 13:02, 15 March 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) 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILM. Epbr123 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AVN/GayVN has long-standing consensus as notability for a pornographic film. -- AvatarMN (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The film didn't win anything and there is no consensus that a single nomination confers notability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deletionism is the death of civility and participation in Wikipedia. So much talent is driven away by the pain it inflicts. It's the reason I virtually hate it here. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • With no insult intended, perhaps you should find something more enjoyable and rewarding to do with your time. Delicious carbuncle (talk)
          • With no insult intended, what kind of person finds deleting other peoples' work an enjoyable and rewarding way to spend their time? In fact, I do barely spend any time here as an editor anymore, only as a user. I got notified of this AfD. It's one of the few surviving articles I did a lot of work on, but apparently not for very much longer. There are people who almost exclusively "contribute" to Wikipedia in a deletionist capacity, I wish there could be a rule that people had to use more edits creating than destroying. But that's just me, I guess. -- AvatarMN (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sure you aren't the only person who feels that way, but your view is at odds with the general consensus so you are setting yourself up for episodes such as this where you are going to feel frustrated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I said... I do very little editing anymore. I worked on this article years ago, and only know about the AfD because I was notified on my talk page. I visit Wikipedia as a user, though much less than I used to since two or three deletionists nuked thousands of anime-related articles. I have taken myself out of the frustration game, but deletionism is still haunting me via notices to my talk page. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that this content belongs in the illustrator's article in a much abbreviated form. I was the editor who prodded the article, so feel free to take this as a delete vote. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 7 March 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) 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Joe Phillips. Notability is questionable.--PinkBull 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per AvatarMN. This article is well-written and harmless and gets about 500 pageviews per month. Meets GNG for an obscure animated film that appeals to a minority. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's GNG? I'm interested in anything that can save niche articles, I'd love to hear more. Also this subject gets 8200 Google hits. Notability may be scant among the majority, but there is great value to notability to a minority group (where this subject is very notable). It seems to me there's a discrimination argument to be made against deleting. 500 Wikipedia page views a month, 8200 Google hits... not notable to you /= not notable. -- AvatarMN (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:GNG, is general notability guideline - in essence we presume a subject to be notable once a threshold of independent reliable sources are found. These issues remain subjective but the spirit remains the same that they likely are notable even if the article doesn't yet include those sources and the article doesn't spell out how the subject is notable. Those are regular editing issues which are fixable. If no sources are available or no indication of notability can be reasonably shown then the issues are not fixable, at least not yet. In this case it seems the sources aren't readily available (although they may exist) but neither do we have to delete since the author's article can house any usable content. -- Banjeboi 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally do Adf for films so did not know the exact guideline. WP:NOTFILM#Other evidence of notability #1 and #2 and some basic common sense that this article adds to Wikipedia's educational value without any other major issues WP:SENSE. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at those WP:NOTFILM#Other evidence of notability, this film is indeed a big part of the notable person Joe Phillips' career. And it has the unique accomplishment of being the first fully-rendered animated gay pornographic film (to date, only Pirate's Booty has followed it). Phillips' The House of Morecock was crudely and simply rendered in Flash. -- AvatarMN (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "the first fully-rendered animated gay pornographic film"? If so I would say source that and keep. -- Banjeboi 17:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Japanese did it before it in cell animation. But with the exception of Sensitive Pornograph (which came before S&R:TUO) it's all been soft-core or censored, and S&R:TUO is certainly not that. So I guess "first fully-rendered, unsensored, American gay pornographic feature film"? Er, is that getting a little too specific? So far only one other video ticks all those boxes is Pirate's Booty (released after S&R:TUO). I'm having a hard time finding a source for this, I just know because I've been paying close attention for a couple decades, having an acute interest in the very small world of gay animated porn, and I know my claim to be true. So that may go down as frakking original research... It's just a genre so small and so new that it's maybe not been discussed by what Wikipedia would call reliable sources yet. There's an eventualist argument to be made for it. -- AvatarMN (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And that argument is that this will be regarded a genre starter in the future? - Stillwaterising (talk)
Well being the first American one in a confluence of emerging industries suggests yes. Maybe contact Joe Phillips and simply ask what media coverage exists? -- Banjeboi 13:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Pirate's Booty has already copied it. And Phillips is at work on a new film. -- AvatarMN (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody tried looking for Japanese sources? - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean for citations? Myself, I don't read Japanese. Would Japanese sources be acceptable citations to satisfy notability and verifiability for English Wikipedia? I follow English-speaking yaoi fandom, and am satisfied that I know about all the videos that come out. But fansites aren't considered reliable sources. I think the day is coming when Wikipedia may need to rethink its reliable sources rules, in this era where professional media is dying and there really isn't much in the way of professional, neutral publications. And the lack of such doesn't mean nothing new is notable, and information about it is not verifiable. -- AvatarMN (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in other languages are certainly acceptable. If possible offering translations is helpful to other editors and readers looking through the refs. Some fansites may be reliable if they show a standard that meets RS, I think specifically that they show editorial control and fact-checking. -- Banjeboi 20:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - needs cleanup, but I think the subject has established enough notability to warrant a separate article. Airplaneman talk 19:50, 19 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 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 [43]. 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 [44]). 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 keep. WP:GNG supersedes WP:PROF; passing only one of them is sufficient. WP:NPOV is an editing issue that can be addressed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Baskerville

Stephen Baskerville (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 appears to be promotional in nature, and does not have any third-party sources or proof of the subject's notability. In addition, it goes beyond simply describing the subject's views, instead actually pushing them (for example, by describing a judge's views as "chilling"). Stonemason89 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Baskerville is a leading political scientist. If the issue is with the point of view, than editing the article seems much more appropriate than just deleting it. I really think delete attempts on the grounds that the article has problems with how it is written are unwise. If you can nominate it for deletion, you can edit it, and that would give everyone more understanding.John Pack Lambert 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Where is your evidence for the claim that Baskerville is "a leading political scientist"? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue that Baskerville being president of the coalition of Fathers and Children makes him notable. Also his being a leading expert on how public policy effects families would make him a notable academic. While initially the article may not have had any true third party sources, it does now. Remember, the question is not, does the group have the same ideology as Baskerville, but does he have any control over it. I think Eagle Forum counts as a third party source. Human Evants is a bit harder, since he has been a writer for them, but the fact that they published an article about him and his views is worth noting.John Pack Lambert 04:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I have now included a link to an attack piece against Baskerville published in a Fredricksburg, Virginia newspaper in response to an article written by him published in the same newspaper earlier. The reasons to keep the article are clearly increasing.John Pack Lambert 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • But remember, third-party or not, Eagle Forum is not a neutral source; it has a very strong slant to it. So if you are going to cite it, make sure you do so in a way that doesn't come across as endorsing its POV. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no neutral sources. To even talk of such things is rubbish. All sources have bias, all people have bias. This is even more so the case in an issue like divorce law and child support schedules. Anyway, my whole point in citing the Eagle Forum website was to show that people respect and pay attention to Baskerville's views. Whether you think these views refelct the truth or are a manipulation of it, baskerville is a recognized scholar who has had his views widely discussed.John Pack Lambert 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I too think his presidency of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children makes him notable. He also appears to be a published author - [45], and has appeared on mainstream US TV - [46] (though the latter needs secondary sourcing). The article needs work to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, and to make it a bit more NPOV -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he is the president of an organization does not make him notable, unless the organization itself is also notable. The American Coalition of Fathers and Children article cites no sources except for the group's official website, and provides no proof that the group itself is notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, if people want to discuss point of view issues, it seems it would be much better to do so on the discussion page of the article. Point of View is an issue of the article's current form, not really an issue of whether the subject is notable and thus whether the article should exist.John Pack Lambert 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 03:55, 3 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) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GS h index only 5. After all this time notability has not been clearly established. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep As Xxanthippe notes, this article does not pass WP:PROF, but it does pass WP:GNG. Subject's notability seems to stem from his political, rather than scholarly, activity. He had both an op-ed and a rebuttal to his op-ed in the Washington Post, is the subject of both coverage and reader response in local newspapers [47], etc. RayTalk 03:33, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Z-MC

Z-MC (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)

Unverifiable - I tried. Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They pass WP:MUSIC. Look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Splurt. I'll reference the article shortly. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have notable discography, released on major labels - [48] -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Look closer at that discography: all he has is a couple of singles. The rest of the entries are all "appearing on" credits. WP:BAND #5 requires two or more albums on a notable label, and he has none (not even EPs). I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources; Google just gives me his discogs and myspace, and Google News gives me nothing relevant at all. He doesn't appear to have done anything notable under his new name, either: Allmusic doesn't even have an entry for "Splurt", and Google just brings up the usual mp3 sites, lyrics sites, and "download <insert artist here> ringtones!!!" stuff. — Gwalla | Talk 17:50, 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, Pcap ping 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utter lack of sources, no full albums. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:59, 3 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) 03:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Spot (pricing game)

On the Spot (pricing 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)

Unsourced original research on a pricing game. Precedent for deletion started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any Number et al. No sources forthcoming. Last bundled in AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game which closed as no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm no fan of pricing games, but there seems to be at least one book on "The prize is right" and probably more. This is certainly not highly scientific, but neither is the topic. This would mean that it is possible to source the article to some extent, it has just not been done within the last 5 years. However, this seems to make it a weak keep. PanchoS (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it's not been done in five years isn't enough evidence that ain't nobody gonna fix it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:46, 3 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) 03:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shower Game

Shower 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)

Unsourced original research on a pricing game. Precedent for deletion started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any Number et al. No sources forthcoming. Last bundled in AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game which closed as no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm no fan of pricing games, but there seems to be at least one book on "The prize is right" and probably more. This is certainly not highly scientific, but neither is the topic. This would mean that it is possible to source the article to some extent, it has just not been done within the last 5 years. However, this seems to make it a weak keep. PanchoS (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable and no significant coverage anywhere. Article contains not one single reference and nothing remotely useful turns up in a Google search. Based on the dates in the article, this game appeared sporadically for only 12 weeks on a program that has been on television for almost 40 years. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:, only because there is no image to represent the game, and it needs more sources.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Chris[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) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 in a Row

3 in a Row (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)

Unsourced original research on a pricing game. Precedent for deletion started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any Number et al. No sources forthcoming. Last bundled in AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game which closed as no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:38, 3 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) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The question is not whether it is sourced, but whether it can be sourced sufficient to show notability per WP:N. The consensus is some pricing games are individually notable, others are not. I'm unable to find evidence of notability for this game with good faith Google searches, and the article doesn't provide any, so delete as failing WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:22, 11 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) 03:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check Game

AfDs for this article:
Check 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)

Unsourced original research on a pricing game. Precedent for deletion started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any Number et al. No sources forthcoming, only ref is a YouTube vid. Last AFD closed as no consensus, with no prejudice against renomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:35, 3 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 G7/G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triangular lens effect

Triangular lens effect (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)

Probably hoax, no Google results for the exact name CTJF83 chat 03:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like a hoax to me. Eeekster (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and delete the page, I've proven my point. Hlynurs (talk) 03:49, 3 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cologne Classical Ensemble

Cologne Classical Ensemble (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)

Lack of notability. Has been marked with {{notability}} for quite some time. The only third-party mentions I was able to find on the internet are articles in local German newspapers, which do not suffice to constitute notability. Carabinieri (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to WP:BAND, "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" don't prove notability. All newspaper mentionings I was able to find merely announce the ensemble's concert dates, so that definately falls under "trivial coverage". As far as I'm able to tell, they have only released one album with Sony. That only leaves the album review in Neue Musikzeitung, which surely isn't enough to establish notability.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough notability here. Removed notability tag and changed to expand, which will be necessary if this escapes AfD. avs5221 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind telling us why this topic is notable?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally voted keep per this WP:BAND criteria: "Has released two or more albums on a major label." I did more digging on this and their "second" CD per PanchoS is a compilation CD on which CCE only has one song. With that taken into consideration, they do not meet WP:MUSIC. My apologies, Carabinieri. avs5221 (talk) 19:42, 10 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) 01:00, 11 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) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided are adequate for our purpose. No useful purpose is served by continually relisting this as there is clearly no consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:12, 20 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 to Minor places in Beleriand. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belegost

Belegost (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)

Lack of notability. This has had a {{notability}} tag on it for years. The fact that the whole article is written from an in-universe perspective is pretty telling. Carabinieri (talk) 02:44, 3 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Passan

Jeff Passan (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 internet journalist. Mikeblas (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Cited numerously by other sources,[49] award-winning, etc. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The hits you found are mostly articles he's written, not cites he's sourced. I can't find any source which establishes that he's won a specific award, other than his own bio, which just says "award-winning". -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. Actually, not really. If you look closely at the sources you'll see that a number of them are other articles that quote Passan, the clear mark of a notable journalist.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. multiple sources in the article and above attest to notability. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:24, 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 10:14, 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, CTJF83 chat 02:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article contains no sources. A bibliography disguised as a reference section certainly doesn't count. No source, let alone even a name, for alleged award. Fails WP:CREATIVE by a long shot. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now contains sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no source to actually support the claim of having won an award - just what is most likely a self written bio blurb. The book is an actual ref, but Passan is mentioned in passing without enough details about the person to sustain a viable BLP. I still don't think he passes the GNG. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo is as realiable as sources come these days. If they say he's award winning, we can trust that he's award winning. As for the book, "mentioned in passing" is putting it way too lightly. He was discussed over a number of pages. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum.: Numerous sources have been added to the article after it was nominated and the two delete !votes.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Tzu Zha Men. Happy to view Yahoo as an RS for his award.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:44, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Zelin

Clayton Zelin (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 person. Disolveinarow (talk) 10:30, 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, CTJF83 chat 02:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the outdoor teams he has played for seem to play in the PDL, which is an amateur league and therefore not enough for him to pass WP:ATHLETE. He seems to have played indoors in the PASL, does anyone know if this is a fully professional league.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The Professional Arena Soccer League is the highest level professional league of indoor soccer, which should suffice. Whether a league is fully professional or semi-professional is quite hard to distinguish, a semi-professional league in regular (grass) soccer will be more professional than a fully professional league in indoor soccer. PanchoS (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep = I gave it my best to clean up when the creator asked for help but it still needs the attention of someone more familiar with American soccer. Playing in the PASL would meet the criteria of WP:ATHLETE requiring play in the highest level professional league for the sport. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 04:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above.  fetchcomms☛ 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article is properly referenced to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds, the PASL is the top professional indoor soccer league in the United States. - Dravecky (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appearances in the top US indoor football league seems to assert notability. EuroPride (talk) 13:33, 8 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GnomeFiles

GnomeFiles (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:WEB. Pcap ping 12:19, 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, CTJF83 chat 02:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources of this website. Jujutacular T · C 15:58, 10 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. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frikipedia

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

This is a procedural nomination. I declined an A7 speedy deletion request on this article, and am taking it to the community for discussion. I am personally neutral at this time. LadyofShalott 19:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • RanJayJay has made no edits outside AFD so far. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that I've gutted the article. The previous form was poorly-Babelfished Spanish. I'm fluent in Spanish, so I was able to dig up a few sources. This says it got in trouble with the SGAE, which seems to be the Spanish equivalent of ASCAP. This says a similar thing a year previous. There is no shortage of coverage, but almost all of it is in Spanish. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 21:16, 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, CTJF83 chat 02:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the current state it's in, it seems a bit non-notable. I'd pretty much say add a couple more paragraphs to the page. Then I'll reconsider. Kind of on the edge thing. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TenPoundHammer. Spanish coverage is of the same value as English coverage. PanchoS (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 125 results at Google news archive with significant coverage, from 2000-2010, and significant book coverage [50] demonstrate notability, even if in Spanish or other non-English languages. The existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, rather than quality of the present article, is the proper measure of notability. The multiplicity of significant coverage is there, and independence of sourcing appears to be there, but it is sometimes hard to evaluate reliability of foreign language sources. Since the Spanish Wikipedia has a pretty good article about Frikipedia, which was apparently machine translated to create this article, why couldn't someone skilled in Spanish just do a good translation of the referenced Spanish article, for starters? Edison (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per TenPoundHammer and Edison. The nominator may want to consider withdrawing this AfD, since the article has been updated and improved. Warrah (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there have been delete votes, it is not possible for the nomination to be withdrawn now. It does no harm for the discussion to go its normal length anyway. LadyofShalott 02:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Notability comes from the attempt of the SGAE to close it down and the following internet campaign to reopen it. The event was fairly publicised in Spain for a few months, as it followed in the steps of several such measures from SGAE. Whatever the SGAE does gets a lot of (negative) publicity. That said, there are many Spanish reliable sources available to prove notability. At least in Spanish. Example 1 from El Mundo (Spain), Example 2 from Telecinco, Example 3 from Público (Spain). I have even found this from Clarín (newspaper) (Argentina's largest newspaper). I doubt there is English coverage about this wiki, so it comes down to whether Spanish coverage is as good as English coverage. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interests of full disclosure: I requested that Raystorm look at this article and comment here. I did not know how she would comment. Nor have I requested anyone else's input. LadyofShalott 19:21, 4 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) 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Blain

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

Biography sourced solely to an obituary published by a local council. I cannot find any source to backup the assertion that he was important in Queensland's history nor that he was particularly important in respect of Gladstone. While it is apparent that he was important to the region - hence the "Citizen of the Year" award from Gladstone council - no reliable sources appear to have cared to write about him. Peripitus (Talk) 06:30, 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, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:22, 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, CTJF83 chat 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already. No one's come forth with any arguments in favor, and I can't find anything either. Or just let it get relisted another 9001 times; it's obvious no one cares. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reason for keeping provided, no need to relist. SmokingNewton (talk) 05:11, 3 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 no consensus. There are weak arguments on both sides like "I've never heard of it" and "it exists, so must be notable." But in the end, some marginal sources have been provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon Creek

Watermelon Creek (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 page is describing a creek that is not notable, and it has clearly not been copy edited. E2eamon (talk) 02:24, 3 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) 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears in GNIS which proves its existence. As per notability it is my opinion that all streams are pretty much inherently notable, heck I created an article on a small creek a day or two ago. I cite WP:5P which states, "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." -Marcusmax(speak) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article even if it is lister in GNIS, and very few Google hits. Pepper∙piggle 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Is a body of water. All bodies of water are a part of this earth, and are notable. Dew Kane (talk) 16:22, 14 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Stores

National Stores (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 organisation under the notability guidelines of WP:ORG, which requires that an organisation has " significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There is no news coverage of this organisation and, other than self promotion, not much else online at all. Note that WP:ORG specifically states that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep
1. Due to news coverage
2. One will find more results if he or she searches for the names of the name brand stores operated by National Stores. ("Factory 2-U," (2004 and onwards) "Fallas Paredes")
For instance http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/04/28/newscolumn5.html discusses how "Fallas Paredes" is closing one of the stores in Houston that it acquired from Weiner's. Even though the company name is actually National Stores, the article uses the brand name
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 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, CTJF83 chat 02:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had added additional references after Wikipeterproject made his first post. I would like for him to re-assess the scenario so I can determine whether I need to look for more sources. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 4 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) 00:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple sources establish clear notability.--PinkBull 02:42, 18 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 redirect to Shorinji Kempo. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Shorinji Kempo Organization

World Shorinji Kempo Organization (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 minor organisation without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why merge something if its clearly not notable? Dwanyewest (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's not clearly not notable, and even if it were it might be a reasonable break-out of the main article; a main article like Shorinji Kempo can include material (merged from here, say) that wouldn't be notable on its own; and, redirects are cheap and it's a plausible search term. JJL (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails general notability WP:GNG

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I do not usually give an opinion on this sort of subject, but it would be reassuring to know that the nominator has checked the apparent sources in G News listed above and can confirm that they are not significant. It would be even more reassuring to know that he had done so before he placed the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG you are familiar with the idea that of circular arguements. "Editors should be careful not to use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia" WP:CIRCULAR

Dwanyewest (talk) 18:29, 19 February 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 23:28, 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, CTJF83 chat 02:22, 3 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. Snow and Speedy keep (nominator !voted keep) —SpacemanSpiff 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip P. Gaonkar

AfDs for this article:
Dilip P. Gaonkar (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)

Dilip Gaonkar is an Associate professor (Not yet reached Professor position since his 1984 Ph.D.). No evidence of any significant awards to meet WP:PROF criteria. How good are his books? - Only professors and rhetoric’s in that area could shed some light. He is not there yet to be notable in that area. Obviously one may say that his work might have been referenced in many places – that is expected because his work is on Rhetoric. Google citations are low for this area. Liberal art deals with enormous readings and writings. kaeiou (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pl. see item 2, - "highly selective and prestigious", item 3 - "selective and prestigeous" and item 5 "distinghuished professor" from WP:PROF - sorry.--kaeiou (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person doesn't need to meet all ore many of the criteria in WP:PROF. One is enough, and it was shown in the 1st AfD that he meets criterion #1. PanchoS (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Pl. look into this person of the same expertise with high Google citations [51]. Gaonkar is not yet close to for #1 WP:PROF. That is the bottomline. Thanks. -- --kaeiou (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say 245 citations for his 2001 article "On alternative modernities" is something. Also being Executive Editor of Public Culture should make him meet #8.
An alternative standard is "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" meaning that "a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average." (WP:PROF) Reliable, independent sources are not a problem. And the university he is teaching at is a high profile university.
So take this together and there's no more doubt on his notability. The criteria are only thought to separate out the many instructors that are just doing their teaching job and write a pro-forma article every two years so they're not being fired.
He's not high profile, but relevant and certainly above average. PanchoS (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : University where one is teaching should not come to decide WP:PROF. Teaching is not pat of WP:PROF. If that is the case, one would argue how one did not become a full professor being in academia all through until one is 65. Professorship takes 6-10 years from the day one is hired as an Asst. Professor. Also he was not at one place. How would you say the university he is working with is a high profiled one (It might be true according to US college report). Have you compared his school among the universities in the world? About 10 years ago, yes it was. It is no more while rest of the world is developing – US has lesser number of foreign students coming for higher education. Comparatively among other experts (as compared with the other guy in the previous comment), his citations are low(245 vs. 5000 odd) in Google scholar. What public culture are you talking here? Is it American or Asian or worldwide? Public culture that that he is with is not a high ranked institution in the world. (We need citations). I don’t find anything you wrote are part of WP:PROF. I'd like input from an expert in his area. Respectfully - --kaeiou (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Mainly due to his book publications noted in the prior AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References and work cited in over 40 international publications, see here, Thanks! --Ekabhishektalk 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per comments in the previous AfD [52]. Also comparing Gaonkar to Appadurai isn't exactly fair. They are not persons with "same expertise". Though they have the "public culture" part in common, Appadurai's main area of expertise seems to be anthropology while Gaonkar's is Rhetoric.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Whatever you might say – the bottom line is that your work should reflect your position and conversely. With that I’d like input from experts in Gaonkar’s area. Gaonkar's numbers from Google scholar are not there yet to qualify! thanks. --kaeiou (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do see Gaonkar is nominated for many categories. Is he expert on each one of these? American humanities academics, American social sciences writers,Cultural academics,Rhetoricians.

Thanks. --kaeiou (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not do it wittingly. I did with the good intention of helping to make a wiki page a better reference. I’m not a wiki admin (I do not want to become a wiki admin now – may be I would when I retire from my job) and I do not have all the tools that an admin has. Yes, I made mistakes as anyone else did with the kind of resources (time, tools) that I have. More than half were deleted out of what I nominated so far (Did you notice that?). Thanks for your comments and I’m sorry if that is the way you think. To be honest, all those who were nominated by me were written by my friends or me (different wiki accounts over the time). We (my friends and I) wanted to check (kind of Litmus test (politics) ) ourselves whether we write junk or we make sensible contributions while WP:PROF guidelines were cloudy for us. Combined with, we have written more than 150 wiki new pages. For what were nominated, what were deleted and what were kept, we were the hors d’oeuvre authors. Others also nominated my articles to remove for which I did not raise my discontent. What consensus contributes to wiki here is a voluntary good will contribution. I do not think it is a waste of time by any means. What I (along with my friends) have contributed to wiki is much more than what I have nominated (they were mine – 99%) to delete. We love to write about those we met or saw as a remembrance of respect to them, but they should meet wiki rules to be called as wiki notables. Thanks to you once again for your contribution and time.--kaeiou (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
kaeiou/at par, i guessed something of this sort was going on because you were mostly concentrating on Karnataka articles. As you know we have argued over a lot of AfDs. Initially, i thought you were being disruptive, but soon realised that was not the case. I get what you are trying to do but please take this in good faith - 1) you did not familiarise yourself with how wikipedia works before you started doing AfD. You thought, admins were paid members and refused to follow established guidelines (like doing step 3 of AfD nominations) 2) You refused to follow WP:BEFORE despite being pointed out repeatedly. Several of your nominations have ended up yourself withdrawing the nomination after being pointed out the relevant policy. (like the MLA you thought non notable despite WP:POLITICIAN, clearly saying that all provincial legislature members are notable). 3) WP:BEFORE exists because, if an article can be improved instead of AfDing, it can be done. 4)50 percent hitrate in AfD nominations, IMO is plain horrible. The same end result could have been obtained with 10% of the effort extended (all of commenting, arguing etc) if you had followed WP:BEFORE. I still believe what your contributions are a net addition to wikipedia, but as i put it you during our run in the Mallika Chopra AfD, go a little slow. look for past precedents and read what has happened in previous AfDs. Consensus has already been established in a lot of areas (but not in all). It would save a lot of duplicate effort, if we avoid re arguing the same arguments and concentrate on what is left. Regards,--Sodabottle (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do see Wiki asking donations on their main pages. That made me to think that some are paid if not to all of them. The tool you sent on 3/3 is somewhat useful [53] - thanks. We do read WP:BEFORE but that does not convince many of us in few situations. Someone said that the wiki pages ( a few of them) that I (my friends) wrote don’t deserve credits. That made us to nominate for afd to know what consensus feels about them. The WP:PROF is still cloudy to many of us. What we see in those 9 items is just a theory. There is a lot of difference when theory is applied to the actual case studies. After nomination, I did not leave the nomination scence; I shared my visions on them unitl it got good number of "Keep" or "Delete". Also many feel that that activities on wiki are lethargic at times in many ways. Our recommendation: After writing a new page, it is recommended that, after one month if you think that if someone has flaged it for notability check, you nominate it for an early afd or ask help to nominate. Thanks once again. Take it easy (talk) --kaeiou (talk) 17:46, 6 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. Though he might well be notable, the article has insignificant content and absolutely no citation. I'm therefore deleting, but if anyone wants to recreate this article I would be happy to give access to the deleted revision for the purposes of rebuilding the article provided they can surpass CSD G4 standards. Valley2city‽ 06:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Kuznetsov

Eugene Kuznetsov (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 references, one sentence, may not be notable E2eamon (talk) 02:16, 3 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  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]
    • He used to be anti-apartheid? Interesting....but it certainly looks like he's done a U-turn on the issue since then. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weird, yes, but I think one would refer to Roodt's views of back then as anti-establishment, rather than anti-apartheid. It was more the publisher that was anti-apartheid. Johannes Jaar (talk) 17:24, 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 [54], [55] and [56] 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 [57], faces or faced a hate-speech charge [58], 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]
  • Well, I can only read Afrikaans insofar as it is like Dutch, and my Dutch isn't great to start with. But I'll see if I can do something with this. Cutting it down to a few sentences will be step one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:47, 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]
  • It seems several participants aren't sure themselves whether to keep or delete this article, so a relist seems in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good that this article has been included in the South Africa List now. I also added a notice on the WikiProject South Africa. While I agree that this article is heavily biased and generally in bad shape, I am quite convinced that this controversial person is clearly notable. See only this news article and this article in The Sunday Times. More references can surely be found. Keep — PanchoS (talk) 17:09, 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[59] 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]
  • I have also checked out the Afrikaans article ([60]. Although it includes more info, there are still very few reliable sources. It simply looks like an expansion of the English article. Mostly edited by (well, what do ya know?!) User:Danroodt. Johannes Jaar (talk) 11:09, 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]
    • You already posted these exact same comments at the top of the AFD. Please do not make duplicate posts, it merely clutters up the discussion. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rewritten the article, added sources, info, etc. It's not perfect yet, but I think it's better. Please check and change if necessary (and remove labels, if possible). Johannes Jaar (talk) 09:39, 18 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. Rough consensus is that the subject has enough significance to merit inclusion, while changes since the nomination have improved sourcing and removed promotional content. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agency Republic

Agency Republic (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)

Shamelessly promotional and generally fails to assert notability under WP:GNG or WP:CORP Addionne (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A significant and award-winning firm with plenty of references from reliable sources and not unduly promotional, either. Quoting a company's mission statement and slogans is valid if it offers an insight into the company's operations. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it -IS- overly promotional, then it should be editted and not deleted in this case, as the article is notable and very well-referenced. SmokingNewton (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strongly. This is outrageous spam. The lede calls this an interactive communications agency, but fortunately the infobox mentions advertising as what they actually do. This goes on to say it's (c)reatively-driven, with a focus on Research & Development and exists to create world class interactive ideas..., which is no doubt all very nice and means exactly nothing. This rubbish has got to go, and ought to have been speedily deleted no matter how notable they might be. And don't try to tell me that it could be fixed by editing: this whole text needs to be deleted; and business to business firms with purely intangible assets and no brick and mortar presence really aren't solid enough to make good article subjects in any case. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be clearly notable, if the claims made about awards and clients are true which seems to be true. I cleared the purely promotional section "Culture" and we still need some more copy-editing. Otherwise it's okay. PanchoS (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had originally suggested speedy deletion based on my belief that this page would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. However, now that we are here, I also believe it does not meet general notability. References by Brand Republic, Campaign Magazine and Marketing Magazine are the same articles across multiple sites - which are in turn part of the same group of websites. Other sources I have found are all similarly on this group of sites (which includes Media Week and Revolution). IMO this does not constitute multiple, independent sources - but is really one news source. The remaining award listings are little more than passing mentions - and are not necessarily notable awards themselves to make the company pass WP:CORP. Addionne (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. None of these claimed sources would appear to have anything other than limited interest and circulation — i.e. no real readership outside the advertising business. And you'd expect people in that business to be skilled at publicizing themselves. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:27, 3 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 speedy delete. A10 Closedmouth (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the unit of compound

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

This is not an article; it is a question with an answer E2eamon (talk) 02:07, 3 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 speedy delete. A7 Closedmouth (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sheep Fashion

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

this is not notable, and is linked to a myspace page. E2eamon (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete They even call it an underground clothing line - which screams non-notable. Addionne (talk) 02:12, 3 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 G3 and creator indefblocked by Closedmouth for creating a handful of vandalism pages. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hemophorids

Hemophorids (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 is unsourced and contains little information. "That's all I know" is an unacceptable sentence. E2eamon (talk) 01:57, 3 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 redirect to Clear Creek Independent School District. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Bayou Elementary

Armand Bayou Elementary (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 elementary school that is not notable E2eamon (talk) 01:52, 3 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 snow keep (non-admin closure, by nominator). Equazcion (talk) 17:18, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

300 East 57th Street

300 East 57th Street (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)

Also nominating:

785 Fifth Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
810 Fifth Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
880 Fifth Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
45 Christopher Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
15 Central Park West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These New York City buildings all seem to assert notability through having been designed by famous architects and/or having had celebrity residents. A couple have passing mention in a publication, but not what I would consider in-depth coverage, as is required by WP:N. These were all created by the same user, User:AMuseo. Equazcion (talk) 01:35, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: Presumably you found these due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/930 Fifth Avenue. Mass nominations are almost always a bad idea, unless you can demonstrate that each individual entry fails WP:BEFORE.--Milowent (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BEFORE isn't something to be passed or failed, just steps to take before nominating something. I'm already well-versed in deletion policy, procedure, and the pertinent general notability criteria. I even helped write some it. I feel these buildings don't meet the inclusion criteria. The group nom is justified, I feel, because all the articles contain similar assertions of notability that I feel are too weak to justify inclusion. Equazcion (talk) 01:49, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep All - First of all, too many articles for a nomination. Always a nightmare to sort through the pros-and-cons of each with with a ton of different "keep"-"delete" combinations. Secondly, these AfDs seem ill advised. Just a quick look at 15 Central Park West alone shows very in-depth coverage from Vanity Fair and Fortune. [65][66] And these links are in the article. I'd usually advise the nom to follow WP:BEFORE if they miss easily-found coverage, but in this case, the in-depth coverage was already presented to the nom.--Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - found plenty of sources for each building, see: [67], [68], [69], [70]. So im going for a WP:N keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep All - Can't help but feel these articles are getting this treatment because they're numbered and not named. They're all noteworthy and clearly referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokingNewton (talk • contribs) 05:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep All - 15 Central Park West is a $2 billion project, according to the Vanity Fair article [71]. Jeepers creepers what kind of building do you have to build to be notable to a wikipedian? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except 45 Christopher Street, because of adequate coverage of the buildings themselves (as opposed to the buildings' occupants) in reliable sources. (Despite that, these articles are still painfully thin on details, and need improvement.) For 45 Christopher Street, citations aren't strongly indicative of notability for the building, except maybe with regard to 1934 explosion. (Sort of in the spirit of WP:ONEEVENT, it would seem that the more important topic would be the explosion, not the building.) Therefore, for that article, delete.

    Additionally, if these buildings have names (other than their addresses), it might be worthwhile to rename the articles (unless demonstrably better-known by address). TheFeds 06:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • 45 Christopher is a unique building, among the most desirable in the Village because it is One of the few great apartment houses in the Village. studio apartments at 45 Christopher go for over $1 million, the lobby is a work of art, and the views of the Village from the terraces are to die for. You know some of the people who live in it by name. The article needs work, not deletion.AMuseo.
  • Speedy Keep All. Manhattan apartment buildings, even the famous ones, tend to be known by their numbers, not by the names, which they all have but which are often forgotten, even by the residents. I believe that the names of the notable residents are as central to these articles as the names of the residents are to articles about small towns. People like Roakcfeller and Nixon lived at 810 Fifth because it was a prestige building, and it was a prestige building because people like Rockefeller and Nixon lived there. It is also a fact that these buildings function like private clubs. You don't simply purchase an apartment in any of these great buildings. The members elect a board of directors. When you find an apartment to buy, you apply to the Board of Directors for approval. The application process entails multiple letters of reference and a personal interview, in addition to proving that you have liquid assets more or less equal to the value of the apartment not including the money you are paying to purchase the apartment. Like a private club, the Board can veto you without giving a reason. All of these buildings, like private clubs, decide what kind of people they wish to associate with. Some admit celebrities, many do not, they dislike running gauntlets of press on their way in or out. In a very real sense, these buildings could be evaluated for notability as a series of private clubs notable for their membership, which includes many of the world's wealthiest people. Some are notable for their architecture, others are not, except in the sense that streets park Avenue, Central park West, West End Avenue, and Fifth Avenue are admired by students of architecture precisely they feature block after block of handsome, limestone buildings, of more or less the same height and all with similar street walls creating an wonderful impact on the eye. Almost every one of these buildings is a notable piece of architecture that would be among the most admired buildings in the city if it were plunked down in the middle of Cleveland, Houston or Miami. The great buildings of New York are not less notable because New York has so many of them. AMuseo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMuseo (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't every co-op function like that? Regardless, perhaps this info could be included in one merged article about this type of building. Even if a lot of money was spent on a building, perhaps even with a magazine article detailing how luxurious it is, I don't see that as an establishment of notability. There is one building article you created that I haven't included in this nomination (despite it being numbered, which has nothing to do with this nomination), 455 Central Park West, which is a landmark and worthy of an article. I don't see what there is to say about the others, though, aside from detailing how luxurious they are and which celebrities do or did live there; which doesn't seem like encyclopedic information to me. Equazcion (talk) 14:52, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equazsion, please take a look at American National Bank Building (Pensacola, Florida). It is by the same architect who designed 810 Fifth Avenue. As I said, many of New York's luxury apartment houses are notable buildings that would be landmarked and have wikipedia pages if they were located in, say, Pensacola. The fact that New York has so many of them does not make them non-notable.AMuseoAMuseo (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly there's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; There may be other articles based on bad notability assertions, but that's neither here nor there. Secondly, that building has apparently been in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places since 1978. Again, these buildings aren't landmarks. You can say they "would have been landmarked" had they existed elsewhere, but that's a dubious claim, and not something objective on which to base notability. Equazcion (talk) 18:28, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • I have now made some imporvements to 810 Fifth Avenue of the kind that can easily be made to each of these articles. I will try to do so on a time-available basis. However, is the fact that an article is not yet as good as it could be sufficient reason for deleting it? I think not.AMuseo (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:GNG asks for significant coverage - not passing mentions in newspapers because of an association with someone famous, nor a nod to their price or luxuriousnes. As the nom pointed out wax is not an argument to keep, and that seems to be the general argument that is being used to keeping these. Addionne (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Comment below[reply]
  • Passing mentions? You define these in-depth articles - [72][73][74] [75][76], only a few of sources satisfying WP:GNG with these articles as "passing mentions"? And specifically the Vanity Fair article [77], how is a two page 2600+ word article about 15 Central Park West just a "passing mention" of 15 Central Park West? --Oakshade (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Oakshade. I was beginning to feel like someone who fell through a rabbit hole into an alternative universe. I have improved the 810 Fifth Avenue and 15 Central Park West articles somewhat, and will continue to work on the group. I ask newcomers to at least look at these two, as examples of what the other will be. And I ask editors not familiar with Manhattan to think about regarding each of these buildings as a small private village or club inhabited by a select group of some of the world's richest and most powerful people.</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMuseo (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to close this AfD and do it over with individual AfDs for each article? Warrah (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a majority of editors are advocating "keep all" for notability reasons, not just for a batch AfD, that would be against consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, Weak Keep. Some articles are weaker than others, hence my mild enthusiasm. Warrah (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all On the basis of references, and the general notability of these major buildings. And 930 Fifth Avenue , nominated for some reason separately, is notable as well. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • improvements and sourcing I have now improved all of the articles to the point where there really is no question of notability on any of them or on 930 Fifth Avenue. I do think that editors have a responsibility to google around a little before starting deletion nominations. And I urge the nominator to withdraw the nominations. We all make mistakes. Even experienced editors when, as in this case, they happen upon what were admittedly stubs in need of work at the time of the nomination, and in an area (New York city and architecture) perhaps unfamiliar to the nominator. AMuseo (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Familiarity with New York architecture really has nothing to do with whether or not the nominator should or should not have nominated them - he seemingly did so based on the fact that they were poorly sourced and did not assert notability. That is perfectly valid, in my opinion, and not necessarily a reason to be condescending. That said, I think you have done a great job of sourcing information for these articles, and I withdraw my previous Delete argument. Addionne (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I dind't mean to sound condescending (although the tone comes naturally to those of us who live in Manhattan) what I meant was that no New Yorker could possibly perceive these buildings as non-notable.AMuseo (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Customarily snow keeps are performed by administrators, non-admins who weren't involved in the debate or the AfD nominator withdrawing the Afd. I wouldn't advocate speedy keeping 930 Fifth Avenue as that's a separate AfD and it doesn't fit any of the criteria of a speedy keep.--Oakshade (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keeps can actually be performed by anyone, and often are done by non-admins. As for splitting up the AfD, that can probably be done so long as there aren't significant votes to delete. Basing this on the fact that nominations can usually be withdrawn under those circumstances, so if someone wanted to declare this a snow keep (as does seem to be the case), and then make new individual delete nominations, that would seem to be in line with policy. Equazcion (talk) 05:24, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned above, consensus so far is "keep all" for notability reasons, not just because it's a batch AfD. If it's a snow keep after several days or a standard keep after 7 days, opening yet again more AfDs of the same topics would not only be against consensus, but it would look like a bad faith effort to immediately attempt again to delete articles consensus had just decided to keep.--Oakshade (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus in that event would be "don't delete all of them". The "keep" seems to largely be based on a couple of the individual building having shown to have extensive write-ups, so no one could say they should all be deleted anymore. I don't think we can know how this would've turned out with individual nominations. Anyhow I'm closing this as snow-keep. I won't re-nominate anything myself, but others are free to. Equazcion (talk) 17:18, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, notability is clearly established, no further deletion arguments standing. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bakdash

Bakdash (ice cream) (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 Lack of notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastiepaws (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The la template, but not the section header, has been corrected to point to the article title proper. —C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to read the AfD guidelines, and at the very least start an AfD properly by adding the name of the page. Bakdash is very notable, and is staple tourist destination in Syria. Yazan (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I'm not going quickly enough for you, but I was attempting to fix the problem when you leapt in. Beastiepaws (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Anyone knowing Syria know Bakdash. It has a historic significance, and while books mention it in the passing, they recognize it's special popularity. It does have a special historic and popular significance. -RobertMel (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved the article, since Bakdash is also the family name of a popular person and possibly others. If you don't agree for the move, feel free to move it back. -RobertMel (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per notable and reliable references. Yazan (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The BBC article cited is pretty clear - that Bakdash is very, very well known. SmokingNewton (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient evidence of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Yazan and RobertMel.--Ankara (talk) 06:54, 3 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Sushi

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

Absolutely no sources found in Google News or anywhere else. No proof that it aired on foreign Nickelodeon channels. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 06:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The AWN source is the only reliable sourcing I can find. It seems solid as far as the source goes, and the coverage, while not quite extensive, isn't trivial. The additional evidence suggesting that the show aired seals it for me, but I wish I could find more actual coverage of the topic. I'm almost a neutral on this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:53, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JSLint

JSLint (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, removed by anon IP. Non-notable product; fails WP:N, WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Google books lists many sources that talk about JSLint fairly extensively (e.g. whole appendices or chapters). This stub was tagged far too aggressively. There is no reason to PROD something that is not spam the same day it is created! Nominator does not mention any attempt to look for source material & would be well-advised to use the cleanup templates, so as to not bite newcomers/let stubs grow. --Karnesky (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you expand the article to work in the significance in such contexts, because I'd support retention of this article if some grounds of interest could be outlined? Ian¹³/t 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would JSLint be any less notable than all those other tools for static code analysis? Unlike other tools (for other languages) it's even suitable for automated tests. Anyone who writes JavaScript for a living has heard of it or uses it all the time. It's also available as plugin for many text editors and IDEs. Randomly proposing articles for deletion just because you haven't heard of it really isn't the way Wikipedia should be. 78.51.86.141 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I didn't nominate the article because I haven't heard of JSLint; I nominated it because the article is one sentence long and doesn't assert its notability. Also, just because there are other articles has no bearing on this one. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Papers such as M. Doernhoefer, ACM 2006 31 4 16-24 lead me to believe an article could be built up around this topic outlining its significance. Ian¹³/t 22:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a a static code analysis tool used in software development for checking if a JavaScript source code complies with coding rules. This seems to be a bit too granular. Possibly worth a mention in a general article on "static code analysis" or JavaScript debugging, but I don't see this tool as meriting a separate article, especially if there are others performing a similar function. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 4 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) 00:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Smerdis on the substance of his argument (too granular as is, but worth a mention in a more general article). I disagree with his recommendation of "delete" because if it's worth a mention in a more general article, then it's also worth a redirect to that article.

    Since we can redirect instead of deleting, then deletion is avoidable. Per WP:BEFORE, if we can avoid deletion, then we should. QED.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Smerdis of Tlön. JBsupreme (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per many published sources given. LotLE×talk 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added 3 references: M. Doernhoefer, ACM 2006 31 4 16-24 (paywall) to the article; it has a half-page, with screenshot, and sections from 2 books found via Amazon Search Inside, including the appendix of one O'Reilly book. Please add further WP:RS. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are book chapters about this, as pointed out above. Pcap ping 22:21, 17 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scot Hacker

Scot Hacker (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:AUTHOR in my view. That's a somewhat subjective guideline given that the biographies of some authors have been kept per some Wikipedia editors' personal assessment of point 3 in that guideline, despite lack of significant independent coverage, so I'm sure some will disagree here as well. Pcap ping 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Point 3 in WP:AUTHOR says that the well-known work has to have "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Without any sources to prove that part, I don't see the article fulfilling that criterion. On top of that, this article is a whole lot of linkspam and reads like a fan site or something. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:40, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Beginning and the End (album)

The Beginning and the End (album) (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 album. Joe Chill (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep "underground limited-edition album for the internet", not sure if it meets WP:NALBUMS ("Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.") It's a bit troublesome to find reliable coverage just because this album gets so many Google hits. However it might be possible to find such sources, at least this proves that it has become quite popular. PanchoS (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Underground...for the internet" = mixtape. "Limited-edition" = meaningless for something that can be downloaded without restriction. In any case, zero independent reliable sources = zero notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure where you guys are seeing this underground limited-edition thing, but without any sort of reliable sourcing means that this fails WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:36, 10 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.

Akeem Ajayi-Taiwo

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 AniMate 08:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akeem Ajayi-Taiwo (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 cannot find any proof that his football (soccer) player exists and even if he does, he has never played in a professional league. Juve curr (talk) 00:33, 3 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law blog

Law blog (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)

There are many types of blogs. I don't think we need separate articles on each use of the blog type of website. This should be redirected to blog, and the use of blogs in the field of law can be described there. If enough content specific to "law blogs" collects there, it can be split off into its own article again. Equazcion (talk) 00:28, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

  • Redirect Looks like a standard dictionary definition to me with no assertion of notability. Redirecting back to blog would likely work best here. AniMate 08:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary as it is a dictionary definition. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand I created this article because political blogs, travel blogs education blogs classical music blogs exist . Law blogs are an important category since there are now several very influential law blogs that are widely cited by "old" media and pundits discussing significant policy issues.AMuseo (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notability, thought not asserted, is obvious from a google search. I added sources to ==Further Reading== that should give other editors a start. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A law blog is a blog about law. A fish blog is a blog about fish. A politics blog is a blog about politics. There's nothing else to say here. The neologism "blawg" is, well, a neologism, and doesn't rate an article per WP:NEO. This is better covered by Wiktionary. TJRC (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Suffers from 1) Notability and 2) not enough substance to be a stand alone article yet. I would say if there is indeed substance that distinguishes law blogs as a topic separate from blogs in general, that should start as a subtopic of [blog]s (forked to a standalone topic at a later time if that becomes necessary)Hartboy (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete +1 on Hartboy's reasoning. Nuujinn (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to me this type of article would be bait for linkspam; either way, this isn't a dictionary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:AMuseo. Journals about law are also just like journals about fishing. But we have law journal and we don't have fish journal. Lawyers write a lot so it makes sense that their writing mediums are notable.--PinkBull 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Law journal has actual content. In contrast, Law blog is nothing more than a dicdef and a WP:COATRACK on which to hang external links and spam. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • With time, law blog can grow into a more serious article, like political blog, travel blogs edublog, and classical music blog.--PinkBull 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no objection to it being userfied and turned into an actual article. But in its present state, it's entirely dicdef and coatrack. Fix those problems and you'd have nothing but an article title. TJRC (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It will be far more difficult to turn it into a substantial article if it is not left in the mainspace. The other blog articles has similar dicdef-coatrack beginnings,[78][79][80][81] but with time grew into good articles. --PinkBull 19:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • A few of those examples are arguably from when Wikipedia was a bit younger. Typically topics with this little content are not considered viable for separate articles, and are instead kept as sections of their parent topic, then split off if/when they grow large enough for a separate article. As I suggested in my nomination I think that's the best way to go. It would then still be in mainspace to aid expansion. Equazcion (talk) 20:20, 10 Mar 2010 (UTC)
            • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has never been a good argument; but beside that, those blog articles weren't under AFD when they were in content-free state. If they had, perhaps they would not have survived, either. The only one of these blogs that seems to heve been put to AFD and kept is Classical music blog; and it had actual substantial content by the time of its AFD. If this article had actual substantive content, similar to that one, I would be arguing to keep. But none of the arguments in that AFD (multiple independent reliable sources which establish notability; no substantive reason for deletion articulated) apply to this AFD (which illustrates arguing for a keep based on solely the existence of other stuff is such a poor argument; it doesn't look to the actual basis for why the other stuff was kept). But you don't keep an article solely because the name of the article could be used for an actual article, because maybe the actual article might get written. TJRC (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • If the others had undergone an afd, they may have not survived deletion. And that's the point. Those articles would probably not be in the position they are in now, if they would be around at all, had they gone through an afd. Thus, nobody is arguing at this point that it would have been better that those articles had been put up for deletion. Similarly, with time, this article can be improved to look like the other articles that did not undergo an afd.
              • As for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, you're entirely correct. However that was not the argument for a Keep. The argument for keep is that a law blog is a notable.[82] We only bring up other blogs to disprove the claim that this article is worthless and will never move beyond a dicdef-externallinks article. The other blog articles clearly disprove that claim. Sincerely, --PinkBull 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • There's actually also a guideline specifically warning against using google results in a keep argument, as they don't establish notability. Keep in mind that the existing articles on specific blog types talk about the phenomenon, rather than merely listing examples -- so there being lots of law blogs in existence doesn't mean there's lots of content for this article. See travel blog, classical music blog, etc for content examples. Equazcion (talk) 22:35, 10 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Another point in favor of keeping this article: The articles in the "Further reading" section indicate that the writers of legal blogs face unique ethical challenges, e.g. they can get in trouble if their writing is construed as giving legal advice. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move content and redirect (changing my vote - Persuaded by Equazcion's comment ("Typically topics with this little content ...")) . We should create a section, blog#List of popular blog genres. It should NOT contain subsections (==Art Blog==, ==Political blog==, ==Classical music blog==). Instead, it should list these in bullets:

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:43, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Anisul Hussain

Syed Anisul Hussain (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)
Syed Anisul Husnain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no reliable sources, none found via Google one of the sources given doesn't even mention the subject. Thus, unverifiable. Was prodded, prod removed by author without significant improvement. I also nominate the alternative spelling; there seem to be a few passing mentions for the "Husnain" variant, but still not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The source is reliable and it is in Urdu, and soon i'll be translating the page in English to elaborate his life here on this wiki article, please give me time this is a genuine person and has a genuine history i am not fabricating a story on him so please do not delete the article i am currently in contact with the Amroha Society to get in depth biography about him. Paki90 (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Maybe this can be reinvestigated if/when a translation is done, but even then multiple sources will be needed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:33, 10 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) 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Productiontrax

Productiontrax (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)

Promotion for non-notable company, article by SPA. The only given sources are press releases and a blog post, and I have been unable to find any coverage beyond that. Haakon (talk) 08:04, 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) 00:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did some digging around Google News, and couldn't find anything. Without coverage in reliable sources, this should be deleted. AniMate 07:56, 3 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) 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TEDxBKK

TEDxBKK (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)

Specific event is of questionable notability. It is mentioned in only one published news source I could find,[83] and although it has received considerable coverage in the Thai blogosphere, I doubt if that satisfies Wikipedia's requirement for inclusion. Paul_012 (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me every Tedx event should have its own wikipedia page. In regards to the Thai blogs comment, Blogs are the new Media. USCfemme (talk) 03:00, 25 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) 00:06, 3 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) 03:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Vago

Radio Vago (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. Fails WP:MUSIC, appears to be a NN myspace band. JBsupreme (talk) 00:04, 3 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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Teufel III

Hugo Teufel III (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)
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has never held a notable political position; has never been in a position requiring Senate confirmation; lengthy biography is entirely WP:SYN and WP:PRIMARY plus one news piece repeating a press-release, and a Frankenstein mess of non-notable glancing press references. I'm also nominating the related non-notable Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security article: this is too far down the government food-chain to be encyclopedic. Teufel's replacement has sat in the office for a year without anyone bothering to create an article for her. THF (talk) 02:18, 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) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are some problems with the article, but I think he's likely notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. AniMate 07:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seriously? The office was the first statutorily created privacy officer position in the federal government. The office is the largest in the federal government, and one of the largest privacy offices globally. The officeholder testified before Congress several times and served was part of the High Level Contact Group, a joint US/EU effort on trans-atlantic exchanges of personal data. If the entry is a "Frankenstein mess", it should be cleaned up and if his successor doesn't have a page create one! Is server memory so expensive that entries like this one and Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security don't have a place?

P.O.F.D. (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see any evidence that anything you've mentioned connotes notability. On the contrary, the very lack of any significant press coverage of the office and of its occupants demonstrates that this is exactly the sort of mid-level bureaucratic position that does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. United States Principal Deputy Solicitor Generals are far more important, for example. THF (talk) 13:20, 8 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) 02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see only one reference [85] which is an independent and reliable source with significant coverage, noting his lack of qualifications for the office he was appointed to at Homeland Security. The article reads like it is his resumé, and the other references are press releases, directory listings or routine announcements. The office he held does not in itself rise to the level of "automatic notability" such as being a cabinet member or a legislator. Just one more mid-level bureaucrat. Edison (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly no inherent notability in the position. There is not significant coverage either. Essentially agree with Edison above. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The DHS Privacy Officer was the first statutorily mandated privacy office in the federal government and the officer reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Subsequent to its establishment, Congress has required privacy officers at all major agencies, first through a 2005 appropriations act and later in the 2007 9/11 Commission Report Act. The officer is one of two US government officials given observer status at the annual international data protection commissioner/privacy officer's conference. The office is the largest and most advanced privacy office in the federal government and is the standard by which others are judged. GAO reports on Executive Branch privacy have frequently used the DHS privacy office as a benchmark to compare other agency privacy offices. In contrast, whatever one thinks of the principal deputy solicitor general, that position is not a statutory position (although 18 USC 3742 does reference "a deputy solicitor general") and that position does not report to the Attorney General. As for Teufel, his tenure was during the Bush Administration and the War on Terror. He was criticized early in the position by the San Francisco Chronicle and the annual reports of his office were the subject of Congressional and advocacy group scrutiny over alleged delays in their release and concern over Administration interference with the office's objectivity and whistle-blower status. This concern resulted in an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel and coverage in the New York Times. His time in office was noted by Congressional testimony on a number of high-profile issues, including the use of spy satellites for law enforcement purposes within the U.S.; privacy impact assessments on matters such as fusion centers, EINSTEIN 2 intrusion detection system, REAL ID regulations, and the Automated Targeting System (passenger name record data); and the elimination of a backlog of over 200 system of records notices. If the office and officeholder do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, one must assume that many others listed in the category "United States Department of Homeland Security officials" will also be up for deletion. Rather than discuss whether to delete an entry that has been up on Wikipedia for 3 1/2 years, time should be spent editing it to get it into shape.P.O.F.D. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I only see one independent reliable news article,[86] and the article's entire premise is that the person is not notable.--PinkBull 21:24, 17 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_March_3&oldid=347510278"