Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 7 June	9 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Gersh Kuntzman" (2nd nomination)

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

The result was keep. The consensus is weak here, but with the lack of anyone (apart from the nominator) arguing for deletion I can't see any other closure other than keep being possible here, with the article having already been relisted 3 times. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hiltzik

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

Subject does not appear to be notable according to WP:BIO but has merely received glancing mentions in several sources due to typical work as a publicist. —Eustress ^talk 04:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Matthew Hiltzik is more than just a publicist. I looked at the references, and this is someone who got a full page profile in the Washington Post. There was also a NY1 profile on him, and both of these are listed in the references. After reading the profile, it seems that he is more than a publicist. AEAA (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me why this particular article is tagged for possible deletion. Subject meets the WP:BIO criteria for notability, with multiple published third party stories in major media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.27 (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this page, as I do not see any sufficient reason to remove the page. This page follows structure and format, while referencing where needed. Matthew Hiltzik is also an executive producer, which is noted in the article. He has also worked on multiple award winning films. He does meet the criteria for notability as well. GD23 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my awareness that the article may best fit under the description at WP:GNG, which would leave the article as is. GD23 (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how GNG is appeased. We're not mind readers :) —Eustress ^talk 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient national/international coverage, therefore it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. GD23 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this guy's name associated with a number of national stories in the last 24 hours. i don't think this article is a good candidate for deletion. Legacy2012 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Legacy2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Like what? Please provide concrete examples and explain which criteria of WP:BIO this individual meets? —Eustress ^talk 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope none of the comments above can be attributed to sock puppets. I am trying to assume good faith, but for editors with little or no edit history to jump into an AfD discussion is highly suspect. —Eustress ^talk 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post article is in depth enough to suggest notability, but a lot of it is name drops; unable to find any other in depth independent source to meet multiple. IMDb references and poorly formatted titles to try to influence search results are not encouraging. Dru of Id (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - I really hate to say it in light of the suspicious behavior above, but I think the fact that the guy is the focus of at least two nationally significant reliable sources (The Washington Post piece and the Variety article) that he may just squeak by the general notability guidelines. A lot of the other sources are crap/trivial and the article could use some major cleanup, but he does seem to legitimately have his hands in a lot of notable things in a notable way. DreamGuy (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the NY1 One on One piece as well. That profile articulates the notability of the subject.(GD23 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

No, it really doesn't. It's not indepth. We incidentally get the biographic details of: his mother's name, his hometown, his religion (which has affected his career), and his political party (which he's professional enough to perform to high standards regardless of whether it matches his clients') [plus the private detail of having children, which I only include in a bio if a) pictured in references and unavoidable b) separately covered or independently notable c) stated no longer minors]. The rest, again, is name dropping clients and unencyclopedia detail. Dru of Id (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as notability goes, after looking into the NY1 profiles, there are only 30 a year that is done on the whole New York City. Therefore, that seems to be quite an accomplishment to be made. GD23 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A news agency focusing on the five burroughs doing a piece on someone from New York City is local coverage, whether they do 3 or 3000. If he were an out of state interview they did it might count for notability if it was a third source backing national coverage of The Washington Post; and Variety. Dru of Id (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NY1 + Wash Post + Producer of Paperclips = keep. Also, the mere fact that the same guy represented Hillary Clinton, Glenn Beck and Harvey Weinstein is in itself notable. -- Vonfraginoff (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seemant Institute of Technology

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. Not even the website of Uttarakhand Technical University, of which it is supposed to be a constituent part, mentions this institute except for a job advertisement, which is the only source to even verify its existence. Huon (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Hue Sat Lum 00:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools suggests that university-level institutions are generally notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this institute is not university-level (at least I don't think it is - feel free to prove me wrong with a reliable source). Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thirdly, it fails not just the GNG but also WP:V. Huon (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also indicates that the encyclopedia should be consistent. A "B.Tech" degree would be a bachelor of technology, and all five of the majors are listed as being engineering degrees, such as "Computer science Engg". Claiming that these "might not" be university degrees is an absence of evidence fallacy, where the absence of evidence does not create proof of absence. The source claims equivalence with Bipin Chandra Tripathi Kumaon Engineering College. On the other hand, I have a problem with listing a school that offers a Computer Science degree but has yet to get a website. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be two-three sentences copied from [1], with no attempt at paraphrasing. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 8. Snotbot t • c » 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to Uttarakhand Technical University. It's pretty clear the place exists, is a post-secondary school, and is up and running beginning last year.[2][3] The only question is whether it's better to have two small articles or one slightly larger one. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - independently accredited degree-awarding institution. Early days so no reason to expect good sources at this stage but no doubt they will appear over time. It is a separate question of editorial judgement whether it should be merged with Uttarakhand Technical University. TerriersFan (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youth against Racism in Europe

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

It claims it is active in 16 countries, but has no useful references (the given one here is self-referential) and... well, I can't really find much dirt to make this worthy of a wiki article of its own. θvξrmagξ^spellbook 02:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find independent sources discussing Youth against Racism in Europe.[4][5]. YRE definitely meets Wikipedia's organization notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the first reference is self-referencing and therefore not ideal. I hope the referencing will be improved in time, with external references such as those listed above by NJ Wine, and the article expanded. However, I felt it was worth creating the article after finding several references to the organisation on other pages, e.g.:

YRE material is also used as a reference for the article History of Bangladeshis in the United Kingdom

Mpjd500 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, and per Mpjd500: it is sourceable, and links to other articles. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2012 (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 Liberty University. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy surrounding Liberty

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

Page was created to split this information from Liberty University. I believe the split is not necessary and that the controversies belong in the original article, as splitting them off adds no value and is confusing to people not familiar with the matter. θvξrmagξ^spellbook 01:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge That fork is so forky it could take your eye out! Its sole purpose appears to be to bury content, content that is central to the main article because it reveals a lot about Liberty University's identity and ethos. Meowy 02:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fork does not even have a link back to the main Liberty University article! Meowy 02:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Liberty University. As an independent article, it is a point of view fork. NJ Wine (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's well sourced, and could easily fit in the main article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This much content is giving undue weight to a few incidents; merging everything back into the article would not be productive. Even if you want to keep the information in the article, why do we have to merge? Just delete this title and revert the edits that split it out of the university's article. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "merge" doesn't mean simply adding all the content of one article unchanged into the existing content of another artcle. Meowy 12:20, 10 June 2012 (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 Architecture of Azerbaijan. WP:OR and non-reliable sourcing. Redirecting to a viable host article after delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural school of Arran

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

The article is OR. The subject of the article does not exist: there is no architectural term called "Architectural school of Arran" and the content has been copied from scattered information already existing in various articles. Meowy 01:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reviewed the references for the articles, and they largely consist of broken links and links which do not refer to the Architectural school of Arran. I can find no sources at all mentioning this topic, and I don't see any material in this article which can be proven to be accurate. There already exists an article architecture of Azerbaijan, which covers the region of Arran. NJ Wine (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Architecture of Azerbaijan. (For those wondering surrealistically about institutions on the Isle of Arran, the topic is Arran (Caucasus).) The A of A article is in fact unreferenced; I have no idea whether the refs here are any good but expect NJ Wine is right. At least the buildings mentioned in the article are real and notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could merge it if it was identifiable subject but it is not, pure OR. Sprutt (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Meowy, and because it is WP:OR. Do not merge. Sprutt (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the book of K. Mamedzade, published by Institute of a History of Azerbaijan Academy of Science Architectural school of Arran is mentioned:

К. М. Мамед-заде. Строительное искусство Азербайджана, Баку, 1983:

В связи с проблемами арранской архитектурной школы это сооружение представляет большой интерес. Дело в том, что памятники Аракса в основном входят в зону влияния нахичеванской архитектурной школы. Именно у 15-пролетного моста можно констатировать и влияние арранской архитектурной школы.(Page 59)

--Interfase (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Мамед-заде is no credible source (e.g. internationally recognized scientist) and is Azerbaijan's Soviet era Ziya Bunyadov-managed compromised source. Sprutt (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. M. Mamedzade is a Doctor of Architecture, very credible source. --Interfase (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three more academic sources are found by this search, so the claims that this subject does not exist are clearly refuted. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could get some experts on architectural writing here. Many of the coments on display here (and at the related [[6]]) have been dissapointing. This is the English-language wikipedia and "Architectural school" is a term used in English-language academic sources that has a specific meaning related to architecture. If that specific meaning is not met, the article should not exist, regardless of foreign-language phrases that might have a word for word translation as "architectural school". None of these alleged sources for of "architectural school of Arran" give any explanation (such as possible stylistic aspects or school of architects/ master masons, etc.) that justify an English-language useage of the term "architectural school of Arran". Meowy 16:35, 17 June 2012 (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. In my judgment, the sources cited by Interfase strongly weaken the earlier arguments that this school of architecture does not exist. The remaining arguments that the article is OR or advocacy (or, if I may add, very badly written) do not preclude a "keep" outcome, as they can be remedied by editing. This discussion also does not preclude a discussion about merging the topic with, e.g., Architecture of Azerbaijan. Sandstein 06:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural school of Nakhchivan

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

The article is OR. The subject of the article does not exist: there is no term called "Architectural school of Nakhchivan" and the content has been copied from information already in various Nachchivan-related articles Meowy 01:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reviewed the references for the articles, and they largely consist of broken links and links which do not refer to the Architectural school of Nakhchivan. I can find no sources at all mentioning this topic, and I don't see any material in this article which can be proven to be accurate. There already exists an article architecture of Azerbaijan, which would cover the region in question. NJ Wine (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NJ Wine; no substance here, unless some of the external links are useful in Architecture of Azerbaijan or Nakhchivan. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nakhchivan architectural school mentioned in Encyclopedia Iranica: [7] Grandmaster 08:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "architectural school" is that? Two structures designed by the same person. The term "school of architecture" means a definable architectural style that is influential by being widespread throughout a specific time-period or location and which is created by multiple architects or master builders. Meowy 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Azerbaijan, each large region has a different architectural style. Nakhichevan and Karabakh are closer to each other, but are still quite distinct. Shirvan and Sheki are completely different. If you look at mosques and traditional houses built in Shirvan and Nakhichevan, you will immediately notice the difference. And Iranica does not say that Nakhchivan school is represented by two buildings only. They are the most notable, but there are many more. Grandmaster 12:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Meowy that Nakhchivan is not an architectural school. Ajami Nakhchivani is an architect who already has his own article, and anything of important is this article appears to already be in his article. NJ Wine (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the term "architectural school" does not refer to minor local or regional variations in building types due to, say, climate or building materials - so it can't be applied to everything and anything. Just because place A looks different from place B, doesn't mean we can start to use terms like "Architectural school of A" or "Architectural school of B". And traditional architecture is almost never defined as an "architectural school" because it is rarely the product of architects or master builders. Meowy 13:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ajami was the founder of this school, but he was not the only representative of it. The article needs further development and expansion, to include more examples of the local architecture. And the Nakhichevani school was clearly the product of master builders, Ajami being the best, but not the only example. The fact that the school is mentioned by Iranica makes it notable enough. Grandmaster 07:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:SOAP. This is a part of nationalistic propaganda, started in Azerbaijan and criticized by scholars like Victor Schnirelmann, Philip L. Kohl and Clare P. Fawcett. For example, Akhundov's "seemingly innocuous, abstract archaeological paper was a deliberate political provocation: all the crosses on today’s territory of Azerbaijan, including significantly Nagorno-Karabagh and Nakhichevan, were defined as Albanian, a people who in turn were seen as the direct ancestors of today’s Azeris".(Philip L. Kohl, Clare P. Fawcett, Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. — P. 154. — ISBN 0521558395) Gazifikator (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does that to have do with Muslim architecture in Nakhichevan? Grandmaster 07:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Grandmaster is right, it is off-topic for the discussion here. I understand the reasoning behind Gazifikator's worry: some of the article's content could be seen to have propaganda purposes. (For example, the article is template linked to "Azerbaijani architecture" and mentions Tabriz using "the territory of Iranian Azerbaijan" wording, implying that there too are examples of "Azerbaijani architecture" and that Tabriz is Azerbaijani territory. The creation of a supposed "architectural school of Nakhchivan" could have the aim of "Azerifying" what are actually Iranian architectural forms and traditions). But that is a content issue. My deletion proposal is based on the fact that the subject of the article does not exist. Meowy 14:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:SOAP. Sprutt (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Meowy. I think the idea of an architectural school denotes more than mere similarities between certain structures. I don't think it would be too inappropriate if I bring the example in Armenian architecture of the existence of the "Ani school" and "Syunik school" during the medieval period, when certain designs and patterns could be discerned in structures found in their respective regions.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sourses where Nakhchivan architectural school is mentioned:

Encyclopedia Iranica: [8]:

AJAMĪ B. ABŪ BAKR, 6th/12th century architect under the Eldigüzid atabegs, founder of the Nakhchevan architectural school.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia. [9]:

Ослабление (9—10 вв.) Арабского халифата обусловило возникновение множества небольших государств, в городах которых (Барда, Шемаха, Байлакан, Ганджа, Нахичевань и др.) складывались локальные художественные и архитектурные школы. Важнейшие из них — нахичеванская, ширвано-апшеронская, позднее тебризская. Памятники нахичеванской школы поражают великолепием керамического «одеяния» сооружений, первоначально одноцветного, а впоследствии многоцветного.

К. М. Мамед-заде. Строительное искусство Азербайджана, Баку, 1983:

Продолжение двух архитектурных направлений — нахичеванского и ширваноапшеронского, является еще одним из важных доказательств о сохранении и развитии традиций азербайджанской архитектуры, созданной еще в домонгольский период. (Page 23)

Рядом с мавзолеем сохранились руины неизвестного сооружения и полуразрушенный цилиндрический минарет, сложенный из обожженного квадратного кирпича. Сохранившаяся часть минарета позволяет еще раз проследить влияние нахичеванской архитектурной школы. (Page 42)

Естественно, что одним из главных вопросов при изучении бузханы г. Нахичевани является вопрос о его датировке. Высокий уровень архитектурного решения, по нашему мнению, указывает, что памятник был возведен в период, когда традиции нахичеванской архитектурной школы находились еще в расцвете. На данной стадии изучения мы склонны отнести сооружение бузханы в Нахичевани к началу XIV в.; т. е. к периоду, когда мастера нахичеванской архитектурной школы прославились далеко за пределами своего родного города.(Page 44)

Jonathan Bloom, Sheila Blair. The Grove encyclopedia of Islamic art and architecture, Volume 2. 2009. Page 45. Nakhchyvan:

A local school of architecture, characterized by the use of engaged columns and glazed brick, developed for commemorative and religious buildings in the 12th century under Ajami ibn Abu Bakr, who designed the octagonal mausoleum of Mu'mina Khatun.

As you see there is no any original research. And Nakhchivan architectural school formed specific style of architecture. --Interfase (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone does not know their subject - there are no engaged columns in the Momine Hatun tomb! A "local school of architecture" [in Nakhchivan] is not the same as "Architectural school of Nakhchivan". An "Architectural school" requires a sequence of buildings that have been created over time by multiple architects or masons (perhaps starting with one singular structure that has exerted stylistic or constructional influence) and all which have certain distinguising features in common, features which also make them distinctive in some way. Meowy 21:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nakhchivan school is mentioned in encyclopedia Iranica [10], which means that the subject of the article exists and is notable.Ladytimide (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability, and the article's content simply duplicates the content already on two Wikipedia articles: Ajami Nakhchivani and Momine Khatun Mausoleum, (and also, to a lesser extent, Nakhchivan (city)). Meowy 21:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uccept the Grove reference as sufficient to warrant the article. Perhaps there are only two buildings, but that is still enough to define a style, and I think we have to go by the way the term is usef in the most reliable encyclopedic sources. The more extensive coverage in the GSE and EI confirm this . DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 17 June 2012 (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. WP:CRYSTAL + copyvio = Delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annya Sand

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

Completing nomination for IP editor User:136.169.141.241. On the merits, I have no opinion. The original rationale, as per this diff, read in its entirety as "no proof of notability". UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem is while she appears to feature prominently in Art in London magazine Winter 2008[11] and Art in England, April 2011[12], I'm unable to read them and I'm not very familiar with either journal. Recently, she seems more active as a curator/organizer[13], though is probably not notable for that alone. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I am the page publisher and am posting this page as Annya Sand is distinguished up and coming artist in the UK. The issue I am having finding the completed articles on the internet derives from the fact that many art magazines - even very reputable publications such as Art London and Art of England do not publish their arcive online. Sand has, as recently as last month, exhibited in Monaco alongside names such as Sir Peter Blake and Damien Hirst. Her reputation as an exhibiting artist is well established. She also has a major London gallery behind her as well. I just wanted to add this to make a fair case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngrbreeze (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use offline sources - just tell us the publication, date ("May 2012 edition" is close enough) and the author/title of the piece. I'm always wary, though, when I see the term "Up and coming" related to an article subject - this sometimes indicates that the person may not yet be notable under our policies. This isn't an indictment of the person's worth - far from it, I think Ms. Sand looks to have a promising career ahead of her. What it does indicate is that we don't have enough information to show that Ms. Sand's career has (as of today) advanced to the point that would indicate notability. So, it's very much a "Not Yet" sort of thing as opposed to a "Never Ever" one. The first step here is to find those sources - we'll have a look and go from there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the text is almost entirely a WP:COPYVIO from the gallery bio, as now! Borderline notability otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can get the off-line publication information and update the references. That is not a problem. Sand also has a forthcoming show at a national museum which I will get a reference for. I think that does take her beyond the dubious 'Up and Coming'. I do understand the issue with that description as all young artists, and their promoters, overuse this term. Thanks for your feedback on this. comment added by Ngrbreeze —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "up and coming" is nearly synonymous with "not notable". Wikipedia is not PR for one's client. DarkAudit (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with this on the principal that "up and coming" is an overused term coined over the last ten years to describe emerging artists. On the basis that Sand has works in the collection of the National Museum of Kazakhstan and also has a show there this year, the term "up and coming" is not an accurate description. It should be "established" as she exhibits regularly. I will contact the National Museum and ask for more information on this that can be cited. I do understand the integrity of this approval process and want to make a good case for Sand being listed on Wikipedia. There is a strong cultural identity emerging out of this region and, as an artist, Sand represents part of that. Also, for the record, I am not in PR. comment added by Ngrbreeze —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been offline for a few days but am still looking to finish the references for this page to comply with Wikipedia criteria. Thanks for all the feedback and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngrbreeze (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Ngrbreeze/Annya Sand, unless the copyvio issues asserted necessitate deletion. Such issues should be dealt with under the established usual procedure at WP:COPYVIO. -- Trevj (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the OTRS notice. -- Trevj (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2012 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FreeCell (Windows)

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

Merge with FreeCell. This is just one of many, many implementations of the game. It really doesn't have substantial coverage or notability outside of FreeCell. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows). Sven Manguard Wha? 00:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to FreeCell. There is nothing special about an implementation on Windows. JIP | Talk 05:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of implementation-specific detail in there that could not be merged. Mcewan (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm forced to concur with Mcewan, there's a good bit of information (and sourcing) specific to this version that likely would not survive a merge. The aspect that involves the internet freecell project is unique to this version as well, and that got its own coverage. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge FreeCell and FreeCell (Windows) have a lot of very similar information. If there were multiple notable implementations, it might make sense to separate them out, but in view of the common material and the difficulty of separating it, I think it makes sense to merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for the same reason as I stated in my vote to keep Hearts (Windows). This article is not about how to play the game, it's also about the history, development of the software component. It's part of a series of software components found in MS operating systems, which happen to include games. It's a weak keep b/c the nom didn't bring this here to be deleted, rather to be merged, which does have SOME merit. It would be a stronger argument for the merge to go the other way, given that MS FreeCell is really the only notable version. Roodog2k (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kaye, Ellen (2002-10-17). "One Down, 31,999 to Go: Surrendering to a Solitary Obsession". New York Times. —Ruud 18:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or procedural closure There is no argument for deletion, anything else is a matter for the talk page of the article as there is enough work already at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and maintain information in a distinct section for the FreeCell article. Someone should replace the deletion tag with a proposed merge tag, as there are no arguments for deletion. Benjitheijneb (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough valid information to fill its own article, it too long if you merged over all content. A notable bit of software on its own. Dream Focus 00:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable in its own respect as one of the iconic Windows games, Mcewan and Ultra also make good points. Also a {{trout}} for the nominator who failed to advance a deletion rationaile, making this a WP:SK1 candidate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solitaire (Windows)

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

Merge with Klondike (solitaire). This is just one of many, many implementations of the game. It really doesn't have substantial coverage or notability outside of Klondike. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows). Sven Manguard Wha? 00:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is about a specific piece of software, a particularly widespread games software, and is not really about the card game itself. I don't see how the content could be merged with Klondike (solitaire) since, exccept for the list of them, there is no content about the various other computer versions in the article. Meowy 02:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. I totally agree with Meowy; this is a valid encyclopedia article about a popular piece of software in Microsoft Windows. Ahmer Jamil Khan —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A game available to hundreds of millions of people for well over two decades, and which was implemented, at least in part, to teach mouse usage to new users, must be considered notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Klondike (solitaire). I see nothing that special about an implementation on Windows. JIP | Talk 05:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anyone wishes to propose merging the article, this is the wrong venue. They should raise the matter on the article's talk page and, given consensus, proceed. Wikipedia:Merging may be helpful. If "merge and delete" is sought this is the correct venue but the proposal should be explicit and a reason for deletion given. I would have suggested merely closing this discussion but because the article seems particularly satisfactory to me, I propose "keep". Thincat (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Cullen. If it was partially made to help with the technique of drag and drop it has to be notable. I also know it is very popular piece of software and there seems like there's a lot of information on the product. Finally, I think the article layout is good enough to stay on Wikipedia. It is professionly done, which is what we are also looking for. pbl1998Pbl1998 (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly the second most notable computer game, right after Minesweeper (Windows). Must have received independent coverage in dozens, if not hundreds, introductory computer books. —Ruud 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or procedural closure There is no argument for deletion, anything else is a matter for the talk page of the article as there is enough work already at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calories Per Dollar (CPD)

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

Non-notable (and incredibly trivial) "measurement unit" invented (allegedly) 2 months ago. Originally proposed deletion as a non-notable neologism; PROD declined by article's author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve article by adding more references. I was easily able to find a number of independent sources[14],[15],[16] discussing the concept of calories per dollar, thus making this term notable. NJ Wine (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per NJ Wine, the term has been in use before the alleged invention by the Australia student. The term is still trivial, and requires a Wiktionary definition at best, but certainly the hoaxish article that was nominated, claiming invention of the term in March 2012, needs to be deleted or completely rewritten from scratch. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless completely rewritten with actual sourcing. This is utter shite.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rewritten the article to remove the specious claims about the Australian student. Having done so, we are left with a rather short article about a term that appears to be in widespread use, but trivially so. Even given the sourcing that I have found (and more can be found -- just do a Google search on the term), I don't feel that this term merits anything more than a wiktionary definition. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary. Beagel (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Wiktionary. I favor delete because a definition would be trivial: "Calories per dollar means the quantity of calories in a particular food divided by its price in dollars." Well, duh! --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MelanieN. And I have concerns that the article seems to be trying to compile a list of foods ("Add your own items to the list"), which would be well out of scope of Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "WP is not a dictionary." The concept could be mentioned and explained in some other article on the topic of nutrition. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2012 (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. --MuZemike 00:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Forget Your Roots (H2O album)

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

Unremarkable album with no chart history or enough music notability to held an article of its own. Some album reviews are availab,e but it's not enough coverage or media presence. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 01:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A cursory search of a few reliable music sites turned up sources rather easily: [17] [18] [19]. The WP:N bar is deliberately not set very high; enough sources are available for this topic to pass WP:NALBUMS. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally, if a band is notable then major studio albums by that band are also notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that, per policies, notability is not inherited. That a band or artist is notable doesn't mean all of their albums/singles/songs/etc will automatically be notable. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 05:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My opinion is probably moot, being the creator and one of only two significant contributors to the article, but I figured that since the band already had five other albums deemed notable enough, then it only made sense that their latest would pass the test as well.Jasper420 05:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search came up with many reviews (including 22 on iTunes), videos and reports on the album. It's a notable album from a notable artist, it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splasher9 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that iTunes reviews are made by users, and then are not reliable. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to H2O (American band) (possible search term) - It can't have much independent notability because the only info about it is that it exists and consists of 14 songs by various artists. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said for thousands of others albums currently covered without issue on Wikipedia.Jasper420 00:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the countless, worthless, shitty little music stubs that contain less information than one could find on HMV's website. As they say, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And with that attitude, they'll never become anything more.Jasper420 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They'll never become anything more because they rarely receive more than routine (if any) coverage in reliable sources. Regarding this album, if there's any viable info it should be used to expand the brief line at H2O (American band)#Don't Forget Your Roots (2011). A WP:SPLIT to an independent article would be reasonable if there was so much reliably-sourced information that it made the main article unwieldy. Basically, my stance is quality over quantity. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:OSE. benzband (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with sources already in article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2012 (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. Clear evidence iwas presented that her work is notable. The consensus considers that this meets the requirement; the evidence for GNG does not have to be biographical material about her professional life, just material about her work. Journalists become notable by the journalisml. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Johnston

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

The subject is marginally notable at best and the article has been the source of problematic additions which have caused the subject to complain to OTRS and to myself directly. The article has been orphaned since its creation because nobody has been able to find an appropriate article from which to link to it, again suggestive of non-notability. The two sources cited are a dead link to the the Humane Society of the United States' website and an article on the IFJ website that verifies a commedation she was awarded in 1998. The main source of any coverage she has in reliable sources is some severe criticism of a particular article she wrote. There is little else in the way of coverage of her work and nothing (that I have been able to find) by way of biographical details in reliable sources, so an argument could be made that BLP1E applies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some disturbing elements to this AfD, not least that the current article is a shadow of its former self, with many reliable citations deleted, most probably by people opposed to her views which in 2009 in particular were certainly controversial. However the complaints then are not the only thing for which she has been in the news. Here are some (apologies for length):
- headhunted from Big Issue by Observer
- Minority Thought (attacks Lucy Johnston) 9 January 2011
- Daily Express scoops international award for Imutran exposé, 2001 (Lucy Johnston and Jonathan Calvert were presented with the award by film star Tim Curry)
- She drew criticism in 2007 for "Dangers of MMR Jab" (a major and long-lasting controversy); and in 2009 for Jab as deadly as the cancer. This particular controversy thus extended over a period of three years.
- No less than Ben Goldacre critiqued her in his Bad Science column: Jabs as bad as the cancer, Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, 10 October 2009. Goldacre also critiqued Johnston's Express piece on mobile phone masts, another controversy.
- Professor Diane Harper complained formally about her: Complaint, 10 October 2009. The Sunday Express published an apology October 2009 apology by Sunday Express.
- On 26 April 2010, NICE requested the Sunday Express to print a correction relating to an article "SCANDAL OF LIFE-SAVING DRUGS HELD UP BY POLL" on 25 April 2010. This was a separate event from the above.
There appears to have been a long-running edit war about all this. However that doesn't seem reason not to report the facts about the several controversies (MMR, Cancer drugs, NICE - not just a single BLP1E) using the reliable published sources listed here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You stated that the article is a shadow of its former self, with many references removed. Rather than judge just the merits of the present form of the article, and to save every other editor form having to page through every previous revision, could you please point to the previous version which you feel best demonstrates that the person satisfies WP:BIO? Edison (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info: OK, there has never been a stable version, but 19 March 2012 is as informative as any. My point is rather that there are RS out there and they have been in the article, which is why they are listed above. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you address the fact that those articles contain pretty much zero biographical information about this person (since, after all, they discuss the factual errors themselves, only mentioning this person as the author of the stated-to-be-erroneous articles) and that the only biography that can be constructed out of them is the fairly dreadful revision that you point to, which tells us nothing biographical? This seems to be a textbook case of things that shouldn't be presented in Wikipedia in a biographical article, because they are actually about (to pick one) the scientific statements made about Cervarix by The Daily Express, and don't tell us anything about this person other than that she was the byline. Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "How do I address it?" Like this: We have a great many bio article which have been kept in AFDs, which do not have date and place of birth, education, and family information. These include bios of CEOs of major corporations, which AFDs found to be notable because the individuals have multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of their accomplishments and positions in the business world, and because they have had an important effect in their field of endeavor, as has this person. To a greater extent, we have thousands of bio articles about some jock who played a few games of some professional sport, with far less significant coverage than this person,. We have at least hundreds and likely thousands of articles about "porn stars" whose articles only relate what "porn awards" their onscreen copulations and sodomies garnered, and what films they were in. while hardly any even give their real names. (See Long Dong Silver, which survived 3 AFDs, if you are unfamiliar with this vast number of bios.) Many such bio articles have survived AFDs. I do not see in WP:BIO where it says that the subject's birthplace and birthdate, schooling, residence and family, etc must be freely available in online sources. The sources for this article are by no means just articles under her byline as you imply, but deal with perceived failures in her reporting. To balance that, there are also awards recognizing her accomplishments in reportage. Edison (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In other words: You address it by pretending that it's OK that there's zero biographical material in the sources to be had, and that articles whose subjects are not this person's life and works can somehow magically support a biography of this person's life and works even though they don't document them in the slightest but are rather articles disagreeing with other articles about subjects such as Cervarix and the MMR vaccine controversy. You need to read Project:Coatrack. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:BIO. BLP1E does not apply when she has won a 1998 commendation from the International Federation of Journalists for her article "Barred from Animals Kingdom" [20] as well as a 2001 'Genesis Award' from the Humane Society of the United States for her article on pharmaecutical companies, "Terrible Despair of Animals Cut Up in the Name of Research". The Humane Society award being a deadlink does not make it not exist,. Does the nominator think it is a hoax? Indications are that her story in fact a winner in 2001 at the 15th Annual Genesis Awards, "an international distinction that recognizes members of the major news and entertainment media for spotlighting animal issues with courage, creativity and integrity." A career in journalism, including influential writings about animal research and animal abuse, capped by being health editor of the Express, is by no stretch of the imagination "one event." A smoldering edit war, with criticism of her article "Jab as deadly as the cancer'" criticizing a cancer vaccine, and harsh condemnation of said article by a "bad science" column being alternately added to and removed from the article, is not a valid reason to delete the bio article. Several books have some coverage of her work, per a Google Search, although the content is not viewable online and some may be false positives. The talk page of the article does not show a serious effort to establish a consensus as to what the article should say in regard to the "jab" article and the response to it from the journalism and science communities. There are certainly BLP issues, so protect the article and work via its talk page toward a balanced section on the article "Jab as deadly as the cancer," the backlash to it from journalists and scientists, and an apology of sorts and the removal of the story from the Express website. Edison (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you address the fact that "A was criticized by B, C, and D." is not a biography, but a coatrack for the actual subject, which in the cases of the sources so far pointed to appears to be various health/science topics such as Cervarix and the MMR vaccine controversy? Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - She is an influential journalist, and the health editor of a major newspaper, and her work has had multiple instances of significant secondary coverage by reliable sources, particularly with controversial claims that some types of vaccinations are harmful, and in reportage on animal research, with recognition by the Humane Society of the US and other well known organizations, as well as multiple significant coverage in books and newspaper articles, satisfying WP:N. Do you understand that "various health/science topics" plus animal welfare, is not one little area in which people criticize her? Edison (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - her work has had multiple instances of significant secondary coverage by reliable sources — No, it hasn't; neither has the person's life; and that's the point. Rebuttals dealing with other subjects do not constitute biography. Try pointing to an article that gives biographical information about this person, not non-biographical information about a science/health subject or a public debate, and after seeing that it's not possible maybe you'll comprehend that. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The work certainly has been covered in good secondary sources, repeatedly, on multiple issues. It is true that LJ has been extremely private with her personal life, which is fine, but that does not exempt her writing life from public discussion and encyclopedic public record. Her writing life is notable for its repeated and strong ventures into controversies that she has created: people have reacted to her expression, not only and individually to the topics she has written about. The pen is not independent of the hand, and for example Ben Goldacre's Bad Science is crystal clear that LJ's science writing is a serious and notable topic. It would form a perfect starting point for a tutorial on science and society, for instance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage exists to pass WP:GNG, plus the amount of criticism directed at her is significant enough to pass WP:CREATIVE as well. The lack of biographical detail is irrelevent - reliable sources have written about her work, and that is enough for her to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: This is not an easy AfD. If not for the fact that article is being used on and off to emphasize criticism of the subject, I wouldn't worry too much that someone decided to write an article about the "health editor" of the Sunday Express a middling British Sunday paper. But scads of successful competent professionals receive some awards and recognition for their work. I've read the "most full" version of Lucy's bio as identified by Chiswick Chap[21], and its really not that special. Cf. even Marilyn Hagerty (not subjected to AfD, but certainly has a lot more coverage than this one if considering BLP1E). This is all somewhat subjective, and I don't disagree with Edison's !vote lightly. When you have someone marginally notable like this, and the article has been subject to attacks, and the subject wants deletion, I usually favor deletion. (Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson we considered a Los Angeles area reporter who had won some awards, but got fame because of an apparent episode of aphasia she had on camera. She hadn't requested deletion, but BLP concerns were present.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree that this one isn't easy, but feel Edison is right here. Johnson is, like it or not, definitely in the public gaze, and has won enough prizes to be notable. The series of controversies that she has stirred up is also on public record (indisputably existing) and again she is notable for that. For both these reasons she can't fairly be called "marginally notable". Unlike the one-off 'aphasia' of Serene Branson, Johnson's fame is long-lasting and not the result of any one minor slip. And the most probable explanation of the 'attacks' is that Johnson herself tried to remove or emasculate the article, including reliably-cited facts: not a cause for deletion (indeed, blocking might have been appropriate). So we should face the discomfort and keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is arguably a borderline case, and if the subject had requested deletion, I'd support that. But it seems her main concern is that the problems with the page should end, so with that in mind I've expanded it and added more references (diff). With more eyes on it after this AfD and with HJ's semi-protection, hopefully the page will stabilize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 14 June 2012 (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 United States Senate election in New York, 2012. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colia Clark

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

Nomination on the grounds that the subject does not meet the general notability guideline. Clark was a minor party candidate for the Senate 2010, winning only 1% of the vote. None of her activism work in women's rights or civil rights is especially notable. WP:BEFORE is satisfied; searching for sources hits the usual candidacy pages, facebooks, etc... When limited to the news, she receives trivial coverage in the Times Union and a HuffPo blog, as well as a Green Party press release, all of which are insufficient in establishing notability. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States Senate election in New York, 2012, where she is already appropriately mentioned; readers deserve to be sent to the current election. Dru of Id (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO I'd rather see it deleted outright. If it was a candidate from a major party or at least a 3rd party that saw significant electoral support I would go for a redirect. But in her only run to date, this person garnered 1% of the vote. There has to be a threshold for what a fringe candidate is, and IMO this is it. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's deleted, readers get to go to a page that shows it's been deleted; industrious ones then have to wade through one of these, and the butterflies and Montgomery are irrelevent (to her, the Green Party, and the election, just to clarify). Anyone currently searching is most likely to be doing so in the context of the current election. Sending them is cheap. Dru of Id (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in New York, 2012 - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 15 June 2012 (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. No consensus to delete after multiple relists (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRows

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

I am opening this discussion in response to a request for technical help from Elbowin (talk · contribs). Rationale copied from his/her talk page is as follows: "It is about a piece of software which never went beyond beta stage and is irrelevant as such. The old discussion claims some kind of "historic" relevance, but this cannot not be taken from the article as it stands. I found this article browsing through the category:Ajax (programming) and was very dissappointed of it. Version history shows that the article is probably an orphan and no one cares about it. On the other hand, I found in category:JavaScript the article Medireview very good reading: That's how to deal with history of computing."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic is passing WP:GNG, per:

Fay, Joe (November 17, 2006). "Google draws in iRows". The Register. Retrieved June 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
O'Reilly, Dennis (August 23, 2006). Web Spreadsheets Nearly Ready for Prime Time, PC World Magazine.
Michael Arrington (2006-11-15). "Google Absorbing iRows". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2007-04-03.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big software firms acquire smaller ones, programmers change their employers. This event creates a ripple in the press. What makes this case notable? How is it reflected in the article? Elbowin (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 15 June 2012 (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. Article is non-notable yet. A suggestion of userfy has been made, but with no target. Someone may request userfication from myself or any admin (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 68

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

Two reasons for deleltion:

1. WP:CONTENT FORK from Vossloh Eurolight containing no extra information except the claimed name.
2. Incorrect information or speculation - the claimed name "Class 68" has not been confirmed. In the most recent publication I can find (Today's Railways, issue 126, June 2012), it clearlt states without ambiguity that the class number has not been undecided. I have spoken to the creator about this at User_talk:Hammersfan#BR_Class_68, they assure me that it is official, but the source stated above contradicts this. I should note that the page has been created before based on speculation. (possibly speedily deleted), and that this situation has happened before with journalistic speculation claiming that the number "class 68" had been assigned, but subsequently shown to be an invention. (this happened with British Rail Class 70 (diesel)).
:(More) To the best of my knowledge the article Vossloh Eurolight can be said to be up to date, there is no significant further information currenly available to justify a content fork - this means that the template (Template:under construction) which claims "This article or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" is essentially invalid - therefore it is not likely to stop being a content fork in the near future.
I would propose that the article be place in incubation or a user sandbox until there is sufficient extra information to justify the fork, and when the name can be confirmed by (demonstrably) reliable sources. Anyone doing this should note that some of the technical data given appears to be from the european version, and is therefor - unconfirmed for the UK version. ie is wrong. Oranjblud (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to news piece from Modern Railways confirming that DRS has registered Class 68 and reserved the series 68001-68050 with the Rolling Stock Library has been added to the article. This should be sufficient to keep this article. Hammersfan, 01/06/12, 22:08 BST

Thank you for clearing up point 2. There is still an issue with the being essentially no new information in the article, excluding the class number, which could be trivially added to the existing article. I also raised points about the data being un-verified - you have the new article - does it give technical details for the new class? (ie please add references if you have them). Also whilst here I should ask about the statement that the modifications "This primarily involved narrowing the body profile of the locomotive, allowing it to fit within the loading gauge constraints" - is that an assumption or can it be sourced? what about height? or other stuff..

(CLUE NB Height 4.2m ?!? - As a courtesy I will comment out the problematic parts rather than removing them, as some are likely to be correct.) see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_68&diff=495530784&oldid=495523727

I still think there is an issue with the article contain no verifyable information not already in the original article. (ie point 1) I'd ask that you consider placing the article in "incubation" until substantial UK specific information becomes available.Oranjblud (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The designation class 68 seems in the rail press to be highly likely to be the designation for this locomotive order. Users will search for Class 68 when looking for information about this order which has been confirmed in the press by DRS. The article contains information about this order for DRS that is largely congruent with the material in the rail press and should remain. Were the class designated otherwise then this article should redirect to a new one and it will need considerable elaboration when the locomotives are in traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinner doc (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 15 June 2012 (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. Weighing policy AND discussion: appears as non-notable album as of yet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JOURNEY OF 1000 MILES

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, is poorly written, and has an inappropriate tone. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect (musician). —Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should follow the fate of Perfect (musician). Also, I wish it would stop yelling. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the artist is unrelated to notability to one of the artist's albums. From WP:NALBUMS: "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline."

Thus, in my opinion, these two AfD's should be discussed separately.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 18:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but being unfamiliar with the subject, I'd say a shared fate is appropriate in this case. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. See the AfD for the artist. The yelling is easily solved, as are the other issues (none of which are a reason for deletion). Drmies (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the artist AFD, I'm going to say keep. But, you know. Without the yelling. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment— This short blurb and this review are the only sources I can find that go into any detail whatsoever about the album, and it doesn't really do much for the assertion of the album's notability. If anyone can find a reliable source or two that can show this album's notability, I'd change my mind, but so far, there's so material I can see that is deserving of its own article, rather than being incorporated into Perfect (musician).—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doan Van Chan

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

Aside from more specific considerations such as WP:BLP1E (his alleged notability stems from maybe being the oldest person in the world but probably not, thus the one event I refer to here is "getting really old" not "an individual birthday" as is sometimes claimed) and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. He seems to have had a brief burst of attention in mid-2007 for his age and nothing since (that I could uncover), meaning he lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish him from thousands of other individual claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. Canadian Paul 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and add to table at Longevity claims. He doesn't seem to meet criteria for List of the verified oldest people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only source listed doesn't demonstrate enough notability to even be mentioned on a general article on allegedly long-lived persons. DreamGuy (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being that he is Vietnamese, I can't seem to find other news articles (specifically English) supporting this article. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 29 June 2012 (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 Littoral combat ship. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of littoral combat ships of the United States Navy

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

This page duplicates three separate pages and a template: Littoral combat ship, Freedom class littoral combat ship, Independence class littoral combat ship and the LCS template. Prod stating that fact was removed with the comment 'Deprod Reason given does not justify deletion.' Buckshot06 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Littoral combat ship, which should have been done before the prod or AfD. The presence of the two class articles has no bearing on a list covering both classes as a standard set of the list system (see List of frigates of the United States Navy, List of destroyers of the United States Navy, etc.). The presence of the template is utterly irrelevant to the deletion or retention of this article as well. That said, though, it duplicates the list currently included in Littoral combat ship, and as at the moment there are only the two classes of (what is claimed to be) an otherwise-unique ship type, there is no reason to list the ships both in the ship type page and on their own page. If additional classes of LCS are created (and I certainly hope that instead we have a return to sanity, but that's neither here nor there) or the type starts being used by other navies, then the merits of a seperate list can be debatated anew, but right now this should simply be redirected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the two-column list I added to the main LCS article sufficient for all 55 ships? (Is it allowable to go four column?) Hcobb (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles systematicaly listing all US vessels of each type have been provided for all other types of vessel. If this list is removed then this scheme will be broken. It may may justifiable to rename this artle List of classes of litoral combat ships of the US navy (or similar). If there is an article that is wrong then it is the Article Littoral combat ship, which has become US centric as a result of the list. There are other ships of this type (even if their owners have not classified them as such). e.g. Hamina class missile boat. Op47 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can that be a comparable class? It's a tenth the size of the LCS and is actually a combatant as it is armed. Hcobb (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LCS is a US-only thing, and the term "littoral combat ship" is purely an invention of the United States Navy, so of course the article is "US-centric". The rest of the world, not needing a buzzword to wow Congress, calls this type of ship a Corvette. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rest-of-Earth isn't immune to buzzwords, but I personally find the "See Also" note to be sufficient mention for MEKO. Should somebody else start putting modular multirole frigates that use a lot of unmanned systems into the water and calling them LCSs then these should be listed as LCS classes. Hcobb (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree with Bushranger. There's no need for this page at present, and even if at some point there is, it should be at 'List of corvettes of the United States Navy'. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Bushranger. As a note, should the corvette title come into use, suggest "List of corvette-type ships of the United States Navy" to keep it neutral. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Corvette-type ships" would be weasel-wording, and there will be porcine aviators over Tartarus before they get officially designated "corvette", I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then expect ravings for using a ship class that the USN doesn't, is all I can say. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I see nothing wrong with this list at all. No one has made a strong argument how this runs afoul of WP:LIST or any of the subcategories therein. Roodog2k (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it completely duplicates content in another article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A list can duplicate content found in other article(s). Roodog2k (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Bushranger. Brad (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to avoid unnecesasry duplication of content. Sandstein 08:34, 16 June 2012 (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.