Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 18

Guide to deletion

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 delete arguments are the most policy based reasons. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Second Bloody Valentine War

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Bloody Valentine War

• Articles for deletion/Second Bloody Valentine War

Second Bloody Valentine War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is a long plot summary of an event in an anime series with no out of universe information or sources. Furthermore, it reads as if it was an actual event, not a fictional one. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Gundam Seed Destiny. Also, please note this has been at AfD once before under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bloody_Valentine_War. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment while I can see how a section growing too large would be an issue, there shouldn't be so much plot information to begin with. The article is a large plot summary of Gundam Seed Destiny, which doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep While the article clearly needs improvement, the subject is a reasonable spinout article to keep the Gundam Seed Destiny article from growing too large. Failing that, Merge to Gundam Seed Destiny. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see this going beyond in-universe. No prejudice against a merge.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, Bloody Valentine War was redirected to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED#Plot back in August and I'm unaware of any complaints since then, so a similar treatment should work fine for this article. Also note that the above linked AFD took place in 2006. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The last afd [1] had some convincing arguments in it. This is part of a series that has been successfully growing for for decades now. This event is notable in its universe, affecting the anime series(one series dedicated entirely to it, 50 episodes), toy line, manga, and books. I'm not sure if any video games have this war featured in it or not. It isn't just some passive back story used once and forgotten. It affected the entire Gundam universe. Dream Focus 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out above, the last AfD happened in 2006. Consensus can change, and certainly has in three years. The article as it stands now is pure plot summary, presented as a real event, with neither hide nor hair of development, production, reception, real-world impact, or even references (the one "reference" in the article is actually an unreferenced note), despite being tagged for a year for these and other issues. It doesn't matter how important this is within the Gundam universe because notability is not inherited, and for the record, this only directly affected the Gundam SEED timeline, not "the entire Gundam universe". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Those objections all seem to be quality issues (mentioning development, production, real-world impact, encyclopedic tone.) Certainly they are important, but I'm not sure they have bearing on deletion. Quality can be improved over time, as per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:DEADLINE. -moritheil^Talk 20:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no idependent sources discuss this topic at all, certainly not at the level that would make it notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Violates WP:NOTPLOT as an extensive plot summary of Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Destiny with no scholarly analysts or critical commentary. —Farix (t | c) 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge critical content only and Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny per Dinoguy1000 above. G.A.S^talk 06:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Fictional plot treated as real life events :( Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny plot section. Some elements could re-used in the episodes list summaries and the chapters list summaries. --KrebMarkt 06:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. DBZROCKS seems to already have done the redirect without waiting for the AfD to be closed. -moritheil^Talk 07:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Per previous AfD. - Plau 08:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Because it has been kept in a previous AfD is not a valid argument for keeping the article at a later AfD. Especially with the substantial number of policy violating problems this article has. —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the editor meant "keep per the convincing reasons given at the previous AFD." Nothing has changed since then. And it might violated the suggested guidelines, but no policy was broken. Dream Focus 11:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It helps when the commenter states what the reasons are for keeping the article. Otherwise, it's just a vote. Also, there are several policies that the article is violating, most of which are outlined above. —Farix (t | c) 11:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The previous AFD, as I have said *twice* now, happened three years ago. This article may once have been fine for Wikipedia, but that is simply no longer the case. In order for the article to remain, it must be drastically changed, including a clear demonstration of the subject's notability - this is the largest issue facing the article, and one which hasn't even begun to be addressed. An AFD for this issue is perfectly acceptable. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. As per WP:NOTPAPER, poor article quality is not on its own valid grounds for deletion. Articles can be improved over time. -moritheil^Talk 05:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - The article was improperly redirected for 36 hours during this debate. It was restored at 08:00 on 25/10. I am only clarifying and not making a judgment about a possible effect on this discussion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, or Redirect to Gundam Seed Destiny. This is all unsourced, so there is nothing to merge. Abductive (reasoning) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The source is presumably the work itself, as is normal for works of fiction or TV shows. -moritheil^Talk 05:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The article clearly has tone and style issues and could benefit from at least rewriting. However, what is astonishing to me as an observer is the behavior of those involved in this discussion. A number of invalid or questionable arguments were put forth above, the article was turned into a redirect for 36 hours, and all in all this AfD phase has run roughshod over normal deletion procedure and criteria. I am not stating that the article should or should not be deleted, only noting that the discussion above has repeatedly moved far afield of actual deletion issues such as notability. There have been valid arguments both for and against deletion, but the invalid ones seem for some reason to all be for deletion. (If you accept Farix's argument that Plau's statement is too brief to be valid, then there is one invalid argument against deletion.) I cannot account for this under WP:FAITH, and I find it troubling. -moritheil^Talk 08:33, 27 October 2009 (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 delete. although the article was moved to a name about the event, the event in and of itself does not pass the notability policy Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Lorne J. Acquin

Lorne J. Acquin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject is known only for this crime, therefore fails WP:BLP1E Kevin (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep: First, there are numerous articles about mass murderers on Wikipedia, so I don't see any reason why this one should be deleted.
Second, the subject certainly adheres to Wikipedias notability guidelines, as it was covered in fair detail by several big news outlets over an extended span of time.
See e.g. here,here, here, here and here
Third, the largest mass murder in Connecticut history surely warrants its own article. So, if really necessary, instead of deleting it, it could as well be moved to a title less violating to WP:BLP1E. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

• Comment. I'm going to abstain for the moment. Despite the severity of the crime, there is very little about this in GBooks and the web coverage is relatively weak. Most of the coverage seems to fit WP:NOT#NEWS. Still, the sheer number of murders makes this notable to me. Regarding the title, I agree with Lord Gøn. Sometimes naming it after the perpetrator works better than naming it after the crime anyway. Location (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This number of murders is notable, and the sources are adequate. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename and rewrite to focus on the murders if they are notable enough (They seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), but I could be wrong). The article as it stands fails BLP1E. NW (Talk) 00:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete as BLP1E or, per NW, rename and refocus on the crime, not the person. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Yet another BLP1E - Alison ^❤ 07:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy for an event article. The number of victims is not notable and is irrelevant to the notability of the murderer in consideration of BLP1E. If the event is notable, write an article on it. Lara 13:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly a BLP1E - however article on this horrendous event may pass muster.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 20:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete BLP1E. — Jake Wartenberg 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment As suggested by me and various others I've moved the page, so there should be no conflict with WP:BLP1E anymore. Though, to be honest, I find it quite idiotic to be forced to make up an unwieldy title for the article when naming it after the perpetrator would be a lot more concise. I mean, it works just fine for serial killers, doesn't it? (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2009 (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 delete. In cases of BLPs of marginal notability we often default to delete when consensus is unclear. Further, some of the keep votes used weak arguments, and after weighing them together the delete votes were stronger. A lot of weight was given to those delete arguments that cited issues with uncorrectable bias (example Risker) and BLP concerns. — Jake Wartenberg 00:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone

Note: This discussion was temporarily closed as keep for roughly two hours, please see the talk page for details. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article uses spurious sourcing (namely the subject's blog, various other blogs, and Wikinews) to create a piece that appears to be a valid article, yet really isn't. It should be noted that the subject of the article has an account on Wikipedia (User:David Shankbone). While there are news references to the subject, there isn't sufficient coverage to merit inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure navel gazing; we're not David's personal PR operation, and if he were writing for any site other than Wikipedia this would have been A7'd. (For some perspective, that "major interview" averages 11 views a day.) We already went through this with David Gerard, who with all due respect is considerably more notable than his namesake Shankbone. – iridescent 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• How often the article is viewed or not doesn't really matter. There are enough reliable sources to satisfy policy. Debate on whether or not Shankbone is a good journalist or widely-read can rage behind other doors. Master of Puppets 03:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I find the claim that "he became the first citizen journalist to interview a sitting head of state" to be enough to meet WP:BIO. ("The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"). Additionally, the Columbia Journalism Review piece indicates there is verifiability. Prodego ^talk 22:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Before we go keeping this article over that pretty substantial claim, considering it is the basis of the notability argument, could you actually find a source for it? It sounds plausible but unlikely to me without a reference, and might just be a misunderstanding of the line "its reporter was the first Wikinews staffer to interview a head of state" from the InformationWeek article. (That would be a considerably weaker claim.) Dominic·t 23:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If that claim is not true, then that drastically changes the notability of Shankbone. I would say that my 'keep' is dependent on that claim in fact. Prodego ^talk 23:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What exactly is a "citizen journalist" and how is it defined in any regard different than a standard journalist? (this would require a citation actually using the term and in a manner that is applicable for him being the "first", plus a citation verifying it, each independent sources that are reliable. Then you would need to prove that citizen journalist is a real term, as the page seems to suffer from WP:NEO and is promoting something as opposed to being encyclopedic) And, regardless, why would it matter? Furthermore, who would even define it, especially since he is an amateur journalist or a professional journalist (its an either or), and both have interviewed heads of states, so, I don't see the assertion really standing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced on this - I would want to see appropriate verifiability. In Australia, I remember school children interviewing the Prime Minister of the day following journalism competitions. While some might claim that's not journalism per se, it's no more or less "journalistic" than anything else. Achromatic (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I've left a note on the author of the article's talk page regarding that statement - hopefully he will promptly respond and clarify the strength of that statement. Prodego ^talk 02:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This has now been changed, per discussion on the talk page. He was the first WikiNews citizen journalist to have interviewed a sitting head of state, and this is what InformationWeek actually stated in their sub-title and lede section - Alison ^❤ 08:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per me. Prodego ^talk 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The CJR piece, interview in the Brooklyn Rail, and the article in Jewish Week support notability, and the Information Week article says that Israeli newspaper El Haaretz covered Shankbone's visit and Wikinews' coverage stemming from the visit. I've no interest in promotional articles, but minus the puffery I think there's enough here to satisfy WP:BIO. JNW (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Prodego, pending confirmation of basis. While I realize we should guard against navel gazing, if one of our own becomes notable, we should not flinch from a biography on that individual. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - reads like a puff piece. If this is kept it needs some rebalancing I think. Not yet decided about whether he's notable enough, like Prodego I'd like that source verified. ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • NOTE: !voted below (default to delete, but don't double count it please. :) ) ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - all sources are minimal at best and fails the threshold for "significant coverage". Clearly non-notable individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CJR being minimal? A full article about him specifically being not "significant coverage"? DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Ottava Rima; if the claim Prodego emphasized is proven to be true, this may require revisiting. Until then, this individual is not sufficiently noteworthy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you feel that WP:N isn't met? Is this more of an IAR !vote? Hobit (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Without discovering the details, I have learned that the subject is controversial here, and I acknowledge the danger of encouraging articles about figures "notable" for Wikipedian reasons. However, I agree with Prodego re the citizen journalist, and even if all the Wikipedia-related material were removed from the article (I don't think it should be) the subject would still be marginally notable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Navel-gazing, dubious notability. Achromatic (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Until flagged revisions are implemented on BLPs on marginally notable subjects they should be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The Columbia Journalism Review and InformationWeek coverage would seem to indicate to me that verifiability has been satisfied. I'm not convinced he's (yet) the Barbara Walters of citizen journalism, but, nevertheless, I think the pieces illustrate that our requirements for notability have been met. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not convinced about the references and, per Prodego, would like to see that reference. We've had quite a few notable editors here in the past - many who have their own articles (User:Jokestress comes to mind) - but notability via Wikipedia leaves me twitchy indeed. Outside WP, David, who's an excellent yet amateur photographer, doesn't seem to have established the required notability. Also, the article needs serious editing for balance and neutrality. Further-urthermore, it'll also serve as the perfect focus for BLP-related attacks from David's enemies, of which he seems to have a few. I've already move-protected it as I await the inevitable. In short, NN, somewhat dubiously-referenced, currently reads as a puff-piece and is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. I'm no particular fan of David Shankbone (David Miller seems much nicer. Seriously), but I don't want to see him suffering the kind of BLP-related attacks that others have had to deal with here - Alison ^❤ 02:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources are far from "spurious" and included the in-depth coverage that satisfies the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• KeepDelete The sources don't address the subject in substantial detail, so this doesn't meet WP:N. All we have is a pile of trivia. He acts like a journalist and gets a lot of interviews -- so do thousands of other people who get published. Same goes for photographs. Even the Columbia Journalism Review article, which might have substantial coverage of him, is used for trivia. There doesn't seem to be any source out there that gives us the depth of coverage needed for an article. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• John, the Columbia article is actually quite detailed. You can read it here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right, it is detailed, and I have to change my vote. I still don't think this will be good for the subject, but I think this is marginal enough that he can get it deleted if he finds it a burden. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete at this time further comment now added below per Prodego - yes that's right per Prodego; and certainly if we can't get solid reliable sources that prove for example that David is the first citizen journalist to interview a sitting head of state. Indeed this addition sums up the general puffery of the piece insofar that it claims something that is probably impossible to verify - after all citizen journalists (defined in the article as members of the public "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information) have been around for decades and longer. Is David the first to have interviewed a head of state? If yes well call me back here but until then this article should be deleted.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 05:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Alison's notification of a change to the "first citizen journalist" is noted and I am left still with the feeling that delete is the appropriate response here - else it appears wikipedia becomes its own reference. Thanks.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 09:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Sources aren't sufficient to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Becksguy did a pretty good job of walking the sources and showing that they met WP:BIO. Could you explain which sources you think don't count toward WP:N/WP:BIO? Thanks. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think that there's a sufficient level of coverage about this person in the refs. A lot of it is stuff he's written/photographed. Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • We cover actors for their acting, baseball players for what they've done in the sport. I don't see why a writer/photographer would be any different. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I was waiting for the news on the "first citizen journalist" bit, now that that has been resolved it does not show sufficient notability to balance out the risk Alison discusses above. The Columbia Journalism Review articles states "though Miller has managed interviews with a few high -profile subjects like Peres, he's relatively unknown outside the Wiki community", so even they don't feel he is particularly notable. Kevin (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• That last statement isn't thattrue. It was an error the reporter blogged about and corrected. He wrote that he used a bad tool. About that first citizen journalist to interview a head of state I wrote: of course I don't mean school kids doing things for their high school paper, which makes a good photo op for a politician. What I meant was here was a guy who works as a paralegal, yet does all this stuff for free on this site in his spare time. He goes to Israel with Businesweek, Salon, and other big media sites - who scores the huge interview? The citizen journalist from Wikinews. I thought the InformationWeek and CJR articles made that clear, but I guess it's kind of SYN. He's the first citizen journalist to interview a head of state, and you won't find anyone else that fits that bill. He took vacation time from his job. So perhaps a citation doesn't exist, but neither does another example of anything like that. It was all volunteer, and it was a scoop for Wikinews, where he's accredited. --Huckandraz (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog you linked seems to correct something other than the part I quoted, and he didn't retract the part about Shankbone being "relatively unknown". Kevin (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The reporter offered an opinion, and then gave his evidence. The full quote is "Although Miller has managed interviews with a few high-profile subjects like Peres, he's relatively unknown outside the Wiki community. Some of his pieces have page views in the single digits." What the correction addressed was that the hypothesis, "He's unknown" is because "his articles have single digits". Obviously, if nobody read them, nobody knows him. The reporter corrected that the evidence to support that statement was wrong, and therefore so was the theory it was used to support. It's the only evidence he gives. Otherwise, you have all three major dailies in Israel, Jewish Week, InformationWeek and the CJR doing an in depth profile about somebody that nobody in journalism has ever heard of? The reporter and subject went out of the way to correct the record. --Huckandraz (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Although my duck test sniffer tells me this was created as a way to harass him there does seem to be plenty here to weave together a good article despite what seems contrary motivations. That his work is acknowledged as a Wikipedian is documented independent of us so would seem to pass that bar as well. At worst this, very new, article needs rigorous clean-up to ensure accuracy and that is already happening. Whatever the motivations the article is here now and should be given a chance to develop. They happened to do this work here but it is written about elsewhere. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Puff piece probably created by subject or an associate.67.160.100.233 (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. To have a profile in the Columbia Journalism Review seems to establish notability in and of itself, because it's significant coverage in a reliable source, which is what Wikipedia:Notability requires. In addition, there are the Haaretz and Information Week articles that are actually about him, not just containing passing reference to him; his work being used by The New York Times and Encylopaedia Britannica; and the comic strip based on his work in Time Out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoa, Slim, I'm going to stop you right there. His work is "used by the Encylopaedia Britannica" in the sense that my work is "used by Wikipedia"; he happens to have uploaded some photos to the user-editable section of the E.B., and anyone else could do the same. If "used by the Encylopaedia Britannica" in this context is grounds for an article, then I'll get writing on User:LaraLove and User:Realist2 on the basis of their Maynard James Keenan and Michael Jackson Wikipedia articles being ripped off borrowed by the BBC. – iridescent 13:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, if that's an open-source version of EB, I take that bit back. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• The Guardian has also used his work. [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Actually the article is wonkily constructed a bit - he did an art project of 4000+ images and freely licensed them. Those were in turn used in many places including Wikipedia articles, books, etc etc. Those are attributed images which would not seem to be directly comparable to group efforted text, which we have no expectation of attribution, which is then "borrowed". -- Banjeboi 13:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's incorrect to say the Haaretz and Information Week articles are about him. They barely tell us anything at all about him. Haaretz quotes his opinions and gives us a fact or two about him. Information Week has nothing to say about him other than that he got the interview with Perez. I can't read the Columbia Journalism Review article, but the article doesn't use it for more than a bit of trivial information, so I doubt there's any more to it than the others. This is a collection of trivial coverage from sources, each of which provide a teensy bit of information. If they all added up to a rounded picture of him, then fine, we could consider him "notable". But even with all those sources cited, the article gets us nowhere near giving us the coverage we'd want in a Wikipedia article, and it's not as if we can assume there's more out there somewhere. We have AfDs so that we don't have junky articles in the encyclopedia. If he is notable, he's only marginally notable, but he's more than just marginally controversial on Wikipedia, so for this marginally "notable" person we'd have editors and administrators wasting time patrolling the article, reverting vandals, arguing with his enemies. It isn't good for David Miller, or for administrators and editors here, and it isn't good for readers to get such a poor article that has little prospect of ever getting better. It's bad all around. JohnWBarber (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I had to change my mind. The Columbia Journalism Review article is substantial coverage. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO, full of puff. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Almost every journalist to ever interview a head of state has been a "citizen journalist" (and maybe all of them -- though a stateless hack or two is possible). As for "amateur journalists" interviewing heads of state -- that has been happening for at least 100 years. Whoever the first amatuer (both as in "unpaid" and as in "withough schooling or expertise in the field") hack to interview a leader was, I guess receives a trivia footnote, but probably isn't notable either. `Now, some interviews are notable in and of themselves and might reflect upon the notability of the interviewer (Frost-Nixon). But I see no evidence of this fellow ever breaking a major story or otherwise having done something journalistically that might have generated notability (and there are no reliable sources on this, likewise). Nothing of interest in the Peres interview, surely. Accepting a paid junket from the Israeli (or any other) government is a firing offense at old media (and if it's true that salon tolerates that bullshit, i'm embarressed for them) and if you interview the Prime Minister while on the government payroll that isn't considered journalism, it's considered PR. To wrap up: No reliable sources estabslish notability for this living person or cover him in sufficient depth to allow for independent verification of this articles claims.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Iridescent, Alison, and others. Marginally notable BLP. GlassCobra 14:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't know, there seems to be enough reilable sources to piece together a good article out of this one. Good one for the Rescue Squad...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, the sources don't establish notability. Everyking (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - The CJR piece is 1843 words long and the entire article covers Shankbone in depth on his photography and interviews, which I believe refutes the trivial claim, since it is clearly more than "significant coverage", per the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Columbia Journalism Review—the prestigious, influential, and prominent professional journalism review from Columbia University's J-School—is clearly a reliable source. The article is behind a paywall at CJR, but can be read in full here. — Becksguy (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding that and posting the link. You changed my vote to Keep. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The Brooklyn Rail article or the Columbia Journalism Review article alone, along with some supporting sources, are enough to establish notability. There's not much point in debating what the specific claims to notability are; the important thing is that he was regarded by multiple independent secondary sources as being worthy of an in-depth profile. We shouldn't apply different standards to Wikipedians than to non-Wikipedians. For a more detailed discussion on my views on the topic, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (3rd nomination). (For whatever it's worth, David is a former client and a close friend of mine, but my opinions are entirely my own.) -Pete (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Notablity requires more than cursory mentions, which the sources you list only provide such. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Per John Barber above, at least one of the mentions appears to be anything but cursory. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established. David may be a decent enough hobby journalist and photographer, but that's all he is GTD 15:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep He was featured in Wikinews [3], there a picture of him shaking hands with the president of Israel. There are plenty of mentions of him in the news, references to reliable sources already in the article. Dream Focus 17:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Um, being mentioned in another Wikimedia project does not in any way convey notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unless that mention shows you shaking hands with the president of another country, you a notable enough reporter to fly over there and meet with the guy. And as I said, he was mentioned in other news sources. Dream Focus 22:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Again, that's an unfair assumption. See citizen journalism. I saw the president of the U.S. once, am I notable? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you interviewed him and millions of people read about it, then yes, that would make you notable. Dream Focus 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Millions of people read about it? To quote a phrase popular here - "citation needed". Achromatic (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you were invited by another country to be a citizen journalist it sure would seem exceptional, and then add interviewing (not seeing) the president by granted interview which itself was reported on by independent media. Yea, it might, or at least suggest this is an exceptional situation. -- Banjeboi 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Being mentioned in a few news articles isn't the same as those articles being entirely about you. And even the ones that are more substantial, like CJR, appear to be more about the phenomena of citizen journalism and how Shankbone is an example of it, than about him himself. The rest of the blog and wikinews sources are not an indication of notability. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Per sufficient references. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - he is the subject of multiple articles in Columbia Journalism Review and other reliable media; notable (if amateur) journalist. Disclosure: I read some of these articles on my own. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking substantial coverage, a marginal BLP. Grsz¹¹ 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the CJR article, a feature primarily about him. If he were not a Wikipedian, that source for notability would have been sufficient & this article would probably never have been questioned. The article needs some editing, but that's another matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Keep per justen, JNW, and the guy right above me who doesn't have a name attached to his comment. There seems to be some interesting bits in the article that we are being let know of. Can someone point me to the policy that this article is coming up against? Varks Spira (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The Columbia Journalism Review defines him as being below non-notable in his field: "Although Miller has managed interviews with a few high-profile subjects like Peres, he's relatively unknown outside the Wiki community. Some of his pieces have page views in the single digits." Warrah (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• weak keep A lot of the arguments being used here for deletion are questionable. For example the claim that because his notability extends from Wikipedia we should have a higher bar and not have "navel-gazing" isn't valid. Although we need to be especially careful for matters that related to Wikpedia, the bar for Wikipedia related material should be identical. Also, the claim that being described as "relatively unknown" in a major reliable source that discusses you in detail makes you not-notable misses the entire notion of what WP:N relies on, coverage. If (hypothetically) soemthing was covered extensively as the least known example of an X, it would make it a notable X. These weak arguments need to be disregarded. That said, my keep is only weak because while I think he meets the notability criteria, I'm not completely convinced of that. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep While I would certainly not trust Wikinews as any sort of reliable source, the individual has received coverage in numerous reliable sources outside the Wikirealm for his work as a journalist, thus meeting the criteria set by WP:GNG. And as interesting as it might be that one reliable source might define him as non-notable in his field, Wikipedia does not use their standards. We use our own... and it is the extensive coverage of him (despite their definition) that specifically makes him notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, Wikinews has extensive reviewing and articles once completed and extensively reviewed are permanently protected. Wikinews is indeed cited on a variety of Wikipedia pages. (COI disclaimer, I'm a Wikinews admin) JoshuaZ (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Aplogies JoshuaZ, as no disrespect was intended. My first sentence was meant to be read with irony. As even the nominator discredits the article because of its use of Wikinews, I wished to underscore that the man's notability can be found through his coverage in numerous sources outside of the Foundation's children. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It's ridiculous that we're citing "Wikinews" at all. That is only one of the many source problems with this article - to support several assertions, it cites his own blog, for example.67.160.100.233 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm a sysop at Wikinews as well, and I know that, like the vast majority of all wikis, it is not considered a reliable source suitable for use as a citation within encyclopedic articles, nor does it help to establish notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I am really going to have to take you to task on that issue of suitability for citation Julian. [And, yes, for those not unfortunate enough to have run up against me in a irked frame of mind before, I'm a Wikinews sysop and bureaucrat]. For all I care about the notability argument everyone can resort to lobbing items at each other about it over the inclusionist/deletionist divide. But, you are dismissing a great deal of effort applied to make Wikinews citable. I have taken an active part in working towards that, and you give the impression of casually lumping in the considerable effort some make to carry out original reporting with synthesis articles. Not for a moment would I argue that the 'average' synthesis article from multiple mainstream sources should be cited on Wikipedia - in that case the sources the article is synthesised from should be cited - a principle I encourage Wikinewsies to reciprocate - don't cite Wikipedia. But let me give you a specific example, Tony Benn. One I can speak of because I carried out the original reporting, I interviewed Tony Benn. I published an article on Wikinews, and from that made a small change to his article. Conflict of interest aside, this discussion prompted me to look for that - and it's gone. Casual inspection of the history to see what happened? I would rather not say what I think of POV-ish edits prior to it's removal, but if you're telling me that an interview, conducted by telephone, with the subject's widely-known voice quite clear, and made publicly available on Commons doesn't make some Wikinews content credible then... well... you are calling me and everyone else on Wikinews fantasists or fabricators. So Julian, and for the benefit of everyone else I've uninvitedly inflicted this rant on, before you dismiss Wikinews as unciteable or not credible, justify your argument instead of using it as a glib put-down. There's plenty of instances of those prized 'credible' sources fabricating items, and making no effort to prove they've done the work. --Brian McNeil /^talk 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is a borderline case that merits very, very careful consideration (obviously). It irks me personally that we should have any biography of a Wikipedian who is primary notable for their work on the site, and I would hate setting a precedent for this kind of thing. But if this were any other subject under the sun, I would resoundingly say keep based on sources such as the interviews and the use of his photography by several major publications. Those making comments about self-promotion by David are clearly assuming bad faith. Anyone who's been the subject of a Wikipedia bio will tell you it's often a thorn in their side. Also note that the David Gerard case is no way a mandate on the issue, especially considering it was closed early and revolved around a disambig page to boot. All these factors, but first and foremost the sourcing to reliable publications, sways my opinion. Steven Walling 07:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikinews doesn't convey notability, and neither do photographs. The media reports that I would consider independent and reliable are really only passing mentions; being called a "leading Wikipedia editor" by the Post doesn't carry much weight (do any of these presses actually have a decent understanding of what goes on here?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Well, it passes notability, and I don't mind that the subject is Wikipedia-related. Not navel gazing. Not self-promotion, evidently. But I can hear the delete side as well. For me the deciding vote should be cast by Sir Shank-bizzy himself. What do you say, David? -- Y not? 13:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would hope that such a vote would be discarded by the closing admin, per WP:COI. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Shankbone's not voting. And I don't have a COI. -- Y not? 14:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say you did. I said that the subject of the article casting a vote would be. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Most work is self-published. Article has few good sources and unlikely it ever will. The user would be completely unheard of but for his endless self-promotion. Just put this information on the user's page. Justforasecond (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - CJR atricle is more on the notion of amateur/citizen journalism than Shankbone himself (and also notes his non-importance)/. Thus per WP:BIO we fall back on the "multiple independent sources" bit, which certainly isn't there. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, how does that non-importance part play in here? It doesn't. We're interested in notability, not what a website thinks of his style. Also, if you've read the CJR article, you'll see that it is entirely about him (it mentions other Wikinews editors in, at most, one paragraph). Master of Puppets 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Lets see, of all the references listed, there are six reliable sources that are about Shankbone. I'm not including any references that are by him, self published material (eg - his blog), references that feature his photography, travel promotional pieces, anything from WikiNews, or that are blogs. I'm posting these citations as a itemized list because that makes it easier to see the full import of them, rather than searching through all the comments here or in the article. Listed roughly in order of significance, IMO:

1. Columbia Journalism Review - 1843 word signed article from CJR, published by Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Very major and in-depth article totally focused on David and his work. This is the most prestigious and significant coverage of the bunch. Includes ten direct quotes from Shankbone/Miller and his name is mentioned some 40 times. Includes snippets from two of Shankbone's interviews. This is clearly about Shankbone and not the concept of a citizen journalist.[4]
2. Brooklyn Rail - 1535 word signed interview in a monthly mazgazine. Entire article is an interview with Shankbone and covers his interviews and photography. Totally and completely about Shankbone and his work. Very significant.[5]
3. Haaretz - 1122 word signed article. Almost entirely focused on Shankbone, and with some background. Includes ten direct quotes from Shankbone and his name was mentioned 21 times. Clearly a significant article about him.[6]
4. Information Week - 301 word signed article. Not very long, but entire article covers Shankbone's exclusive interview with Peres. Significant.[7]
5. Jewish Week - 1060 words, of which 426 words, or 40% are focused on Shankbone's photographic work. Also not very long, but it includes four direct quotes from him and it's mostly about his photography. That makes it significant coverage, rather than just mentioning in passing. The rest is on other members of that trip to Israel, The Gaza war, and background.[8]
6. Jerusalem Post - 174 word signed article. Relatively short, but clearly more than a mention or a blurb (ie - one paragraph). Entirely focused on Shankbone and his trip to Israel. [9]

I think it should be very clear that these constitute multiple, non-trivial, independent, neutral, published, and verifiable sources, per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Those that claim that all the sources are self published or are primarily photographic content apparently haven't looked at these references closely enough, which is why I'm posting this in this format. The CJR article alone would be almost enough, considering it's academic source and import related to journalism. Coupled with the Brooklyn Rail and Haaretz articles, it's a slam dunk. Clearly satisfies WP:NOTABILITY. — Becksguy (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Achromatic originally threaded his responses to sources three and five above. I have consolidated them below for clarity. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would disagree - though Shankbone is a major source for the article, it is discussing how "image" on Wiki "counts" - and by image, it discusses issues such as how often the word "occupation" appears in relation to Palestine, and how Wikipedia is being used as a reference by people, and accordingly how it compares to other sites, such as Conservapedia, Google Knol, etc. Achromatic (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Again, disagree - the article is NOT "mostly about his photography". The article is mostly about "photo editing Israel's online image". Three small paragraphs, and one quote can be attributed to discussing Shankbone, and of those, a couple are also quite generalized. I'm not entirely sure how you got to 426 words, either. My best estimate, pasting every paragraph or sentence that referred to Shankbone resulted in barely 300 words. Achromatic (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Becksguy's summary and Steven Walling's argument above. If these references were included in any other AfD discussion I would certianly vote keep, I'm not going to change my interpretation of the notability criteria simply because Shankbone is a Wikipedia editor. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Several people have alerted me to this AFD and requested comment. So I did the sensible thing and asked David for his opinion. He doesn't mind very much one way or the other. Now why is it important to get the subject's own opinion? Well, for one thing David is the only other Wikipedian besides myself who admits to having been the target of editing-related harassment so severe that the FBI opened an investigation. We went public together, and I can personally confirm a portion of the description he gave about his ordeal for the Brooklyn Rail. So he has no strong feelings about whether this article gets kept or deleted, he's borderline notability, so let the chips fall where they may. Durova³³¹ 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Durova - good call, indeed - Alison ^❤ 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Mike R (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• A few data points:

Regarding the EB pic. See the story of my image of Taliesin West, used in EB, with credit to me, and it was an unsolicited usage... I never suggested it to them. Subsequently picked up by a fair few other users as well. (not trying to toot my horn here, it's a nothing special image, I just got lucky)

Regarding Google, my current ghits: 103,000. David's current ghits: 75,200.

Yet I am not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Marginally notable at best. Default to delete. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: corrected error in ghit link (which changes ghits from 94K to 75K, making the case more strongly. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguments that ignore policy or go against it can be dismissed by the closing admin. If you can't relate a notability argument, even implicitly, with WP:N or one of its related guidelines, the time you spent here may be wasted. See WP:GHITS. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm comfortable that I've sufficiently related my arguments to policy that the will be heeded, though. Further, the comment about the EB pic stands, as it is entirely unrelated to GHITS. That pic confers no notability. Finally, in view of how events have unfolded, this individual is not notable enough for the investment in time (the time spent keeping the article free of urinating goat pics and so forth), unlike Barack Obama, who is. Marginally notable BLP that's a vandalism magnet? Lose it. We have more important things to not keep clean adequately. ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see your side of things... user:J aka justen (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is that it's too much trouble to fight vandalism, so ditch it? I'm really not sure we should be weighting deletion discussions by how much vandalism the subject attracts. While I know permanent semi-protection isn't really considered kosher, if we're going to start breaking out IAR, I'd veer in that direction. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The sources that mention him seem to establish notability, IMHO. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Two cents: Regardless of whether or not the articles in question were picked up my mainstream media, really makes no difference here. In fact i can see that as the only argument being used as to why they should not be allowed. Just because some network called CNN or FOX News doesn't cover something, doesn't make it news. I think that aside of the fact the Wikinews was very young in 2005, i will point out probably one of the most credible and notable works for Wikinews was the coverage of the London bombings. I can point out others, if maybe some would take the time to google it. So if this is the only argument then it is nothing more than people wanting the sandbox all to themselves. Present an argument of policy. DragonFire1024 (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete He did one notable thing in his history. He did a good interview or two, he should get a mention on Wikinews, tops. Brion is more notable in my book, and he gets a redirect to Mediawiki. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete concur Shoone (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The concerns regarding notability do convince me. I've scanned the article I'm not convinced in that respect either that this article meets the standards for notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sticking with my "keep" above: I have been notified that Prodego has changed to delete on the basis that the "first" in first citizen journalist is not verified (and the article has been changed). For posterity, I would like to record that I have no knowledge of the politics of this situation other than it is obviously problematic when an article about a Wikipedian pops up. Perhaps WP:BIO should have a section specifically for well-known Wikipedians to the effect that extra off-wiki notability is required to justify an article about a user, where the article was created after the user started editing. Meanwhile, whether or not "first" is true, my feeling is that notability is sufficiently established by the articles about the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Whilst it is always a controversy about keeping articles about people who edit WMF projects, the line " In December 2007, he became the first of the website's citizen journalists to interview a sitting head of state, Israeli President Shimon Peres." coupled with the other interviews he's done is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Perhaps this is the type of thing all us Wikimedians should be striving for! fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per iridescent, but weakly. Crafty (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Appears to meet notability threshold; CJR piece is a good point in favor of keeping; that notability arises primarily from Wiki projects shouldn't matter one way or the other. Rivertorch (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This article has gone through extensive improvements since it was put up for deletion.[10] For my part, I removed one of the blog entries, and one of the NYT articles which didnt mention David. Ikip (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep appears to be notable enough via the sources provided. Ikip (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. He is not notable outside the Wiki community. The article seems to portray the subject as a mainstream "photographer" and "writer" which he is not. If the article didn't have his contributions to wikipedia listed as references then the article would be a very speedy delete. When(?) he enters the mainstream then there would be a valid reason for an article.Surfing bird (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

• Comment I’m not convinced that the Brooklyn Rail is particularly noteworthy: not only its own article but those of publisher Phong Bui and editor Theodore_Hamm were written by their subjects without any sources.[11][12][13] This publication has real world ties with User:Huckandrazz and Mr. Shankbone alike; see for example:[14]67.160.100.233 (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Deeeleeeeeette puffery about an individual who is non notable outside the enWP community, dressed up to look like a grown up biography (utterly deplorable sourcing to amateur journalism site and various unreliable blogs). Viridae^Talk 10:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Further note, that I completely agree with Riskers delete reason, her eloquent efforts mirrors my reasoning, which was poorly expressed here. Viridae^Talk 23:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CJR being an amateur journalism site or perhaps an unreliable blog? DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep From curiosity I rewrote the article in another language (see la:David Shankbone), filtering out the purely internal references to Wikipedia. The exercise persuaded me, against NonvocalScream and Surfing bird above, that when this filtering is done, notability remains. (For full disclosure: as will be seen from one of the footnote references on the translated page, I had heard the name David Shankbone before!) Andrew Dalby 12:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you re write this one... I have been known to change my mind. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Prodego and Warrah. I saw him on People's Court once, but he's still not notable enough to be burdened with a Wikipedia biography. I did get my first Latin Wikipedia edit though. Good times. Lara 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. There are a lot of arguments either discussing notability without regard to what WP:N or WP:BIO actually say, or even contradicting them. At the same time, we have plenty of Keep editors citing WP:N on the necessary amount of sourcing, and citing the Columbia Journalism Review article as meeting the criteria for WP:N, so what value should the closing admin put on Delete comments that ignore this? Strong "delete" arguments would discuss the CJR article. (Tarc's argument does this, and I don't think it can be discounted.) Comments that amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be totally discounted. This shouldn't be a popularity contest. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Interviews a sitting head of state, mentioned in the Columbia Journalism Review, the Haaretz and Information Week, his work being used by The New York Times and Encylopaedia Britannica, Time Out and The Guardian. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Skinwalker (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• As your comment is currently phrased, I think it can only be described as poorly considered and not in line with wp:agf. The subject of the article did not create the article, as far as I know did not advocate for its creation, and has not argued for its retention. He has become notable through his contributions primarily to another project, and I don't believe it's fair to assume that he undertook that work in order to become notable. Others here who have argued "navel gazing" and so forth might have been arguing some sort of collective issue, but your comment directly implicates someone who, so far as we know, probably would prefer not to have to deal with this article. Calling it "self-promotion" is a very poor, very unfair, and very inaccurate allegation. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your opinion. Skinwalker (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Please consider this simplistic question as an ironic muse and not meant to denigrate anyone in these discussions, but will there soon be a referundum to delete any article about any editor who has a notability that stems from, is a result of, or developed from their work on Wikipedia, even if they are covered by sources outside the project? Sometimes and surprisingly, the outside world does pay attention to what goes on within these pages. Not to be WP:WAXing, but I'd hate to see this escalate to the point where we have new debates over inclusion of such as Jimy Wales, Larry Sanger, or Richard Stallman. And yes... editors may not wish to classify David Shankbone with these luminaries, but where do editors wish to draw the line? Even without Wikinews, the available off-Wikipedia sources appear to meet the inclusion requirements of WP:BIO... and that would seem to indicate some rewrite or cleanup if one dismisses all Wikinews, but not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep 'Nuff said. To have that in-depth of an article on oneself by the CJR is clear evidence of notability. I'm puzzled by remarks of how the journal doesn't tout him as a master wordsmith; does that mean he's not notable? This isn't about his quality as a journalist. It's about his notability. I'm firmly leaning on a keep here. Master of Puppets 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Anyone and everyone the leading RS in the world for the subject (in this case the CJR) does a full article on is notable. And certainly they are if there is a 2nd unrelated source, with significant coverage--in this case the Jerusalem Post. We are not here to evaluate his work, or to say how important we personally think he ought to be. We are here to see if people outside Wikipedia think him notable, and that's been proven. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment After some investigation, it's my opinion that User:Huckandraz (contributions,) who created this article,[15] has also edited under (at least) the following usernames:

User:Babyrockcontributions

User:Lyltrycontributions

User:Profgregorycontributions

User:Vanguard121contributions

See also User:Easyreeder(contributions) on Wikinews.

67.160.100.233 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess the point of this is to say that the article is not by David Shankbone (as some above have implied) but by someone who (a) has a lot of usernames and (b) is (maybe?) known to David Shankbone. Interesting ... but the article was sure to be started by someone. So, how is this relevant to the question of Shankbone's notability? Andrew Dalby 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• keep per Becksguy and MoP. Folks, this isn't even close. WP:N is easily met. Easily. Anyone who !votes to delete needs to explain why the sources cited by Becksguy don't meet WP:N/WP:BIO. Whole articles on the topic by significant newspapers are enough unless you want to argue NOTNEWS or one event. Which no one has that I can tell... Hobit (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep CJR piece passes the general notability guideline. It's about him. Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Has David weighed on this AFD? I would be interested on his take. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes he has. See User talk:David Shankbone#AfD nomination of David Shankbone in which he says he will sit this one out. And that is entirely right and proper in one's own article AfD. Also see comment above in which Durova said that Shankbone had indicated that "He doesn't mind very much one way or the other." [if it's kept or deleted]. — Becksguy (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Becksguy. --Tom (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep, all indications point to notability. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I sincerely hope this doesn't become another Elonka Dunin situation. It really pisses me off when editors here show that they have nothing better to do than repeatedly attack a notable individual who also happens to edit Wikipedia (as millions of others do around the world). The extensive coverage easily demonstrates and exceeds the notability bar for biographies. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion the article and voting on its deletion cannot be construed as "attacking" the subject. It stands or it falls on its merits. As I've said before, the attacking will likely start when his BLP is live here and people start the inevitable shit-and-drama-fest around what goes into it and what doesn't. It's a magnet for BLP violations and as it's on a non-notable individual, it needs to go - Alison ^❤ 19:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh wait!! :/ - Alison ^❤ 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you Alison for your two cents, but I believe I have made my point crystal clear. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete - marginal notability and a big bullseye for the subject's detractors, as we can already see from the ANI report. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a reason to delete. Arguing potential BLP violations is WP:CRYSTAL, even if there is an ANI thread already. It would also facilitate and encourage potential BLP warriors to influence what articles stay and what they say. There are many, many articles that are "BLP magnets". We don't delete because of what BLP violators may, or may not, do to an article. Using that logic, lets delete Obama's articles, especially the "birther" one. — Becksguy (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as the Columbia Journalism Review and InformationWeek appear to constitute enough coverage to establish notability. Alison, among others, have mentioned problems with the article (tone, puffery), but that's not a valid reason to delete. As stated by WP:BEFORE, deletion isn't for cleanup -- problems with the article that can be fixed are reasons to fix the article, not delete it. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep His is a prominent citizen journalist. As a photographer, he is clearly of some sort of notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Prominent, yes. Notable, no - Alison ^❤ 00:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Are you arguing that the sources don't meet WP:N or are you arguing that WP:N is the wrong measure here? If the first, could you address Becksguy's analysis of the sources? If the second, could you explain why? Hobit (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Essentially per GlassCobra (talk · contribs), Iridescent (talk · contribs), Alison (talk · contribs), Warrah (talk · contribs), David Fuchs (talk · contribs), and Surfing bird (talk · contribs). However, I feel like noting that I highly respect David Shankbone's work and I very much appreciate his contributions to the various wiki communities. :) Cirt (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Cirt. If kept would need a substantial rewrite and trim. --John (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets notability standards. Being associated with Wikipedia does not preclude an article about him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete claims to notability (such as the EB bit) have been shown to be false or disingenuous. No notability satisfactorily established as required. Martin Raybourne (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep CJR profile and work with New York Times and other notable outlets is sufficient to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I think with the kind of sourcing this article has, our standards of notability are easily met, and we likely would not be having this conversation if the subject were not a Wikimedian. LadyofShalott 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep CJR profile along with other significant coverage clearly satisfies our notability guidelines, so much so that if he were not a wikipedian, nomination and delete votes would be unlikely. A navel taboo, rather than obsession with navel-gazing may be at work.John Z (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep You're being too hard on this guy. Seriously, it's only disk space, which is cheap these days. Art Cancro (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, mainly per Cla86. Also, I'm having trouble with the phrase "citizen journalist". What journalists aren't citizens? Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient coverage to meet notability requirements. Ty 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I was talking to my wife about this article over dinner, we had some friends round for some roast beef and they were talking about it too. Our friend Artie reckons that if he can be found in a local paper and his pictures have been used then that makes him notable, but my wife pointed out that the pictures were used after they were submitted into a submit-your-own, then it's a different case. She reckoned the same went for the cartoon. There is a man in a town near us who takes photographs of bins, he is always in the paper! I reckon he is a bit of a goofball but my wife things they are quite charming and she has one of his bin pictures up in her workshop. (She didn't buy one but she cut it out of the paper. I don't consider that art, but that's hardly the point). Anyway, our other friend Wanda had similar ideas to my wife, she reckoned that David needs to be notable outside of being a wikipedia editor, otherwise there would be articles about all the wikipedia editors that get in the press. It would certainly create a precedent. And then when we had finished dinner and I was doing the washing up I was having a think, and I just don't think he really passes the notability lines - he is a prolific photographer to be sure and no doubt a talented man, but is this coverage enough? We decided as a dinner party that he wasn't, atlhough Artie still insisted perhaps he was. My wife and Artie never agree. Anyway, must be off, but wishing you all the best with your deletion discussion. Your friend, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What do Artie, Wanda and your wife think about the amount of detail in the Columbia Journalism Review article and whether that meets the significant coverage criteria of the General notability guideline? What do you think about it? Are these trash bins, recycling bins or some other kind of bins? JohnWBarber (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Note to closing admin. Near as I can reckon, what we're looking at here with the ole gorse vote is three deletes ("Hands of gorse, "that editor's wife", and "Wanda") and one keeper ("Artie"). Obviously the keeper cancels out one of the delete votes (let's say Gorse's wife, since she and Artie never agree) so in the end we're left with two deletes and a handful of shrubberies (somebody's gonna be happy!). Not sure how that will factor in when the AfD hits closing time, but just wanted to sum things up here in the interim before I go finish my laundry. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment I can't speak for Artie or Wanda, but my wife doesn't even like the Columbia Journalism Review in the house. She's got high standards. I don't think he discriminates on which bin- but she's got a picture of a large red one on her office wall. There's no accounting for taste. Yours, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient sources to show that he is notable for his wiki related activities. Salih (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Sufficient sources establish notability (including the Columbia Journalism Review, Haaretz, Information Week, and others) and verifiability. This is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles that could be improved" or "Articles that could be edited to a more neutral point of view". —Finell (Talk) 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and sourced. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Hands of gorse, heart of steel SheepNotGoats (Talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems very strange to have an article about David; I think of him as a fellow Wikipedia editor. But the article is acceptably sourced; if this discussion were about a non-Wikipedian photographer, I'd vote keep based on the sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Solid article 78.55.102.86 (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep - has sources; no valid reason for deletion that I can see William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Evidently notable - the sources provided are ample for our purposes, as detailed above.Colonel Warden (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not Borderline-notable as per the most reliable source we have in this case: the Columbia Journalism Review article, which says, "Although Miller has managed interviews with a few high-profile subjects like Peres, he's relatively unknown outside the Wiki community. Some of his pieces have page views in the single digits." (emphasis added) I am surprised that this source is being used to establish notability; has everyone here read the article ? Abecedare (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please see see our guideline which explains that notability is not importance or fame. Many or most of our articles are about topics which are unknown outside of a small community. For example, one can click random article to come up with something like Yusuf ibn Abu Dhaqn which is obscure but notable nonetheless. Your point is thus refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• To reinforce Colonel Warden’s point, here is another random example; the topic Taylor–Green vortex is notable in Wikipedia sense, but largely unknown outside the small community of fluid dynamicists. Salih (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously. This article shows no signs of any notability and reads like a fan site. We do not need or want articles like this, period. Majorly talk 02:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the statement by Baseball Bugs, not wanting to delete simply because it looks like self-promotion. Wow, who is going to have the gonads to close this discussion? Quality of argument being the deciding factor, nevertheless it was 46-40 !votes to keep at this writing. Combine that with the founder's thumbs down on his talk page, you the closing admin have to have them. Good luck! Sswonk (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per Jimbo Wales Newt ^(winkle) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification: Jimbo said, "If I were to vote ..." He has chosen not to vote. —Finell (Talk) 16:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless he expressed an opinion, and we can vote per that opinion. Your objection is without merit. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't make any objection. I didn't say to delete it or to disregard it. I made a clarification: Jimbo said how he would vote if he voted, but he chose not to vote here. It is not as though Jimbo said, "Please post my vote to delete"; he didn't. That is all I did. Everyone can read what Jimbo said and can be influenced, or not, as they see fit. Please lose the hostile tone. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Clarification: Perhaps I should spell things out. In generally, having biographical articles about living people of marginal notability seems like a bad idea for Wikipedia. This is what I think Wales said (and meant). In addition to being about an (at best) marginally notable person, the person here is mostly known because of his work on Wikipedia, and some people seem to think the references are not very good either. All in all, it seems like a Delete. Please consider that this explanation replaces my more terse "vote" above. Newt ^(winkle) 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - If you create a page for everyone in Columbia periodicals that will be all you do all day. 85.3.127.116 (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Shankbone has done a lot for the project and if he wants to have his own article then why shouldn't he? Rhomb (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that wanting an article is not a policy-based reason to have one. Majorly talk 11:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The world hardly needs the article and it could do with some pruning; but there are clearly reliable sources that establish notability. N p holmes (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep More than a few notable accomplishments with an ongoing journalistic, photographic agenda. David is very modestly notable...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Idon'tlikeit, but Becksguy's argument is compelling. HiDrNick! 13:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks sufficient notability with due reference to the sources provided. I think we should ask ourselves whether this individual would be considered notable if his contributions were to another volunteer website, rather than our volunteer website. I doubt it and, considering the supporting sources are weak (IMO), I believe navel-gazing is skewing this towards a false impression of notability. (Note, I enhanced this rationale after suggestions that the previous !vote may be discounted for not being sufficiently expansive) Rockpocket 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Hi everyone I don't know if my vote counts because I don't do anything here, but I say keep. I had not heard of the guy, but I read Andrew Sullivan's blog, and he wrote about this guy's experience with Susan Sarandon http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/news-of-the-weird.html# After I read his post about it, I wanted to find out more about who wrote it so I came to Wikipedia. Seems like that's what you guys do. I didn't see any bad press in there, so maybe that could make it more even? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyarouge (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete 1) very poorly sourced 2) marginally notable at best 3) would not even be discussed if he wasn't a wikipedian. That alone is grounds for a default delete, but add to that the fact that this will be a drama magnet, and that wikipedia's processes and protection and utterly inadequate for us to responsibly maintain any marginal and controversial BLP subject, and this is a no-brainer.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I won't quibble with the fact that this subject technically passes the general notability guideline. He does, but not by nearly as much as some are suggesting, and almost no one here is denying that Shankbone's notability is marginal. Were he to ask for deletion, we would almost certainly oblige him, and it's a damn shame he has not done that because: A) Given Shankbone's "controversial" (for lack of a better word) persona here on Wikipedia, the article will (indeed has) inevitably come under BLP attack, and we have unfortunately demonstrated that we cannot at the moment necessarily protect marginal BLPs from defamation; B) Simply discussing and working on the article, discussing it here at AfD, and discussing and dealing with it for years to come will take up an inordinate amount of energy, particularly for a barely notable BLP which is, to be blunt, not particularly important to Wikipedia. So on the one hand you can call this a "far more trouble then it's worth, let's apply some common sense here" delete !vote. I would also invoke the spirit but not the letter of the summary deletion of BLPs principle from a 2007 ArbCom case. There is a precedent for going somewhat out of process when it comes to BLPs and I think that should be applied here. Arguably we should not have marginally notable BLPs at all, but I certainly think we should delete such BLPs when we know (and we do know, because it has already happened) that we are going to have difficulty keeping defamatory edits out. Rather than wasting further time and resources (and I think we all know that's what will happen, probably in both the short and long run) worrying and arguing about this article that few outside Wikipedia would give a whit about, let's delete it for the sake of the encyclopedia and David's own sake. I only wish he would request deletion for those same reasons, as that would likely make this AfD a foregone conclusion and save us a lot of trouble. I hope the closing admin considers factors beyond notability here, as WP:GNG is not the only community norm relevant to this discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent argument, it really almost convinces me. It's essentially an WP:IAR argument, because policy, guidelines and their applicability to the facts couldn't be more clear (especially since most of the editors who expressed a view on the CJR article have said it confirms notability). But IAR is subject to consensus, and there is no consensus for delete here. An admin delete against both the rules and the consensus is an abuse, and it's an insult to all the editors who took some time to come up with careful reasons. For those concerned about BLP problems in general (I'm one), enforcing the rules we have is the best way to get improvements in the rules. The last person we should bend the notability guideline for is someone who's a Wikipedian because it makes us look like we're playing favorites. Yes, to have this article will be a pain in the butt, especially for admins involved; sticking to the rules does that. Let the pressure to improve BLP protection increase. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The rules are unenforcable, because they do not upscale to the number of problematic articles. Changing that on wikipedia is not done by legislating, it is done by setting new precedents. Deleting articles like this is exactly the way, and the only way, to change things.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Grab power contrary to clear policy, in this case deletion policy and guidelines and notability guidelines, and you make a joke out of AfD participation by anyone but the closing admin. Destroying Wikipedians' confidence that participation will be subject to the rules will hurt Wikipedia far more than help it. If a consensus of editors wants to do an IAR runaround, then fine -- IAR is a policy too. But you don't create a precedent that's worth anything if it's contrary to consensus. If it somehow became a precedent, it would be a chaotic, dangerous one resulting in admins ignoring these and eventually other rules. Real precedents are created by a consensus of editors that eventually gets put into policy. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• To JohnWBarber, I definitely agree with the general tenor of your comment here. Trying to force things through without consensus almost never goes over well and should generally be avoided whenever possible. I'm not sure it's operative here though. I would argue that this debate could reasonably be closed as keep, no consensus defaulting to keep, or no consensus defaulting to delete. The former two are defensible if we think primarily in terms of notability and if we close "no consensus" AfDs in the traditional manner. However this section of the deletion policy specifically notes that "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, especially if the subject has requested deletion, where there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." While Shankbone has obviously not asked for deletion, admins still have some latitude (and this is re-enforced by a couple of different ArbCom decisions) to close a BLP like this one as "delete". Would that be bold and controversial? Yes, of course. But I don't think it would clearly be contrary to policy, and it would be very much in the spirit of a steadily increasing consensus that we need to get a better hold on the marginal BLPs and make it easier to delete them—i.e. it would set a precedent that a lot of people believe needs to be set, and would not defile existing policy while doing so. I think this debate is, objectively, "no consensus," but the nature of the article and the debate here means that both defaulting to keep and defaulting to delete are legitimate outcomes. It's a difficult call. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

• Delete as navel-gazing that, with Shankbone's nature, is going to fall foul of WP:BLP, and horribly so. Ironholds (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I just read this comment by Jimbo Wales, which I found to be quite vague and unhelpful, in his usual ambiguous tone and style of writing. Disappointing, really, because this biography does have sufficient sources to withstand the test of WP:BLP, meanwhile we have THOUSANDS of other articles which do not and will not. Ever. And those should be deleted without question. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes notability thresholds. Like it or not, WP is one of the most visited websites in the world and a few WP people are going to become well-known and merit articles. I don't find Bigtimepeace's arguments convincing; put it under semi- or full-protection if defamatory edits are the problem. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It WILL be a defamation problem. A good number of lesser-notable BLPs are. That is because such articles are underwatched by people knowledgeable enough to spot the problems, so often the defamations go unnoticed for months at a time. The idea that we solve this by using protection or semi-protection would be fine, if we permanently offered that protection to all such articles. Otherwise your solution will only ever shut the door after the horse bolts. It is a bit like saying we can prevent crime by locking up all the guilty people - you only know they are guilty once the crime has been committed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So we don't have articles on living people, or even mention them, unless 10 people have them on a watchlist? I realize that's taking your argument to an extreme, but I want to know your proposal for fixing the problem and how deleting this article fits into your proposed solution. We agree there is a problem, but deleting marginally notable BLP entries isn't going to fix it. Any article that mentions a person could be a defamation problem. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Seems absolutely notable under every interpretation of WP:GNG. --Cyclopia^talk 01:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete; I don't know if anybody has pointed this out, but the sole claim to notability is his interview of Shimon Perez; this means his article falls under the WP:ONEEVENT guideline. Abductive (reasoning) 05:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• No one has pointed this out (maybe) because it is false. If you read the article, you find that there is RS coverage of the guy before and after the Peres interview. Clearly not one event. --Cyclopia^talk 12:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Cyclopia. Clearly not one event as Peres is only the most significant interview, not the only one. WP:ONEEVENT does not apply. — Becksguy (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, the one event was the trip to Israel. This can be confirmed by a Google News search using "david shankbone" -peres. All the returns a about that trip, and are the papers reporting a Israeli Foreign Ministry press release. Abductive (reasoning) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Perez interview was in December 2007; the CJR article was in the January/February 2009 issue. Are you suggesting the Columbia Journalism Review was simply two years late? CJR used the Perez interview as an anecdote to get readers to read a magazine article about Shankbone. The article is not mostly about the Perez interview. This isn't all about one event. JohnWBarber (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I am pleased that people read and responded to my argument on its merits. I note that the 2009 CJR article, which is about how he scored the Peres interview, calls him "little-known". Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Not pertinent to notability now. Most people (excluding those riding on the coattails of the very famous or notable) are little known, or unknown before the reliable sources makes them notable. That what RS does, establish notability. That CJR said he is a "little-known" at the time of the interview means nothing except he started out little known except to the Wiki community before the CJR article came out. And now the six reliable sources I listed have made him notable. — Becksguy (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Which, of course, has nothing to do with notability by Wikipedia standards. A lot of "well-known" youtube celebrities do not have their own article; many "little known" villages do, along with obscure yet important scientific concepts. What CJR describes him as is irrelevant; the fact that CJR wrote about him is. Tim Song (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The "little known" characterization, if made by a reliable source, does two things; first, it undermines all the previous mentions of the subject. Second, it allows me to say, with some confidence, that the CJR article is about the scoring of the Peres interview, not about Shankbone. Abductive (reasoning) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete; Marginal notability at best with spurious sourcing, then add the BLP problems and that the lousy quality of the current version of the article and there is no reason to keep. Pantherskin (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per all my comments and arguments here, above and below, as well as those from all the other Keep arguments. Noticed I hadn't actually !voted and today is the 7th day of discussion, so getting this in before the AfD closes and I don't have time to make other arguments, comments, or responses. Which is what we all should be doing really, hold a full civil, interactive, and productive discussion, followed by a Keep/Delete/Merge !vote. — Becksguy (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have reviewed the article and have giving strong consideration to WP:BIO and WP:N. I am convinced that this article passes the notability challenge, tho I do believe it needs to be tidied up a bit. Basket of Puppies 14:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete; not notable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This seems to meet our basic standards, other issues can be resolved through editing. There is enough reliable sources out there to make a verifiable article and notability has been established in my opinion. Chillum 15:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Both sides have a point, although IMO the CJR ref is the only substantial one. I would point out to whoever is brave enough to close this that the nice big {{rescue}} tag at the top of the article seems to have generated vastly more "keep, obviously notable" comments than actual work to improve the article (aside from some very good work by Banjiboi (talk · contribs)); not that we close these things on head count, of course. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Empty !votes on all sides will likely be given due weight. Taking a jab at the Article rescue Squdron seems unproductive and one easily could make the case that use of the tags also generates empty "Delete, not notable" comments. In any case the article should be kept or deleted for it's own merits and there is plenty of thoughtful discussion here to help make the right decision. -- Banjeboi 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • In my experience, the presence of a {{rescue}} tag attracts more unconstructive "keep" comments than unconstructive "delete" comments. Furthermore, I can readily name a half-dozen editors whose appearance during such debates is virtually guaranteed. You're well aware of this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: per Iridescent, Cirt and others. Shankbone is a solid editor/admin/etc whom I respect but this belongs in his user space/page not article space. The term meta-encyclopedic comes to mind. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Becksguy, this shows notability. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Much was made of claims that BLP wasn't taken sufficiently into consideration. Although this is, obviously, a BLP article, there are no BLP problems in the article at this time. None. Shankbone has not requested deletion, there is no damaging material in the article. None. And arguing that it's a BLP magnet is WP:CRYSTAL and using that as a deletion rationale has absolutely no basis in policy or guidelines. And that argument also applies to many, many other BLP related articles. Should Sara Palin be deleted because of BLP issues? How about Joe the plumber. That was a BLP mess around the 2008 election. But it got fixed. How about E.O. Green School shooting. That has been a BLP magnet in the past and the same arguments were attempted. But it also got fixed. If we give in to deliberate BLP violators, then we have facilitated and encouraged them to control what articles stay or go. Just waltz over to Wikipedia, BLP violate an article enough, WP:GAME the system, and get what you want. Just like paying ransom facilitates and encourages kidnapping. Yes, protecting BLP articles is a pain, sometimes a really big pain, but that is the price we pay for having articles on notable people, especially controversial notable people, and in having open editing. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions will help in protecting BLP articles from attack and a trial of that is supposed to happen soon now. Hopefully. Until then, we use Huggle, Twinkle, and old fashioned Mark IV eyeballs and manual editing to keep BLP violations at bay. And the other tools available. I have become a very big proponent of removing BLP content based on knowledge of the kind of pain BLP content can cause, and have got into passionate discussions over it. But since Shankbone is not requesting deletion, why are some of us? — Becksguy (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• This has been a wholly weird AFD if you ask me. It appears to me that a Who's Who of Wikipedia has shown up to make their cases about this marginally notable individual. Why so much passion over this article? Varks Spira (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Because we all know him. Lara 20:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, I for one, am not acquainted with the subject. Those who are should please see WP:COI#Close relationships. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• He's a Wikipedian. If you didn't know who David Shankbone was a week ago, as an established Wikiepdian, I'd be a little surprised. Lara 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is large and there are many editors. It seems that this great crowd here is due to such personal factors while we see AFDs concerning educational topics such as this being relisted multiple times due to lack of particpation. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Of course there are no BLP concerns in the article at this time. It's up for deletion and being widely discussed, so there are a lot of eyes on it. That's not the point, nor does it have to do with damaging material in the article. We're talking about biographies that are marginally notable, at best. Why do people always equate these things to crimes. Usually it's murder, but kidnapping is not much better. Regardless, flagged revisions have been on the horizon for three years, so we can keep hoping, but I'm personally losing faith at this point. Not everyone agrees that the degree of coverage he has received is substantial enough, and while I think him requesting deletion would do much to facilitate this request, it's not required to open a deletion discussion. I hope you're not suggesting such. He's also not argued for it to be kept, for what it's worth. Lara 20:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's a useful article. Andrew Sullivan noted his blog entry about Gore Vidal and Wikipedia. His work appears to make its way around the web enough that any justification you can come up with to have an article about him is good enough. I know there have to be arguments for having an article, but when that's over with it is also a good article to have around. Varks Spira (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Even the most significant reliable source for this article, the Columbia Journalism Review, says that Shankbone is "relatively unknown outside the Wiki community". The article, as it currently stands, is an ideal illustration of why we should not have biographies of marginally notable individuals. It's currently framed to highlight how impressive Shankbone's credentials are, and mainly focuses on the Shimon Peres interview. Yet the very same sources could easily be used to demonstrate that Shankbone's main claim to fame was completely orchestrated by the Israeli government, down to a trip paid for by its consulate with an openly admitted intention to influence the coverage of Israel in Wikipedia. The fact that the same sources can be interpreted both ways, without violating WP:NPOV or WP:NOR tells us that there is not nearly enough information about this subject to write a neutral, unbiased article on this subject. He is essentially notable for something we all know is not notable (being a Wikimedia volunteer). The Brooklyn Rail interview is hardly notable, as it's a freebie magazine with a circulation of about 15-20,000[16]—the kind that shows up in one's mailbox unbidden. ¶ In summary, we have a BLP of someone who is at best marginally notable and whose main claim to fame is his association with Wikipedia and its sister projects, with limited significant sources, most of which are ambiguous and focus as much or more on the Wikimedia projects as they do on the subject, or themselves indicate that he is not notable. If we didn't all know David, this article either (a) wouldn't exist or (b) would place far more emphasis on the source of his fame having been derived from the efforts of the Israeli government. It's not possible to write an unbiased article about him here. Thus we should not do so. Risker (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I wish to stay out of this discussion, except Risker's suggestion I take deep personal issue with. Her one argument boils down to, "We are waiting for a negative article to be written about him" and until one does, there is not enough information. The it was "completely orchestrated by the Israeli government" is an outrageous suggestion, even if that suggestion is simply to water down my own achievement at least, and at worst to imply I'm some sort of paid agitprop (My name is completely unfamiliar to the Israeli-Palestinian articles). Adam Rose and I both blogged about how I gave him the Wikipedia Review and User:THF, an IRL influential person and a critic of me, to discover criticisms of me. I know he talked to User:THF and I know he read the Wikipedia Review. He worked on that story for a year (all of 2008). He interviewed me at three separate times throughout 2008, for a total of ten hours. He spoke to my interview subjects. He interviewed Wikinewsies, including Brian McNeil. He read every interview. Are you surprised he didn't write any criticisms from those sources? He found them without merit. I was on a press junket with Businessweek (Stacy Perman), Slate.com (Dan Rosenthal), USA Today and others. To question my trip is to also question our sources. The difference? Bias and NPOV of my work itself was not only discussed at Wikinews, but was also reviewed by the premiere journal of American journalism. I spoke with the editor-in-chief. Risker, I would expect more from someone of your caliber. That interview was 2007. CJR came out January/February 2009 and if there was some problem with my work, they would have written about it. The 2009 trip was all photography in the Negev desert and of people like David Faiman. What bias is there in that? -->David Shankbone 22:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

David, your argument is flawed. I did not, in my comment, suggest that a negative article is what should be written. I am saying that with such sparse and ambiguous sources, it could easily be written and, in fact, the article that exists right now would be considered a puff piece. The CJR piece is poorly represented in the article—the main quote is badly truncated and, as it currently exists, implies that you were being compared favourably with those other interviewers (Wikipedia article: "...his interviews were described as a "throwback to a time when Oriana Fallaci published long transcripts of her interviews in book form and David Frost broadcast a six-hour sit-down with Richard Nixon." Compare with the full quote from CJR: "Miller's work feels like a bit of a throwback to a time when Oriana Fallaci published long transcripts of her interviews in book form and David Frost broadcast a six-hour sit-down with Richard Nixon. Not that Miller is in their league as an interviewer, but there is something refreshing about the oral-history-like nature of his work.") This is what I mean, David. The article isn't NPOV now, and it wouldn't be NPOV if the emphasis was the other way. There is, simply put, just not enough about you that is external to Wikipedia to write a properly balanced article. There's no good way to justify the exclusion of a lot of the personal information about you that isn't there now (stuff that I generally prefer not to see in BLPs, I will note), and the only way to keep it out is to provide this article with extraordinarily high level of scrutiny outside of its importance to the encyclopedia. Really, this article isn't important enough for that expenditure of resources; there are thousands of other BLPs of much more noteworthy people whose articles are poorly sourced, poorly written, even borderline attack pieces. That's where we need to expend our energies, not protecting this one. Risker (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)UTC

• • • Comment The suggestion that a foreign government manipulated the subject for political purposes does not seem to impact claims to notability one way or another. JNW (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand that, but a member of ArbCom shouldn't be here questioning my integrity, when integrity is pretty much defined by giving a reporter the names of your harshest critics, and I take great pride in that and don't wish to have it besmirched by someone of her standing. I will now back out. -->David Shankbone 22:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know the subject. I was referring primarily to Risker's statement main claim to fame was completely orchestrated by the Israeli government, which seemed to me quite beside the point of notability. But then, my take on this discussion is that many contributors--and I am not thinking of anyone in particular-- do know the subject, and it's particularly difficult to frame this discussion objectively. JNW (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
      • • If you took money from the Israeli government and then wrote about the Israeli government, then you have no journalistic integrity. If this did not happen, then it's a moot point. If you did, then your integrity needs to be called into question. Did you do these things? It appears that you did.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
          • How is it acceptable to call someone's integrity into question in this manner? This cannot be a trial. This line of questioning is beyond me. Wtf? What does this have to do with a person's notability? Clearly he's frigging notable to all of you so this debate is moot. Varks Spira (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • We've all more-or-less agreed that WP:N is how we define notability here. The Brooklyn Rail meets our definition of a reliable source as does CJR (by a mile in that case). Becksguy walked a number of other articles in reliable sources that meet our requirements for notability. A topic or person can be notable (per WP:N) for all sorts of reasons that don't rise to a dictionary definition of notable. But then again, a person or topic can be notable even if coverage doesn't meet WP:N. Certainly we can (and do) use WP:IAR when things get too out of wack. But the case here isn't anywhere near clear enough that IAR has consensus in this case... Do you agree he meets the letter of WP:N? Hobit (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No, your premise is flawed. Notability is a guideline. It it not a policy, nor is it a rule. You cannot start from the bottom of the totem pole and work up. It should be a top down approach, and the Wikipedia community has taken far too much stock in the past couple years in trumping guidelines over policy and as such newer users have been ingrained in the idea that WP:N is something far more powerful than what it is meant to be. The original guideline was written to deter resumes and myspace bands, it is a shame its perception has come this far. Keegan (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I actually tend to agree that WP:N has been taken too far. That said, I'd err on the side of including more, not less. It's a compromise between those who want everything that can be sourced included here and those that wish to be highly restrictive. And like all compromises it isn't idea. However, the great thing about WP:N is that it provides a fairly bright and objective line for inclusion. This article easily crosses that line and we shouldn't override WP:N without consensus to do so. It is just a guideline, but it also provides a simple default, which is handy. Hobit (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Shankbone has been greeted by some of Israel's political leaders and has a blog site. But he has also been a solid contributor to WikiCommons taking thousands of high quality images like this of Yad Vashem or Frank McCourt I'd rather keep a moderately notable contributor than one with no notability at all....but tag his article with reimprove. This is a reasonable solution. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Uh, we're not deleting the editor, or his userspace. This is an article on the user. His internal participation in the project does not make a keep vote relevant. Keegan (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I've also been greeted (once!) by a well-known Irish political leader, and also have a blog. Do I get a biography, too? - Alison ^❤ 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Sure if you meet the requirements of WP:N. Can you provide sources that do so? Hobit (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Highly likely I could, but I'd rather not. I don't want my own BLP and can't imagine why anyone would, frankly - Alison ^❤ 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Delete Notability is not inherited. Shankbone hasn't displayed notability outside Wikipedia and hence a separate page would be innappropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:BIO, having multiple sources with extensive coverage. It's as easy as that. I'll also add that, since he hasn't requested deletion, "no consensus" can't get us to deletion here. A number of people have been claiming in various AfDs that no consensus defaults to delete. That's wishful thinking at best -- the last time this was discussed (here) a proposal to this effect failed rather definitively. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment In NYC the Brooklyn Rail is most definitely considered to be a credible, important and informative publication and it is a notable source...Modernist (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that confirmation. And we know this how? Someone mentioned the rather small circulation level of this free publication. I'm unconvinced it is, simply by someone on Wikipedia saying so. It ought to be mentioned that Shankbone has also written for this publication, so it may well be biased in his favour. Shankbone is also a friend of the author of the article on Facebook. Which again, leads me to seriously question its credibility as a true third party reliable source. Majorly talk 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you are at all familiar with the New York City art world current version then you would be well aware of the Brooklyn Rail and it's credibility, if numbers are what you need - well, it's not the NY Times. Beyond my say so and countless others - can I prove it to you? Probably not...Modernist (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't read the publication, but as a Brooklynite with some awareness of the Brooklyn Rail I would say that it is, in general, a reasonably reliable source for Wikipedia. Of course any source that is generally reliable might not be reliable or appropriate in certain circumstances, and more importantly not do much to establish the notability of a particular person or topic. One could certainly have doubts about the interview with Shankbone in the latter respect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe Risker is misreading the focus of the CJR article. It's entirely about him, and not just the Peres interview. No other journalist, citizen or otherwise, is mentioned by name. And "relatively unknown" was before the RS, especially CJR, made him notable. That comment is not relevant. Was Obama relatively unknown before his 2007 bid for President? I don't agree with the term, but if he's marginally notable, that's still notable. It's like a passing grade in school. If the minimum passing score is 65 (the bright line) and you receive a 65, marginally or not, you passed. The majority of us participating here think the RS are sufficient. Personally I think three of the most significant are a slam dunk for establishing notability, especially CJR because of all the reasons already mentioned. I have often argued in the past that the only really acceptable reason, per WP:BEFORE, for deleting any article is if it's intrinsically non-notable. And to repeat, if we let potential problems with articles determine what articles are kept, Wikipedia and our readers suffer. Shankbone had nothing to do with creating the article, and has not asked that it either be kept or deleted. And he has wisely and properly stayed away from the DRV and this AfD DRV (up to now). And no, his request to delete obviously is not required to nominate it. But the nomination rationale referred to "spurious sources" which frames the discussion. The nomination did later refer to news sources with "insufficient coverage". However, the six sources were in the article at nomination time. Others picked up on the "spurious" characterization very unfairly, and repeated it. And to say that's it's not possible to write a non-biased article is, again, WP:CRYSTAL and an opinion, and not a reason to delete. It's a reason to work hard on the article. It's also possible that because David is known, that some participants are bending over backwards to avoid being perceived as partial to him, and that the bar is unfairly higher than it would be otherwise. The Village Voice is a weekly freebie, and it's a reliable source, so being free doesn't invalidate the Brooklyn Rail. — Becksguy (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Has Shankbone confirmed that he was not in someway involved in the creation of this article? I haven't seen, but perhaps he has. Considering the edit history of the article creator, it seems like a reasonable question to raise. I've emailed David to ask. Lara 22:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes he has. It's on his talk page User talk:David Shankbone#AfD nomination of David Shankbone. — Becksguy (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Becksguy, I understand the CJR reference just fine and, in my response above to David Shankbone, I outline why I don't think it is being used properly in this article. I also will point out that the majority of the current reference sources do directly point to the Israeli press junket issue. As to use of our resources determining whether or not an article should be kept, the day that David Shankbone is as notable as, say, the average member of a US state's House of Representatives, or UK Member of Parliament (both of which would attract a notable and comparable degree of problematic editing), is when we should have an article about him. I think our volunteers shouldn't have to be cleaning up articles that aren't making us a better encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete with a really valid argument along the lines of "This is puffery of Shankbone/Wikinews" "Non-notable, sources only give passing mention" "Sources explicitly state he's unknown" "If he weren't a Wikipedian, he wouldn't have an article in the first place" "Tinderbox for BLP problems" "Citations are poor" (that's a hersfold quoate, but if you'd like me to write this up in my own words in order for it to 'count' I'm happy to!) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

after the CJR does an article on someone, they may have previously been unknown ,but they are not so any longer. This article would be borderline without their coverage. With it, it is not even borderline. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per above iridescent, Lara, Privatemusings, and Ottava Rima (among others). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is a lot "above", which part? Chillum 23:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Updated. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography#Notability criteria for photographers, which would seem relevant to this discussion. LadyofShalott 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:25, 26 October 2009 (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 delete. This boils down to deciding if 1 newspaper article can confer notability, and in this case the argument that it does not is the stronger. Kevin (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Eric Zaccar

Eric Zaccar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A minor local playwright and musician. I don't believe this person meets the requirements of WP:BIO (and specifically WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSIC). There are no reliable sources about the subject, and I can find very little about him. Even taking the unsourced article, all it asserts is that he's written some plays which have been performed by local groups; there's no indication any of these performances are notable, that the plays were reviewed by anyone, and certainly nothing like WP:AUTHOR's criterion that he is in any way an "important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." The only coverage at all I can find about him is a single NY Times local-section mention of his play (here) which has little detail about him, and some mentions of a jury trial of which he was foreman (here). His musical and photographic efforts appear to be of similarly marginal significance. So I don't believe he's anything other than a very minor local figure with no general relevance, influence, or importance, and so that it's inappropriate that Wikipedia have an article devoted to him. Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Qualifying what I said above, the Ken Starr play has been reviewed, but only in very very minor local publications and then only to a very small degree. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet.
• Delete – I was going to stick a {{PROD}} on this piece of vanispamcruftisement after putting some lipstick on it, but this works, too … there may be beau coup "references", but they don't amount to "significant coverage" as defined by WP:N. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The New York Post, the New York Times, and New York Newsday can hardly be called " very very minor local publications" as the user below has suggested. Eric Zaccar's work has been written about in all of those publications, and discussed at length on national major market radio programs, like Howard Stern, Joe Franklin and Joey Reynolds. Eric is listed as a prominant playwright and lyricist in Joseph Papp's Public Theater archives, and Mr. Papp was widely considered to be the most renowned theater producer of the latter half of the twentieth century. By all projections, Mr. Zaccar's upcoming feature film, WITHOUT HATE, is going to be a serious contender in the market. His plays have been produced all around New York City, and his last screenplay, ON THE OTHER SIDE, was produced as a feature film and distributed internationally. Though the user below seems to a gifted artist and photographer, he does not seem to be in New York, or the United States. I'm not sure exactly how he is receiving his information about an American writer, or why he seems to be on a personal vendetta against someone that he does not know, and knows little about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamdesignernow (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Dreamdesignernow put this comment at the top of the page (so "the user below" means the nomination); I've moved it down to its place in the contemporaneous stream of comments -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There isn't a shred of evidence for most of what you say in the article. The Post and Newsday mentions are tiny scraps on minor pages. The NY times story discusses the play, not Zaccar, and is in the local pages. The local pages of the times are like the local pages of any other US newspaper, and are no more evidence of notability than the same 3 column inches would be in the Sheboygan Press or the Duluth Tribune. None of these amounts to even a tiny review of a single play; one can hardly claim to be a noted playwright when no noted theatre critic has reviewed your play. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unless I am missing something, the only thing I can find on Google is Zaccar's comments following jury duty. I don't see anything about being a famous playwright. Warrah (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Google again, Warrah. Of the thousand plus articles and pages that come up about Eric Zaccar, less than ten per cent of them deal with said jury trial. Of course, all of that should be changing soon. The buzz in the business is, Eric's new screenplay, Without Hate, based on the afore mentioned case, is in pre-production and should be a major motion picture, within the year. I've been around the New York theater and independent film scene for quite a while, and I can tell you that Eric is rather well known, and well regarded. If I have to vote, I'm obviously going to say keep the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Note that Robroams has no other contributions -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment – Sorry, Robroams, but this is not an election, so there is no "voting" (see How to discuss an AfD) … decisions are reached by consensus, and as you can see, the community is quick to recognize sockpuppets of blocked users … besides, "buzz" is no substitute for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" … just where are these alleged articles about him in New York Post and Newsday? We cannot just take your word that he "is rather well known, and well regarded" … it's all about verifiability, particularly when it comes to biographies of living persons. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not alleged. Eric's play, Starr's on Broadway, was plugged in the New York Post by Cindy Addams, a nationally renowned columnist, and Liz Smith, whose column was also syndicated to Newsday and many other papers. Look in the press clips section of starrplay.com or call the papers for verification, since you seem to have a lot of time to put into this. If Eric Zaccar is such an insignificant writer, why would they even mention him (and why are so many people spending so much time on this site, arguing about him)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I'm part of the team that's producing the film, Without Hate, and I can tell you that the screenplay didn't come cheap. It's a truly brilliant piece of work that had twenty five actors, producers and industry people in the room stunned, at the first table reading. Eric was well known around New York for a long time, but his national, and dare I say international recognition are moments away.

The article should remain. If I was going to question anything it would be why a photographer and computer programmer, who doesn't seem to live on the same side of the world as Eric, is so obsessed with slandering a writer that he doesn't know, and doesn't know anything about. Actually, the photographer doesn't seem to live anywhere, or at least not anywhere that's apparent on his long, rambling web pages or many fragmented E-Mail addresses.

We still need Eric around for last minute rewrites, and I'd hate to think that we have to increase our budget to include bodyguards to protect him from a possible stalker. — Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).

Why is it necessary for me to have commented about other articles? This is a subject that I care about, that I'm WELL INFORMED about, and that has a DIRECT IMPACT ON MY BUSINESS and my life. Again, one must question why this writer, that you don't know and that you call insignificant, has driven you to such a vengeful, venomous, arguably libelous attack. Then again, to prove liability, it would probably be necessary to find a mailing address, or even a valid E-Mail address to serve court papers to, somewhere on your many long, rambling web pages.

Again, I say keep the article! Get rid of the nasty comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete There's a lot of water between me and the subject of this article, but that doesn't mean I hate him or am disqualified from commenting. The comments above about 'other articles' are because we get a lot of people suddenly making a lot of noise about one particular subject, which they appear to be connected to, and then disappearing again. They mostly seem to think this is a voting situation. It isn't. The bold type Delete or Keep is just a marker, and should only be used once per account. Other remarks are 'Comments'. You are 'well informed' about this matter. Can you give some evidence of the notability of the subject - in terms of reliable third party sources? Please note that the new screenplay falls foul of one of our policies in terms of notability as it hasn't yet come out. If it were going to be a film by Spielberg, and there was good reliable evidence of this, yes - good case for notability. By a company that returns only 5 Google hits, 2 of which are their own site, I'm afraid not. As to the subject here, I can get a lot of ghits. The first 10 pages return nothing that I would consider up to our requirements. If you can provide what I couldn't find, please do. As to slander, there is none as this is written. Libel? I've looked carefully and can't see any either. I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine many would be happy to give professional opinions. A lot of the editors here would prefer to see an article saved rather than deleted. (If for no better reason than to avoid Egg on Face Syndrome...) But the article must fit our requirements. In my opinion, this one doesn't. If it can be saved, all to the good. Over to you - you know him. I only know what I see here and Google. Peridon (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your points are logical, if not necessarily accurate, but what I find detrimental and borderline libelous is this: My small, relatively new company has quite a lot riding on our upcoming feature film, Without Hate. However, while we're out, working 24-7 to secure the rest of our financing, attract the interest of talent, lock up distribution, tend to a thousand other details, and overcome the many other ordinary and expected obstacles that are inevitable when producing any feature film, we now have to deal with the fact that, when someone googles our writer, they see articles calling him “unimportant” “very minor” and “marginal.”

Besides the quality of Eric's work, it's his solid reputation that we were counting on when we purchased his script. Unfortunately, investors don't simply finance a film because they like the screenplay or story. Among many other things, they generally want to know who the writer is. As you yourself stated, google is considered a reliable way to check someone out. And as I'm sure you know well, Wikipedia pages are generally among the first to come up, when someone with an article is googled. In plainer English, the words of the person who introduced this dispute can turn out to be extremely costly and extremely damaging.

Another point that I feel compelled to make here is that, while Eric Zaccar is a rather versatile and complex talent, he has assured me that he's not now, nor has he ever been or claimed to be a musician, of any type. No articles, in Wikipedia, or anywhere else on or off the internet, state or insinuate that Eric has ever played any kind of musical instrument. Since the afore mentioned dispute instigator seems to be making the character destruction of a total stranger into his personal mission in life, it would be nice if at least SOME of his most basic information was accurate.

Maybe there are a fair amount of writers, actors, directors, artists, and musicians out there with more google-able credits than Eric Zaccar, and maybe some of them aren't mentioned in wikipedia. My suggestion is, rather than have bugs scouring the internet for articles to remove, why not use the same time and energy to scout for real talent, and find others, like Eric, who are worthy of your recognition? It is, after all, an encyclopedia of the people, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – There are no "bugs scouring the internet for articles to remove" … editors simply monitor Special:NewPages here on Wikipedia for articles that are not worthy of inclusion based on established policies and guidelines … what part of Wikipedia:Notability do you not understand? As for your financial backers, they do not find "articles calling him “unimportant” “very minor” and “marginal.”" … instead they find a single article with nothing but links to the subject's own website, www.starrplay.com … this discussion was started because the subject of the article has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" … by your own admission, this article contains false information about the subject ("he's not now, nor has he ever been or claimed to be a musician, of any type") which is much more likely to be grounds for litigation than alleged damage to his reputation in this forum, so either the information or the article (I say both) should be removed. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I just re-read Eric Zaccar's wikipedia page, and I didn't find one word that said or implied that he was a musician, of any kind. It said that he was a lyricist, and newspaper coverage, as well as Youtube videos of songs that he wrote, will confirm that. It says that he has worked with and produced recordings for musicians. As one of thousands of examples, George Martin, the world renowned music producer, worked with and produced The Beatles. To the best of my knowledge, he's never been a musician himself. The art of lyric writing involves scrolling down words. Producing is a vague term that could involve hands on work, financing, coordinating or many other aspects of a production. I agree with Arriellemarie. If people are going to criticize someone that they don't know and don't know anything about, they should at least learn to read a simple short article and get their facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I'm up near Philadelphia, these days, and I don't get to New York City that often. However, I did make special trips for at least three of Eric Zaccar's plays. I've been a fan of this great writer, ever since his college productions, when I did live in New York. I loved "On the Other Side," and I can't wait for his upcoming movie, "Without Hate."

There are children dying for lack of food in Africa and other children dying because their insurance companies won't pay for their necessary operations, in the United States. Isn't there something more important to debate than whether or not a hardworking, talented, prolific and versatile writer should have a wikipedia article? And I say he should!! — Philg19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).

• Comment Three points to make. First, although the subject of the article may well be talented - I for one haven't said he is or isn't - that is not the question. Wikipedia has rules for inclusion. It has to have, otherwise it would be full of the sort of stuff that sank so many of the old usenet and bulletin board places. We still get loads of 'articles' that say 'Shawn is the most awesommnest everrrrrrrrr!!!!!!' or similar. Obviously, those go almost instantly. It's when you get to the more borderline cases that the trouble starts. You may think the subject of this article deserves an article. OK, prove it. We need far more than the unsupported opinion of a new visitor. Otherwise, come back Shawn, all is forgiven.... Second, while I am not decrying your hard work with your company, Wikipedia is not the place for promotying things (or people). It is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Sure, a Wikipedia article could be a boost for a new or newish venture. Unfortunately, we'd be inundated with not only every neighbourhood florist's shop, but also the seller of flowers at the roadside in Swampville. Encyclopaedias are for recording what is of note not for discovering what is about to be. As I pointed out, a forthcoming Spielberg production is probably (not definitely, mind) of note - because of Spielberg. We need evidence from independent reliable sources even in his case. Thirdly, as one who writes myself, I do wish success to our subject here, and to the company doing the production. I won't be seeing the results, because I never watch films (other than Harry Potter and things like Ice Age) or plays (except for ones I've written...). I prefer books. I can see what's happening better when reading. Peridon (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If, as you suggested, being involved in a production or pre-production with Steven Spielberg would be enough to legitimize Eric Zaccar as a wikipedia worthy screenwriter, then being involved in a musical with Joseph Papp should give Eric equal credibility as a playwright and lyricist. While Mr. Spielberg can be considered one of many (or at least a handful of) truly great contemporary directors, Mr. Papp was widely considered to be the single most respected, renowned and important theater producer in the latter half of the twentieth century. If you check the New York Public Library's archives for Joseph Papp, available online and considered a bible in the New York theater world, you'll find Eric Zaccar's name, somewhere between the revered playwright, Christopher Durang, and the great composer, Barry Manilow. Eric is listed as lyricist and bookwriter, which in theater terms means playwright, for a Papp production called THE OEDIPUS COMPLEX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Arrielle Maria. Google Eric Zaccar and you get at least a few legitimate references to film, theater, music, radio and television. His work is also credited on the pages of numerous performers. He seems to have an interesting and diverse enough career to warrant some coverage.

I also agree that, unless Eric's primary detractor, the person who began this whole debate, is an actual wikipedia employee, you have to question why he seems so passionately against someone who I'm assuming is a total stranger. — Oxentertainment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).

• Keep I've been going to see Eric Zaccar's plays since he was in NYU Tish Dramatic Writing, I've watched his career progress and I can tell you that, he's a force to be reckoned with. Has society really reached the point where a man is judged by his google-ability? Keep the article!! — Radiating Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).
• Comment – I have started a list of the sock/meatpuppets who have "voted" here … if only they had devoted as much energy to improving the article under discussion. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we “sock/meat puppets” (whatever the hell that means) reserve our comments for subjects we know and care about, and don’t sit in our rooms obsessing about people and things that have no effect on our own lives.

Let’s examine Eric Zaccar, once again: He has at least a few checkable credits as a playwright, lyricist and screenwriter. At least one or two of his pieces have been written about in several major New York newspapers. Numerous noted actors on IMDB site his plays, that they appeared in, on their “other works” section. Many references to Kenneth Starr site Eric’s play, about the notorious special prosecutor. And Joseph Papp, one of the greatest theater producers in history, has Eric's name listed in his official archives, as a book and lyric writer for one of his musicals.

Now let’s look at the person who started this debate and who, I’m assuming is now using his IP address to comment, since his name has been brought into question: He has long rambling diatribes, on both wikipedia and his own pages, that go on and on about many arguably pointless subjects, and that disclaim all the spam that others claim to have received from his sites. He seems to have little to do with his time, since he always appears to be right there at his computer, monitoring this page and ready to pounce, every time someone says something favorable to the subject. He has some moderately interesting photographs, that he claims to have taken, on his web pages, but they all seem to be of animals and inanimate objects. It makes you seriously wonder if he’s ever actually had a live, human, in person interaction.

None of his E-Mail addresses seem to be valid, and the whois page for his web domain lists phone numbers, like 555-1212, and conflicting mailing addresses, from England to California. Plus, like Jim Carrey’s psychotically obsessed stalker character in the film, The Cable Guy, even his name seems to be from a vintage television program. Wasn’t Maude married to Walter Finlay?

On top of all of that, his reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. Again, though not one word in wikipedia, or anywhere else, indicates that the subject of this debate is a musician, this self appointed critic calls him one, in his very first sentence; and a minor one, at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I’m sure that this was first suggested as a joke, but the more I read about this man, the more I think that the subject of this debate might want to start examining whether he could be a serious threat. But then, how could legal action be taken against a web phantom who could live anywhere and be anyone?

And in all seriousness, why is this person so adamant about a total stranger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification I said a forthcoming production by Spielerg 'could' be notable. Not that everyone who has worked with him (even the tea lady - vital but not notable) who has worked with him was notable. I don't say that Zaccar isn't notable - just that we are having a lot of heated air and no reliable evidence. We're not judging him by his Googleability. We're not judging him. We're judging this article - and we're judging by the standards of the organisation hosting the article. To use the example of my awesome friend Shawn again, are you willing to put Shawn's awesomeness up on your website for all to bow down to? You may be. (Personally,I don't advise it. Shawn's not so bad - it's his mates...) Get my drift? If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, start your own free access encyclopaedia. Can be done. (Not saying it's easy.) In the mean time, come up with the evidence that we are begging for, or please stop wasting our time with re-iterations of Eric Zaccar's awesomeness that are little better supported than Shawn's. Show that firstly Oedipus was notable, and secondly that Zaccar wrote it. Show us the pig - all we can see is the poke. Peridon (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, it was a while ago, before things like theater programs and reviews were saved on the internet. However, the link below is to as official a record as exists for Joseph Papp's Public Theater and New York Shakespeare Festival, the most noteable theater producer, and theater group, in New York. Everyone from DeNiro to Pacino to Dustin to Meryl proudly display their work with Papp on their resumes.

Search for Eric's name. It's right there between Barry Manilow's and Christopher Durang's. http://www.nypl.org/research/manuscripts/the/thenys02.xml

There are also two short Youtube versions of the Oedipus musical, that Eric animated himself (rather badly, or campily, by his own admission). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh I do wish people would leave personalities out of this. For the record, sockpuppets are extra accounts operated by one person. When this is used for vandalism or for the purpose of influencing debates by inflating the numbers, this can lead to blocking - after the correct procedure has been gone through. Meatpuppets are like sockpuppets, but are accounts run from associates of the puppetmaster rather than directly. Also can be blockable. Are you going to mount attacks on all of us who try to uphold Wikipedia's standards, or do your bit to save the article? Over to you, whoever (and how many) you may be. No evidence = no article. I'm trying to see if the article is savable. What am I getting? 'Eric is awesome.' Is this Oedipus Complex notable? It was 'optioned' by Papp, but was instead produced as an animated 'ten minute musical'. I quote from "Eric Zaccar (c) 2006 by Central Art Productions Inc." at http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/gXlo1x9mQPU-oedipus-complex-original-rock-miniopera.aspx If you know more, let us know. The world of ten minute musicals is not one I frequent. Peridon (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) And will everyone please sign their posts with four ~ things - it saves work for the poor signing bot. Thanks.
• Quote from the link above at the NYPL: "File concerning the musical entitled The Oedipus Complex (Book and lyrics by Eric Zaccar; Music by Linda Edlund). Contains script and lyrics." OK. Shows it exists. But no more. Keep trying. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, no one, whether a sock puppet, a meat puppet or an independent entity, has criticized any of the wikipedia editors. The ONLY person brought into question is the person who started this debate. He doesn't seem to be an official editor, and he seems to be the only one who's used detrimental phrasing, like "minor" and "marginal." The other wikipedia editors, who seem to work for the company, make logical points. I don't want to say that this first man sounds like a lunatic, because that would be detrimental in itself, but read my prior comments and draw your own conclusions. Signed Rob Stedelin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Cindy Adams and Liz Smith, two of the most noted celebrity and theater gossip columnists in New York, actually have their older posts online, but you can find their blurbs about Eric's play, Starr's on Broadway, in the press section of Eric's websites. I believe the dates should be on the articles, if you want to check them for authenticity. They don't usually bother mentioning "minor" and "marginal" writers. Liz's column was nationally syndicated, so that blurb appeared in newspapers all over the country. Starr's on Broadway is also sited on several official Kenneth Starr pages, and is mentioned on the imdb pages of the actors involved (as other actors mention other works of Eric's that they appeared in).

I have other things that I need to do, on this beautiful day. I'm sure you do, as well. For a "minor" and trivial entity, Eric is sure taking up a lot of our time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unpaid Comment The only people who work for Wikipedia in the sense of getting paid by Wikipedia are the technicians and office staff - and by what I've picked up there's not a lot of them. All the rest of us here are Joe Public. Some are visitors commenting on the subject here and nothing more. Some of us are working unpaid to help a valuable resource maintain its accuracy. I use Wikipedia a lot in my research and decided after finding a peculiar bit in an article (and removing it) that it was time to do my bit to help. Sometimes I've got time on my hands. Sometimes I need something to relax me. There is no such thing as an 'official' editor. Anonymous editors have certain restrictions, registered editors fewer, and administrators (also totally voluntary) have certain powers we don't. Up from that one gets to the Hierarchy who deal at policy level (and don't get paid either). Anyone (possibly not anonymous editors) can nominate an article here at AfD or at Speedy level. The decision doesn't rest with the nominator. Sometimes things get thrown straight back as obviously silly nominations. Others go to what is supposed to be a discussion (like this...) and after a time a 'closing admin' will weigh up the arguments and decide yea or nay. Articles may be brought back for retrial, or appeals may be made. Those who perform the closing job are usually experienced. You have to be experienced to get admin powers. I've made over 4000 edits of many sorts and don't think I'm ready yet to apply. (If I want to anyway...) 'Minor' and 'marginal' are his opinions. Go on - PROVE him wrong. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Please don't ask us to find things - you find them. I need food....

• Costly Reply So, what you’re saying is, the first man to write on this page has a right to call someone “marginal” and “minor,” in an internet article that anyone who googles the subject is likely to see? Is this self appointed editor running for office against Eric Zaccar? Is he reviewing one of his plays? As you said, he’s not even paid by wikipedia to offer this opinion. Again, considering the small fortune that is currently invested in this writer’s name and reputation, and considering all the manpower hours that numerous people have put into his current project, I’d say this truly could be considered libelous.

My friend’s twelve year old son was suspended from school for posting negative comments about a classmate on the internet. If the classmate’s family wanted to, they could have filed criminal charged. What right does this man have to take it upon himself to offer slanderous opinions of someone he’s never had any contact with?

Though he did draw first figurative blood, and though most of Eric’s supporters, are rather sharp professionals in the world of entertainment and comedy who can more than match wits with the average computer geeks, I don’t think any of us has actually fought back by stating, outright, that the first person to write on this page has numerous web pages that make him sound, at best, borderline psychotic. However, without using the old cliché about glass houses, I’ll just suggest to this man that people who live in rubber residences should be careful about what they throw into walls. Some of it might bounce back and hit them in the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Robroams, why don't you stop complaining, making personal attacks, spouting irrelevancies, and threatening legal action, and instead add some reliable source citations to the article? In other words, become pro-active and stop acting like a petulant child … and your constant failure to sign your posts only diminishes your credibility in this forum. BTW, this WP:AfD page will not appear in any Google search, i.e., just the article being discussed, not this discussion. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - This NY Times article is a good start on establishing notability. But there needs to be more. I am unable to find more nor has any actual citations been forthcoming. Claiming coverage without specifics is not useful. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times, the New York Post, New York Newsday, the Brooklyn Skyline, Joe Papp's Public Theater Archives, the radio shows of Howard Stern, Joe Franklin, and Joey Reynolds, write ups on Kenneth Starr, imdb pages about actors who've been a part of his pieces. Eric's work has been recognized at one time or another, in all of the above places. Many of them are out there, on the internet, but not everything can be. Archives do exist, somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If they're out there, then why don't you find them and add them to the article, instead of just dropping names in this forum? Have you even read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability? — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Well, it looks like this article is mostly a copy&paste of http://eric_zaccar.totallyexplained.com/ … can you say, copyright violation? Or is it just Wikipedia:Plagiarism? — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My bad! … that site is a mirror of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article! — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Starr’s on Broadway, Eric Zaccar’s social satire for the stage about the Clinton-Starr-Lewinky absurdities, received such notoriety that Eric and the play are sited in a hundred online references to the former special persecutor. That alone should secure Eric’s place in the books. Michael Sandy’s tragic story is the subject of a rather in depth wikipedia article. Eric’s involvement in that case is discussed in many newspaper articles, and Eric’s upcoming film, Without Hate, should become the definitive record of the story.

Just because New York Post and nationally syndicated columnists like Cindy Adams and Liz Smith, or newspapers like the Brooklyn Skyline, didn’t always publish their articles online, why does that make them less “official?” I grant you that copies of said articles seem like they can only be found on Eric’s own website, but they’re dated and their authenticity should be easily checkable.

I really don’t want to spend another day having this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no requirement that sources be online. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable. If you can provide specific citations to these articles, then other editors can consider them. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, the bare link http://www.starrplay.com/images/pressclips/cindynew.htm is not as credible as

Adams, Cindy (1999-05-26). "Sexgate, the comedy, is coming to Great White Way". New York Post.

and maybe include the page number … at least then someone can look it up at their local library, so it is verifiable, whereas anyone can Photoshop what looks like a newspaper clipping.

OTOH, this example is hardly what one could call "significant coverage", and it's more about one of the subject's works than it is about the subject, so it's still just a "mention". (And I'm not going to try and put any more lipstick on this pig, so you can replace the link with the citation. :-) — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding, right? How anal retentive and how ludicrous do you want to get? You have the dates and the newspapers. If you're going to make the effort to go to the local library and access the New York Post and Newsday from May or June of 1999, it should take another three minutes to find the articles, even without the page numbers. Just to help you out though, if I remember right, the columns of Liz Smith and Cindy Adams generally appeared somewhere around page six or page eight. I can't guarantee this, though. I could guarantee that, if you find the entire newspapers for the dates on top of the articles, you'll find the articles.

And as far as the articles being trivial, Cindy Adams and Liz Smith are well known for writing about celebrities. I'm not saying that Eric is a celebrity, but he certainly wouldn't have been worthy of any kind of mention in either of their columns if he wasn't a known and respected writer.

Joe Franklin, the oldest established radio host in New York has interviewed everyone from Dean Martin to Frank Sinatra to Julia Roberts to Bill Cosby to Veronica Lake to Marylin Monroe. Oh, and he's interviewed Eric Zaccar on his program, too. I think Eric actually had an open invite to come on whenever he wanted to. Howard Stern has an equally extensive A-list of guests, and he too has had Eric on, more than once. I'm not sure how this information can be verified, but I would bet that Eric has tapes. If you had a direct E-Mail, rather than an IP number that replaced your rather questionable name, we could probably figure out how to send you audio clips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Very strong keep Even if there were no other references, a full NYT article entirely devoted to him is proof of notability--or, if one prefers, very close to a proof of notability, and just needing to be supported by another source, and there are several. The NYT article is about both the play and the playwright. Anyway, a NYT full review of a play a playwright's work proves the notability of the play & writing notable plays what makes playwright's notable. I am really amazed at the assertion that this is not significant coverage. Once the references were presented here, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Anyone who sees this is responsible for adding them to the article, and for one editor to blame another for not doing what he could equally well have done himself is not very logical. Similarly, if the article needs trimming to remove promotional language, anyone who understands the subject should do so. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

• Delete as not notable. If it mattered, it would be a Strong Delete because (1) none of the editors !voting keep have added a single solid reference to the article, (2) the editor who added the {{rescue}} tag added nothing else to the article, and (3) the sheer vitriol and WP rule breaking by the SPA's above. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:DEL none of those are reasons to delete. WP:JNN isn't and neither is the fact that the article hasn't greatly improved during this AfD. Also, anyone other than me suspecting that the socks are trying to get this deleted? Just ignore them and look at the sources. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to add references, but self proclaimed editors and lords over this site keep taking them out or putting them in different places. Again, for one project or another, Eric has been covered in the biggest New York Newspapers and on the top radio shows. All of that should say that he's at least some kind of force to be reckoned with.

From what I can see, that article has been up for at least a year or two, and it hasn't bothered or hurt anyone. These debates are torturous.

Who gets to decide that large companies can use this site to promote their products, white collar criminals are article worthy, but writers, who are out there making it happen, are not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If you find promotional articles, please nominate them either for Conflict of Interest or Spam. Just as we do. The big company articles are not BY the companies, but about them. They often say things the companies don't like and are usually monitored in case this gets removed. Spam articles come from small businesses on the whole, and are placed by someone in the company. If the company is considered notable enough for an article, the promotional stuff gets removed and the article tidied up (and monitored...). If not, it goes. Any article can be edited by anyone - subject to restrictions on certain controversial topics. If the references are worthwhile, mention them here and we'll see what we think. They may not be suitable - myspace and youtube (for examples) normally are not considered reliable evidence. Peridon (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to make my point. Eric Zaccar's play, HOUSING was considered controversial, even though the whole statement it was trying to make was that the city of New York has every dime and every resource at it's disposal to house every homeless person, if the actual housing department used it's resources efficiently. Eric's social satire for the stage, STARR'S ON BROADWAY, also generally caused heated debates among audience members because of it's viewpoints on many political issues, from nuclear bombs to Watergate to the Kennedy assassination to civil rights to freedom of speech to (the play's title character), Kenneth Starr. We're counting on the publicity coming from the controversy that should surround Eric's upcoming film, WITHOUT HATE, because of the rather sensitive subject matter that has extreme supporters and opponents on both sides.

What should not be controversial is Eric himself, and a simple, non-political, objective, non-promotional, non-opinionated little article about him.

I’m sorry if I have no interest in objecting to the wikipedia pages that promote big companies. If people aren’t hurting me, or hurting anyone else I know, I really don’t feel the need to interfere with their business. Ask Eric to do it. If said companies are doing anything hurtful or immoral, he might be willing to make them the subject of his next major work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• No The articles I refer to are ones like Sex, Muhammed, or Jesus, where fanatics, idiots and schoolboys tend to head. These and many similar (and one or two rather unlikely sounding ones) have restrictions. Eric Zaccar's play doesn't quite rate that high in terms of controversy-magnetism. Peridon (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point, but once again somehow managed to make it for me. Eric's plays may or may not be controversial. That's not the issue here. Is Eric himself, and a simple article stating basic facts about him, controversial enough to warrant all this debate?

WITHOUT HATE, the upcoming film of Eric's screenplay, will cause controversy. That's almost guaranteed. But again, I don't see that as the issue here.

Goodnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh The issue here is not the new play - that falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL anyway. The issue is his notability, which I can't see. The NY Times article reads to me like a story about someone who got sacked for wasting company time than about a noteworthy playwright. There's an animated short on YouTube which was based on something 'optioned' by a notable figure (but obviously not taken up. A mention in a file description in the NY libraries. I can't see much other claim to notability. I could be wrong. I haven't got the time to dig for references. And I'm not seeing much appearing. Peridon (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - this nomination effectively boils down to whether the one relevent reliable source that can be found ([17]) is enough to confer notability on to the subject. My opinion is that whilst one source can sometimes be enough to meet the notability threshold - whether in itslef or as confirmation of some other criteria - this is not one of those cases. In this case the source is a newspaper and is from the local news section of the newspaper; the complete lack of coverage apart from this source (and the content of the source itself) to me indicates passing local coverage - even if the locality is one of the greatest cities in the world - which does not normally establish notability. Guest9999 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Notability has not been established Captain panda 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG's well-reasoned argument. It's also worth noting that the article subject and his writings have received coverage in all three major NYC papers at various times; even though the Post and Daily News pieces aren't online, and are documented only on a website controlled by the subject [18], the site posts article scans, which are complete enough to be self-verifying. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep we've got a NYT's article and we don't need all (or any really) sources to be on-line. Looks like we've got at least 3 RSes per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and the NYTs one is very very strong indeed. Hobit (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (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 delete. Seems to be a hoax, and is negative enough to delete early. NW (Talk) 01:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Brian Keohane

Brian Keohane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing found outside wikipedia. Every bio result found from Google was just a copy in some way, shape, or form of what is on this page -- right down to the typos (like "first zear" and "BLassey"). Also, boxrec.com doesn't seem to have an entry for this user, and the user who had created this page doesn't seem to have done much else other than to add this name to a legitimate page. Shymian (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. For example, the article asserts that the subject was a WBU Super Middleweight Champion, which should generate ghits at the very least but doesn't. Yeah, apart from the article itself and a few wiki mirrors with the article, there's nothing out there for the subject. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Agree, can't find anything, gotta go with Hoax on this one. Search of BoxRec.com reveals no professional boxers named Keohane. -Drdisque (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - this appears to be an attack bio. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I also agree, there is no independent verification. Warrah (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2009 (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 delete. Kevin (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Abbey Brooks

Abbey Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability concerns - lacks the importance or significance of the subject. Smilemeans (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep Article certainly needs proper expansion and sourcing. However, WP:PORNBIO does allow further consideration of a porn actor's notability if they have been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Toward that last proviso, and under the AKA name Holly Browning, Abbey Brooks has a certain notability for her multiple featured appearances in the mainstream notable series Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!, for which she is listed among the all-time favorite top ten Tim & Eric favorites. Yes, I am myself on that T&E top ten list for some odd reason, and no, I have never met Abbey Brooks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Well I only posted this because I saw her on Tim & Eric and was shocked that a beauty like that didn't have a Wiki page already. :P. I just discovered this show; love it! DryvBy (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  She actually did have a page created by User:Sdrtirs on March 24, 2008, and over the next few days expanded it. On April 3, 2008 he tagged it asking for assistance with sources. On April 6, 2008 he tagged it asking for assistance with expansion. On May 16, 2008, User:UnitedStatesian prodded it for proposed deletion. On May 20, 2008 User:Atama endorsed the prod. And on May 21 it was deleted [19]. However, it must be noted that the deleted article was before her AVN nomination and did not include her being featured multiple times in a notable mainstream series under her aka of Holly Browning. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivemountain (talk • contribs) 02:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Very weak keep - (changing from weak delete) She doesn't seem to be quite notable enough. Almost, but not quite, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!)Just passes the notability guideline. It does need work, and is pretty borderline. And I'm not sure if the sources needed actually exist. But still keep, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I don't consider the appearances to satisfy criteria 5 of PORNBIO if no independent reliable sources report on them or make the connection that Abbey Brooks is Holly Browning. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2009 (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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Evening Radio News with Cameron Rose

The Evening Radio News with Cameron Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable internet radio show. Facebook and blog sourced. PROD contested. Wperdue (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - This "show" is hosted on tumblr.com and nobody has noted this. -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2009 (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 keep. More recent comments seem to indicate that there is substantial coverage of the topic in secondary sources enough to establish notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Republican Belfast: a political tourist's guide

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Republican Belfast: a political tourist's guide

Republican Belfast: a political tourist's guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't see any indication of notability Shadowjams (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficeient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Going neutral per the two sources. It's not a lot of coverage, but perhaps there's more? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This source and this one seem to be sufficient sourcing to pass WP:BK. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete I couldn't find any coverage in GNews myself, and the two references above, whilst a start, aren't enough. If it stays, the criticism in the first source about selective republican history needs to be mentioned. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - The sources cited above are columns that are about the book; I agree they're not enough. I say that because they're columns (I think that one is published in a newspaper; I'm not sure about the other) and they're local in scope. I don't know much about the publication sources but they don't appear to be major enough to warrant defacto notability just by their mention. Shadowjams (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The Irish Daily Star and The Irish News are both nationally-distributed newspapers, and the sources linked above are clearly book reviews - just the sort of coverage that would be expected to show notability of a book. We have the bonus of having one source written from a unionist point of view and another from a nationalist point of view. I'm finding it difficult to realise how these sources don't meet notability requirements. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Two reliable sources talking in detail about the book. Polargeo (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (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 delete. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• This closing was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The closing was endorsed.

Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood

Note: During this discussion, the article was moved to Jews and Hollywood per several suggestions below.

Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article mainly pulls tidbits from other WP articles, appears to have some reliable source issues, and has some definite POV issues. Bringing it here for further conversation about its appropriateness for WP. Frmatt (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Basically a WP:COATRACK to parade a collection of collection of assertions about Jewish people in Hollywood. No need for this at all. Black Kite 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Straight forward WP:COATRACK. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete anti-semitic coatrack. Crafty (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep - For several reasons:

• The specific criticism levied by African-Americans (that Hollywood portrays them in an insulting manner) is not covered anywhere else in the encyclopedia, and is noteworthy, and is very substantial. That cannot be buried.
• The prevelance of Jews in Hollywood leadership positions is a notable topic, that is is subject of many articles and books, including An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood
• Many notable commentators have written on this topic, including Michael Medved, J. J. Goldberg, and Joel Stein (see the article for details)
• There is a long history of anti-semitism (on the topic of Jews in the movie industry) stretching back a century to Henry Ford. Just as there are many, many articles on specific aspects of antisemitism, there should be an article on this particular aspect. This particular variety of antisemitism is approximately as noteworthy as Well poisoning or Kosher tax (not to suggest that those are not significant).
• Antisemitism is bigotry. Hiding information about it just makes it fester. Exposing antisemitism to the bright light of scrutiny in this Encyclopedia robs it of its power.

--Noleander (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt the issue of African-American portrayals in Hollywood isn't handled elsewere. Moreover, if it isn't then it could reasonably have its own article. Putting it in "Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood" seems a bit strange. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• • We have a whole article on Amos and Andy; that's one example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• I do not get this final justification for keeping it - is it the purpose of Wikipedia to "rob" anti-Semitism of "its power?" Aside from the fact that like Sartre I just do not agree with the premise, that the "cause" of anti-Semitism has to do with misinformation (I know lots of uninformed good people who wouold never tolerate the hatred of a race; like Sartre I think people are anti-Semites because they are hateful people, not because of what they do or do nto know about Jews), I did not think it is Wikipedia's purpose to fight bigotry. This is not a question of hiding information, it is a question of staying on-mission, which is to write encyclopedia articles, not to scrutinize popular beliefs and jusge them to be right or wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Potential anti-semitic coatrack composed of original research Avi (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Coatrack, etc. Goes along well with his other recent article, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete/split into individual articles. Dealing with a plurality ("Controversies ...") makes this too coatracky for me, but I take Noleander's point as article creator that some/many/all of the controversies may be notable individually. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Coatrack. Any "valuable" information about portrayals of African-Americans could be moved to Stereotypes of African Americans#Film and television. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject actually seems rather notable, but the content might need some rewording. To that end I've copy-edited the lede somewhat, but more could be needed. I understand the gut-reactions to this, but we have many articles that describe the prevalence of hatred in specific contexts. It's something that happens, and can be described, without being in support of it. We have Anti-Americanism, for example, which describes a notion that's historically been quite common, and I don't really see much difference here. As I said, the wording may just need some tweaking. Equazcion (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Changing my vote to undecided/neutral. I'm having trouble interpreting the POV fork policy as it relates to articles like this. I always thought of POV forking as being something like "Jews are bad", with content that makes an argument about why Jews could be considered bad. I never thought of it applying to merely reporting occurrences in history where people have said such things. If that is indeed within the intended scope of POV forking, then the article should be deleted; I'm just not sure that it is, or that it should be. Equazcion (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there that it is notable, except in the minds of anti-Semites? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[20], and I'm sure there's more. Equazcion (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The satirical column of a syndicated humorist? I don't see how his using a poll that says it is a non-issue as a way to poke fun at his own race somehow makes this "notable." The theory of evolution, Jurassic Park, and the Health Care Crisis in the US, thse are all notable. But a parodic personal comment? How? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read the article fully, and didn't pick up from my skimming that it was satirical. But this article has a whole list of references; are you saying none of them establish notability of the subject? Equazcion (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Joel Stein's article did include some humor, but none of the other articles were humorous. --Noleander (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the author of this "article" tring to defend it, but get real. Joel Stein's column (it is a column not an article; in newpapers and magazines the distinction is important, and to call it an article is to misrepresent it) "did include some humor?" That is like saying Eddie Murphy's stand-up routine "contained some humor." They guy is a comedian, for goodness sake! The whole thing is a joke, literally. It is not a reliable source on this topic. What does this failure to recognize a reliable/unreliable source for an encyclopedia article tell us? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I do not see any issue of hiding a discussion of anti-Semitism - we have a whole article on anti-Semitism, for goodness' sake, it is not hidden. I have seen Spike Lee's Bamboozled and a PBS documentary on representations of blacks in film and TV and Robert Townsend's Hollywood Shuffle - it seems to me that all of this ought to be covered in the article on racism. I do not see why it is necessary to turn this into a black versus jew thing, though. Surely one can cover racist stereotypes in the US, including the entertainment industry, without making anti-Semitic attacks. And if some people have done just that, so what? We do not need an article on it. How is this particular topic encyclopedic? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked but if there are reliable articles specifically on the black-vs.-jew subject, then it might deserve its own article here. However this article isn't actually about that, just about controversies in general related to Jewish leadership in Hollywood. If the article contains too much black-vs.-jew examples and no others, then maybe it should be renamed; or gotten rid of, if that specific topic has no outside coverage. Equazcion (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I see that the African-American examples are just contained in one section, so the notability of the article shouldn't be judged based on that. More than half the article has nothing to do with the black-vs.-jew topic. Equazcion (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - lots of sources all cobbled together, but there's not enough meat about the "Controversies" to make for a whole article. Perhaps a greatly reduced discussion about Hollywood demographics could be merged into Cinema of the United States. But, this is just a list of stuff people said. See WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Blargh29 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it's indiscriminate, but it does seem list-like. More integration would really help, but again that doesn't seem like a reason to delete. Equazcion (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It's indiscriminate in that the bulk of the article is is the format of "Brando said this" and "Farrakan said that."--Blargh29 (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Regardnig the extensive use of quotes: That was deliberate. I view excessive quotes, in general, as non-encyclopedic, and indicative of a poor quality article. But in the case of a controversial topic such as this, I thought that paraphrasing or re-phrasing the sources would open the article up to be criticized for showing "editor bias" (via choice of words, emphasis, etc). It seems unfair to cite the quotes as a downside to the article, when they were chosen to avoid even the perception of improper bias. --Noleander (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly rename. Certainly sharpen the focus to be more on the general issue, rather than specific cases. IMO this kind of touchy cultural assumption is something highly worthy of rigorous assessment and analysis; as the saying goes, "sunlight is the best antiseptic". In particular, I think the WP process on a high traffic page actually works quite well (usually) to evolve a reasonably well-balanced well-researched article that complies with WP:NPOV; and that is something that can be a real asset to bring into existence on the net, even more so the more potentially full of poison a subject is, like this one, and therefore the more it needs a sane, well-balanced NPOV treatment to let the real truth emerge. As regards policy, I have not the slightest doubt that reputable academic secondary sources exist in this area, so I am quite certain but that the topic satisfies WP:NOTABILITY Jheald (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm decently certain there will be no issues with using parts of the material to write an encyclopedic treatment of particular cultural influences on Hollywood, and I agree with you that the topic may be notable enough to be treated in this way. But this page has severe structural issues that are not amenable to keeping. Ray^Talk 22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There are certain presentations of particular topics that are not encyclopedic and by their very nature invite severe violations of neutrality. This is one of them. Ray^Talk 22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Striking my !vote, as article has changed dramatically since I posted the above comment. Ray^Talk 04:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. unsalvageable coatrack. we have documented proof that the early days of hollywood had a strong jewish influence, and there are currently many people of jewish descent working at the upper echelons (as well as lower) of the entertainment industry, probably at a higher percentage than in the general population. that i get, its uncontroversial. however, any controversies involving INDIVIDUAL producers, etc. who HAPPEN to be jewish, should simply be covered in the appropriate article spaces. unless there is a sourced, reliable reference to a pattern of distinctly "jewish" (and not just "greedy corporate bastard", {as if jews have any sort of monopoly on unethical business practices}) problems in hollywood, and some sort of response from a neutral source acknowledging the problem (not the ADL denouncing it as anti-semitic, which it IS if the accusation is not fully backed up with uncontroversial facts), i really dont see how this article can pass muster. its inherently POV. any overuse of stereotypes in the business has more to do with the nature of popular entertainment and the pressure to make money, which again is NOT a jewish problem, but a business problem and a general social problem. I would encourage the creator to focus on specific, well documented events, if any, and slowly build some well sourced, NPOV sections in articles already extant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see any controversies involving individual producers. There are reliable references showing a pattern of perceived Jewish problems in Hollywood, perception alone being the subject of the article. Your argument is that the problem itself of Jewish influence in Hollywood must be adequately proven to exist at least somewhat, but that's not what the article is about. Anti-Americanism is likewise about a common perception, with no final judgment as to its validity. Editors must be NPOV in their editing, but we can still write articles about prominent POV's that exist in the world. Equazcion (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Anti-semitic WP:Coatrack using WP:Original research.ShamWow (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Can anyone here describe to me exactly how WP:COATRACK applies to this article? My interpretation of the essay is that a coatrack is an article created under false pretexts. I see nothing of the sort here. The essay states that a coatrack makes reference to a "nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. This article openly declares that it's about controversies related to Jewish prevalence in Hollywood, and goes on to describe exactly that, with no tangent that I can see. Equazcion (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I was wondering the same thing: I'm not too familiar with the Coatrack policy, but certainly it cannot say "articles may not consist of a list of statements from notable sources on a single topic". That would eliminate a large fraction of articles in the encyclopedia :-) To be defective, the list of sources would either have to be (1) artifically assembled, so they have no cohesion or uniformity; or (2) missing balancing information. I dont believe this article has either of those problems. --Noleander (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete If nothing else, you have to go in order: "Hollywood," then "Leadership of Hollywood," then "Leadership controversies in Hollywood," and only if all of that, then "Controversies related to this or that in Leadership of Hollywood." (The same can be done via history of Hollywood, if that is seen to be the topic). But starting such detailed articles on one aspect of controversy (if this is a mainstream controversy, which I'm not sure it is) creates a WP:POVFORK. Mackan79 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I didn't expect to say this, but this does indeed cover the significant attacks made on the Jewish role in the industry--I would suggest a retitle, using "role" or "influence" instead of "prevalence". Except for the title I don't consider it anti-semitic--if anything I read it as an exposé of anti-semitism. The initial sentence linking it to portrays of blacks should not be in that prominent a position, as it's only one of the themes. I urge people to actually read all of the article before commenting on it. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur with your assessment. The point of the article was: "Here is this topic that lots of people write about, many in a bigoted way. Even significant Jewish film critics like Medved feel compelled to write articles about it. Let's bring it out into the bright sunlight of this encyclopedia and expose it for what it is. I apologize if it came of as anti-semitic: the intention was just the opposite. --Noleander (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, I am taking what you just wrote in good faith but what do you mean "expose?" Since when is it Wikipedia's job to "expose?" We had this argument a long time ago when discussuing adding current events to the main page. We decided that Wikipedia would be a place to summarize the press coverage of current events, but that Wikipedia is not an on-line newspaper and we are not reporters of original news. Nor are we the Drudge report. This is not the place to expose the wrongs of the world, it is the place to write NPOV articles on encyclopedic topics. I still do not see how this is encyclopedia. I am willing to grant that your motive to expose bigotry is a good one, in general, but it is still a misuse of Wikipedia - how does what you write now in any way justify the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I see your point. But the distinction between this article and "current events" is the following: This article is covering an issue that has been under discussion for a century, starting with Henry Ford. (although I think the article was recently pared-down so it only contains a few writings that were authored in the past decade ... it used to have some older references also). As for "why is it encyclopedic" ... my test is: if a topic is written about by several notable people over a long period of time, then that is a valid topic for the encyclopedia. For example, if something is a current even now, and several notable authors write about, it, it doesnt necessarily belong in this encyl; but if ten years later, other notable authors are _still_ writing about it, then I would say it should be an ency article. And, I believe, the subject of this article meets that requirement. --Noleander (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• weak keep I think DGG may be write but it still reads very essayish. Certainly the title at minimum would need to be changed as per DGG. I'd actually prefer "Controversies related to alleged influence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood." I do however think that the article may need a lot of work to move off of the essayish form. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:Coatrack. POV and OR seem to apply here as well. The title alone could prove as fodder for antisemites. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete All coatrack articles that rely on quotes from well known people for their substance are a disaster: SYNTH, OR, POV. An encyclopedic article on a something like this would have to be based on scholarly research where someone independent has reached some conclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Seems a likely way to disguise sentiments of anti-semiticism behind some pretext of respectability, won't work though...Modernist (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I've just performed a major cutdown of the article. My aim was to remove the "list of quotes" aspect that basically accuses individuals of antisemitism, to address the (somewhat correct) claims of synthesis and original research. I agree the article should be limited to authors'/columnists assessments of the situation, per Johnuniq's comment, which was very helpful. Please review the change and reassess the article, if necessary. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  What is left for the most part is not about any controversy, it is about three things: first, how Jews coming the the United States at the turn of the 20th century were constrained from successfully entering some vocations or professions, leaving the coincidentally new film industry an open opportunity; second, how even so Jews had to pass as gentiles and bend over backwards to avoid accusations of being un-American, even if it meant turning against one anothes, and finally, that jews today (and perhaps all Americans) should be proud that immigrants can find success in America. This is a story about immigration to the US. The problem is that the quotes are taken out of context, and used to suggest Noleanderson's canard that the Jews run Hollywood. That is not the point of most of these sources, but then again, this is why we have our NOR policy - when you take primary sources out of context, it usually means some Wikipedian editor is pushing her own point of view. Reading what is left from your edit all I can do is ask, where is any citation of the vast secondary literature on debates about upward mobility in the US, transnational immigrationl, and diaspora studies, that would provide the proper context for these quotes? That would lead to an enecyclopedic article. As is, it is just a sleazy way to promote the Jews run Hollywood canard. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  So add that perspective to the article and fix it. That way, the top hit someone will get if they look up this subject on Google will be a Wikipedia article that sets out the proper context of the topic, and the world will be a (very slightly) better place. Jheald (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  That is not another "perspective," it is another article. An article I agree might have a place here, but the thing to do is get rid of this article and start from scratch, building up carefully from reliable scholalry sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  This looks to me like an assumption of bad faith. It seems like we can't possibly make any progress as far as you're concerned, because you feel the author had an ulterior motive. Forget the motive, and pretend someone you know and trust wrote the article. Pretend the author was not trying to show that Jews run Hollywood, but that people tend to think Jews run Hollywood. Following AFD (or maybe even now) we can move the article to a title that better reflects that, such as "Controversies related to the perceived Jewish prevalence in Hollywood". I've basically gotten rid of most of the article already, so just try and add what you think is missing. If the subject has potential, as you say, then once you change the title and replace the content, deletion shouldn't still be necessary. Equazcion (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Dude, I am just trying to be constructive, by pointing out that your edits point to a different article but one that I think might make a contribution to the encyclopedia. But when it comes to the canard "that people tend to think Jews run Hollywood" I just do not think that this merits more space than a section in the anti-Semitism article on forms anti-Semitism takes today. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  • What would the title of this other article be, the one that you think the present content points to, and that might make a contribution to the encyclopedia? PS. "People tending to think Jews run Hollywood" is not the canard. Many people do indeed think that. The canard would be "Jews run Hollywood". What the article aims to be about is the former, which is not deliberately misleading. Equazcion (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Well, given that most of the quotes talk about what economic and creative opportunities have and have not been available to Jews in America, I would actually consider a section on precisely this theme in the article on History of Jews in America. But you need reliable secondary sources, as I said I would look at articles in journals that publish on migration and diasporic studies as well as American jewish history. If you can't find any articles on this theme, then I'd say it is not notable enough to be put into an article. But I would be surprised in there are no scholarly articles on economic and creative opportunities that have and have not been available to Jews in America, and I'd be surprised if none mentioned Hollywood. Are there any reputable scholars who have suggested that Judaism or Jewish identity itself played a role in the kind of films Jews happened to produce? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Sources on the opportunities available to Jews seem less relevant, though. An article based on those kinds of references, while talking about their perceived leadership role in Hollywood, would then be synthesis. Here we already have people talking about the perception itself. Reputable authors don't need to be the ones who have that perception; They need only be the ones talking about it. A POV's prominence and worthiness of an article isn't dependent on scholarly people actually sharing that POV. Equazcion (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Slrubenstein: I agree that the Hollywood issue is just another Antisemitic canard. But then we are back to the original question: Why is the Hollywood canard missing from the article Antisemitic canard? Should it be mentioned in that article? If so, how much detail should go into that section? Is there enough detail and notability to merit a sub-article specifically on the Hollywood canard? One way of looking at _this_ article is that it was jumping ahead to a "Yes" answers on the above questions. If the article was poorly written, okay, I can admit that. But I believe the spirit of Wikipedia is to _improve_ articles (when they are on notable topics) rather than delete them. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Why did you create a new article rather than put this in the Antisemitic canard article? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • S1rubenstein: Thanks for replying to my question. I leaned towards a new article because the Antisemitic canard article looked rather high quality and mature, and I was afraid of hosing it up. I figured that I could present the new article, add it to the "Antisemitism" category, and then other editors would then notice it and help decide if it should be (1) instead integrated into antoher article; or (2) left as its own article and just improved. Unfortunately, neither of those happened. But, looking at this AfD, I can see now that the better course of action would have been to first go to the Talk page of the Antisemitic canard article and start there with a proposal and see what other editors thought. Hindsight is 20-20. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
        • • It seems to me there is some material here relating to antisemitic canards, some to standard history, and perhaps some to other topics. Gabler's book, for instance, isn't just about canards, and suggests material for History of Jews in the United States if the article were so detailed. Of course you can ask whether there should be encyclopedia articles on what various religious or ethnic groups are up to in their free time. I don't suppose anyone is interested to write Christians and NASCAR. There is an article on Black participation in college basketball, if that's instructive. Mackan79 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
            • • That is an excellent question, one that Im sure has been debated on Wikepedia many times. My opinion is that an intersection between an ethnicity and a vocation/endeavor should be in Wikipedia _only_ if the intersection itself is notable. A good example might be "Irish in the police dept of New York in early 20th century". Lots has been written about that intersection, and there is all kinds of sociology and history around it (poor Irish immigrants arriving in desperate straights; Influence on law-and-order in NY, etc). Another might be "Italians and Organized Crime". I contend that "Jews in Hollywood", in particular "Antisemitic canards about Jews in Hollywood" is notable under that guideline, because lots has been written about that intersection by notable people. --Noleander (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. A valid WP:SS sub-article of Antisemitism in the United States. The "Jews run Hollywood" idea is a cliché widely known even on my side of the Atlantic, and appears to generate sufficient media coverage to deserve treatment in an encyclopedia. If the article reads like a coatrack for the various anti-semites it covers, rewrite it per WP:NPOV rather than deleting it, but it doesn't read very coatracky to me.  Sandstein  06:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Again, not structured like an encyclopedia article - a persuasive (not persuasive, but that's the genre) essay, which should be deleted. Why is the editor writing this tripe still here? Hipocrite (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "still here" at AfD or "still here" at WP? This page is only for discussion of the proposed deletion of this article. Do you believe this one case is an example of a larger pattern of abuse, soapboxing, coatrackiong, or whatever (if so, you might wish to comment at the post I made at AN/I, or find another venue to discuss a larger issue). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as an essay based on original research and synthesis. The sources given don't support the conclusions made in the article - and why is the article coming to conclusions anyway? That's not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, and it contravenes Wikipedia guidelines and policy. --NellieBly (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I get the distinct impression that some editors are making comments here without having read the article. The article was carefully drafted to avoid making any inferences or drawing any conclusions. The article is simply documenting a particular antisemitic canard - which has been commented upon many notable people - that Jews hold many leadership positions in hollywood. The article, to minimize the appearance of bias, consists primarily of quotes from notable authors or Hollywood figures on the topic. Note that many of the sources in the article have POSITIVE things to say about the claim, such as "Jews deserve these roles because they worked damn hard and established a thriving industry in the deserts of So. Cal". There was no conclusion in the article. Some of the "delete" comments seem to be knee-jerk reactions that are issued without having read the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I read the article, before and after another editor made many cuts. What people are trying to explain to you is that you mis an important part of our NOR policy if you think that just stringing together quotes ensures neutraility. You have taken quotes out of context. By stringing together different quotes, you have created a new context. Taking things out of context and recontextualizing is a way to create meaning - even if you did not add a word of your own. It certainly does not minimize bias. The check against original research is to see what arguments established researchers - people published by university presses, or in peer-reviewed journals have to say about it. I asked you what makes this an encyclopdic topic and I do not agree with your response, above. For me what would make this an encyclopedic topic is if anyone studying anti-Semitism (historian, sociologist, etc) has analyzed these anti-semitic remarks. if no scholar has published any research on them, I'd say that no, they are not notable. If a scholar, or severl scholars, have analyzed this canard, then the article should be organized around their analysis, and if there is a debate among cholars as to the meaning of the canard, around the debates. I don't see anything like that. Instead i just se uotes taken out of context and strung together simply to say: Jews have been accused of running Hollywood, and some Jews have commented positively on Jewish success in Hollywood. This is not the "antiseptic" of fresh air, it serves no purpose, it does not educate it just provides a venue for repeating racism. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That seems a rather pessimistic view. Why assume this will garner racism, rather than attract positive information, such as the scholarly works you would have liked to see in the article? Also, scholarly works aren't needed to prove notability of the topic. Many of the present references are from reliable sources. The fact that no scholarly works are present is something that can be fixed, and doesn't point to a need to delete the article. Equazcion (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
        • It is not pessimistic, given the current state of the article, and the lack on progress on rewriting it since this discussion began. IF the article had a specific explanation for how and why this canard first came to be used by anti-Semites, and what this particular canard says about the sources and nature of anti-Semitism in the US, then it might have th positive function you seem to hope it would have. Even so I'd think this would all be better suited to being a section in the antisemitic canard article. Be that as it may, we would need an account of scholarly analysis drawing on reliable sources that tells us what this canard reveals about anti-Semites. As long as such discussion is missing, a have to say yours is a rather pollyannaish view. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
          • This discussion has been going for 2 days. I wouldn't expect enough progress in that time so as to be a microcosm for prediction of future progress. "what this canard reveals about anti-Semites" might be a good addition to this article, but I don't see how the lack of that makes the topic non-notable. You're stating some personal standards for inclusion that I think are rather irrelevant to Wikipedia. Equazcion (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - the essay-like approach to the subject is unencyclopedic to begin with, and reads as a piece of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in the form of an opinion piece. It is also based on a premise (that Jews control Hollywood and that the matter gives rise to controversies) that is itself rather suspect. This premise, along with its sisters - Jews control world banking, Jews control American policy, etc. has often been described as an antisemitic one. We can't afford to organize the encyclopedia around opinions in this way. If there are issues about Jews in hollywood, then an article based on the neutral subject, e.g. Jews in the entertainment industry, would have to pass muster as a notable, encyclopedic subject, not a derivative article on problems with Jews in the entertainment industry. I'm also concerned by the article creator's similarly biased Misuse of antisemitic accusations, and coverage of the book An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. This looks like a troubling POV campaign. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete/merge to Cinema of the United States. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The problems mentioned above are fixable, so no reason to delete. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Proposal to start over as a subsection within Antisemitic canard - A discussion above in this AfD led to the suggestion that perhaps the topic of this article would be better presented as a new section within the existing Antisemitic canard article (that suggestion is buried above, so I thought I'd repeat it here as a new bullet). That notion seems good to me. --Noleander (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this and all such coat-racks. That there are crackpot conspiracy about the jooz in the movie industry, in banking, as secret hands behind the shadowy One world government that wants to destroy us all, is not in question. We have a whole host of articles that deal with these conspiracies and other anti-semtic fever dreams (Blood libel, anyone?) We shouldn't host personal essays even when they aren't a coatrack for attacks on people or groups. But when they are such a coatrack, dealing with the problem is easier still.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I continue my bewilderment as to how WP:COATRACK applies to this article. So far no one answered my request above for an explanation. To repeat, the coatrack essay describes using the nominal mention of a topic as a pretext to launch into a tangential discussion. This article says it's about controversies related to prevalence of Jews in Hollywood, and that's exactly what is contained in it. So please, anyone and everyone who voted based on coatrack, show that you actually have a reason for saying that, and weren't just hopping on the bandwagon. Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I am sorry, but wouldn’t this be classified as Orginal Research? There is no film with this title, there is no book with this title, there is no documentary with this title. In fact, I could not find anything published, from reliable - third party - independent sources with this title. Other than Wikipedia. Have I missed something? Are we now publishing original investigation and opinions? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not every article is about a media title like a book or movie. That's far from an article requirement. Equazcion (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What than is the requirement this article would fall under? I thought one of the necessities here at Wikipedia, for inclusion, was that a piece’s subject had to be notable - verifiable - referenced from third party sources and written in a NPOV. Does this article fit that bill? Maybe I am misreading something. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoess: Wikipedia already contains many articles about antisemitic bigotry. (see Antisemitic canard). The key question, to me at least, is: Why are we considering deletion of "Jews Control Hollywood" but keeping Host desecration or well poisoning. I mean, there is a whole article on The Franklin Prophecy canard, a topic Ive never even heard of before. Doesnt "Jews control Hollywood" deserve an article, or at least a section in another article? --Noleander (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Welcome to Wikipedia! If you ever figure out what stays and what goes, let me know! We will both make millions on the advertisements. Regarding my personal opinions on what should be included and when I voice a delete opinion or keep, are a different matter. With regards to Keep, if an article has third party - verifiable - independent sources from a reliable and creditable sources, it has my affirmative opinion to keep. Regardless of the material, or my personal opinion on the cloth or rationalization of the material. However, when I see a piece, though well written, can not justify its conclusions or even point to respected publications that follows the same thought process, from third party - verifiable - independent sources from a reliable and creditable basis, I have to say delete. Sorry to say, in this particular piece, I see conclusions drawn from a number of different references, without support from other sources coming to the same conclusions, and to me that constitutes Orginial Research. In that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia’s only publishes material that is provided by third party - verifiable - independent sources from a reliable and creditable material I can not support this piece. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • The topic of the article is "The antisemitic canard: 'Jews Control Hollywood' ". When I created the article, I thought that title might be offensive, so I tried to find a gentler title that conveyed the same idea, and came up with "... prevelance of Jews in leadership roles ...". Unfortunately, the selected title is causing confusion. As for notability of the topic, it is widely discussed by notable persons from Henry Ford, to Michael Medved, to the President of the Catholic League, to ... well, see the article (the original version of the article had more notable sources). --Noleander (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Noleander, please feel free to revert the article to the state it was in before I cut it down, if you think that would have a better chance of survival. I thought the WP:SYN concerns could be addressed by removing the list of 'celebrity' quotes that sounded antisemitic, and focusing instead on columnists' assessments of the situation. I may have been wrong though and won't complain if you want to revert it. Equazcion (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on the fact it is a well-known urban legend/racist allegation that "The Jews control Hollywood". However, the article in its current form doesn't address the phenomena itself: for example, there is no attempt to identify when this allegation first emerged or who says it. Unless this article is re-written to cover the issue per se, it runs the risk of being a crank magnet -- which I assume was one unvoiced motivation for nominating it for deletion. -- llywrch (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Regurgitated anti-Semitism that was discredited decades ago. The article is an embarrassment. Warrah (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is discredited. But the encyclopedia documents many bigoted, discredited antisemitic canards ... see article Antisemitic canard. I understand that the topic of the article is distasteful, but that is no reason to exclude it from the encyclopedia. This encyclopedia includes many discredited theories and observations, see, for example, Stereotypes and Phrenology (drawing racist conclusions from skull shape). If the article is poorly written, or does not include enough balancing information, let's improve it. But deleting it seems at odds with the inclusion of so many other antisemitic canards that are already documented in Wikipedia. Do you think the topic "Antisemitic canard: Jews Control Hollywood" is not notable? --Noleander (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - It is important to point out that the article, as originally written, contained many examples of how the antisemitic canard has been discredited. They tend to fall into the following groups: (1) The primary motiviation of the Hollywood was to make a profit, not prodcue propaganda; (2) there was never any proof of any conspiracy or nepharious purpose; and (3) [this is from Gabler]: Throughout the 20th century, many Hollywood producers were striving to be assiilated into US society, and worked hard to mainstream their business, and thus avoided anything provocative or propgandistic. There is a fourth point that I did not include in the article, but thought of including: (4) Many Jewish Hollywood figures were unfairly targted during the 1950's red-baiting McCarthy witch-hunts, and that contradicts the theory that somehow Hollywood had excessive influence in America. --Noleander (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Friendly Reminder: Open Questions - There were a couple of questions posed above, and getting answers may help achieve consensus on this AfD. Could an editor that recommended "delete" please provide some input on these? They are:

Question 1) How does this article violate the WP:Coatrack policy? Reason for question: The article is about "The antisemitic canard that 'Jews Control Hollywood' ". The article consists of a collection of examples of the canard, and commentaries on the canard (note: some commentaries and examples have recently been deleted from the article). The fact that the article is a list (and a poorly written list, at that :-) gives the appearance of being a coatrack, but in fact all the sources are coherent and on-topic.

Question 2) What is the criterion for deciding whether or not an antisemitic canard is included in this encyclopedia? Reason for question: This encyclopedia contains many canards, several with their own articles, such as The Franklin Prophecy and Well poisoning. The "Jews Control Hollywood" canard is old (dating back a century to Henry Ford and the Dearborn Independent) and is well-documented, so the "Jews Control Hollywood" canard appears to be notable.

Disclaimer: I am the originator of the article, and recommended "Keep". But in the spirit of collaboration, it would be nice to get answers to these questions to help achieve consensus. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Are you looking for an explanation from every editor who !voted delete? The reason I ask is, I feel I explained the relevance of WP:COATRACK in my !vote, and a quick scan of the early !votes suggests many other editors did too - for example, the first !vote was from Black Kite who said "Basically a WP:COATRACK to parade a collection of collection of assertions about Jewish people in Hollywood". My concern is that BK's explanation may not be very clear, in which case my explanation probably isn't either, and likely other explanations that make sense to me may not make sense to others. Shout if that's the case and I'll certainly clarify my !vote. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Some have explained, but their explanations don't actually seem to fit with the actual WP:COATRACK essay. The nominator himself says below that he doesn't feel that coatrack actually applies here. I've summarized coatrack twice on this page, each time asking for an explanation that connects the issue described there with this article. I'm still not seeing that yet. Equazcion (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • (ec) Well I'll leave it to others to explain themselves (and I doubt I've ever participated in an AfD where the nominator anticipated or agreed with everyone !voting delete... ;-) ), but for my part I said that the plurality of the title ("Controversies...") made it "coatracky". I don't think the creator of the article created it as "a cover for a tangentially related biased subject", but I do feel the focus of the article is too broad and act as a bias-magnet - hence my comment re: taking on board the creator's point about individual controversies being notable. To date I've not seen anything to suggest that this particular set of controversies is notable, though I'd be surprised some weren't notable on their own. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • TFOWR: Yes, if you add some clarification, that would be helpful. My understanding of the Coatrack policy is that an article violates that policy only if the list of items in the article was somehow devious or misleading or unrelated to the title. The intention of this article was to document the well-known canard "Jews Control Hollywood". The list of sources/items in this article do document the canard (granted in a fairly bulletized way that was not very readable). If you look at the other articles on other canards such as The Franklin Prophecy, they are written differently (and probably better): they are not just a list of examples or commentaries, but rather more of a scholarly analysis. But that suggests that this article should be re-worked rather than deleted, true? --Noleander (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Hopefully my reply above clarifies? Shout if it doesn't. I'm not convinced you're correct about "...only if...devious or misleading" (and certainly I don't believe you set out to be devious or misleading, but I trust you'll put me straight if I'm wrong ;-) ) - articles can evolve to become coatracky, and I suspect many of the veteran commentators here see this article doing just that. I also have a concern about notability - are controversies - taken together - notable? I can certainly see that individual controversies may be. The Fr4anklin Forgery is notable, for example - but an article "controversies involving anti-semitic allegations against politicians" - possibly not so much. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • It seems like the problems you've described could be solved by renaming the article to "The perceived prevalence of Jewish leadership in Hollywood" (rather than "controversies" which invites a list). The problems left in terms of attracting "coatracky" edits would seem rather similar to those faced by the Anti-Americanism and Antisemitism articles. It's an unfortunate risk, but we haven't historically avoided articles like that for those reasons. Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I think "Jewish leadership in Hollywood", or "Jews and Hollywood" (with a section on perception/controversy) would be better, to be honest. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
            • I like that suggestion, because it opens the door for more positive information like how the Hollywood industry helped Southern California grow economically, and also how many Jews were treated unfairly in the 1950's blacklisting/McCarthyism episodes, and lots of other stuff that Neal Gabler describes. I suppose the article could be broadened and a new (small) subsection could be added to Antisemitic canards about "Jews Control Hollywood", cross-linking the two. --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - As the nominator of this article, I feel some need to speak up a bit about the reasons why it was nominated. As I said in the original nomination, it appeared to have some significant sourcing issues as the article at that time mainly consisted of excerpts from other WP articles, and had the appearance of making significant claims of anti-semitism without properly sourcing or criticizing them. Of the sources listed, both the Haaertz and the Joel Stein columns appear to be somewhat satirical, and not as factual as other sources might be. Nowhere did I ever list WP:COATRACK as a reason for this AfD, and I don't believe that it applies here. As for Noleander's second question, I don't know. It should be noted that this AfD stemmed from an ANI entry where an accusation of anti-semitism was brought against a user and I brought the conversation over here so that the conversation would focus on the article instead of the user. Frmatt (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Frmatt: Thanks for replying. Your response is consistent with what I was perceiving in this AfD: (1) The article does not violate the Coatrack policy; and (2) No one has given a good reason why the "Canard: Jews Control Hollywood" topic is not notable. That said, I'd still like to hear from other "Delete"ers, to get more input to help us achieve consensus. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a coatrack because, while ostensibly about Hollywood, it's really about Jews and fact-picking controversial incidents that involve Jews. No attempt is made to address non-Jewish controversies. No attempt is made to address non-controversial Jews. There is no article on Jews winning Nobel prizes out of statistical predictability, only one sentence at Jew. The Hollywood canard is less substantial, and much more difficult to source. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

HereToHelp: I hear what you are saying, but I think that your perception is due to the inaccurate title of the article. The article is on the topic "Canard: Jews control hollywood". I thought that would be too offensive, so I made the title more gentle, and called it "Controversy over prevelance ..." which - on hindsight - was a big mistake, because it makes it look like the article is about the statistical aspect of one ethnicity in a particular vocation. Based on the title, I can see why you would ask "Why not include controversies about non-jews"? What do you think about the proposal, made above, to (instead of a full article) put a new subsection into the Antisemitic canard article? --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons given in my reply to Noleander. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

HereToHelp, your objections fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Not saying that I am 100% happy with this article.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal

Having watched the conversation, I'm wondering if there is the possibility for a compromise here. User:Equazcion, User:TFOWR, and User:Noleander have made some good comments that lead to the possibility of a compromise. So, based on what they have said, here is the proposal (for the record, I have no idea if we can do this...but I'm going to ignore all rules and do it anyways!)

1) That the article be renamed either "Jewish Leadership in Hollywood" or "Jews and Hollywood" and its focus change according to the new title.

2) That a new section be inserted at Antisemitic canards about Jews and Hollywood with a crosslink to this article.

3) That if these are acceptable that this AfD be closed as "kept and renamed".

Frmatt (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • No objection here, though I'm probably on the "keep"-side of the "don't keep" camp - more strident deletionists may disagree ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, I too support this solution. This would be a good application of IAR. I hope we don't get a lot of rules-sticklers crying about this being out-of-process. Equazcion (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur with the compromise. I think it is a good middle ground. Although I'm not familiar with the AfD process, and I dont know whether it is "legal" to close it before 7 days have elapsed? Regardless, I would concur with the proposal. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly what I was going to suggest. The current title was a mistake and the current article is more a content dump than a coherent article, but the canard of the Jews running Hollywood is definitely notable and Wikipedia should cover it. Fences&Windows 22:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sugar coating garbage, doesn't change the fact that it is still garbage...Modernist (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I should point out that, to add substance to an insubstantial quip, that the material in Antisemitic canards is largely from pro-Jewish or neutral (depending on you POV) sources, while the article we are discussing is a collection of antisemitic cooks/revealers of suppressed truth who wrote inflammatory books, which are quoted extensively and without counteracting POVs or evaluation. The problem is not the organization of the article; it's the content, stupid! As it stands, it is merely a place to vent antisemetic quotes.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• ...and that would likely continue if the current title were retained. It would be far harder to justify in an general article about "Jews and Hollywood", though. Slipping "sugar-coated garbage" into a small clear plastic bag is far harder than slipping it into a large brown paper bag ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• The proposal isn't merely to change the title, but the focus of the article too, ie. content. Equazcion (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply Hey Frmatt I appreciate your mediation in the discussion. However, my opinion on delete was based on Original Research. My feelings and personal opinion about Wikipedia is that my opinion is based on the premise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. My understanding of an encyclopedia is a Reference work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or that it treats a particular branch of knowledge comprehensively. It is self-contained and explains subjects in greater detail than a dictionary with references and citations to other works that support the conclusion. With regards to this particular piece, I find that we have an individual, who has done a great job in researching - writing and referencing a piece but has come to their own conclusion. The article as it now stands could, (and maybe should be submitted to a journal for publication). However, Wikipedia is not a Journal - Scholarly peer review - or a publisher of Original material. We are a encyclopedia that forwards the findings of others, after it has been vented by 3rd party - verifiable - creditable and independent sources, and not a publication house for great, but unproven, thesis. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be commenting on the article's present content, rather than on the proposal at the top of this section. Once again: The proposal is to change the content of the article, as well as its name. Hopefully the changes would make the article more in-line with Wikipedia's core principles, which you've so comprehensively described to us. Equazcion (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My comment would than be rewrite and post, and see what happens. My opinion as to this article, under this discussion, has to be based on what this article is, and how it is written now. Not what it maybe under a new name - different references - different author or even possible different subject. Hope this helps explain my position. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're basically not commenting one way or the other on this proposal, but rather re-casting your vote to delete the article; just to be clear. Equazcion (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Comment made in frustration, please disregard, apologies. Equazcion (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: No apologies necessary. The question was not uncivil - derogatory or offense, just a question, that sorry to say, I responded to. So you now have to read my comment. Punishment enough, I believe. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I’m sorry if I am sounding coy or trying to slip the question, but AFD is not the forum to discuss renaming - referencing - or rewriting an article. They are subjects that should have been explored on the discussion page of the piece itself, before it came here. I understand that sometimes a piece comes to this forum because of an editor nominating for deletion before trying to discuss the topic or researching a subject or just personal opinion on what should be included or should not be included on Wikipedia. However, in reading the piece, even if it was renamed - referenced - rewritten is still Original Research at this point. And again Wikipedia is not a publishing house - discussion forum - Journal or portal to express individual conclusions in a POV manner. Hopefully we convey the facts, the facts only, and lead a reader to investigate further to draw their own opinions. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset) I agree with Shoesss, although I want to acknowledge the good faith nature of this proposal. This article will be deleted, or kept, based on the merits of the arguments here. If it is kept, I sincerely hope that its most ardent supporters will take all of the criticisms as good faith comments, and use them, or at least many of them, as an agenda for improving the article. If the article is deleted, I have two comments worth making now (to provide a more thoughtful reply to Frmatt. First, Wikipedians consider it very bad form when an editor tries to recreate an article that was just deleted. If deleted, the future ;ies in other directions.

Second, that said, it seems to me that much of this discussion has been very constructive. I hope that Noleander and Equazcion can see past disagreements about the application of different policies, to a geneal concern I hope we can all acknowledge is shared by everyone here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I do not mean to speak for others but I get the feeling that Noleander has given more thought to what her own intentions were and how she handled things, and has some ideas about how this could all have been handled differently. This is not a reproach. My advice is for Noleander (if the article is deleted) to take a couple of weeks off from thinking about this topic, and thn go through all the talk here to elicit the most constructive comments, to consider with an entirely open mind other ways that this material could be handled. I have some good faith suggestions. For one, Noleander has acknolwedged that she is not a historian but that the input of a historian or sociologist might be beneficial - i'd suggest going to the Wikiproject pages for these discipines and actively seeking collaborators. Then I would consider dividing all of the material that was in this article, or that other editors felt would be in an encyclopedic, NPOV article, and consider instead contributing to three other article: First an article on the history of Jews in America. Jews, like all ethnic groups, arrived with certain experiences and at a certain time in history that gave them certain opportunities while also creating certain challenges or limitations. That many Jews turned to commercial and artistic fields is not considered surprising by historians and sociologists, and for reasons that are far more nuanced that the views provided by some film critics, as they are based on real research about the ways immigrants adapt to a new home. Second, an article on the history of Hollyood. There is real scholarship written by historians of Hollywood - about how most Jewish actors had to change their names and pass as gentiles in order to be accepted by audiences; about the sympathy many Jews had for blacks, given similarities in their experience - all at the same time that other Jews discovered that they could find in Hollywood financial success denied to them in other more respected professions like law and medicine. There is a complex story here (that I am no expert on) and it deserves to be told, in the right article. Finally, the article on anti-Semitic canards could do with a new section on the one about Jews controling the media/Hollywood. There are scholars who research anti-Semitism, and usually their analysis shows what different trends in anti-Semitism reveal about anti-Semites, or about the time period in which a given canard is most popular. I would not be offended by an article rehashing such canards if it put them in the context of such scholarship.

The main point driving all my comments is simple: Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Collaboration does not depend on one compromise, it depends on endless compromises. So I think that Frmatt's proposed compromise, while well-intended, is misplaced. Let us just watch this play out. There is nothing to fear in an AfD. If this article is deleted it does not stop Noleander from making valuable contributions to the project. Let's wait and see. If the article is not deleted you can bet lots of editors will want to see it revised along lines suggested here. But even if it is deleted, I already see three different articles Noleander could constructively contribute to. There is no reason for all this material to be in one single article, especially thanks to the space-age wonder of hypertext and links. Whatever problems I have with this article, if contributeions were made along the lines I propose to three other articles - contributions that grow out of Noleander's work - this would indeed be a better encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but this just sounds like one big "no, we shouldn't IAR, we should follow the process instead, because it is the process." And I don't see any actual reason to do that. You've suggested we do the same thing as is proposed above, only wait longer to do it. What's the point of that? Equazcion (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree Slrubenstein, and think that reading the history articles will give a good sense for what we are looking for. I am fine with the theory of a well-referenced section in the Canard article. However, the content that we have is unacceptable to display in any article. I know from experience that starting with anything is easier than a blank page. Such, I recommend usefying or sandboxing what we have, so committed editors can begin the (lengthy and involved) process of making it something usable.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am feeling like there was perhaps some people who didn't fully read the options given above, so I'm going to copy and paste them here.

It seems like the problems you've described could be solved by renaming the article to "The perceived prevalence of Jewish leadership in Hollywood" (rather than "controversies" which invites a list). The problems left in terms of attracting "coatracky" edits would seem rather similar to those faced by the Anti-Americanism and Antisemitism articles. It's an unfortunate risk, but we haven't historically avoided articles like that for those reasons. Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think "Jewish leadership in Hollywood", or "Jews and Hollywood" (with a section on perception/controversy) would be better, to be honest. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I like that suggestion, because it opens the door for more positive information like how the Hollywood industry helped Southern California grow economically, and also how many Jews were treated unfairly in the 1950's blacklisting/McCarthyism episodes, and lots of other stuff that Neal Gabler describes. I suppose the article could be broadened and a new (small) subsection could be added to Antisemitic canards about "Jews Control Hollywood", cross-linking the two. --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

These are the comments that I based my compromise proposal on, and I would hope that those who disagree would at least consider that what these three users have proposed (my proposal was a synthesis of what I read here). If the article is going to be re-created from scratch, then why not start with something instead of nothing. I would fully support the userfication of this page so that it can be re-worked, but if it has usable content in it, then lets do something to keep it so we don't lose the work that has been done already. I will be the first to admit that I don't like the content any more than anyone else (hence this AfD), but if a compromise can be worked out instead of a full-out deletion, then great, lets do that and work together in the spirit of what WP is at its best.

As to some of the specific comments...

• No, I did not try to work this out on the talk page before I nominated it as my involvement started with a thread over at WP:ANI. When I looked at the article, I saw that it had some serious issues (as mentioned in the nomination) and brought it here for further discussion (though I didn't expect it to be quite this lengthy!) I believed when I saw the article that it was worthy of deletion, however there are some points that have been made by many people that have made me believe that there is some notable information worth rescuing here. But, because my involvement with the article only began with the ANI post, then continued over here...no, I didn't take it up on the talk page as when I nominated it, I felt that it deserved to come here. Would I do it differently with the article as it stands now...maybe, but I would need a crystal ball to really know.
• My compromise was not brought here out of fear either that the AfD would succeed, or that it would fail. It was brought in an attempt to work in the communal spirit that Wikipedia espouses, to find a solution that is acceptable to the majority of people. I know that I cannot please all of the people, all of the time...I'm just trying to please most of the people this once.
• Yes, I am aware that AfD is not necessarily the place for this type of conversation...however it is where we are, and seemed to me to be the best place to propose this compromise so that the majority of people who had an interest in this topic could have as much input as possible.
• Finally, all of our edits fall under the category of original research. In choosing the sources that we do, in reading and interpreting things the ways that we do, in simply being the people that we are we are continually making choices about what to include and what not to include. Each individual edit qualifies as a piece of original research simply because we cannot escape our own personal biases. We can be aware of them, and try to counteract them, but we cannot ever escape them. This is why we run into point of view conflicts, because each of us sees the world and all of the information in it in the light of our experience, society, and knowledge. This AfD (for me at least) was never about original research, and more about a community conversation about the suitability of this article for WP. As with all things, I have seen new evidence which has changed my mind about the notability of this subject, and I am not too proud to say that. That is the wonderful thing about WP, while each of our individual edits may qualify as original research, ideally, each of our contributions will balance out somebody else's original research. In the end, we have a usable encyclopedia...or at least we hope so. Frmatt (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that this proposed "Jews in Hollywood" article is remotely notable. As such, oppose this solution in search of a problem. The real problem (anti-semites using Wikipedia as a soapbox) is easily solvable. Hipocrite (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Curious who you think is an anti-semite, specifically? Equazcion (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Poorly written article created by a crackpot simpleton.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No need for name calling. Let's focus on the encyclopedia, shall we? --Noleander (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Summary of data showing Notability - I get the feeling that this discussion is going around in circles. To help break out of the circle, perhaps we could try to focus more on cold, hard facts. To that end, here is a summary of the facts that support notability of the subject of this article (namely "Canard: Jews control Hollywood"):

1) Google shows 200,000 hits for the specific phrase "Jews Control Hollywood".

2) This canard is so well-known, that humorist Joel Stein wrote a column about it in the L. A. Times here.

3) The bigoted statement "Jews control Hollywood" has been made by many notable people, starting with Henry Ford in the 1920s, and continuing through the 1950s with many Christian organizations, and into the present day with many notable anti-zionists and anti-semites.

4) The following notable figures have published writings about the canard: Michael Medved, J. J. Goldberg, and Neal Gabler

5) There are hundreds and hundreds of commentaries on the canard, such as this one here by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

6) The ADL has a "Special Report" dedicated to the canard here entitled "Alleged Jewish 'Control' of the American Motion Picture Industry"

Perhaps it would help us achieve consensus if some "Delete"ers could address the above data and explain how, in light of that data, "Canard: Jews Control Hollywood" is not notable. Ditto for the claims that the article is "Original Research" or "Coatrack". (As for the claim "The article is written poorly", I have no counterargument for that :-) Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

First, let me say Welcome Noleander, though we disagree on this particular piece, your contributions are appreciated and welcomed. To address the issues brought up by both yourself and Frmatt let me start by addressing this particular article that is under discussion. Delete, for the reasons I have stated above: Original Research which I will not bore you with by reiterating again here. However, I will add on to my argument by stating that your comments did get me thinking and I started to investigate the contention from an academic standpoint and did some research on the topic in its current state. The first area I addressed was “Jews Control Hollywood” strictly through Scholarly works and came-up with 5 hits [[21]] not impressive or in my opinion notable. I tried a different search term; "Jewish Racism in Hollywood" and was rewarded with 3 hits, as shown here, [22]. Again, not impressive or in my opinion notable. Likewise, I looked at “Anti-Semitism in Hollywood” and was only able to find 1 Hit as provided here, [23]. Finally I went with "Jewish Racism in Hollywood" that provided only 3 hits, for your review here, [24]. In my opinion these findings supports my argument that the article as it is now written and labeled is non-notable and should be deleted. Now with regards to a different article that could include and incorporate some of your finds that are mentioned in the existing piece, I could and would support a piece along the lines “Jews in Hollywood”. There is a wealth of information, as shown here [25] covering that particular topic and would be a nice addition here at Wikipedia. In fact, I would gladly help in reference and citing the piece. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. That doesnt seem very persuasive. A couple of questions: (1) You use Google, but what about the other five data that are listed above? (I dont mean individually, I mean taken as a whole). (2) You are limiting Google to the "scholar" search. Is there a policy that says that only scholarly references may be used when determining notability? --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a policy, with regards to what search engine we use or not, policy has no particular one that is required. That is left to the individual, and what they are comfortable with on relying on their argument to support claims of notability or arguments against. In my personal criteria, yes I limit my searches to Google Scholar and Google News. I also use several search engines that are typically not available without a fee, one of the perks that my job. On the other hand, I have found that just a plain old Google search can bring a proliferation of hits for subject matter, no matter if it is fringe sciences or actual hoaxes. The reason for my personal criteria, is that both Google Scholar and Google News are typically vented material, that has been peered reviewed, and typically accepted as researched, and though many may still be consider a hoax or placebo science, see Cold Fusion, is still a way to give credence to an argument for notability. Regarding the points above, I think I have addressed them to the point that any further explanation will only be redundant and will not further either of our points. Hope this helps explain where I am coming from. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoessss, you seem to misunderstand the restriction imposed by "no original research". It was intended to keep out content that presented novel conclusions, not original content which present conclusions already presented in popular or scholarly discussions, or are plausible to a reasonably-educated person. If all original content were banned from Wikipedia, most of our biographies would need to be deleted because they are about people for whom there is no expert article which covers her/his entire life. Further, no one is arguing that a widely-accepted belief that "Jews control Hollywood" does not exist; without counting votes, my impression is that the primary objection to this article is that the subject is not notable. This, indeed, may be the case if there is not enough second-party discussion of this belief to write a satisfactory article. -- llywrch (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey llywrch, I hope you don’t mind, but I like to address your comments from the bottom up rather than from the beginning down. You know us Philly people always difficult and looking for an edge. Regarding secondary discussion for an article, I have no problem with that. But one of my requirements, and yes that is personal and not policy, is that the discussion be based on a Notable subject, be it a person, place or thing, and not based on original research. As I stated above , my premise is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, we forward the findings of others, after it has been vented by 3rd party - verifiable - creditable and independent sources, and not a publication house for great, but unproven, thesis. As such, Wikipedia is not the forum for secondary discussions to establish notability for a subject, but rather the outlet to show that a subject has obtained notability status through coverage other than Wikipedia. That should have already been proven by coverage from outside sources before being placed here on Wikipedia. Our only responsibility, here at Wikipedia, is to discuss what references to use. Regarding the statement ; “…that a widely-accepted belief that Jews control Hollywood does not exist without counting votes” is exactly what I am arguing against. That whiffs of racism and anti-Semitism and is a problem that should not be expounded on further through any agenda, especially an encyclopedia. Does that mean that there is not a place here at Wikipedia to show that it may exist, no. In fact, with a piece that gives balanced information, supported by vented 3rd party - verifiable - creditable and independent sources, would gladly be welcomed by me. Finally to address the area of my misunderstanding the restrictions, that could be possible. An interpretation of guidelines and policies is always a personal analysis. Sorry to say, that is why we have lawyers. As such, I express my reading of the policies and guideline be they right or be they wrong. That is why we have an individual with a few more brain cells than me to judge consensus, and consensus is how the policies and guidelines are imposed. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to notability. The notion is common colloquially, even if scholars may shy away from it. I object to the naming of the article (a section in Canard is quite enough) and I predominantly object to the quality of the article, which I do not think is in dispute. I reiterate: sandbox it, demonstrate that a quality section can be written, and then introduce it to Canard. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see two camps: One of userfying the article, and one for fixing it while in mainspace. I think everyone knows which side I'm on. However, frankly, neither side is giving any reasons why theirs is the more appropriate solution. My take is this: In order to say userfying is the better solution, there would have to be some sort of significant doubt as to whether the article, through a rename and edit as described above, can be made into something encyclopedic.

There are still a couple of days until the closing of this discussion would normally occur, and I predict an even later close due to the enormity of this discussion. Those interested might as well start trying to fix the article now, rather than blabbing with predictions of how possible or impossible it might be. This includes a rename, which according to WP:AFD is allowed, as long as the AFD participants are properly notified.

This way, when the discussion is nearing closing, the article will at least contain as much evidence as possible of whether or not it can be rescued, and both the closing admin and perhaps the delete voters here (provided they're not just being stubborn) might be swayed to keep the article in mainspace. I'm going to be bold and move the article now to one of the proposed names, which the supporters of this proposal should obviously not object to, and the opposers shouldn't object to either because they want the article deleted anyway.

I pity the poor admin who has to read all this. Poor, poor admin... Equazcion (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I made some changes to the article, in conformance with this suggestion from User:Equazcion above. Primarily, I've added some stubbed sections for topics like "Reluctance to put Jewish themes in movies", "Blacklisting (as it impacted Jews)", and "Jewish actors hiding jewishness (name changes, etc)". If this AfD endorses the article, I'll be happy to help add more detail to the article. But with the prospect of deletion, I'm reluctant to spend much time adding detailed text ... until the AfD is closed one way or another (tho I encourage others to do so :-) --Noleander (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• merege WP:INCUBATE or userfy I see the beginning, the very early beginning of a good article here. Ikip (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are refering to the version of the article at the moment you made your comment, you should know that it is in the middle of being transformed to follow a proposal (above) to broaden the article (from focusing just on the "Jews Control Hollywood" to "Jews and Hollywood"). So it is very skeletal at the moment. Assuming that consensus supports that direction, it could easily take another 2 or 3 weeks for the article to get fleshed out. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "In order to say userfying is the better solution, there would have to be some sort of significant doubt as to whether the article [...] can be made into something encyclopedic." I respectfully disagree. The possibility of improvement is the threshold of incubation. The actual current state of the article is the threshold for inclusion in the main namespace. Currently, we have the former but not the latter.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • In my experience, if a topic is found to be notable and has potential, it's generally kept. The present state of its content is secondary. Sometimes articles are found to be in such horrible state that a "blank slate" is needed, but generally, notability and potential alone have been reasons to keep. Equazcion (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – Based on the name change and the editing now being performed on the piece. As the adage expresses “…all good things to those who Persevere”. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Attempts to claim that "Jews and Hollywood" is not a significant topic seem well-meaning but disingenous. Please remember that Wikipiedia is not censored, and just because anti-semites may have waxed lyrical about Zionist control of the media, if not the world, that doesn't mean we should sweep the topic under the carpet. Ikip's suggestion to WP:INCUBATE is a good one. Fences&Windows 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per arguments above. Also note how the section Jews_and_Hollywood#Michael_Medved is taken point blank from a posting on Stormfront - [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=98084&page=2]. All Hallow's (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The particular statement is referenced - placed in quotation marks and is attributed to the individual that made the remark. It highlights a fastidious thought process that would lose it’s effect if it was rephrased to protect plagiarism concerns. Though we may not agree with the thought process of the individual making the remarks, the way it is presented in Wikipedia, does not constitute reasons to delete. The way to address the situation, is to address the remarks with a brief statement, that is also referenced, stating a contrasting view. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The point wasn't Medved's quotes; rather, it was that sentences like "The article then describes how the Jew Michael Eisner, the Head of Walt Disney studios only hires..." or "He adds that even studios which were bought out by the Japanese Sony Corp. and by the Australian Jew Rupert Murdoch" were copied directly from the Stormfront posting about Medved. All Hallow's (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I created that section that summarizes Medved's article "Jews Run Hollywood" from Moment magazine. That summary of his article contains some inflammatory text between the quotes, and I apologize for cutting-and-pasting it without proofreading. That body of text is online at many websites, including RadioIslam and many others. I dont have a clue who assembled the quotes originally. I dont recall where I obtained the text from, but it would not be Stormfront, since I dont consider that a reliable source. In any case, I have trimmed down the section to be much smaller and neutral. --Noleander (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep important article that explain how the jew have unproportion number and control of the hollywood and the news. Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Sigh. Ani, I think you may want to keep such thoughts to yourself. This is not and should not be an article that aims to "expose Zionist control" or similar 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'-esque theorising. Fences&Windows 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An alternative compromise

• Merge with American Jews Information about American Jews as they have influenced particular fields seems to me to belong in the article American Jews. Jews are well represented in other fields besides the entertainment industry, without corresponding articles that I could find. The usual way of describing their contributions is a list of individual people, not an article. The article "American Jews" has only a rudimentary description of how "many of the early Hollywood moguls and pioneers were Jewish" (to quote from that article). IMO the apparently large number of people who want to read about Jews in Hollywood should be redirected from this article's page to the article "American Jews." Any relevant and appropriate content in this article and related articles could be merged with that article (or other articles, as per the aforementioned suggestions). The section of "American Jews" about the Jews in the entertainment industry ("Jews in popular culture") still does not have a lot of information. --AFriedman (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I could support this compromise as American Jews is already 84 kilobytes and has a nifty little note at the top about splitting it. This article as it is being outlined at Jews and Hollywood does have some notability and should be kept as a separate article. (Just for the record, this AfD is now 97 kilobytes long!) Frmatt (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to support a merge, but good point. It should be summarised in that article though. Fences&Windows 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, forgot to mention that a section should be added with a link to Jews and Hollywood. Frmatt (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In defense of merging the information in this article, articles about complicated and important subjects are, necessarily, very long. The article about American Jews is only B-class and covers a very large topic that has been rated "high-importance" on both WikiProject United States and WikiProject Ethnic Groups. For comparison, several articles about U.S. cities with populations of roughly 100,000-250,000, such as Albany, New York, Richmond, Virginia and New Haven, Connecticut are of comparable or greater length and no one is complaining, despite the notes about their size. I myself have seen and helped with the development of new sections that increased the length of the Albany article. In my opinion, "American Jews" is a more important article based on this being a demographic group that numbers in the millions. Not all the information in the American Jews article is essential--a more detailed section about Jewish people in the entertainment industry is probably more important than the large part of that article about Jewish populations by U.S. county, which seems a bit arbitrarily chosen and could easily be condensed or moved. --AFriedman (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with AFriedman that articles on key issues can be unusually long. However, Im not sure American Jews is the right article, because the primary "new" topic in this article is about the antisemtic canard "Jews Control Hollywood". Other articles that are more relevant are either Antisemitic canard or Cinema of the United States. It is true that this article, as written now, was broadened recently to be "Jews and Hollywood", but if that proposal is adopted, then this article should/would get rather large (lots of sub-sections could get created someday) and it probably would end up as its own article someday. --Noleander (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge media bias claims into other articles. Break up this article into several topics. I think there is an attempt to cover several topics with this article. I don't feel I have studied some of the issues enough to know how to cover some aspects of this article in Wikipedia. For example; "Control" is a very controversial term. But media bias and lobbying are covered by several articles. Biases are common. Most people in the media and lobbying groups have some kind of bias. Some people are better than others at putting aside their biases and covering issues objectively. Same as at Wikipedia. Wikipedia could be claimed to be part of the mass media at this point. Covering religion and religious issues in the media and Wikipedia is difficult. All kinds of pressures, lobbying, spin, politics, and calculation are involved. Critical viewpoints of religion and religious influence and must be covered in a careful, balanced WP:NPOV way to avoid problems. Some articles and article sections that are relevant in various ways follow below. Some could incorporate some of the info directly. Some are examples of Wikipedia coverage of various forms of claimed media biases, religious lobbying, and the intermixing of media, religion and politics.

- Media bias#Vis-a-vis religious issues

- Pat Robertson, 700 Club, Category:Left Behind series, Christian Zionism.

- Israel lobby in the United States, Arab lobby in the United States, Pallywood.

- Clear Channel, Air America Media, Right-wing radio (redirects to Conservatism#Radio).

- Echo chamber (media), Vast right-wing conspiracy, Liberal media (redirects to Media bias).

- Christian right, Christian left, Jewish lobby, Ethnic interest group.

- Spin (public relations), Interest group, Campus Watch, CAMERA Israeli lobby campaign in Wikipedia

- Media manipulation, Framing (social sciences), Fear mongering.

- Smear campaign, Foreign policy interest group, Attack ad.

- The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Managing the news, Gatekeeping (communication).

All the various religious population groups spend large amounts of money and time (both as individuals and as members of organizations and viewing audiences) to influence mass media coverage of religious issues, and/or to become alternative mass media themselves. I am talking about news media, movies, books, web sites, and all forms of communication. Religious influence and bias in the various media is huge and ongoing. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fun fact: This discussion is now 101KB long. Equazcion (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Now that this had been moved to Jews and Hollywood I will vote keep in expectation of there being plenty of opportunity to create an encyclopedic article. The original version had clear problems relating to WP:Weight as it had large chunks of quotations, often from bigots, followed by brief comments stating that the ADL didn't like what was said.

Later: It has since emerged that the much of the article was originally sourced as a copy vio from Stormfront [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=98084&page=2] and other bigoted sites that copied their material. I now think thaa it may be better to delete and start again with current article name.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify:

• No, there was no text taken from Stormfront, it was taken from RadioIslam here. Repeating a false fact does not make it true.
• Copyright violation? No. The quotes are from a Michael Medved article in "Moment" magazine, and a handful of quotes are not a violation.
• "Much of the article"? No, the text that was improperly cut-and-pasted (by me) was the "Michael Medved" subsection. That is a small fraction of the original article (although, now that the article has been severly pruned, it is a larger portion).
• Start over? Maybe. But the offending text has been removed already, so starting over may end up where the article is now. --Noleander (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would taking the material from Radio Islam be any better than taking it from Stormfront? Or, for that matter, why would taking material from the Institute for Historical Review be appropriate? Also, did you actually read the sources you cite in the article, like Moment magazine? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Aggregating a bunch of cranks in one place still makes them cranks. The article's tone is incredibly biased. Lots of undue weight given to extremist positions. --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Bacharach44: Could you please give some examples of the "extremist positions" in the article? There used to be a few quotes from Henry Ford and Louis Farrakan, but those have been removed in the latest version of the article. The remaining text in the "Canard" section is rather neutral and mild, and includes quotes from commentators like Michael Medved and J. J. Goldberg (both of whom, I believe, are Jewish). Could you give a couple of examples of the "bunch of cranks" and "extremist positions"? --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This could not sustain a neutral and objective article, and gives undue weight to fringe theories. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 84.92.117.93 - Could you help by being a bit more specific, please? The canard "Jews Control Hollywood" is very notable, dating back to Henry Ford, and is the subject of many, many notable commentators (see the article for details). Is the canard what you are suggesting is fringe? How does it compare to other canards like Kosher Tax or The Franklin Prophecy (which do have articles in this encyclopedia) as far as notability? --Noleander (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm saying it's not of encyclopedic notability - I highly doubt you would get an article devoted to this subject is any mainstream encyclopia, or a similar publication. I'm sure it's notable within the far-right online community, but featuring it here gives undue prominance to a fringe concept; maybe a better option would be to mention the slur in a few lines on the Antisemitism article, a more appropriate depth of coverage. As for your mention of other articles, I don't see how they affect this debate - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am appalled at the political censorship expressed or implied in some of the above comments. I agree that some of the detail and specific content in this article might go elsewhere, but just as we write articles on individual cranks, we write articles on their collective activities as well. We write articles on the most terrible of ideas and their advocates. We write articles on both racial persecution, and racial domination. Anti-semitism is not a taboo topic, and neither are the roles of Jews in various activities, whatever their nature. We can write on Jewish views of Black people, and vice versa--regardless of the degree to which they are well or ill founded. We present the views as they are reliably reported, and we also set them in context by discussing the variation in those views and the opposition to those views . That Jews may have dominated the film industry in the US is not a subject too sensitive to be discussed frankly. There is no subject whatsoever too sensitive to be discussed fairly on Wikipedia. An accurate report of what people have thought,s aid and did, is something we can report on, but we must not censor our articles so they have a "correct" political tendency, nor may we censor our titles. Political or social consequences of telling things factually are irrelevant here: those who wish to write with a political purpose should do so elsewhere. The tone of the article & its title did not quite succeed in attaining NPOV, but that is correctable, and there is no valid criticism of it otherwise. The topic is sufficiently notable by our usual criteria to justify an article--there are excellent published sources from a variety of viewpoints. I think "Jews in Hollywood" is far too much of a dilution, far too much of a merge with other aspects of the general subject--it is only acceptable if our devotion to NPOV and NOT CENSORED is so diluted also, that there is no possibility of saving as a distinct article on the specific subject. DGG' ( talk ) 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My problem is not of inclusion/notability; my problem is placement and quality. NPOV means tempering information about cranks with information from scholarly sources of all points of views. The censorship was of pro-Jewish views, and of satsistics, and of basically anyone who hadn't written an antisemitic text. Let me reiterate: fix it, prove that it can be done, before you request to put this is somewhere.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • ...if your argument isn't of inclusion, then your argument is not for Afd. So of course, your argument is of inclusion. You want the article deleted. I think I'm starting to understand the harsh response this article has gotten. The censorship as you call it is necessary because the article only lends itself to incidence of negative comments against Jews, and therefore, being an article with only the potential to be full of reports of negativity, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. That's very interesting. I'll probably be back to address this more fully. Equazcion (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The meat of the article, as currently titled, is missing and is not the issue of Jewish control over Hollywood. It is the contributions made by specific Jewish people in Hollywood, as individuals and as part of groups. These are the facts that the people who would like to make value judgments should be able to read. I support the information about the accusations being moved to Antisemitic canards and articles about the accusers, and more detail about the individual people and their influence being added to the very rudimentary section about the topic in American Jews. --AFriedman (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The people who want to read about the contributions of individuals will go to the articles on them, which we have. The people who want to read about the accusation (or perhaps the boast) that Jewish people controlled or controlled Hollywood will come to a general article on the topic. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The contributions of individual Jews are indeed relevant to the antisemitic accusations about them, and hard evidence that they unfairly excluded other people really does belong on their pages. To give another example, the fact that Oxford University only admitted Anglicans at one time also belongs on its page. Furthermore, people who want to read about "Jews in Hollywood" may well be looking for biographical information about people like Steven Spielberg, not antisemitic canards. --AFriedman (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Slrubenstein, Blargh29, Mercurywoodrose etc., and particularly per Ani medjool. Also per Peter Cohen's "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

in other words, if it reports on or quotes or is derived from anti-Semitic sources, we don't include it? How can we write on anti-Semitism without doing that? DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, those are "other words" all right: words unrelated to my !vote. Are you certain you meant to respond to me? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - violates WP:SYN, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Ignoring the antisemitic filth out there produced by the Christian Right, Radical Islam, and White Power organisations, I've picked out sources that specifically discuss the issue of "Jews and Hollywood". I hope they will be enough to make plain that this is a notable and coherent topic that is not merely the preserve of bigots, though they will need to be discussed. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Fences&Windows 02:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Which is great, but they're useless until incorporated into an article. Where to put content is a small matter compared to having the content. I want to see the article first.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I take the time and effort to find sources and you say they're useless? Give me a break. There's an argument for deletion stated above several times that says that sources don't exist to support the topic - well, they do. Demonstrating the existence of good sources is enough to keep an article, as it shows the potential to produce an article of adequate quality. I'm not about to start work on an article like this that can be deleted on the whim of a closing admin who buys the DELETEASITMIGHTBEANTISEMITIC argument. Fences&Windows 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I've just given Fences&Windows a "Working Man's Barnstar" for finding all these references. Let's make sure we at least look at them when we try and change the article. --AFriedman (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. OR, essay, coatrack, bizarre. Anything legitimate could be merged into one of the articles on Hollywood. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Article has changed a lot from the one that was initially nominated. The sources now appear to be reliable, to discuss a subject of definite notability, and to do so in an encyclopedic way with a real effort at narrative voice and pattern. The coatrack nature of the antisemitic canard section has almost disappeared. By its nature, it's going to be one of those articles that needs careful watching to preserve neutrality, but we don't shy away from those. This keep is only weak because of the article's checkered origin, and I'm unsure whether the earlier contributions are worth preserving in the history. Ray^Talk 04:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As per Slr, SV, et al. Statements that anything can be discussed on WP miss the point. It would be possible to write a similar factual and sourced article Transsexuals in academia. It would be an exercise in bad taste. That said, I could imagine an excellent article on Women in mathematics, which would not cause offense and would be helpful: Association for Women in Mathematics already exists and there is a [[Category:Women mathematicians]]. Mathsci (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Avoiding the distasteful being so very crucial to writing a proper encyclopedia. Equazcion (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Avoiding bad taste is just another way of applying censorship. Were all the Jewish people who discussed the topic of Jews and Hollywood in the sources I linked to above like Rachel Weisz and Joel Klein writing in bad taste too? Fences&Windows 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • (ec) The word is offensive, not distasteful. We do not yet have a BLP for the fellow in astrophysics at the only remaining women's college in the University of Cambridge and I know that she would not wish for one: her life is complicated enough as it is. These real life concerns are not that hard to understand. There are plenty of encyclopedic articles waiting to be written on wikipedia that require considerable intellectual effort and skill; they are quite different from the article under discussion, which is little more than glorified gossip. Wikipedia is there to inform and educate, not to shock and offend. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Can we ignore the strawman of your acquaintance at Cambridge? Please distinguish between the current state of the article and the topic in general. The article was and still is a poor article, and the choice of sourcing and the original title was disastrous. In contrast, the topic of "Jews and Hollywood" is notable and can be written from balanced reliable sources without being offensive, clumsy, racist or titillating. See above for the sources I found. I'm not going to rewrite it right now as I don't particularly enjoy editing under extreme siege conditions and with a high likelihood of my work being deleted. Fences&Windows 22:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Strawman? This is a real person, Rachel Padman. I don't know her personally, but I'm familiar with her personal story. As for the article under discussion, it seems little more than gossip and it's hard to imagine it could go much beyond that - not what I expect to see in an encyclopedia. As I've written already there are plenty of properly encyclopedic articles out there to edit. Mathsci (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per Slr, Peter Cohen. A coatrack, a would-be magnet for bigots, and failing everything else, just not suitable for Wikipedia, any more than an article titled "Blacks and gang violence" would be. Auntie E. 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Race and crime in the United States? Fences&Windows 22:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles that should not exist. Notice that the one you mentioned has a point of view tag which will probably remain until it is deleted. Do you think articles that are tagged POV are of real value to readers? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a bad example, I think, since no specific race is mentioned there as the scope of the article. If you deleted race and crime in America you'd have to delete a whole lot of other subjects that scholars have written about. Let's not go nuts; touchy subjects still get coverage, and even most of the people calling this article antisemitic aren't in favor of going that far. Equazcion (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And, it's easy to tag an article POV. You don't necessarily need a good reason, and even if there is one, it's usually a temporary content issue. If the article was by definition only within the scope of a POV, it wouldn't be tagged, it would be up for deletion. Equazcion (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - an accpetable article on this topic may well be possible, this is not it. Nor do I think an acceptable article could grow out of what is currently on the page without it being so fundamentally rewirtten that a redlink would be a better starting point than the current content. Despite the changes the article is still an unbalanced coatrack and I do not think that can be changed through normal editing. With this kind of article the neutral point of view must be present from the start not something crowbarred in as the article develops. Guest9999 (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I would go that far, but I agree that it is unacceptable in its current form. If someone wants to try writing it from the ground up in a sandbox, they are welcome to. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't understand -- You wouldn't go as far as to say the article can't be adequately improved via normal editing? Could you clarify? Equazcion (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • As I understand it, Guest9999 does not think that the content we currently have is useful at all and prefers to start from scratch. I think that the existing content is useful but needs to be taken down and sandboxed until it is more neutral. In that sense, no, I do not think "normal" editing is sufficient, but I wouldn't go as far as saying what we have is worthless either, as guest9999 does. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
        • If it can be adequately improved so as to belong in main space, what's the harm in keeping it there until that then, perhaps with a POV tag and any other appropriate maintenance tags? Isn't that how articles are normally brought up to snuff? Equazcion (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
          • No, it is better to let it go. If someone wants to write a real article, as opposed to the article you are defending, then let us wait until they do so. You have not offered to write a proper article, no one else has and there is no reason to keep a title for an unwritten article. I cannot believe you are defending an article that was written as an attack upon Jews. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Well I don't believe it to actually be an attack on Jews. If I did, I wouldn't be defending it. I'm actually not even defending it though; I'm just trying to understand HereToHelp's delete rationale. Usually an article has to lack the potential to be a valid article in order to be deleted; He's saying it has potential and should still be deleted. Equazcion (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Why not just merge the responsibly sourced sections with other articles and redirect the page elsewhere? That might be a faster way to truly address questions of neutrality, as well as one that is more convenient for readers. Merging is also a standard way to bring information up to snuff. I've made an argument on another page that this article really covers a small part of a much larger topic--the Hollywood canard, if this is indeed the main subject of the article, is only one subcategory of the accusation that a Jewish cabal runs the world. There are similar ideas about Jews in science--that Jews dominate it--and Jews in Washington D.C.--that Jews control the U.S. government. Neither "Jews in science" nor "Jews in Washington D.C.," possible counterparts of this article, exist as articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is really for its readers, who need to be able to navigate the encyclopedia as easily as possible. IMO the relevant materials are best covered by other articles, to direct Wikipedia's readership to the topic in its broader context. The larger topic has a rich and fascinating history and the information may be better read and edited when added to a highly viewed article, than it could ever hope to be in a more obscure article such as this. Noleander has even agreed to merge this article with others. --AFriedman (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete And redirect, merge anything worthwhile to other articles prior to the deletion. Hobartimus (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2009 (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 G3 as misinfo/hoax. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th Part 2: Jason Returns

Friday the 13th Part 2: Jason Returns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFF. Page is just a copy of the first films page. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as there is nothing available under this title [57]. While yes, there is an article on Friday the 13th Part 2 (the film released in 1981), and it true that there is a 2009 remake of the original, there is nothing about this supposed remake of the '81 film. Seems to be entirely wishful thinking. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it was speedied after I started the AfD. Request this AfD closed. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2009 (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 Speedily deleted. TNXMan 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PetPeePee System

PetPeePee System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Company notable in South Florida? Written up by user:PetPeePee. Are they notable worldwide? Sgroupace (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Darth Vader (software)

Darth Vader (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable piece of software, appears to be a vanity article. Fails Google test. Thedarxide (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the vandalism by the article creator, I am now pressing for a speedy del Thedarxide (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Software has only just been unvailed to the public, we're experiencing a slight problem with our DNS preventing the website from working. Article will be updated tomorrow (2009/19/10) with citations and more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userof2 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC) — Userof2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In doing so please address the issue that the article fails WP:GNG. Google does not indicate any sources that discuss this particular piece of software. Thedarxide (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I did find some evidence of it but firstly the source was unrealible and now dead only viewed it by cache. secondly it seems ot eba virus or spyware program.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Article is about an unreleased web browser that will never, ever be released under its alleged current name. This is simultaneously so improbable and so unverifiable that it might warrant speedy deletion as an obvious hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is some kind of 4chan joke browser. Just delete. 90.232.116.216 (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, non-notable, not-yet-released software, conflict of interest, self-promotion. SPAM. --GreyCat (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Olivemountain (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (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 deleted at original creator's request, and also per WP:SNOW -- The Anome (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Indestructible Properties

The Indestructible Properties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As per User:Mercurywoodrose's comments in earlier PROD notice: this appears to be an original essay, with no references. no indication of notability, article appears to be tied to The Knowledge Which No One Can Have, which is also up for AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Knowledge Which No One Can Have -- The Anome (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete thanks for moving it here, i was extremely unsure where it fit, and i was also unsure of the exact way to have it listed here. im happy to see it discussed more fully here. however, im pretty confident that it has no chance of being kept, unless, as i said, someone can show that this is an accurate summary of a notable school of thought or philosopher.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:OR without any salvageable content. --Whoosit (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. No direct connection to notable philosophy or philosophers. Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR with no useful content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I am the creator of this article. I have more interest in uncyclopedia than wikipedia. Delete at the earliest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 03:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Uncyclopedia tagged your other article {{ICU}} (similar to our WP:PROD). I'm not convinced this one meets UN:HTBFANJS either. Returning to Wikipedia, I agree with others that it's too much original research. Delete. • Anakin ^(talk) 11:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete. After looking at Virginexplorer's comment, there are other contributors in the edit history, it doesn't qualify for G7 speedy deletion. That said, I have no objection to deleting it right now (WP:SNOW/WP:IAR). —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2009 (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, no legitimate reason given for deletion. (NAC) RMHED 19:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Freebasing

Freebasing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

User:Cantaloupe2 explained on Talk:Freebasing but forgot this AfD step Anna Lincoln 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is an easy call. A google search quickly reveals that "freebasing" is most commonly used in connection with drug use. This is supported by several online dictionary entries like this one: [58]. More over I was able to find more than enough reliable secondary sources to establish notability and I have added two of them [59] and [60] to the article in an external links section. I have also tried to correct some of the more egregious formatting errors in the article as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Further note that the sources I found can be used to support most of the content in the article. I will go back later and try and see what can be used for specific inline referencers. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep i would be very surprised to learn that any other use of this term is very prevalent. probably mostly in the chemical industry. and i have no doubt the article can be better sourced, expanded, etc, which is not the issue debated here, only notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination provides no policy or guideline-based reason for deleting. Freebasing is a notable part of drug abuse, covered in multiple books viewable at Google book search, such as: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], and [66]. Numerous sources at Google News Archive also have significant coverage of freebasing. Easily satisfies notability. Edison (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep no adequate reasons given for deletion here on on the talk page of the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. No conceivable grounds for deletion exist; no grounds whatsoever are given. ^Bongo_matic 16:36, 19 October 2009 (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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wulf Zendik

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Wulf Zendik
• Articles for deletion/Wulf Zendik (2nd nomination)

Wulf Zendik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An orphan biographical article with no reliable sources confirming notability. Reliability is especially needed here because the subject is tied into a controversial organization. Without it we cannot maintain this article. Shii (tock) 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks independant sources needed to indicate notability. Edward321 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per reasons given by Edward321
• Keep. Clearly a nutter, but a notable enough nutter for our criteria (if you actually click on the google news link given in the AfD template). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That link gives 0 results for me. Shii (tock) 06:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Me too this morning. Last night it gave half a dozen different reputable newspapers. Odd indeed. Here: these are the results it was giving last night. --Paularblaster (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, but there's not enough biographical information in these to allow for an unbiased article on such a controversial subject. Shii (tock) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to be notable. Can we please go without referring to people as a "nutter"? That seems highly inappropriate, not to mention against the spirit of this website. JBsupreme (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my best, but if it moves like a duck .... --Paularblaster (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, sporadic coverage over more than 20 years in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Austin American-Statesman, and the Appalachian Journal gives every appearance of notability, so could you please explain what you mean by "does not appear to be notable"? --Paularblaster (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Paular is correct, there are a fair amount of sources out there about this gentleman.[67]. I added the 2006 Washington Post piece to the article.--Milowent (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Week Keep, the article needs a significant bit of work to raise it to quality of standards, however, there is sufficient news articles out there from reliable sources, to be able to have the subject of the article to meet the minimum requirements imposed by WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (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 withdrawn by nom. –Katerenka (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Stars underground

Stars underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WithdrawnYet another MySpace band. Fails WP:MUSIC, only ghits are myspace pages and something completely unrelated. I honestly feel bad about this, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article you would see the band started in 1993, and is not a "myspace" band as u call it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywoodbabble (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by that was that they seem to be promoted mainly through MySpace. Whatever, it's still irrelevant, this is for discussing why it should be kept/deleted. (P.S. Sign your posts with ~~~~), Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I just re-edited. The band released 3 albums (if you count the one Roxy Saint released called 'Orphan Child' using the bands songs) Roxy Saint was in the movie Zombie Strippers with Robert Englund and Jenna Jamison (not a porn, look it up)

Stars Underground are not just on myspace, here are some articles

http://www.sleazegrinder.com/review_starunderground.htm

http://www.rockeyez.com/reviews/demo/starsunderground/rev-soundtracktoasuicide.html

http://www.glitzine.net/recensioner/starsunderground.htm Hollywoodbabble —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

Okay, those external links might tilt things in your favour a bit. It's still a pretty borderline article, so lets just allow other editors decide. Could take about a week, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to put the links in a box at the bottom of the page? I am having trouble adding the box, maybe you could edit it for me Hollywoodbabble —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

Lord Spongefrog Please check out the page now and tell me what you think Hollywoodbabble (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2009 (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 procedural close. The article has already been userfied to User:Ilnyc8/ORCA (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

ORCAone

ORCAone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Indiscriminate OR list Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Kemonomimi

List of Kemonomimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An indiscriminate list of characters with animal characteristics without any sources and little context. The list is entirely based on original research with no reliable sources to verify the list's contents. The list has been tagged for over 9 months for having no sources. Note that the main article was transwikied to Wiktionary several months ago. Disputed prod. —Farix (t | c) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. No point in a list of the subject doesn't have an article (and I would argue that makes it a G8). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete as per nom and Ten. May, however, be suitable for WikiFur. -kotra (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikifur; delete. Shii (tock) 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A Wikipedia list aids in navigation. Notice all the blue links there to other articles? You do NOT need a damn reference for every single thing there is. Only something that someone might honestly find questionable. You could check Google images for the name of any of these characters, and see a picture of them, they clearly part animal. This is more common sense than original research. Dream Focus 22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the history of the main article, Kemonomimi, [68] I see there wasn't any real discussion. It just got replaced with a wiki dictionary entry, and the list removed from it, but already here on its own article well before that. Wondering why the nominator mentioned that at all, it not having any possible relevance to this article. The nominator for this AFD was the only person trying to delete the main article in an AFD [69] that ended in snow Keep. Then without any apparent discussion, it was moved to Wiktionary. Dream Focus 00:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kemonomimi There is a category for Kemonomimi. Isn't that about the same as the list of Kemonomimi, only with less information? Listing exactly which character in the series is kemonomimi is more useful, so the list is better. Dream Focus 00:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• DreamFocus has a point -- Keminomimi was [kept in AfD] back in February, so why is it that we don't have an article for it now? This is, to put it mildly, suspicious. Also, given that scholarly articles on the phenomennon of carlgirls/boys and other theomorphisms in manga & anime can be found, clearly this is a notable subject. Keep this and restore the main article. (Including add back the reference that has, through article splits, ended up on List of catgirls.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I may agree with you about Kemonomimi, but this discussion is about List of Kemonomimi. Even if Kemonomimi existed, I think this list, since it has existed for many months with no sources, and is probably outside of Wikipedia's scope, should not be here. The main subject may warrant an article, but the list probably doesn't. This is why we have specialist wikis like WikiFur. -kotra (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• • History

1. The version that had been stable in format but growing by editing over the year before the AfD was [70];
2. the list was then removed from the article by The Farix , leaving [71]
3. Farix then nominated the article from which he had removed the list content for deletion, as [72]
4. The shortened version was SNOW KEPT at the AdD [73] without a single dissenting !vote except his own.
5. The list content was restored at [74]
6. The Farix then removed the list content, leaving [75]
7. Jennai then changed the page to a soft link to Wikitonary at [76], with the comment " the page will likely be recreated again otherwise since there is a List of Kemonomimi article)" (this was the edit totally in opposition to the unanimous AfD close, done without discussion on the talk page.
8. an anon then restored the version with a list [77]
9. Jennai reverted him, restoring only a soft redirect at [78] , which is where the version is today.
10. And now the Farix is trying to remove the list as a separate article.

This is clearly a matter of giving the dog a bad name and hanging him: an attack on an article by removing content, leaving just a definition, and then transwikifying. The simplest solution would be to return Kemonomimi to one article, by restoring the anon's version -- which would make this discussion moot by merging the list. Since the article was never deleted, in the meantime I have restored the version of that article approved almost unanimously at the AfD, as an editorial action, not an admin action. (some cleanup is needed, as there were some apparently good edits in the subsequent history; not knowing the subject, I leave selecting them to those who do. ) But I think I would regard reverting that AfD closure as vandalism. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with and thank you for that edit and summary. However, we remain with this list article. I am not sure if it should be merged back into Kemonomimi or deleted/transwikied elsewhere. This list strikes me as the sort of unreferenced, indiscriminate collection of subjectively-related articles (or sections of articles, if that, in this case) we try to avoid. -kotra (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to get some sort of consensus here about the entire problem. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per WP:LISTS. The list is clearly imperfect and needs references, but it clearly meets verifiability as the articles linked to have references. As for the main article, if you read the AfD i did mention a transwiki possibility, including also in Talk:Kemonomimi. I would prefer an article on it, but there is not enough to make an article. No study links the word kemonomimi with cute mostly human anthropomorphism other than the use of the kanji itself, 獣耳. Therefore we can talk about catgirls and the like, but it is synthesis to say nekomimi is a kemonomimi. We can have lists without articles by the same name - List of stereoscopic video games.陣内_Jinnai 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't help that the articles linked to have references. The verifiability problem is there are no references that say the characters are kemonomimi, either in the list itself or the linked articles. Of the first 10 characters listed, only one mentioned "kemonomimi" in their article, and it wasn't sourced. Unfortunately, this isn't a subject where it's immediately clear to the reader what is kemonomimi and what is not; kemonomimi is not a topic of common knowledge. Verifiability is necessary for inclusion here. -kotra (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as the person who originally prodded the list, and because it is indiscriminate. Whether or not the main article should be kept an article on Wikipedia is beyond the scope of this AfD discussion, but even if kept, a list of kemonomimi characters, either in a separate article or in a section on the main article, is inappropriate. At most, a handful of examples specifically noted as kemonomimi characters by reliable, third-party sources should be listed; anything more encourages indiscriminate additions of more entries and history suggests that there aren't going to be enough interested parties to keep such an indiscriminate list cleaned up and properly sourced (as Farix states in his nom, the list has been tagged for eight months for sources and notability concerns, and in that time nothing has been done towards addressing those issues). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and have two separate articles. The general class of characters is worth discussing. It appears a notable group of types. Not my subject, but I think such characters have been significant for quite some time in Japanese fiction. The list is so long, and there is more that might be added in the way of identification for browsing: in particular the particular type of fiction in which each appears, for those who don't immediately recognize the names. , that I think it better to keep it separate. And , contra Dinoguy, a list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. A list of all such characters in all known fictions is what would be indiscriminate. That word is used a good deal above, and always wrongly. During the 8 months its been tagged, there seems to have been a great deal of editing and improvement, both additions and subtractions--it very much seems to be worked on. Contra Kotra, If the character is an animal-like character judged by inspection of the primary source, and is important in the fiction, the primary source for that is sufficient sourcing, just as it is for the description of the character in the first place. If there's any character you think isn't, challenge that individual one. Obvious I can't defend specific items of content, since I do not know the stories involved. If all the individual ones are successfully challenged as agreed by consensus at the talk p. of the article, then there would be a case for deletion as an empty list. If any of them are valid, it's reason to keep the list. What I see in the history of the article is a lot of reversion, and very little talk p. discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Are you saying that if an editor sees a picture of what they consider an "animal-like character", that's good enough to label it "kemonomimi"? If that is truly all the criteria we need, perhaps we should make some edits to Bugs Bunny or Sonic the Hedgehog (character). I don't think you meant all "animal-like characters", though. The definition is more restrictive than that of course, but the problem is we don't have a reliably sourced, sufficiently detailed, accurate definition to judge what is kemonomimi and what is not. We simply can't look at a picture and say with sufficient authority "this is kemonomimi" or "this is not kemonomimi": it's too obscure a term to be common knowledge, and so we're relying on each other as sources. And, it's hardly worth mentioning, we have a policy against that sort of thing. -kotra (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are a 3 more criteria 1> The "animal-like character" must be of Japanese artwork, usually manga/anime, origin (or possibily heavily inspired by such artwork 2> must be predominately human 3> it must not be a costume. Meeting those criteria (as well as the one mentioned above) and yes, you could call that a kemonomimi. Of course, I realize all that fails WP:OR, but that's what a kemonomimi is. There is also in some communities an understood assumption that kemonomimi must be cute and/or sexy; possibly more of a side definition or narrower definition.陣内_Jinnai 06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have no reason to doubt your definition; it sounds reasonable to me, a non-expert. You're correct, though, that it's still original research... and so it could potentially be problematic. During its lifespan, though, Kemonomimi and List of Kemonomimi haven't been particularly problematic articles (aside from the systematic efforts to weaken them), so I won't press it any further. -kotra (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for OR, regardless of how sure you are in its veracity. The definition needs a reliable source - and one that clearly and explicitly states "Kemonomimi are X". 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I did say the definition would be considered OR.陣内_Jinnai 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• If the very definition of kemonomimi cannot be sourced, then how can even begin sourcing examples of kemonomimi, much else a list of kemonomimi? The basic criteria for the list is based on isn't even verifiable. —Farix (t | c) 13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:LIST and Dream/DGB. This list seems notable and most of the information for references can be found in the anime wiki links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Other wiki's are not reliable sources, and Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself either. Also almost all manga or anime series don't calls characters kemonomimi.

• Delete as an indiscriminate list; I can see a decent article being made about the animal ears themselves, but I've never seen the need for random lists of examples added haphazardly by fans. Doceirias (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a huge indiscriminate list chock full of original research. JBsupreme (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2009 (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 delete, G11. The author's name is a close enough match to the article title that per a duck test, this is an attempt at self-promotion. Blueboy96 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Bilan

Joe Bilan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article contains no references and I cannot find anything on Google web or news search to back a claim of notability under either of WP:ATHLETE or WP:ENTERTAINER. PROD was removed by author without explanation. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N RandomTime 17:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Article says "He is well known", but he isn't, as extensive Google searching reveals. Article also gives no sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• G3 No proof that he even exists; "جو بيلان" gets no hits outside Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment — I think he exists alright: [79], [80]. He just isn't notable. Favonian (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete with haste, for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:12, 18 October 2009 (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. The article is now a redirect and is currently under discussion at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mo Dewalt

Mo Dewalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reality show contestant, just enough coverage to not be speedied. RandomTime 17:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I disagree, not enough coverage not to be speedied. GregorB (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. NW (Talk) 00:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

V.V.L.N.Sastry

V.V.L.N.Sastry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Inadequately sourced BLP?, was deleted as a prod but restored upon request. Notability not demonstrated by non-trivial multiple reliable sources. Fails V, N, BIO & BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh I forgot to mention this looks like an autobiography too... so COI issues to deal with too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Spartaz., V.V.L.N.Sastry is an ideal person to many economically middle class aspirants to become some thing great in life. The article was placed by me as a third person. While keeping this article, many secondary sources available on google search have been used. I donot know how to improvise the article as I am not familiar with software, I also donot know, how to mention references in the running text. But I found more than 3,500 references about him on the net from credible sources including bloomberg, dowjones, wall street journal and forbes magazine. You can hlep me in improvising this. But my lack of skills in putting the article should not be a deterrent in profiling a great personality. Regards. Lakshmi Siddhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmisiddhi (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Many reliable sources about V.V.L.N.Sastry can be found in google search. one can click the following url [81] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmisiddhi (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

====Lot many reliabe sources about V.V.L.N.Sastry

Dearest Friends, For god's sake, please do not delete this article. Ignorance is sin. But we can enlighten ourselves with a simple google search on V.V.L.N.Sastry, lot of credible sources and updates. [82]Click the URL. Lakshmi SiddhiLakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)--Lakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, all it needs is some inline references Shii (tock) 20:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, which inline references? not having proper sources is why this is at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Sources do exist beyond that Oriental haze-- a lot of Indian articles look like this, and only need improvement, not deletion. Shii (tock) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I didn't see substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, again. Not notable. Not the subject of any secondary source material. WP:BIO Bladeofgrass (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unless there is evidence of this guy in reliable sourcesWP:RS (and someone may need to help out with this because perhaps only those intimately familiar with India can point out that there are in fact reliable sources), it should be deleted. Out of a compasionate interpretation of WP:BLP. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP ITI have found this guy in reliable sources. I am from India and found that the sources placed in the article are reliable and noteworthy. windsirWindsir (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)--Windsir (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC) — Windsir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• ""KEEP"" references are added. Some more citations are required to be added, The main thing is to add them, Keep It.WindsirWindsir (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You only get to vote once so please strike one keep please and please can you provide the sources you are referring to? Arguments by assertion tend to get ignored so evidence based responses are the most valuable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP KEEPSpartaz, An Indian can only understand, how popular the other Indian is? As an Indian, I vouch for the content. Sastry is a popular and noted personality in India. The article did not touch the valueble contributions made by him towards the society and living. May be you can add one more section to the contents with a title Contributions so that I can post the contributions of sastry. Even with the existing material there, you can keep the same.Stewartprabha (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC) — Stewartprabha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment These Keep votes seem a bit heated and unorthodox at best (if not off-the-wall). (Is there a wiff of WP:meatpuppetry?) But in the interests of "international relations" :-), here's a list of possible sources that I can't sort through, because their relevance or irrelevance requires a more sensitive understanding of the culture than I possess. But if some of these KEEP !voters (per WP:AGF, I hope there is more than one such !voter and none of them are in WP:COI trouble) could sort through them, I think there is a good chance of getting this article out of AfD successfully. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell none of those sources are about the subject of this article, he's just quoted in them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that can be enough to establish someone notable. See WP:Prof where it states that

“ Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. ”

. He's not a professor but he's an expert of some kind and whatever policy would govern that should have an analogous method of notability establishment. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Prof is for academics not media talkingheads. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I said that up front. So repeating it indicates what? Is this supposed to mean that if someone is quoted often in the media, then only if they are also a professor can they be notable? Also for someone who accussed me of "assuming bad faith", I think it's mindblowing that you as an administator just called this person a "media talkinghead". Not sure what moral high ground or such example you're trying to set, but it's failing miserably. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - non-notable businessman. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dont Delete Hey guys, what kind of sources you need, are you guys asking to delete this article are aware of Indian Personalities. I have seen many biographies on wikipedia, you mean to say all of them are as per standards. Why you are trying to discriminate an upcoming guy with your irrational comments of delete, delete. The person V.V.L.N.Sastry has many notable sources. He is quoted in Forbes Magzine, he is quoted in India Knwoledge at Wharton Business School, He is quoted in Bloomberg, He is quoted in Dow Jones. Google search of his name is showing more than 3000 links. You guys mean to say, a non-notable person will get such kind of updates that too more than 3000 and on daily basis. He is noteworthy, that is why he is quoted. He is quoted for his rational comments on economy, business and industry. He is quoted because his comments are notable. Hence KEEP THIS ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatraman111 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Dont Delete Hey guys, what kind of sources you need, Are you guys aware of Indian Personalities? or you mean to say some of the established sources from India like Economic Times, Financial Express, Business India or Fortune India are inferior sources as per you? I dont understand, what exactly you mean by notable sources. Just because you guys donot have geographical knwoledge, doesnot mean the credible indian perosnalities or indian sources are inferior. I have seen many biographies on wikipedia, you mean to say all of them are as per standards. Why you are trying to discriminate an upcoming guy with your irrational comments of delete, delete. The person V.V.L.N.Sastry has many notable sources. He is quoted in Forbes Magzine, he is quoted in India Knwoledge at Wharton Business School, He is quoted in Bloomberg, He is quoted in Dow Jones. Google search of his name is showing more than 3000 links. You guys mean to say, a non-notable person will get such kind of updates that too more than 3000 and on daily basis. He is noteworthy, that is why he is quoted. He is quoted for his rational comments on economy, business and industry. He is quoted because his comments are notable. Hence KEEP THIS ARTICLE.Venkatraman111 (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) — Venkatraman111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep ItI agree with Venkatraman and also I agree with Firefly 322, The criteria for notability as per me is a person getting notified for his works, contributions etc., Here is a person, V.V.L.N.Sastry whose works in the areas of economics and financial mangement are clearly visible as quotes, TV appearances, quotes in leading Indian Magzines and Financial News Papers, International News Magzines and Financial Press. Simple Google search of his name is revealing bucket's full of overflowing information about this gentleman, what else is required to establish his notability. I strongly vote for keeping the article on wikipedia or else it will lead to discrimination and injustice as stated by Lakshmi Siddhi too.Maheshmanjrekar (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC) — Maheshmanjrekar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• KEEP The link provided here in provides information about Sastry,Dr.V.V.L.N.Sastry. Most of these links are available with India based leading News Agencies and News Paper Publisher's Websites. I am sure the other ediotrs at Wikipedia respects the local standards of India and doesnot question the India based sources for notability. I fully agree with others who voted for keeping the article. If possible improvise it.RameshChavan (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • response - the problem is not that his notability is based in India; but rather that being quoted in news reports and interviewed as part of a story on some other topic does not constitute the "substantial coverage" which we need to attest notability. Many times, this kind of passing mention reflects nothing more than that the subject knows a reporter, and that the reporter knows he/she can come to the subject for a quick couple of paragraphs or a soundbite on the topic of the story. Where are the articles about Sastry, as opposed to merely quoting him? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The Wall St reference is him saying something (one sentence quoted) that anybody could have said. Another two references are to Google search. I've gone into the pdf twice (and found it extremely hard going - and it crashed on me twice). Appears to contain long lists of names - speakers? Are they all notable? Several references are uncheckable by me. Being an associate director and being quoted are not necessarily indicators of notability. The parade of new accounts in support - but not providing the evidence asked for - does not help matters. The more prominent the chorus, often the less prominent the 'star'. If there is evidence, please let us have it. Contrary to some opinions, we do not want to delete all new articles. We do want to have them fit the requirements. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS Referring to lists of Google searches also doesn't help. If the stuff is in there, put it on the table. Most of us haven't the time to check out every link there. There maybe some gold hidden there. Show us. Peridon (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Given that he's quoted by the WSJ and Forbes regularly, one would expect someone to have written about him. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything at all about him. In the absence of any of the SPAs finding something about him in reliable sources, this has to be deleted. -SpacemanSpiff 00:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP ITcoverage by BUSINESS INDIA ABOUT SASTRYshould solve the problem of all those writing here without any reasoning by advocating deletion of the artilce. Business India is the leading Business Magzine from India. Business India has profiled Sastry, which should satisfy the view of a third party clearly mentioning the merits of sastry and also talking about acheivements and the contributions made by him. CHEERSRameshChavan (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • warning- That is not a link to Business India; it is a link to Sastry's own company's website, where some material is posted which purports to be from sources like Business India. The subject's own website is not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

^^^^^'LISTEN'^^^^^That need not be a link to Business India, for that matter, Business India doesnot keep their content on website, it's a book publication very popular and top rated business magzine. The clipping put on to the website is authentic. If one needs to go by Orangamike, to identify a person, he may say that, the person should sit with their parents. Even when some one is trying to identify with ample sources, he doesnot want to listen and see logic. HEY LISTEN, Orangemike. High Time. NgandhiInd (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment In the absence of a more Sastry-focused reference, Orangemike, Peridon, and SpacemanSpiff views must "win the day." (I'm unstriking my delete !vote.). --Firefly322 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weird The subject's company asks people to visit Wikipedia for his profile. I think an early close per This isn't myspace and it's getting stale would be appropriate. -SpacemanSpiff 01:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that on the link your provide. Has it changed? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• SpacemanSpiff, I don't see your observation Weird on the link you provided? Why are you wrongly posting here and trying to malign the image of sastry? NgandhiInd (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like it has been removed, they appear to keep track of this discussion. -SpacemanSpiff 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

@@@@@SpacemanSpiff!!!!! Stop justifying your wrong act of faulty links and your weird attempts by trying to spoil the image of others and trying to create some image for yourself. See the point pro-activelyNgandhiInd (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)— NgandhiInd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I clicked SpacemanSpiff's link earlier today and saw the ref to Wikipedia. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cassandra, When I clicked SpacemanSpiff's link earlier today I did not find the reference to Wikipedia. NgandhiInd (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• STRANGE NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN BY Orangemike, Peridon, and SpacemanSpiff without any logic. I visited the subject's companylink and there is no link to wikipedia. Likewise, the business india coverage is show cased in the subject's website. What's the wrong in it. I think Orangemike, Peridon, and SpacemanSpiff are suspecting their own images. Please stop this negative propaganda. KEEP KEEP KEEP ARTICLERameshChavan (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC) — RameshChavan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I dont agree with Orangemike. If the subject's own company carries the coverage of independent media articles and if they are referred as the views of indpendent agencies, what's the wrong in it? You mean to say, Business India which is a fortnighlty magzine, should store this on their website for Orngemike to believe that the source is independent. Very strange. For your informaion, Business India is a leading fortnighlty business magzine read by all the business men in India and they dont keep their magzine on website as they sell their magzine in physical book form.RameshChavan (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)— RameshChavan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Presence of another credible third party coverage Fortune India Coverage of Sastry. Fortune India coverage show cased in the website of sastry's company. With Business India coverage already linked by Ramesh and with my present link, it is more than enough to establish that Sastry is notable. Two great magzines from India covering this youngster cannot be ignored. Keep the articleLakshmisiddhi (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)— Lakshmisiddhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • • clarification - There is a misunderstanding here. We have no prejudice against the many fine people of India; I'm proud to say I've created or improved several articles on Indian topics myself, both here and on the Esperanto Wikipedia. The problem is that while we accept citations from prominent publications such as Business India, for reasons of verifiability, we cannot citations from undated purported quotes from such publications which are hosted on the subject's company's own website. Why? Because using modern software, it would be simple for me to create a purported article like that on my personal website, claiming that I had founded crores of important companies and enriched every dalit in Chattisgarh with my market brilliance! In this era of Bernard Madoff and the like, we must be vigilant about what could be falsified "clippings" (we've had that happen before). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

!!!!!!Orange Mike'', please stop your cynical comments about citations. Your knwoledge of of creating purported articles need not necessarily be the same with others. If so, 'so many agencies may not be quoting, whether in this context of notability or other'. He is considered to be an expert. Let us take the point at face value. Your comment is making me think wildly that, if some body asks you to prove your self as Orange Mike., how will you prove man??? Is there any secondary or primary proof for that?? If some body says that Orange Mike should have a written source available for one to believe that he is Orange Mike!!!! what will be your reaction. If you show case your birth certificate on your website and some body links it and says this is the proof of Orange Mike, even then, would you say that 'citations from undated purported quotes from such publications which are hosted on the subject's company's own website, hence cannot be taken. Come-Off. Stewartprabha (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Orange Mike, you have stated that, you helped in improving many articles on Indian personalities, This is my request to you, to improve the article of v.v.l.n.sastry. It has all the necessary ingredients, may be presentation requires improvement. Why dont you help in doing that and add another Indian to your list.Stewartprabha (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• OrangeMike userfy the article and help Indian's. ColinCliflaw (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For a little comedy relief, I draw your attention to this biography of V.V.L.N. Sastry] from the Boston University School of Theology. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

KEEP :: I am an Indian, I got into this board having heard of discrimination on sastry's article. As an Indian from the business hub of India, Mumbai (Bombay), I can vouch for the credentials of Sastry popularly known as Dr.Sastry. He is considered in India as an Economist and Financial Analyst. The links that are provided or the press clips or magzine clips that his company's site presents are correct and notable.NgandhiInd (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)— NgandhiInd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment and Quote from myself above: "The more prominent the chorus, often the less prominent the 'star'. If there is evidence, please let us have it. Contrary to some opinions, we do not want to delete all new articles. We do want to have them fit the requirements." (This is a part of Peridon's negative campaign.) Please note that 'vouching for' Dr/Mr Sastry is no use. Sorry, but you don't count as a reliable independent source. We are not denying that "He is considered in India as an Economist and Financial Analyst.". We are saying that we need evidence of the notability that distinguishes him from the thousands of other economists and financial analysts in India and the rest of the world. That he is Indian is of no particular relevance. The origins of an economist would only be possibly considered if he/she were the only one in existence in their nation. Peridon (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment and Quote' from NgandhiInd: PERIDON, u are comparing Oranges with Apples. Chorus is summuation of all voices distinctly remarking a particular thing. Where as Star is the distinct remark of the chorus and that particular thing about whom the chorus is voicing. We all are saying one thing, when you say evidence of notability, enough number of evidences are quoted in this page itself, since the beginning of this discussion. What else you require?. Here is a financial analyst who appears freequently on CNBC, NDTV Profit, Bloomberg UTVI the leading business channels in India on daily basis, who will take a person freequently on TV Channels unless he is popular or notable?. Besides, He is a person freequently quoted in diversified media on various topics on economy, industry and companies. Which media guy will quote any one in the leading business dailies?, even some where in a paragraph on daily basis?, unless you find notability or popularity or relevance of that particular person in context of the story line that a journo takes. Why leading business magzines, profile the person, unless they find suitability of that profile in their magzines. So when you corrobarate all the above, what else you require for justifying the notability of sastry. He has everything in his fold required for notability as the criteria for his article to continue in wikipedia.NgandhiInd (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, coverage from reliable secondary sources is required to establish notability (see WP:PSTS). I should point out here that the website of Dr Sastry's company is a primary source as it is directly connected to the subject, even if it is reproducing material from other sources. This policy applies to all articles not just this one - if you take a look at some of the other articles nominated for deletion you'll see that lack of sources which comply with Wikipedia's policies is probably the most common reason for nomination. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

+Cassandra, Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and guide lines on sources are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of __common sense _ and good editorial judgment.ColinCliflaw (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)— ColinCliflaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - There is no inpdependent coverage about the subject to establish notability. Being quoted alot in this case is not an indication of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. It appears that the subject and/or his aides trying to promote their company through Wikipedia. Salih (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• • KEEP*** I would like to know the credentials of the persons and a proof, both primary and secondary, that they are capable of passing comments titled "Delete", only then I feel that they are capable of commenting or assessig the notability of some one or else they should stop negative comments. Keep sastry's article.Stewartprabha (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP IT Its well linked now. The article is meeting wikipedia standardsColinCliflaw (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)— ColinCliflaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment: This discussion is being inundated with people who may well be linked to VVLN Sastry in some way, but love the man in any event. But the question is whether he is notable. He appears to be a business executive in India. Claims are made that he has been profiled in "Business India" and "Fortune India," though 6 out of 12 current references in the article are not linked to any online source and the info provided in the references is sketchy. Among the other 6 current references, 2 are to google search URLs, 2 are to firstcallequity (where he is employed), 1 is to a random quote in a Wall Street Journal article not about him, and the last is to a picture of him in a group of shots about some accounting conference in India. So, I can't verify notability through any of that, and lean against it. My google news archive search[83] yields 111 hits. Most every reference appears to be quotes from him in the context of articles discussing of market performance -- because his company does market analysis and trading stuff. I then looked at the two largest Indian papers: The archives of The Hindu give me 5 hits from 2003-08, all of the same quote variety, and I yielded no better at The Times of India archives. There is one link in the above discussion from one of the article's supporters which leads you to an article scan posted on the firstcallindia.com website, which purports to be a one-page profile of VVLN in "Business India" -- I suspect that is not made up, but that is only thing i have seen that supports notability.--Milowent (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete in view of the comment above, and the problem of the Business India article only appearing on Dr Sastry's company website and therefore not being a third-party source. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dont Delete*Presence of another credible third party coverage Fortune India Coverage of Sastry. Fortune India coverage show cased in the website of sastry's company. With Business India coverage already linked by Ramesh and with my present link, it is more than enough to establish that Sastry is notable. Two great magzines from India covering this youngster cannot be ignored. Keep the articleLakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment::: As observed by Milowent, there is another article from fortune india, the scanned version of which is appearing in the above given link. This is another thing which supports the notabilityLakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You have already presented the Fortune India source in this debate. I have already explained why coverage which we can only obtain from Dr Sastry's website cannot be used to support notability (as has Orangemike), so I'm not going to repeat myself. All of the sources provided have been considered, and the regular contributors here have explained why they are insufficient or unsuitable according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Not enough sources to establish notability. Also, the many of the more unorthodox "Keep" advocates seem fishy.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of sources. I'm sure the closing admin can be trusted to ignore the crapflood of "keep" non-votes from socks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - in all fairness, I don't think these are sockpuppets. I believe most of them are just noobs who don't understand the principles under which we operate, and are simply responding to a call for support. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Having searched for sources on Google and Google News Archive, I could only find passing mentions that did not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2009 (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 keep. NW (Talk) 20:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

John Christgau

John Christgau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable teacher / local basketball coacher. The man is surely a nice guy, but, unfortunately, there's nothing specially notable about him. The article was written by one single author that knows him personally, and most of the information is unsourced (and overly positive). Some "references" actually used in the article are "eyewitness accounts" and the subject's own home page. Damiens.rf 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete If he writes a few more books he might meet WP:AUTHOR, but not now. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article is not irredeemably bad, and he does appear to be notable enough. He has an entry in Contemporary Authors, and his books have received a decent amount of coverage: [84], [85], [86] (which devotes about three paragraphs to Spoon), [87], etc. Christgau has also been interviewed/discussed on NPR a couple of times: [88], [89], [90], [91] Zagalejo^^^ 22:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, nuts. A significant chunk of the article seems to have been copied from the author biography here. I've stubbed it down to a list of works. I still think we should keep the article, though, since it can be re-expanded. Zagalejo^^^ 22:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep one novel from viking press, and at least 2 of his books from university of nebraska, which is well established as an academic publisher of both academic works and popular works (not extremely popular of course). I think it can be improved. he is not primarily a self published author.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the entry in Contemporary Authors Online, which is Gale's Contemporary Authors, a standard reliable work of reference and in my opinion sufficient proof of notability. And on the basis of his works, (which of course is why he's in CA, 4 of which were published by U. Nebraska Press, 1 by Iowa State University press, and one --the best known, his first novel, by Viking, a major commercial literary publisher, and held in over 800 WorldCat libraries. I added the infor from WorldCat, which is not an particularly difficult source to use. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep because Christgau continues to write and publish books. He has just published an updated version of his book Enemies, following the release of his new book on the first Japanese American jockey. Several of his books are included at the main branch of the Allen County Public Library in Fort Wayne, Indiana, a good indication of his importance. Sallyrob (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2009 (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 delete per WP:CSD#A7. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Printrex

Printrex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable company. Speedy removed by anon IP without explanation noq (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• A7 anyway. Speedies can be re-tagged if removed without explanation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I can't find anything about the Indian company named Printrex. However, there is a U.S. company with the same name which makes computer printers for mobile applications, and perhaps the article could be about the U.S. company instead. Here is a review of one of its products: http://www.mhwmagazine.co.uk/news-item.asp?id=4229 -- Eastmain (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, that seems to be an article based on a distributor's announcement rather than a full review. Still, the U.S. company at http://www.printrex.com seems to be serving a niche market with some interesting technology. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7 this article on the Indian company unless a worthy article on the U.S. company can replace it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• A7 Nothing in searches to show notability for this particular firm. No assertion of importance in the article either. -SpacemanSpiff 21:50, 18 October 2009 (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 RESULT: Snowball close - delete. Article is a soapbox and coatrack under a never-likely-to-be-suitable name. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of Alzheimer's Research

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Censorship of Alzheimer's Research

Censorship of Alzheimer's Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Also nominated: Alzheimer's disease Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced fringe/conspiracy rant, fails WP:SOAP and WP:NOR.  Sandstein  15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Prod declined. It's an essay (of sorts); more like a short rant actually... and unref'd. Should've been speedied Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Gruntler (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another rant article created by this editor. noq (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – I'm surprised this is even up for discussion. Rees11 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – No references, nothing but a personal statement of opinion. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Snowball delete both as personal opinions and soapboxing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:05, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Green (Writer and Medium)

Thomas Green (Writer and Medium) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Individual fails criteria for WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Has self-published one book (through pay-to-publish Eloquent Publishing). Google search for book finds no results and no coverage for this person has been found. Green's own bio page make no assertion of notability. (Note that the name is common -- including a popular Jesuit author named Thomas H. Green). — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete For failure of WP:AUTHOR. I'm not finding any coverage of this person or his "book". Common name does make searching difficult but its the responsibility of the article createor to properly source the article so I think Cactus Writer and I have done due diligence here. Fringey subject mater doesn't give me much hope that reliable sources might be found. RadioFan (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No indication he is notable. Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Mr. Green has no doubt already predicted the deletion of this article. --Milowent (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Author of one vanity press book. Main notability is as victim of an apparent scam [92]. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Failed to find any relevant sources to support notability, and without sourcing, fails WP:BLP. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, would appear to fail WP:BIO due to lack of reliable third-party sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC).
• 'Delete per WP:BIO. Orderinchaos 01:38, 25 October 2009 (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 Procedural close and re-listed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 World Finals Odds (2nd nomination) due to AFD template never appearing on article page during this AFD. It was also not transcluded into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 18 until after closing. Non-admin closure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

2008 World Finals Odds

2008 World Finals Odds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a tipsheet Donnie Park (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be useful for the subject of Monster Jam. -- ISLANDERS27 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should keep odds for every Grand National races should there be any, my basis for this nomination is that this pointless article serves no purpose for the Monster Jam article, plus Wikipedia is not a tipsheet for betting, plus where is WP:VERIFY. Donnie Park (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia isn't a collection of gambling odds. This article is not useful to anyone. Bookmakers odds are always going to vary from each other anyway. --Jimbo^[online] 16:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a sports book -Drdisque (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete pointless article Petepetepetepete (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (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 G4 It was AFD'd before so G4 applies. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ITunes Originals - Seether

ITunes Originals - Seether (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An IP contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this downloadable album. Joe Chill (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete this one is a recreation—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb az86556 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. The last AFD on multiple iTunes Originals included this and closed as no consensus, so it isn't speedyable as recreation of deleted content. It is, however, an iTunes-only compilation with no significant coverage in reliable sources, so should be deleted.--Michig (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Get On My Horse

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Get On My Horse

Get On My Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get On My Horse)

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

May not be notable, as it purports to be a meme but is newly created. It may be notable one day, but at this point it is very hard to establish notability. -moritheil^Talk 13:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Also the meaning of the word "meme" seems to be getting expanded a bit here. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Pretty cool video, but the meme itself is not notable enough to have its own article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the essence of what I call "not yet notable". Delete for now. DS (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2009 (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. ,br />

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. blatant hoax Tikiwont (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Archduke Johann van Clyverovich

Archduke Johann van Clyverovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete, non notable. GHITS a total of 3 all from wikis. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2009 (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 G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

NBogan

NBogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Either hoax or original research. Miyagawa (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: My searches show that this is a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

One Call

One Call (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I've been unable to find any coverage of this band in reliable sources. The bit about opening for Spears is confirmed on her website, but doesn't seem to have got much mainstream coverage. (It also saves the article from A7, which it was previously tagged with).

WP:MUSIC also grants notability to "ensemble[s] which [contain] two or more independently notable musicians". Both Chris Moy and José Bordonada Collazo have their own articles, but their only claim to notability seems to be membership of Menudo and appearance on the reality television programme Making Menudo. I've found a little coverage of Moy but none on Collazo himself rather than Menudo. Depending on what people in this AfD think I might nominate him next. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Having members of an otherwise notable band is immaterial if there're no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with both of you and concur with the Jose of Menudo page being up next for deletion.--98.203.69.237 (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Polestar Virtual Printer

Polestar Virtual Printer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod contested implicitly on the grounds that WP:BUTITEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Freeware. No assertion of notability, no third-party references. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: 3 out of 5 citations referred to a primary source. Alexius08 (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable here. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I CSD it as purely promotional and non-notable and got duly bitten like a newbie for my trouble. Now it is just non-notable. --Triwbe (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll be very interested in hearing how I have bitten you. Tim Song (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• OK - I just follow the the existing articles CutePDF and DoPDF to create this article and I do not have any relationship with this company. --onehairman (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CutePDF and DoPDF both have reviews in trade journals and thus pass basic notability. We haven't found any for this product yet. That's the problem. --Triwbe (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - no claims of notability, a totally unremarkable product. Smartse (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - non-notable minor software. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per my prodding statement. Tim Song (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (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 delete. NW (Talk) 20:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Danny Bunce

Danny Bunce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD, stating "number of games in the conference" - however the Football Conference has never been fully-professional, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Also lacks any significant third-party coverage that would mean he passes WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 12:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete- The Conference isn't professional so he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 12:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - failure of both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - player has played a number of games in a notable league with significant media and fan interest. Athlete is not Wikipedia policy and cases should be considered on merit. Eldumpo (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, but it is a guideline, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." He HASN'T played in a notable league, and he HASN'T received "significant media." GiantSnowman 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Very few players in the Conference are notable, and this guy certainly isn't.--86.41.91.141 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Polo (Video Game)

Polo (Video Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable game. UltraMagnus^speak 11:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: totally unsourced. Alexius08 (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete While WP:V seems to be met, I can't even start to find anything that helps with WP:N. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- This page was caught by a bot on 5 Oct so I'm surprised it's lasted this long. WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SPS would be a starting list of official policies that would need to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 07:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as spam, and non-notable due to a complete lack of reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (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 redirect. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamophobia

Gamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Whilst this is a real phobia - it doesn't seem to be a common or particularly notable one. Delete or merge with List of phobias? RandomTime 11:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

merge - I've already added it, FWIW I dont see the need to go to this extent, I think it meets CSD —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs) 11:45, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - No way this merits an article of its own. Speedy redirect would be OK with me. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of phobias. I've not found any evidence of use (cf use-mention distinction), meaning it does not meet Wiktionary's Criteria for inclusion and so a transwiki would be pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2009 (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 speedily deleted (R3, implausible redirect?) by Deb. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, now it's been recreated as a redirect to Ahmadpur East Tehsil. Nevertheless, there's still nothing to be discussed in this forum. Deor (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad pur sharkia

Ahmad pur sharkia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article for a city, no sources although it could be notible, hard to tell from the article's text. May be a bad translation from something, or written by someone who is not English. RandomTime 10:47, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

R&R Design

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/R&R Design

R&R Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reliable sources, but could be notable, not sure, a google search doesn't give me any results. RandomTime 10:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I found this link which seems to verify existence, but no reliable, independent sources seem to exist. Thus, fails WP:NOTE. Huon (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2009 (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 delete. NW (Talk) 20:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nikhil ravishankar

Nikhil ravishankar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Claims to be a 12 year old scrabble champion but no indication of this on Google. The reference is to a page under construction. noq (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• userfy and strip article accouterments. This was created by a user with the same name, so could be a user page. Leave no redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy is fine. I can't find supporting documentation for the claims. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Could not find any references.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not one's personal webspace. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2009 (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 delete. If sources are found so that the topic doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS, the article may be recreated to focus on the event. However, as it stands, consensus is that the article fails BLP1E. NW (Talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Laura Dekker

Laura Dekker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Proposing deletion par WP:BLP1E or WP:NTEMP. The notability in the article is based upon a wish to become the youngest solo round the world sailor - but no actual attempt took place due to child protection interfering. Most of this article is based upon a news burst for an event that never took place. I would say this is a single event with no lasting notability. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NTEMP, this might have been appropriate for WikiNews, but no lasting notability. Huon (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. However, the finding about whether she will stay with her family (and presumably make the circumnavigation attempt) will be announced on the 26th. If she makes an attempt she's probably notable, if she doesn't then this is a significant BLP concern. I think, though, it is better to err on the side of deleting for now and recreating if things change in the future. - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, but perhaps reassess in six months time. The article needs to be updated. She was on New Zealand television news last night or the night before as starting her solo circumnavigation, despite colliding with a large ship on a test run.(BBC).-gadfium 05:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that's Jessica Watson that you're referring to - Laura Dekker was supposed to have left by now, but has been stopped by the authorities. The articles about Jessica tend to mention Laura as well, though. - 05:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• My bad. Just as well I didn't try to update the article.-gadfium 06:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. As per nom, WP:NTEMP. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, The timing for this removal proposal is a bit odd. Her case will be re-evaluated shortly (max two weeks). It's extremely hard to asses probabilty of approval. But if she gets her approval she will probably set sail.--Hbijloo (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I still argue that simply attempting to break a world record does not make one inherently notable. If im currently in the process of becoming the worlds oldest person, or write the world thickest book would that make me notable? Even if i receive an entire library of news coverage that would not make me notable for trying to break the record; at most the excessive amount of news coverage around it would be worth documenting.

We are currently speculating that she might break the world record, and if she does she will be notable. However we are NOT a news source that documents every single news report - just because the news agencies singled out one a single record attempt and covered it extensively doesn't mean we should. I see nothing in this case that makes it more historically notable then any other record attempt. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning would even make Jessica Watsons page eligible for deletion. But why argue about this. Wikipedia is so strict in it's policies. Just being a news item from timbutku to greenland can't possibly be enough to become worthy of having a page in the honorable Wikipedia. Fethry Duck. The safer way to go is dying while trying Gerry Roufs --Hbijloo (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fethry Duck: A cartoon character created in 1964 - even now he is still in publication in a magazine franchise that reached millions. I would say plenty of long lasting cultural influence, both past and present.

Gerry Roufs: Second place in the world championships well before dying, and disappeared and died during a notable event.

Laura Dekker: No achievement other then wide news coverage so far. Unless the court case provides a landmark victory or ruling, or unless she succeeds in sailing around the world, she is a one day fly. She sparked the debate about "Minority safety" but she is low profile in this story, as she is a mere example for debates sake.

Jessica watson is really the same as Laura, with the exception that she is at least sailing. She in NOT notable unless she sets the world record; Not only because that is "What the rules state" but simply because an encyclopedia's goal is to document historically important subjects. Sans all the news coverage, would Laura as a person be notable? Its not laura, but at most the event thats notable. That doesn't mean that both she and jessica don't deserve to be preserved, but the proper place should beWikinews, where they would be excellent subjects. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd qualify Fetrhy as a mediocre duck just doing his job. It's a bit silly to defend entries on secundary cartoon characters as more E as compared to a social and cultural phenomenon such as Laura Dekker. Your missing the fact that the controversy and not the athletic accomplishment is the reason for keeping her in.

It's blogs like this one that more than justify a page with some straight honest facts about her. Freedom fighter uses Laura as example--Hbijloo (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs don't qualify as reliable sources, and even for a blog the mention is little more then trivial coverage. In all due rights i would qualify the event as a Media circus, as the amount of coverage exceeds the true importance for the event. Break it down and you will get: "Record attempt by teen thwarted by authorities". par WP:BLP1E i would argue again that laura as a person (Thus in the biographical aspect) is not notable. I deem it arguable whether the event itself truly notable, or if the media coverage around it just causes it to look notable. At most we could consider documenting this as the "2009 Laura Dekker Incident", or perhaps the "2009 Laura Dekker Media Hype", though the latter is WP:OPINION.

We can debate the reasons why it is silly that Fethry Duck is deemed more notable then laura, but that is besides the point of this discussion. If the rules are flawed the rules should be changed, and not the execution of the rules. If you can demonstrate that laura is notable within the guidelines, and that this notability overrules the policies i states i will be more then happy to concede my point. Hence, no administrator would delete an article if it is clearly notable, no matter how much the votes are stacked against it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

But the fact that you qualify this event as a media circus should not decide whether or not an entry in Wikipedia is deleted. What's relevant to you is another persons bullshit. The deletion process is meant for garbage disposal, not to make Wikipedia fit your defenition of "not silly". "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." How can you argue that the events surrounding Laura Dekker do not fit this definition ??? "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources." But it even has ongoing coverage. CNN on Laura Dekker today --Hbijloo (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have quoted WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS several times now, and so far you did not refute any of the claims i made on the basis of these two guidelines; Thus I belief they are already sufficient to refute your WP:N quote which means im not going to repeat myself again - read back the comments if you wish. Second, i would also only be repeating myself if i mentioned that while the event may notable, laura as a person is definitely not. The link you added shows this perfectly: The debate is not about laura, but about the moral question if it is a good idea to let teens sail around the world without supervision. Laura, in all due rights, serves as little more then an example for a wider debate. See the WP:NOTNEWS quote: "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

Separately i would very much prefer it if you didn't turn this into a personal attack. I am not attempting to "make Wikipedia fit my defenition of "not silly"", as im basing myself upon several guidelines. When i stated that we should not get into the topic as to why Fethery is deemed more notable then Laura, i said so because its a WP:WAX argument - Actually I was just repeating your own words as you said: "It's a bit silly to defend entries on secundary cartoon characters as more E". As for the Media Circus comment: I believe i made it quite clear it was an opinion, and not a reason for removal or even a discussion topic. As i stated before, the article should either be moved to a title reflecting it is an event and altered to display this, rather then being an autobiography, or it should be removed all together as a non notable event. But a biographic article is simply out of the question. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, to illustrate the WP:BLP1E claim, does anyone still remember Alfie Patten? The case also provided weeks of coverage in the UK news papers. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Move and rewrite or Delete Par my above argument. Either this article should be changed from a biography to an event and rewritten accordingly, or it should be removed alltogether. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:10, 25 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Attic Door (Short Story)

The Attic Door (Short Story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. Non-notable short story written by a non-notable author. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I had put it up for speedy but User:Matthew Degnan removed it. It appears that this editor has a WP:COI with the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom, doesn't seem notable, just a short story published in an on-line magazine RandomTime 10:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete article gives no reason for notability, of course it should have been speedy, pure COI. tiresome and annoying to have to do this so often.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: A non-notable short story by a non-notable author. Joe Chill (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per above issues. -moritheil^Talk 21:47, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul Devoe

Paul Devoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of this article killed 6 people in a single spree, and is not notable for any other reason. Per WP:BLP1E we should not retain these kinds of articles.

For those who might argue to move to Killing of..., WP:N/CA states that criminal acts may be notable if they have been the subject of "intense media coverage", which is not the case here. Kevin (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Clicking the "news" button in the find sources bar right above your nomination produced 189 news results. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of the location of the buttons, and of the results. I didn't think it showed intensive coverage of the crimes themselves. Kevin (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per BLP1E and NOTNEWS. Lara 21:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - another BLP1E example - no notability outside the one heinous criminal act - Alison ^❤ 21:49, 25 October 2009 (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 redirect to 2009 Moldova civil unrest. Pages are already redirected, but the consensus is clear that these individuals should not have separate articles. Kevin (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ion Ţâbuleac

Ion Ţâbuleac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Person not notable, being known only for dying in unclear circumstances during some rioting, which is not enough per Wikipedia:N/CA#Victims. The article is also very politicised, with the claims of the family being presented as facts in the lead Anonimu (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for exactly the same reason:

Eugen Ţapu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Valeriu Boboc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• keep The person is notable; he is one of the three victims of the 2009 Moldova civil unrest (Twitter Revolution). The characterization "some rioting" is, IMHO, a serious misinterpretation. The article definitively can and should be improved, however. I suggest to allow time for that. Dc76\^talk 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Important note: To simplify the deliberations here, I performed two edits: [93] and [94]. Basically, I added the relevant info from the articles of Eugen Ţapu and Ion Ţâbuleac to the article 2009 Moldova civil unrest. Conclusion: you can safely now redirect these two, and copyedit the article about the event. In Valeriu Boboc, I removed info that exists elsewhere. This is the only article for which I ask time to improve, please. Dc76\^talk 14:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to 2009 Moldova civil unrest: These three men are known only for their deaths during the riots. This meets "A victim of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a victim" from Wikipedia:N/CA#Victims straight on. Besides, all three articles were obviously written by someone who has an ax to grind against the Greceanyi cabinet, failing WP:NPOV and so on. In case of Ţapu, the only connection seems to be that he died on the same day (and not in police custody as the article claims). So, the articles should be deleted unless their notability can be otherwise asserted. --Illythr (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to 2009 Moldova civil unrest - these are valid search terms (their names appeared widely), and each of their status as one of only three dead makes them stand out. I don't think they're notable enough for stand-alone articles, but I do think there's scope for expanding our coverage on them in the article on the unrest, and outright deletion is a step too far. And if the segments on them grow too big in that article, we can readily go back and recreate the ones I'm suggesting we merge. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This would be a reasonable compromise for Ion Ţâbuleac and Eugen Ţapu. I would agree to merge the content of these articles into a section of 2009 Moldova civil unrest. But Valeriu Boboc is a standalone. He is more notable. "does not automatically qualify as being notable enough" =/= "does not qualify as being notable enough". The central word there is "automatically". As for who started the article, there is a general wiki policy: discuss content, not editors. So, in view of this suggestion by Biruitorul, I would rectify mine: keep only Boboc, and merge the other two. Dc76\^talk 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The central phrase is unless their notability can be otherwise asserted. I think Biruitorul's suggestion would be a best fit: create a section "Casualties" in the civil unrest article and make a short summary about who, when, how plus controversy. --Illythr (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That is exactly what I am supporting to do for 2 of the 3. Dc76\^talk 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or merge all - not individually notable by a long shot, but may be valid search terms for 2009 Moldova civil unrest (if the latter option is chosen, I also want to say police, if not salt, the redirects). As a side note, advocating the deletion of these articles is not a political statement (as politicized as they obviously are); the main issue is notability, and these gentlemen, for all the grief etc., are only notable for their association with one event. Creating such articles therefore contradicts several guidelines and policies. Dahn (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Liviu Librescu still exists, although he wasn't notable before the day he died. The difference is made also by their behavior on the day people died. Librescu committed an act of heroism, saving the lives of about 15 students with the price of his own. In this situation, there is a clear difference between Valeriu Boboc (notable during the events) and Eugen Ţapu and Ion Ţâbuleac who were not notable, and whose entries should be redirects. Dc76\^talk 14:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I plan to discuss flaws with every other article (WP:OTHERSTUFF), but Librescu's article seems to be warranted by various other lifelong notability criteria, regardless of the reason why it was started. The simple fact that it was started on or around the day the man died bears naught on the notability - it's the article's informative quality (real or potential) that does. As for the difference between Boboc and the other two gentlemen, I for one don't see it. Dahn (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Then, please do allow time to improve this article. Another AfD can be started about him later down along the line if you see not significant improvements. Dc76\^talk 14:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict): It seems Dahn can read my thoughts - I wrote a post that said essentially the same, but was too late. In short: 1) Librescu was clearly notable before he died. 2) Please provide arguments for Boboc's notability here, as I haven't seen anything that assigns him a greater role in the events than dying due to police abuse. --Illythr (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, I'm discussing the potential informative quality of this article. It is, and likely to remain, an article solely dedicated to a man who died in mysterious conditions, with all the info leading up to that. This death is not the moment when Boboc came to our attention or wikipedia's, it appears to be the moment when outside sources began acknowledging him - his entire biography as reconstituted by the sources is a footnote to his death. Him having done some things before being (let's say) killed is not the same as Librescu or Abraham Lincoln or Barbu Catargiu or Nicolae Iorga or even Sergey Kirov doing some things before they were killed. It is therefore still a "one-event" notability - which: a) contradicts our guidelines; b) means that he is already covered with all encyclopedic material in the article on that one event. And if the argument is that he also did something else during that event other than dying, think about whether any of that would still be viewed as independently notable had he not died by the end of it. Dahn (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize that you repeated arguments that are equally valid for Librescu? I see no point to continue talking about an issue when you seem immune or ignorant of what I say. Is it that difficult to allow a little time to develop an article? Have it your way with the article, if you insist. But please do not complain later when others hit you below the belt. I was sympathetic to you in the last such situation, and will continue to be so in the future (because that's just right, doesn't matter who's involved). Enjoy hitting third parties for what others do to you, if that is what you like. Dc76\^talk 15:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the arguments are not "equally valid" for Librescu, who would have been notable (though probably not very notable) regardless of his death. The rest: a) please don't take this personally, and please don't theorize AfD debates as vendettas (particularly when I have no beef with you or even third parties). Believe me when I say I didn't even bother to check who started or edited the articles. As for "hitting below the belt", whatever context and whatever logic, I simply have no idea what you mean; b) I commented in good faith on the fact that these articles we're discussing show no independent notability of the topics - not because of the way they are (or not just because of the way they are), but because I can't see sources asserting this, whether used in the article or out there in the real world. Dahn (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "hitting below the belt" was when you insisted on Boboc. Given that Anonimu and Illythr openly opposed him having a separate article (both for ideological reasons, yet by far not identical for them two), your insistence on Boboc effectively put me in the corner. All I asked was time to be able to develop this one article. I can not physically do it in 1-2 days before the AfD is closed. You could have said: "ok, let's give a chance to this article for 2-3 weeks, and look at it again then from the point of view of notability". By insisting on "I want to see radical changes now, this minute", you effectively sealed the fate of the article. You knew very well I don't have physically the time to improve it in 1-2 days. But you chose to insist. You rule the day, of course, but you have showed lack of tactfulness. This is a typical example when you chose credit for AfD in detriment of constructiveness and tact. There was absolutely nothing to prevent another AfD in 3 weeks, but you chose the radical approach "let's hit this guy hard in the belly today". Dc76\^talk 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, this has almost nothing to do with the articles we're discussing. The two points that I can address without giving apparent credit to a conspiracy theory are the following: per WP:BURDEN and not just, I don't see any reason for having repeated AfDs for what, to me (and feel free to disagree), looks like a clear-cut case (the alternative would be illegitimate and tiresome); the issue of what changes I would supposedly like to see is, in this case at least, irrelevant - no matter what you think should have been done with one or all articles, my (substantiated) opinion is that the sourcing is a problem, and it's not gonna go away - we're talking, and this is the fourth time I'm writing this, about what the sources, cited or otherwise, have to say about Boboc. Meaning that the article is not warranted by the policies and guidelines, which no amount of effort is going to improve upon. The rest: I'm sure you give yourself some time and allow yourself to take some distance from the issue, you'll see that your accusations are uncalled for and do your point no service. Dahn (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a repeated AfD, just a postponed one. At this point it seems to me you enjoy dragging me into more and more pointless discussion without allowing me to concentrate on content creation. This is exactly why I didn't have chance to show Boboc's notability: you took up all my time with these nonsense discussions. You beat me physically. Thank you and good night! Dc76\^talk 21:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And how do you suggest I postpone it? For one, as Illythr put it, there's nothing preventing you from sandboxing any of the articles, should you wish to prove a point. I don't "tickle" yo answer my points, and won't take offense if you do not (granted, this conversation is going to have to end somewhere). I repeat that the point I was making is about notability as can be discerned from the sources, not just from the article as was written - so the point about the style of the article does not relate to the notability of the subject. For the sake of argument, I'm wrong and Boboc is notable in some way that is still esoteric; but how would me not voting, changing my vote or whatnot begin to address that? In other words, why are we discussing that hypothesis? Dahn (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I find Dc76's accusation that the application of WP policy in such a clear cut case was motivated by ideology simply disturbing (And quite a strong hint on how the said user sees WP editing). But even more disquieting is his publicly expressed dissatisfaction than another editor gave precedence to WP guidelines over real life political disagreements. He seems to have learned nothing from WP:EEML.Anonimu (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am entitled to have my personal opinion without imposing it on anybody. ok? Dc76\^talk 21:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Dc76: I'm curious, what my ideological reasons are in this case... Biruitorul's? o_O In any case, you are free to move the contents of the article to your userspace and work on providing proof of Boboc's standalone notability there for as long as you want. Oh, and according to The Rules, an AFD discussion is normally not acted upon for 7 days, so you technically have some 4 more days anyway.

@ Dahn: on my 1280 screen, that sentence is freakin' 4.5 lines long! O_O

@ Anonimu: Aw, c'mon, give the guy a break. He feels that we three have ganged up on him here, and, considering that each of us has reverted him in two of his favourite articles within the last two days, I really can't blame him. Maybe we should start our own mailing list or something... :-/ ---Illythr (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Illythr. It is my belief, maybe I am wrong, that you opposed the existence of the article for not entirely WP related reasons. It is no more than my belief. And I do not impose it on anybody. I just said my personal impression loudly. The "ideological reasons" are that you supported the other side in the conflict. Maybe I am wrong, that is a possibility. But as I said, this is no more than my impression. Dc76\^talk 22:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What can I say? I have issues with closure :).

But I echo the sentiment: Anonimu, leave him be. Dahn (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dc76: No, you dont. See WP:NPA.Anonimu (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am entitled to personal opinions if I do not try to impose them on anybody. There is no personal attack in holding personal opinions and explicitly mention they are strictly personal. Dc76\^talk 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Illythr: If more people would take a WP break when they become too emotionally involved, WP would be a better place. Oh... these cabals... Anonimu (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems you've read the mail archive w/o understanding the terminology. "Cabal" was us, the "good guys". :-) The "bad guys" were "cartel". :-) Dc76\^talk 22:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion seems to be steaming its way into offtopic. I therefore suggest we close it and continue any user-related talk on user talk pages (if at all). I would thus encourage everyone to *not* post any comments here that are not directly relevant to this AfD. That includes not answering to this post as well. :-) --Illythr (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• End of story. Dc76\^talk 15:33, 21 October 2009 (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 no consensus and defaulting to keep, though I will note that the concerns regarding the lack of sourcing, and the fact that the plot summary makes up most of (though not all of) the article, have merit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lancelot and Guinevere (Merlin)

Lancelot and Guinevere (Merlin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I was unable to find a single reliable source presenting non-trivial coverage of the episode. The article falls under WP:PLOT, as it contains little more than a plot summary, and under WP:EPISODE, as the episode is not notable on its own and thus does not warrant its own article. Odie5533 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell would it need a refference when it has aired in the UK under that name? Goku1st (talk • contribs) 09:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete++ - Need major help here, and sadly the problem is far deeper. WP:SPOILER is needed. Worse, there's an article for every episode of this series without a category being created for them. There are no secondary resources in any article and no external links that aren't BBC press releases. Same objections as above agreed to and likely deletes for everything branching off List_of_Merlin_episodes unless actual justification/notability can be found. I know a ton of work has been put into all those episode articles, but WP:N WP:INFO and WP:NOT in general are all rather violated. I'm sure there's some kind of informative angle authors could use with all of these articles but it'd take a ton of work. Datheisen (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge the whole lot to the list as a summary UltraMagnus^speak 10:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok well what if I added the press releases for each episode? Goku1st (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since press releases are primary sources, they do not help in determining notability WP:RS. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep there is a few realible source for referening to, the merlin site, bbc site, digiguide site that is a few i can think of, and ther no reason for it not to be notable. the page just needs ot be tidied up and catergoies sorted out but how many stub pages are otu there that do not get deleted?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The notability guideline refers to "significant coverage in secondary reliable source" BBC and the Merlin site are not secondary sources and the Digiguide provides only trivial coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a exmaple of one of the episode which have been done right but still needs more work The Dragon's Call--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My nomination is calling into question the notability of the episode, not specific problems with the article itself. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, i agree some of the episode do nto have notabilty or have much but some background to them, this episode is quite important in the merlin series it shows the development of how famous king and queen come together, well willl eventally--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I thought "The Dragon's Call" was part of your name, but rather you were referring to an episode of Merlin. Based on the sources of the article, they all seem to refer to Merlin the show more than to the episode, aside from the single Guardian article. Unless more sources exist covering that specific episode, I'd consider it non-notable and the references more useful on a season page or the Merlin series page. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Under that pretense then ever epsiode of house , lost and loads of other tv shows should be deleted as the notable is not there. I agree the episode page require clean up and lot mroe work but that does not mean ther enot notable, the first epsiode of a show is probally the most notable as with the finale and dragons call is the firs tepisode. instead of tagging for deletiong why not tag for clean up and more references. notabilty is about where it is encolypedtic or not--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. House has spawned many reviews written about individual episodes, all of which could presumably go towards establishing notability of those episodes. (Those episodes which do not have notability should, of course, not have their own articles.) I'm not for or against deletion, but I don't see that the House comparison favors keeping. WP:CRYSTAL, so we cannot say that the episode will be notable in the future and use that as a reason for notability now. -moritheil^Talk 20:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment i was not using it as a reason to keep, i still thinkthe notabilty is there just need more work on it. i was just ssaying that other poplour shows get epsiode articles so in thoery ther enot notable--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

here are some secondary sources provign it ntoabilty [95] [96]

this one is unrealible however does prove it notabilty since the main question was no sources for it [97] as i said the article only require work, (well a lot of work tha ti persoanlly cant do but i am willign ot help ones that are doign it liek the creater of the page to do it)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of these sites is debatable. I was writing the reception section with those exact two sources (+one form Den of Geek!), when I figured they were all too unreliable for inclusion, so nominated the article for AfD instead. The nomination here is to determine the notability of the subject, not assess the condition of the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes but the condiotn of aritcle can detict it notabilty if laid out wrongly or done worng it not notable but if done correctly it is, otherwise you are claiming any tv show episode pages are not notable i have provide secondart sources at least one realible and that was what was dispute that ther eno realibel secondary source but having a good look on the internet esicpally uk relate sites there is. there has been some paper reviewing it so there is reliabilty on the source which was youprimary conern for notabilty--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you could please share these reliable sources that provide more than just trivial mention of the show, it would certainly help in determining the notability of the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I willt ry track them down but i do have a very strong personal life which takes up most of my time so i can not garantee i will get them (ie a 6week old baby), however The daily record and The time newspaper realible newspaper in the uk both have covered merlin the show in detail and have covered each episode. The realible source are all uk based ones.

---

• keep I am changing my vote, I had no idea that so many TV shows had an article for each episode, it seems un-encyclopaedic to me, but this is not the place to debate that (per WP:PRECEDENT) --UltraMagnus^speak 05:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Linked to from the WP:PRECEDENT page are WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:LOSE, and WP:EVERYTHING. And also, WP:POKEMON and WP:INN. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, really non-notable. --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - As it stands, it has not real-world information and violates WP:PLOT. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Merlin episodes. There is no independent notability for this episode. In the alternative delete but a standalone article isn't support without reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Again if this isnt notable nither is a lot of tv show episode articles only a few of them are, look at season 6 episode of house for example none of them are notable as they do not have second party sources, if this is a problem then either all these will need to be brought to afd or a rethink at the project is required--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Articles on episodes which can stay or those with references from notable places which are not related in any manner to producing or distributing them. If you find any other episode which contains only in-universe information, like this one, feel free to redirect them, as they violate all sorts of policy. I generally do not take them to AfD unless someone protests the redirect. You know, be bold and all that. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to try that some time Scapler (talk · contribs), but based on the discussion hear I'd guess that people would oppose the redirect and it would need to be taken here/settled on talk anyways. Never the less, it is worth a shot. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

COmment the shows in question will draw a lot of people complaining, just because the show is notable and some episode are they will want all of them kept because ti a big show and a af will jsut get keep even if ther eno realible secondary sources which is being biased then.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are sources for notabilty sicne sources where the main problem, and the reason it hard is one it not logn aired, secondly lancelot and guinevere and the main king of queen of merlin myths so pages well estbalish will come up before pages about the tv show will, that why the other episod epages are easier to find as ther enothing to do with merlin myths as such. Anyway here they are, [98] [99] [100] [101] (this source is consider realible for house episode pages and the main house list of episodes so i cant see why it can be used here) [102] [103] and there will be more source as and when series 2 comes to america and australia, and if you can somehow search the The Daily Record newspaper in the uk and the The Times newspaper in the uk you will fidn reviews on this and other episodes. If this is not good enough for ntoabilty then there will need to be alot of epsiode pages deleted on other shows. The only reason i am against deletion and think it should be kept is because i think the notabilty has been rashily decide as this all came froma google search of 4 pages.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also please bare in mind this is a uk show so search on non uk search engines will not pick it up as easily--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Heropress - it's a blogspot with no author listing. TotalSciFi - At least it has a couple editors listing, but I can't speak for its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The review is incredibly short, though might just pass the trivial threshold. The dailyradar link just links to the TotalSciFi page, this is isn't a useful reference. The LiveJournal is, well, it's a LiveJournal; enough said. The SciFi Stream page is trivial and unreliable, they just offer the show for you to watch. SciFi Pulse appears to be self-published, I see no editorial policy and it's a three-man operation. I wouldn't consider any of these reliable sources for anything. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On that note i notice how this will fail AFD because the find soruces is americna which is worng for uk show i think this is now for talk--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying here. This is the English Wikipedia, and we only prefer English sources for reference (Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, American, Britain, etc, are all fine), and generally notable topics. This means for a given topic, it doesn't have to be notable in America, but has to meet the general notability guidelines, and when adding references for the page it is nice to have them in English but not necessary. I have never heard of a preference for American references over British ones, and given that this show is created by BBC, I'd expect many or all of the sources to be British. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that because people are not from britian there defautl google will bring up listing that misses uk sites well put them lower down the lsits so secondary sources can be missed since i doubt oyu went through 10 pages of searchs form google or maybe more than 3? i am not havign a dig at you or anyone jsut think if you are goign to say a article is not notable it is best to check sources from the area the articles is from ie this case uk and you find more sources. What do oyu want me to do go find a hundred sources? as it seesm you mind is made up and i beg to differe some of them are realible and you comment where there no secondary sources to confirm it, i also meantion the epsiode titel cause problem due to the merlin myths will bring up more pages on merlin myth than the tv show, that why all the otehr epsiode you can find sources for them easdier, i also state the newspape rin the uk that are reviewing them but you made no maeantion of them. if deleted i will go down the line the user below meantioned and ask admin to move it to my userpage and i will work on it over time.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For this particular article I did use the UK Google to try and find sources. I usually go through at least 100 results on Google before calling it quits. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included on the , The Nightmare Begins (Merlin), Talk:The Dragon's Call, Talk:List of Merlin episodes, Talk:Beauty and the Beast: Part One, and Talk:Merlin (TV series) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Keep or merge with List_of_Merlin_episodes per Andrewcrawford. Ikip (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep This particular episode is a part of a currently airing series, so we have to wait for the series to end to get more reviews (as it was with the first series; when it finished, there were quite some reviews comparing different episodes).

As for the first series episodes (and for all Merlin-related articles, for that matter), I have to agree, they are extremely undferreferenced, but it doesn't mean this can't be changed. For example, Digital Spy had reviews of every episode and of the whole series: [104].

Primaler (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Datheisen mostly. Having an article for every episode in a television series like this violates IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. An article on the episodes which meet our notability guidelines would be appropriate, but an article on every episode is not. A summary of the general plot should be allowed on the series' main article, and if this particular episode makes a difference to the series as a whole it should be noted there. ThemFromSpace 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep - it's too early to say that this episode doesn't have enough reviews, after all it is a currently airing series. In addition, due to interviews and an actual plotline we know it is important to the story core, leading to the eventual marriage of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere. With all due respect, I'd suggest we keep the article and make edits for its improvement. ;) JesterCountess^{[talk•contribs]} 01:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - if it is too early to tell if it has reviews, then it is too early to tell if it will ever be notable. We cannot keep articles in hopes that they may, at some point in the future, be notable. If that were the case, I should have an article, for who's to say that I will not one day be notable; I'm not out of college yet, it is too early to tell of course. On your other point, please note that notability in the plotline has zero to do with real-world notability or notability on Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is not a plot-only description of fictional works, and WP:SBST states: "Notability is not predictable: although a topic that does not meet this guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive substantial coverage in the future". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Works of fiction should not be judged this way. There are many articles about films and books that are not even out yet. Sometimes, they do not even have an official name! And it is absolutely normal. Examples: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film); 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who); article Quantum of Solace was named Bond 22 before the official name was announced. Primaler (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Notice that articles like the Harry Potter ones have RELIABLE INFORMATION and are SOURCED. I am afraid that policy is being lost in favor of opinion and WP:ILIKEIT; if you do not believe fiction should be judged in this manner, try to get policy changed. Until then, your comment is decidedly anti-policy. See WP:CRYSTAL for more information on unreleased works. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment When HP article was created, it looked like this. A month later. A year later. What I'm trying to say is: the Merlin article in question is a handy and easy to manage place to collect real-world information (including reviews). Basically, isn't this how WP works? You create a stub, add the basic info, collect references, improve the style -- step by step. And now, you're not giving it even a month. Primaler (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

trust me is a common problem with over zealous editors who take some poloicies to seriously, i can se ehte point if i created a article on say List of dummies for babies available the notabitly of that would be very sceptical even tohugh you could even get secondary sources--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If the next Harry Potter film did not have enough reliable sources covering the movie to write a full article about the subject then it should have been deleted rather than waiting for the coverage to be made. We can't anticipate news coverage and reviews and hope they come. WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is taking the guidleines to far, what the point of havinga stub article if it cant eb improved because some zealous editors want to delete it? and do you really think that there would be no news coverge for sucha big film like harry potter? i think the guideliens need ot be tighten up and for editors to realise it guideliens not law--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"do you really think that there would be no news coverge for sucha big film like harry potter?" we aren't the news, nor are we psychics. While it seems reasonable to assume that the Harry Potter film will receive coverage, for smaller films and television shows there is no way to be sure. The point of having stub articles is that the subject itself is notable enough to have an article, but no one has written it yet. All stubs still need to meet the GNG, stubs are not a holding pen for non-notable topics. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Its information for the readers, and taking this down means taking every other article down. Each one gives a certain amount of information, so why should this one suffer? It's a page, and wikipedia should be expanded as much as it can, and deleting this article will only decrease the numbers. 89.240.171.242 (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:EVERYTHING, along with a couple more. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We do not want information about fiction exclusively, this is not a fansite, but an encyclopeida. Please prove the encyclopedic worthiness of this topic with real-world information. If you want to provide information on all aspects of fiction, I would direct you to Wikia. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm glad you're entitled to talk (rudely) on behalf of the whole community. Or is it just you and some other bloke you're writing this together with? I reckon, this needs some clarification! Primaler (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that this was the IP's first contribution, I would agree with the use of 'we' here as Scapler was referring directly to our (yes, our) WP:PLOT policy. Perhaps if he was referring to a personal essay, or even a guideline, he might use a different pronoun, but it's an established Wikipedia policy. Also, your insulting comments are not needed. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And certainly, being the first-time contributor, he would easily know that it was a policy being referred to, not a personal opinion being expressed. After all, who needs a link or any explanation and stuff. Primaler (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:JUSTAVOTE --Odie5533 (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Seems like it could be rewritten with some sources, it's borderline notable. I guess there must be a huge number of similar articles so a centralized discussion would be much easier, or at least some clear cut rules. Hobartimus (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please address my concern as nominator, namely that the subject is not covered in reliable sources. If you are saying that it can be rewritten with some sources, please, share these sources you have. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you do not think some of the sources are realible doe nto mean they ar enot that is your opinion, some of the soruce i provide are realible but you see them as not, if the articel is kept and the soruces used then take it up at realible sources to get a wider opinion on wether they are realible--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the discussion needs to continue here. Otherwise people could add loads of unreliable sources to non-notable articles to save them from AfD (as I've seen happen before). This does not solve the problem; we need to actually determine the notability of the subject. If you believe one of the sources you cited is reliable, please make a case for its reliability. From WP:RS, "reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Unless it is immediately obvious, please show that the sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This usually requires at least authors, editors, and an editorial policy. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There is already a wider opinion; it is at WP:NOTE. A topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc" This means BBC and the like CANNOT establish notability. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when is it AFD to decided if a source is realible? that is realible source job, and there no point asking if something is realible if the artice is not to be kept, once a decision on this is made wether it is delete or keep then i might ask if a soruce is realible you say it not i say at 2 of ones i provide are and there non primary sources--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of sourcing is discussed in AFD on a regular basis as it is often the determining factor in deciding on the disposition. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that means no one users is able to decided it a collectiveness to deecided if a source is realible which is not wha thte above user is doign they claim them to be unrealible but other maybe think they are ( i cant speak for other users i am only going on they say there source)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why this is a discussion. Other editors may or may not discuss teh reliability of the sources, but it is up to them and an admin will determine if concensus is reached based on the entire discussion. For me, the sources do not establish notability as the sites are dedicated to reviewing every episode without any editorial decision on incluision of any specific episode. The coverage is also rather light, and as such does not establish notability. The list of epsiodes already provides a perfectly good target for a redirect and none of the discussion to date has changed my mind on that. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yassine Ait Oumzil

Yassine Ait Oumzil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence he has played a match in his semi-pro league. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 08:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. — Jake Wartenberg 03:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

List of films never released on DVD

List of films never released on DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Indiscriminate and trivial list that is never likely to be completed. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Many films have no doubt never been released on DVD, and for no reason other than a lack of demand or interest. Per nom this is indiscriminate and trivial, and sourcing would be a nightmare. Searches on Amazon to see whether or not a DVD is available doesn't come anywhere close to WP:RS. PC78 (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A list based on a negative qualification is almost always a bad idea. What might work is a category for notable films never released on DVD, so that if a film was important enough for its own article that could be noted. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sorry, but this is a bad idea because of the impossibility of making it accurate, and then maintaining it. Considering all of the thousands of titles that came out on VHS during the 1980s and 1990s, and the task of checking to see which of those are not yet on a DVD, it's a task that nobody has the time to take on. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete essentially a list criteria based on relative lack of notability, with no hope of it being complete, and no hope of it ever covering the subject objectively, due to it likely focusing on peoples favorite films that werent released, and not the obscure ones that have WP articles. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced CRUFT. Hell, just the list of films that have been lost (meaning they will never be on DVD, or any other media) is already huge. Add in other films not released for various reasons, the list grows. Eventually DVD will be phased out and the list will stop shrinking (for example, Twlight Zone: The Movie never got a DVD release, only VHS and Blu-ray Disc). Warner Bros. alone has hundreds of movies not released on DVD. TJ Spyke 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete altough it seems a good idea and could be useful, the acutally abilty to lsit ever film not on dvd would be impossibel as you would also have to prove it was not avaiable in any region and not jsut one region as the page is seeming to suggest.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I think it would be impossible to make a list of every movie that is not on DVD. Warrah (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete An unmaintainable list. Edward321 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for all above reasons. Listcruft and completely impossible to maintain. And furthermore, some films (particularly older Bollywood movies) may be available on DVD in some countries but not in others. Tris2000 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete because by fundamental fact we cannot source lack of news, ie it's impossible to prove permanently that something never happened. Sources can be provided that a DVD is released and they are then permanent, meaning that we don't need to keep providing updated sources proving this to be true. Even if we were to obtain a reliable source stating "Film A has never been released on DVD", this source could potentially be obsolete immediately and we would have to keep obtaining new sources that state the same information as time goes by. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for every logical reason already given. LargoLarry (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: There are only 9 films on the list, so presumably the list will soon be down to zero.--Milowent (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Snow Day (film) out on DVD yet? Hint hint. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - per TJ Spyke, and also the fact that some DVDs are released only in certain regions, making it more difficult to track, plus there are movies made in many different countries that are never released in any form in English speaking countries, which will make it even harder to track, plus all the non-notable films that get made all the time (a 20 second student documentary, for example)... Rlendog (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mehdi Baltham

Mehdi Baltham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No improvement from the article deleted via a PROD a while back. Spiderone 08:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

List of The Indie Distribution Fest award winners

List of The Indie Distribution Fest award winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod removed. The only google news archive results for "Indie distribution fest" are press releases, so I don't think it's notable and neither is this list. Prezbo (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:LC. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. If/when Indie Distribution Fest merits its own article, a subsection on its award winners would then naturally make sense. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2009 (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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Clutch (sports)

Clutch (sports) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod; I agree with the prod reasoning - it's a dictionary definition with some random examples, and I see no scope for it to develop into a meaningful encyclopaedic entry; the selection of examples constitutes original research. Fits DICDEF well, I think.  Chzz  ►  07:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This contains a brief and poorly-constructed definition, followed by a set of examples that range from trivial to outright incorrect. (Note that it was a vandal that contested the prod. Prod was my nomination.) TheFeds 07:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete ASAP under WP:NPA along with Choke_(sports) for unreferenced opinions of players mentioned. Edit history is almost exclusively IPs with short histories that are all edits of sport opinion articles. Even if that was all addressed, WP:NOTDIC and WP:SOAP Datheisen (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Largely OR, and I don't think it is particularly salvageable, other than to cut down to a mere dictionary definition. I can see the possibility of an article on clutchness in sports, but this ain't it. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, expand - I know, especially since Moneyball, that there’s been some debate on whether or not such thing as “the clutch” even exists, i.e. whether or not certain players perform appreciably better in “clutch” situations. There’s room here to expand on that. —Wiki Wikardo 12:18, 23 October 2009 (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 keep, without prejudice against a merge should local consensus decide so. AfD is not for merge/redirect proposals, nominator encouraged to review WP:BEFORE.  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How now brown cow

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/How now brown cow
• Articles for deletion/How now brown cow (2nd nomination)

How now brown cow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable phrase. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge with Roundedness. Useful information, but doesn't warrant a separate article. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with above suggestion and logic. Certainly has a place in a proper collection of similar phrases or at least a list. Datheisen (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't really like the idea of merging to roundedness. Ideally, this should be part of an article on teaching elocution, as it's probably one of the two most iconic English elocution drills. (The other is The Rain in Spain.) I'm not sure if elocution itself should be the article to covers such drills.--Chris Johnson (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• So if you don't think it should go in roundedness or elocution, where should it go? Jujutacular ^T · C 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Accent reduction looks like a possible candidate, but all the linguistics articles are rather too scholarly to accommodate these examples easily. Sussexonian (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'm always wary of "rewrite some other article extensively so we can merge this one there" !votes at AfD. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Chris Johnson (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete Anyone who wants to know a word should know how to use Wiktionary or their favorite book or on line dictionary. Keeping an article like this just promotes more abuse of Wikipedia. There should not be an article for every word in the English language, and there is no reason that this practice phrase for elocution should be an exception. --Fartherred (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per above; Not entirely sure Roundedness is the best target, but I agree that a single link to phrases.org.uk isn't enough to carry an article beyond a dicdef. A merge is appropriate, I think. If the phrase has been discussed in reliable sources, and is itself notable, then we absolutely should have an article about it - that might not be the case here, though. I would also be hesitant to characterize the original author's intentions as "Abuse of Wikipedia". UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• undecided I regret that I might be taken to have meant that someone had an intent to abuse Wikipedia. It seems to me that certain uses of Wikipedia are abuse whether the contributor was ignorant of the policies that forbad such use or not. This particular article may not fit precisely the Not A Dictionary policy. After more careful consideration I understand how it might be merged into elocution or roundedness, but I lack the knowledge to be certain.--Fartherred (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to elocution. I was undecided before, but this seems like the best option. A new section on "elocution drills" will have to be written, but I can probably do that in the next few days. I'm not sure this is where this section will eventually end up (accent reduction is a really good target too), but future reorganization can be discussed at the articles' talk pages. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is clearly quite notable and so it is apparent that the nomination fails our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, instead of posting a link to a google books search, link to a specific source which demonstrates nobility. Use in various phonetics books does not make the term notable. The only thing in that list that is anything close to establishing notability is the first result, a single book which discusses the phrase itself, rather than just using it as part of a lesson or as a passing mention as every other book does.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Colonel Warden. Folks, this is yet another example of someone not trying hard enough to try to fix an article, before nominating for a second time for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, the above is just another example of someone making sweeping statements about someone else, without even looking at the validity of the point made(the one I made above). Search results do not demonstrate nobility.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:32, 27 October 2009 (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 delete. NW (Talk) 20:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Never After

Never After (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails the criteria for books - has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, nor is it notable in any other way. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Nomination completed for IP editor. Protonk (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 06:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I am having trouble locating sources on this given the number of works with similar names, as it is I am inclined to delete UltraMagnus^speak 10:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Author published by Simon and Schuster imprint is notable I think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books) says nothing about who publishes the book. By the five criteria there, it fails. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you spend some time looking at this website you might feel differently [105]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What does 8 optical illusions on Yahoo! Health have to do with this? Joe Chill (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. But I thought they were kind of cool. Did you feel different after looking at them for a while? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Young author and student not yet sufficiently notable to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. ChildofMidnight renamed this to the author, but there is no proof that the author is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Wait. Per Amazon, the book is scheduled to be published October 20. It would have been much better if the editors who set off this muddle by drive-by templating articles from a new editor, minutes after the initial postings, had instead made reasonable efforts to be helpful. It's not unheard of for new authors published by major trade houses to be notable, and I can't see what earthly good is done by forcing a deletion discussion just before reviews and such can be expected to be published. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, having published a book (since this has been moved to the author, for some reason) doesn't make someone notable at all. Neither does it make the book notable. Protonk (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Author with one published book. After I removed the sections that dealt with the book alone, there just isn't much there. TNXMan 11:44, 22 October 2009 (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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Dixie Seafood

Old Dixie Seafood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, local business. Lacks Ghits of substance and significant non-local GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Agree with nominator --Richard (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The local references are sufficient to establish notability. I improved the article a bit. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment – Not according to the primary notability criteria, "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." ttonyb (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep local gnews is sufficient along side the gbook hit UltraMagnus^speak 11:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment – a Who's who type listing showing only the addresses of the company is hardly sufficient to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • actually, I was referring to these --UltraMagnus^speak 15:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Let's see:
      • This is a personally invested article.
      • This deals with it only in the context of a highway widening.
      • This may be useful. seems trivial as well.
      • This only mentions it in one sentence.
      • This is personally invested and trivial; barely mentions it in context of other restaurants.
      • This is a directory listing.

So even those aren't useful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – the one you mentioned that might be useful shows 370 out of the 577 words, I doubt if they added anything that would be useful. ttonyb (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• It showed more in the quotes in the search results. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Did anyone look at the sources? They're only directory listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A local "best of" pick is meaningless. We don't even know if there are more than one seafood store in Boca Raton that Old Dixie Seafood could be better than. I frankly find it bizarre that anyone thinks this kind of thing could establish notability. What's next, citing a Zagat rating? -PorkHeart (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not even notable on a local level according to Wikipedia criteria. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Article makes plausible claims of notability. Sourcing is a bit weak, but I've found that finding articles online from florida papers is not always easy.--Milowent (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Just a local seafood store. No reason to believe it is especially notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It is well established that places of this sort are notable. See Mzoli's. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – According to what criteria in Wikipedia? As for Mzoli's see WP:WAX. ttonyb (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:WAX which states, "Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.". This is a similar case and so should be treated similarly. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• WP:WAX goes on to say, "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons...Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". " This is not a similar case. If one compares the two articles the glaring difference is Mzoli's establishes notability via the inclusion of valid sources. Old Dixie Seafood fails that detail. Again, I see nothing that supports the statement that, "It is well established that places of this sort are notable." ttonyb (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article in the Sun Sentinel is not a personally invested article as one editor mentions above. It was featured because the business is notable. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel is our major newspaper in this area. NancyHeise ^talk 04:57, 23 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Heavy Construction Systems Specialists

Heavy Construction Systems Specialists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. Does not meet WP:COMPANY. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. As per nom, no significant Gsearch or Gnews hits found. Frmatt (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 06:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 06:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Simple WP:COMPANY WP:PSTS, and even if references were made from other sources it'd still be questionable without any third-party publications. Datheisen (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Dunkley

Richard Dunkley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Like you said, Backslash Forwardslash, this article is not notable.  Btilm  03:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.
• Comment. Here's a reference: http://www.tmlserver.co.uk/harlequinnews.nsf/1c1506e762a7830280257598002aa48d/981fff5ad67030b780257165004c7163!OpenDocument&Click= The article makes some claims to notability, including an award from The One Club that I cannot verify as well as photograph that appeared on the cover of the book Ravelstein, the last work from Nobel Prize winner Saul Bellow. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for now Almost want to keep. If film work is completed and there are publication references of a professional level, bring it back. As it is, WP:BLP and WP:GNG as said above. Datheisen (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- the number of redlinks seems to speak for him being NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2009 (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 redirect to Morlocks (comics). NW (Talk) 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Savage Wolf gang

Savage Wolf gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable brief comic book villain group. After various searches the only sources I could find were comic fan sites/wikis. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect (possibly Merge?) to Morlocks (comics). Really doesn't need its own article. BOZ (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge per boz UltraMagnus^speak 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Boz. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:48, 19 October 2009 (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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Tí Chulainn

Tí Chulainn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A cultural, events and accommodation centre written up by user:Tí Chulainn. Is it notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.
• Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep good gnews hits that seem to establish notability, needs to be balanced though UltraMagnus^speak 11:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep: had lots of GNews hits, but the traces of WP:COI needs to be removed from this one. Alexius08 (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2009 (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 Delete - original article was clear vandalism. Glen 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

UFC 111

UFC 111 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pure unencyclopedic opinion and nonsense. No factual value. Friginator (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if you already knew this, but the current content is not what it should be. This is what it was before someone changed the whole article. -99.255.188.158 (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry. Friginator (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for the time being. There are already six future UFCs listed which is quite enough. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with RHaworth's thinking here. While the original AfD was based on a vandalized version of the article, the current version really says nothing because there is no solid information about this future event. It should be deleted with no prejudice against recreation if verifiable information becomes available. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails Wikipedia's nobility guidelines.  Btilm  03:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. There's an edit war over very little content. Let them take the battle elsewhere and recreate the article after the fight is over. --UncleDouggie (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: too early for this one. Maybe wait for a few months for sources to come out? Alexius08 (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Too early to mention this event on the site. The event will obviously happen eventually, and it probably won't be too long until Dana White or someone in the UFC comments on the possible date & location for this event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe8609 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Maybe bring it back when we have something to confirm, like a date or a city. --JY23 (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2009 (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. There si no reason to delete the article, editorial work should fix all the problems. Tone 11:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

John Derbyshire

John Derbyshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am not an expert in the deletion process, so experts I request that you assist me with this. I nominate this article for deletion for the following reason: The subject of the article is so controversial that Wikipedia standards for NPOV cannot be adhered to under the present circumstances. Inability to conform to NPOV is grounds for deletion under Wikipedia guidelines, and so I recommend deletion.Jarhed (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For discussion that I have already initiated, please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Indications_that_bio_policy_is_FAILING.Jarhed (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Page deletions instructions say for step #3 the following: "Open the articles for deletion log page. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert (a standard comment)". I'm sorry, I can't figure out what the instruction "Open the articles for deletion log page" means. Once again, I request assistance from an expert.Jarhed (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

At the very top of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page, there is a link to today's deletion log.

I made that entry but it did not show up for about an hour. I don't know what I was doing wrong but thank you for your help.Jarhed (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I vote keep. If we can't have articles on subjects as controversial as JD, then we can have almost no articles. I fail to see why NPOV can't be achieved. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• On notability and sourcing: On the face of it, Derbyshire seems like a significant and well-known commentator, but in trying to address neutrality issues with the article, I searched in vain for significant independent, reliable coverage of the topic of Derbyshire himself. As the article stands, it consists only of primary-sourced inter-blogger disputes, unreferenced content, and minor personal details. It seems unlikely that proper coverage does not exist, but if editors with greater google-fu than I cannot find it either, I move that the article ought to be deleted or at the very least radically stubbed.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep "Controversial" is not a reason for deletion--if anything, wide spread controversy shows notability and is a reason for keeping. His several non-political books, 2 of which have won prizes in different fields, are by themselves unquestionable reasons for an article on him. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per DGG. Derbyshire is sufficiently prominent that he needs to have a bio here. I'll see what I can do about cutting out some of the more problematic parts. Ray^Talk 05:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah. Skomorokh has already beaten me to it, it seems. Ray^Talk 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As DGG mentions, the 2 award-winning books are more than enough to support notability, never mind the assorted controversies about his columns.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per DGG UltraMagnus^speak 11:37, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ian England

Ian England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Also, no reliable sources are provided and as an actor, his only credit is as a dead person in Numbers. Which, IMO is not that notable. Giants27(c|s) 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for failing to meet WP:BIO. GregorB (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Not particularly notable, unreferenced BLP, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:27, 23 October 2009 (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 keep. It seems that there's a general consensus that he topic is notable, if only barely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Endgame (2007 film)

Endgame (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 17#Endgame (2007 film) (closed), closed as overturn and list at this venue. I am not expressing an opinion either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep news article and IMDB establish notability UltraMagnus^speak 11:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NF, IMDB can't be used as evidence of a film's notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• This was taken to AfD as a result of a deletion review discussion. Besides that, there is nothing here warranting a speedy closure, or it would never have been brought here in the first place. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It's debatable whether the sources there now are sufficient, and The New Republic article says little about the film, so the article could do with one or two good sources that cover the film in more detail. IMDB contributes nothing to notability.--Michig (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable article. IJA (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep TNR and other sources seem to push this into the realm of notability albeit barely. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and expand and improve sourcing. With respects to User:UltraMagnus, being listed in IMDB does not establish notability. It's acceptable as an external link and might act as a guide toward further research on the subject, but should not itself be used as a source in the article. I find though that notability seems established per G-News and G-Scholar. User:MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't be impressed with those Google News and Google scholar results if you've actually read them. Taking Google News first; the first result doesn't mention Endgame at all when clicked on, the text google is previewing isn't in the article (or the other "related" articles for that first result) and is a press release anyway, issued by Alex Jones (primary source). The second is a press release issued by Alex Jones (primary source). The third is a foreign language blog run on phpBB (I could have written it, nowhere near reliable). The fourth is hotnews.ro which, despite the name looks like it might be an organization that might have some editors, although I can't tell because it's in Romanian. The fifth contains no discussion of the film at all, the word "endgame" (in lower case) is used once as a throwaway reference. The sixth is a story about how Alex Jones's megaphone was stolen! The seventh looks promising because it's boston.com but it's actually a reader comment (i.e. forum comment) in the comment thread of an article that is nothing at all to do with Endgame. The Google Scholar results aren't any better. The first is a PDF from his publisher (he's listed on their client page) promoting him (not the film) and mentions the film as part of his bio (which is what the PDF is). The second is literally a link to youtube.com and leads to nothing at all to do with Jones or Endgame. The third gives no indication at all of exactly what it's referring to but I'm thinking "SATAN'S NEW WORLD ORDER PYRAMID SCHEME" might not be of great import. The fourth refers to youtube and is in the context of ski resorts! It's very hard to see how any of these or even all of them together can lead anyone to believe the film is notable. I'm not saying it's not notable, it might well be notable for other reasons, but not because of the results you've linked to. As instructed (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have just performed a cleanup and slight expansion of the article, making sure to not use any of the examples you described above. With its current coverage in reliable sources, the article is now properly sourced and meets the requisites of WP:NF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk)

By requisites of WP:Notability (films) do you mean "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" ? If so, which are the two or more full length reviews by nationally known critics? As instructed (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I myself make note of the WP:NF general principles which state "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline" and "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". With significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such requirement is met and WP:GNG has been satisfied. As I wrote above, sources are now in the article. For instance, Josh Rosenblatt is a widely respected writer and critic who reviews for Austin Chronicle, Huffington Post, Unfit Times and Rotten Tomatoes among others [106]... and I'm surprised there is not yet a Wikipedia article about him... but that lack does not make him less respected within his field. Thank you for having me clarify. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt and As instructed. It is nice to see other people improving the article and helping to keep it at Wikipedia. Varks Spira (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be difficult for you to want to keep per me, as I argue against the reasons MichaelQSchmidt has given. As instructed (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the back-and-forth between the two of you, and the guidelines you quoted, made me realize it was a keeper. I would like to paraphrase the "General notability guideline" that says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There are non trivial mentions of the film Endgame in The New Republic and City Pages. The Austin Chronicle article is a full review of the film. The Romanian news article is intriguing, as Hotnews.ro employs some 50 journalists. The perspective of a Romanian is needed to judge that one. The Los Angeles Times article is a trivial mention, surely, but it provides an interesting fact... which points to its popularity amongst users at Amazon. Why the LATimes writer included that fact is unknown to me, perhaps the Amazon reviews were glowing and demonstrated a strong fanbase, or perhaps they smelt of some kind of marketing campaign, but nonetheless the fact is there and useful. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The entirety of Citypages.com's coverage of the film is not even a whole sentence. It's the second fragment of a sentence that says "...this year's Endgame: A Blueprint for Global Enslavement was his best film yet, a comprehensive investigation of our brave new world that named names". It seems unlikely that you can reasonably claim those 18 words (excluding the title) constitutes significant coverage that WP:Notability is looking for - i.e. that "address(es) the subject directly in detail". I agree that The LA Times article's coverage is trivial. See the rest of my reasoning with respect to the other points you mention in the 2nd and 3rd bullet points of my delete comment below. As instructed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

• Keep: I think the argument for Josh Rosenblatt being a nationally recognised critic is convincing enough. That plus the DVD Talk review by Glenn Erickson qualify as the full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics required at WP:Notability (films). As instructed (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (changed to keep, immediately above). Going just on the arguments and sources, with the reasoning as follows:

• The claim is that it meets notability because of multiple Google news and scholar hits but when they're actually read it turns out it doesn't.
• The claim is then that it meets WP:Notability (films) but the claim turns out to be not that it meets any of the specific requirements there, but instead that it meets the general notability guideline, so the claim is really that it meets WP:Notability rather than WP:Notability (films). Interestingly, I think there could be an argument put forward that it meets WP:Notability (films), basically because the article has precisely two reviews in it and WP:Notability (films) asks for at least two. It seems obvious to me that if there are two reviews in the article and the notability requirement is two reviews then you immediately have a way to assess how notable the film is; by assessing the reviews. The problem with this is that one of the reviews is on a Romanian website by a guy (he's only only ever referred to as D.S so I'm just assuming he's a guy) whose national coverage as a film critic is very doubtful (the viewing hits listed on the review page are only 800, which doesn't seem very national). It seems reasonable to expect to be able to find two reviews in the country and/or language the film is released in, rather than having to go to Romania to find one of them. The other review (Josh Rosenblatt) doesn't seem to me to fit the description of a nationally recognised film critic; he has no film reviews that I can find in the Huff Post (there are general news articles but not film reviews) and being on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't cut it. For me, he's a local film critic rather than a national one. It's also a tongue-in-cheek review that humourously assesses the film on it's entertainment value rather than as a serious documentary. So the film can't meet WP:Notability (films) via the two reviews in the article, which is a serious problem for an article about a film.
• So we're left with the article needing to be assessed only on whether it meets significant coverage in reliable sources, i.e. WP:Notability. For me, it doesn't. IMDB doesn't count. The New Republic article is about Jones rather than the film; the film merits half a paragraph in an article that spans 2 pages with 15 paragraphs - it's incidental coverage rather than significant coverage. The Los Angeles Times article is about a different film of Jones's and barely mentions Endgame (literally just as the title of one of his films) and so isn't even approaching significant coverage. Citypages.com is again an article about Jones rather than Endgame and only mentions Endgame incidentally (one sentence), so it can't be significant coverage. The two remaining sources (the two reviews) need to be assessed under the criteria at WP:Notability (films) rather than WP:Notability and, as mentioned above, they don't meet the criteria there.

As instructed (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Then thank goodness all notability criteria first and foremost must neet the GNG, as you have pointed out this one does. Thank you for your assistance and insight. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. My third bullet point above starting "So we're left with the article needing to be assessed only on whether it meets significant coverage in reliable sources, i.e. WP:Notability. For me, it doesn't." is an assessment of whether the article meets WP:GNG or not. As you can see by reading that paragraph I very clearly state that I don't believe it meets WP:GNG, along with reasons why I don't believe it meets it. Please could you strike out or otherwise correct your comment directly above where you erroneously claim that I do believe it meets WP:GNG, when in fact I've clearly and unambiguously stated it does not meet WP:GNG. As instructed (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well... then since independent documentaries rarely get the press coverage of big-budget, big-studio, highly-touted blockbusters, we'll have to agree to disagree on it meeting WP:N through WP:GNG. I believe for what is is, it passes. Thank you again. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have a problem at all with you disagreeing with me; disagreement is one of the key components of an AfD. It's just unfortunate that your method of disagreement is to pretend that I say the article does meet WP:GNG when in fact I very clearly say the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, along with a detailed breakdown of why it doesn't (hopefully you're aware that WP:GNG is WP:Notability, it's just a redirect). It's a particularly bad form of argument to simply state that someone is saying literally the opposite of what they are saying just because you disagree with them. It's not even really an argument as such; it's either a mistake (if done unintentionally) or an outright lie (if done intentionally). Anyway, regardless of that, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning in your latest comment. It seems like you're agreeing that there isn't significant coverage in the sources provided but you don't think that matters because independent documentaries don't get much media coverage. If you are then you are effectively saying that the article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:Notability ("significant coverage in reliable sources"). If it doesn't meet that requirement then it can't have an article, regardless of why if doesn't meet that requirement. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia don't care why an article doesn't meet the requirements of it's core policies, it just cares whether the article does or not. As instructed (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake... in re-reading one of your earlier lengthy tomes, you did write " I'm not saying it's not notable, it might well be notable for other reasons" That you disagree with my interpretation of WP:N, fine. And I did not include IMDB as a source of notability. I'm quite satisified with the sources in the article and the dozens available that are not yet included. I'm sorry that my previous statement confused you. Please do not read things into my comments that are not there. At no time did I say that this film was non-notable. I should have more clearly said, "Thank goodness that WP:N is not written to pander to only highly-touted big-budget blockbuster films, and that it accepts that independent documentaries can show notability just as this one has". Further, this particular article meets all core policies, so editors need not think it dos not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that I disagree with your interpretation of WP:N. It says "Significant coverage in reliable sources" and "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail". That doesn't leave much room for disagreement; the article definitely needs significant coverage in reliable sources to be notable and to be kept and I'm sure we both agree it does. In light of my point by point analysis of each of the 5 sources currently in the article (last bullet point of this diff [107]), which of those sources do you believe constitutes significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail?. As instructed (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews If no one looks, no one will find. However... there is an in-depth significant review at DVD Talk... one that is deals specificaly with the documentary.... and another at DVD Verdict. Add them to the article if you wish. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

DVD Talk and DVD Verdict would not be classed as reliable sources. I can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you would like but having spend some time reading that noticeboard and the relevant policies recently I can guarantee they will say they don't. They fail WP:V#SELF. See WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability#Reliable_sources for the criteria that sources need to meet. As instructed (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Per past discussions in other AfD's and at the various film pages... reliable sources are not mandated to be ONLY hardcopy newpapers and magazines OR their web versions. Guideline states "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context". DVD Talk has been accepted by the Wikipedia community as meeting the criteria allowing it to be called a reliable source for film reviews. If you do not believe that [[DVD Talk} may be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", all well and good... but that boat has already saileda dn it IS a reliable source for this instance. Best regards MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Glenn Erickson in his DVD Talk review has written one of the most honest reviews of Endgame, even though he misspells the Bilderberg Group as the Bildenberg Group at one point (2 out of 3 correct spellings ain't bad). I think this review will be helpful in providing a neutral viewpoint. Varks Spira (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see how these two reviews help the case for notability. Earlier, I asked which of the 5 sources currently in the article you believed constitutes significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. This was in the context of not using WP:Notability (films) but instead using the general guidelines at WP:Notability. You didn't answer that question but produced these two reviews instead. Now, if you want to judge the notability of the article based on these reviews then WP:Notability (films) applies; that policy wants at least two reviews from nationally recognized critics in reliable sources that are independent of the article subject. These two reviews aren't nationally recognized critics from WP:RS though; they're your Joe Blogs off the internet that are not paid and not required to have any qualifications except being able to watch films and are not required to have any experience except their ability to write nicely in English. Further, the reviews are written as promotion (which makes them not independent of the article subject). These are all things stated on their web site - "a legitimate film and television marketing company"[108], "If you'd like to have your DVD release featured on Verdict, all the details can be found on our promotion page"[109], "This is an unpaid position. We will do our best to get you into as many advanced press screenings as possible."[110], "How much experience do I need? If you know your way around the English language and can express your thoughts in a clear and engaging manner, you're in good shape. You don't have to be a professional, but you may very well become one by working with us."[111]. So, if the two reviews already in the article can't meet the requirement of WP:Notability (films) when those reviewers are qualified and paid news organization staff that are independant from the subject (i.e. are WP:RS) then how can these two new reviews meet the criteria when they're unpaid, unqualified average internet users writing reviews to promote the DVD's in a WP:self published source?. In other words, these reviews aren't a step up in the quality of sources to resolve the problem with WP:Notability (films), they're a step down that still leaves the article short of WP:Notability (films). As instructed (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• YOU are claiming it is a "tongue-in-cheek" review, just as I may claim that you are a such-and-such Wikipedia editor. You can't dismiss full reviews of the film simply because you put out a few adjectives you thought appropriately described Rosenblatt's film review and supported your argument. Josh Rosenblatt continues to work as a journalist at UnjustTimes.com and while he may not be nationally recognized, he has done an excellent review that is helpful in understanding the subject which in this case is a film. I'm baffled by this requirement that articles should be written by nationally recognized journalists when attempting to establish whether a subject meets the notability criteria necessary for a Wikipedia article. What happens when Josh Rosenblatt has been around for a decade and is now nationally recognized? All his previous work suddenly gets more respect with regards to Wikipedia guidelines? Varks Spira (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not dismissing the review because it is tongue in cheek; I find it quite amusing and I like it. I'm saying that it doesn't satisfy the criteria specified by policy at WP:Notability (films). Once you have accepted that Josh Rosenblatt is not a nationally recognised critic this review cannot be used for the purposes of WP:Notability (films). If he cannot be used for that purpose then the article fails WP:Notability (films). As instructed (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Josh Rosenblatt needs an article, that's for certain... but the current lack does not mean he's un-notable... only that it has yet to be written. He is co-founding editor of Unfit Times, a freelance writer and critic, and has written for other RS such as The Huffington Post, The Austin Chronicle, The Texas Observer, and that paragon of film reviewing Rotten Tomatoes. As for his wide recognition as a critic, his reviews have been quoted in such as Movietome, Wired, Metacritic, Sidereel, IFC, Top Ten Reviews, Mahalo, GreenCine Daily, and many, many others [112]. I think his national recognition as a respected reviewer is assured. And since Endgame debuted in Austin (his hometown), it is reasonable to expect that he might have been the guy there to review the film [113]. His coverage is further indication that the film meets WP:GNG. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep I dont know what else there is to say. There are a lot of good, reliable sources available. Ikip (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Nice work MQS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This clearly fails WP:NF. Per WP:NF:

• "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."

Failure: This film was not widely distributed.

• "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following - Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release."

Failure: This film is not historically notable, nor is it five years old.

• "The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release."

Failure: This movie is not deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, etc. nor is it five years old.

• "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release."

Failure: This move is not five years old so there's no way it could have been re-released or screened at a film festival.

• "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema."

Failure: No evidence that the movie was featured as part of a documentary on the history of cinema.

• "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking."

Failure: This movie has received no major award.

• "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive."

Failure: No evidence that this film was preserved in a national archive.

• "The film is 'taught' as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."

Failure: Again, no evidence this movie was taught at an accredited university with a notable film program.

This clearly fails WP:NF. I can't believe we're even discussing this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Coment. No, it does not fail WP:NF. With respects, you forgot to make mention that WP:NF begins with the very important phrases "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline" and "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This film easily meets those important opening caveats that grant it notability. The list you use as exclusionary is specifically described by guideline as "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist". Guideline does not state that the attributes must exist in order to be notable, but acts to advise that if they do "the required sources are likely to exist" in order to encourage editors to be diligent in the searches for sources. The reliable sources meeting notability were found without use of an inapplicable check-list of attributes. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete based on the above and the "critical reception" section of the article which pretty much tells you how unnotable this film is. When the "notability" part of the article reads like it is the special pleading of a 5 year old, this obviously doesn't pass threshhold. Eusebeus (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Since there is four reliable sources with significant coverage, you saying that the film is non-notable is your personal opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Per The New Republic, Los Angeles Times, Hotnews.ro, DVD Verdict, and DVD Talk. Passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NF, trivial coverage can't be used to establish notability. The New Republic, LA Times and City Pages articles barely mention this film. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally added The New Republic. LA Times is a four paragraph review so it isn't trivial. So that is four sources with significant coverage. I didn't say City Pages. Your !vote above ignores "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline" and "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Joe Chill (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the sources cited by the article. The LA Times article isn't even about Endgame and only mentions it in passing (a half a sentence, in fact). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that makes it three which still makes it pass WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Three nationally known critics? What are the three? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NF: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The other stuff can show notability, but nothing can override WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Chill is correct. With respects, and as pointed out above, it is an error to assert that WP:NF mandates nationally known critics. It does not. It simply advises (among other attributes to consider) that IF there were nationally known critics, then there is a presumption that sources might exist... so as to encourage editors to be diligent in their search for sources that meet WP:N. If sources are found that meet WP:GNG (IE: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then there is no need to look at inapplicable attributes in order to find reasons to exclude a subject that has already met the inclusion criteria of WP:N. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. I was a little confused about WP:NF too. It's a guideline to let you know the film is definitely okay for notability but not a criteria. Varks Spira (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And for proper balance, I did add the DVD Talk's negative review. WP:N has been amply met. editors need not agree with the subject matter... point here being that I do not agree with it myself... but it is the coverage of a subject per WP:RS that can allow it to meet notability criteria for inclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2009 (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 delete. The arguments for retaining this article are overall weak and unpursuasive, notably those that claim the subject is notable without adequate evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Creative inspiration

Creative inspiration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article seems to consist mostly of original research or the author's own interpretation of the sources, and reads as the author's personal essay on the topic. Subject of article is fairly disjointed (to the point where it became difficult to determine an appropriate category for the article when I prepared this nomination). Author means well, but I believe this comes under WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Singularity42 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No need for article. Topic is covered elsewhere. Essay and OR. Szzuk (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. While I think that there might be a viable subject lurking somewhere in that article, its creator (Stevenwcronin (talk · contribs)) has included a lot of very fragmentary and ill-defined concepts. Presenting it in this manner makes it basically original research, because the article purports to correlate a lot of things that appear to be essentially unrelated. He has cited some sources (albeit improperly), but given the above concerns, I think it would be necessary to specifically clarify to what degree those sources actually support the text of the article. The "weak" in my "delete" stems from the thought that it's quite possible that some of these sources actually do discuss this concept specifically, and maybe even use the term "creative inspiration"—if that usage can be demonstrated to be significant, then there might be some merit after all. TheFeds 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Ironically, the creator had some creative inspiration in writing this, but normally we delete personal essays. I'd be willing to keep it, if someone can turn this into a real article. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The article has been created by a new editor who is looking for assistance. This procedure is not appropriate, being contrary to our behavioural and deletion policies. It would be better to engage with the topic at the article and its talk page as it has great notability. I have made a start ... Colonel Warden (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I am the one who nominated the article, I think I should respond.

• I am aware of WP:BITE, and I think I have a very good history and reputation of following it. In this case, the problems with the article were pointed out on September 11th, both with article tags and with editors giving advice to the article's author about the problems. Over a month went by with none of the issues being addressed. The article seemed to be beyond the hope of rescue (as others above have agreed) and I nominated the article for deletion. I think WP:BITE has been complied with here.

• What seems missing is discussion on the article's talk page. Tags have an unfriendly tone - like a form letter and so are not a good alternative. IMO. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am fully aware of deletion policies. This article appears to be a personal essay, and relies heavily on the author's interpretation and correlation between different events and different personal quotes from various people. It is not clear in any way what part of the article can be sourced to the two references and what part is the article's author's own personal views. This would definitely fall under WP:OR concerns and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Singularity42 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to have been any consideration of alternatives to deletion. These include knocking the article back to a stub or merger with similar articles such as creativity, invention and inspiration which all cover similar ground. Such action is indicated not just by our deletion policy but also our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how do you envision such a stub? "Creative inspiration is when a person is inspired to be creative." ?? Singularity42 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. GlassCobra 16:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• what is the original thesis of this article? Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as a combination of WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Some examples of what I find to be unsourced and/or unconvincing:
  • Creative inspiration results in the creation of something new.

    And this differs from creativity how?

  • Many inventors are able to describe an inspirational moment when they recall the moment when their inspiration occurred.

    Sounds like, "Many inventors can remember when they invented something"—which sounds too fuzzy to me.

  • Bill Gates has stated that he dreamed of a day when every person could have their own computer.

    I believe that that was a metaphorical dream (see the last paragraph in this article), not actual—which means it denies this article's central thesis (or at least what I think it is—it's certainly not clear to me).

  • Creative inspiration is the spiritual force by which creativity happens.

    Once we're talking about a "spiritual force," I think we're out of the realm of what can be written in a WP article (that is, outside of a referenced "some believe that…").

  • all forms of creative inspiration (artistic, scientific, philosophical, and religious) are mediated by non ordinary states of consciousness.

    While that may be a quote from a book, just saying it doesn't make it so.

  • creative inspiration involves a "regression" to a primary state of consciousness

    Always? Sometimes? Or just "one person once said…"?

I don't believe that it's possible to write a solid article on a topic this fuzzy and ill-defined. Maybe we should get WP:WikiProject Philosophy/Metaphysics involved? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• keep or wp:incubate article feels notable to me, but needs a rewrite UltraMagnus^speak 11:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Anything sourceable and relevant in this should have been added to Creativity or Artistic inspiration. No need for a spun-off essay on a topic that's treated elsewhere. Deor (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Click on the Google Books search at the top of the AFD. It is mentioned as an actual thing, enough times in publications, and even in news items as well, to be considered something worth a Wikipedia article. It has plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 14:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Having read the above notes I'm not minded to alter my original opinion. It certainly is written like an essay. Whilst the concept isn't OR the opinions expressed in the article are. Biting new editors isn't good but neither is leaving undeserving articles. The concept isn't worthy of its own article, therefore I believe that the article should be deleted and a paragraph on creative inspiration placed in Creativity. Szzuk (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not believe a paragraph anywhere else would serve. While yes, creativity is writen of elsewhere, this particular term itself has in-depth usage [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], and many, many more [130]... which merits coverage of this term here in Wikipedia. So while yes, this particular article from a newcomer reads like an essay, the project will benefit from it being cleaned up, rewritten, expanded, and further sourced... but will not benifit from its deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Incubate. The text as it stands is inappropriate for Wikipedia. However, there are enough references noted above to suggest that the topic is notable - provided that we can discuss it in an even tone, from a neutral point of view, and so long as those sources are used appropriately. This will require a lot of work, and the article incubator seems to be a good spot for it. Userfication would be a second choice, but the article should not remain in the mainspace. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:38, 22 October 2009 (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 Keep (NAC) RMHED 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Lumencraft

Lumencraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blatant advertising, Spam Article. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Lumencraft. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Delete Funny thing is, I don't see any reason this never got canned by a CSD. It has no merit. Nezzadar (speak) 22:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I declined the speedy delete because this article could be fixed. I agree that the way it is currently written is overly promotional. I'll see if I can locate more sources upon which to base some neutral content. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There's already an article from Popular Mechanics listed as a reference. Several other references can be found at this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I added the references, and I think that notability has been established. I don't think the article as it now stands is an advertisement. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Do we really need all these images? And is it not of concern that they read "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide."? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Destroy with fire: Advertisement. Fails WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPA, as per nom's argument. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Well, it was bound to happen on of these days, I agree with Eastmain. While I was out to dinner he added some good refs to the article, I feel sufficient notability has been established. The issue of the tone is a cleanup issue and not a reason for deletion. The overdone images likewise are an editing issue and not grounds for deletion. This can all be discussed and resolved on the talk page, which has never had any attempt to discuss or improve the article on it, because it has never even been created in the first place. Keep Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've significantly altered the article just now to address the issues identified here regarding the tone and the images, so it would be great if everyone could take another look at the new version and re-evaluate their positions, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, due to improvement of article; needs more references and expansion though. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep after enough trimming. Needs to be expanded with more information about the company using third-party sources. Alexius08 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Changes to the article have established a minimum of notability and a more encyclopedic tone. --Whoosit (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep due to improved editing. Who says AfDs can't help articles? MalikCarr (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2009 (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 keep. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Jack Wright

Bobby Jack Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Current defensive coordinator at Oklahoma--but no record that he was ever a head coach at the collegiate level. Blueboy96 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Just like Frank Broyles, Norm Chow, Gus Malzahn, Bud Foster, Kevin R. Wilson, Charlie Strong, and many more. You really want to delete all of these articles? I'm saying no, which means keep this article. --bender235 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Broyles and Strong actually served as head coaches (Strong, granted, an acting coach for one game) while the others either won a major award or, in Malzahn's case, have enough to meet the general bio guideline. No comparison. Blueboy96 23:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The list goes on: Jimbo Fisher, Jim McElwain, Mark Whipple, Sonny Dykes, Mike Bobo, Will Muschamp, John Chavis, Kirby Smart, Brent Venables, Tyrone Nix, Major Applewhite, Josh Heupel, and more and more. Again, do you want to delete all of those? --bender235 (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is this individual notable? Are there sources? At current state, Delete.-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Source is the OU coach profile. And whether he's notable or not? Consider the list above. We'd have to delete all of those if we decide that an OU coordinator is not notable. --bender235 (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK ... so we've got one former head coach, one head coach-designate, one Heisman runner-up, and others who have enough to satisfy the general biographical or general notability guideline. The bottom line--being an assistant coach at a Division I-FBS school is not enough by itself to confer notability. And in any case, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Blueboy96 16:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, being a coordinator at a Div I school easily matches the notability criteria. --bender235 (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep Google News Archive turns up "about 658" hits from 1984 onwards. --Cedders^tk 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I added a couple references and expanded the article a bit. I'll try to add some more if I can. Its hard to sift through the numerous articles that mention him and get the ones that are actually talking about him as opposed to the ones that are simply getting information out of him (i.e., beat writers getting info about a recruit or a game, etc).—NMajdan•talk 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Given references support notability. --Rirunmot 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Brazilian GP Practice Sesson 2

2009 Brazilian GP Practice Sesson 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per discussion at WT:F1 it was agreed that free practice times should not be included in articles and that coverage of free practice should be limited. The creation of a page solely dependent on one Grand Prix with no direct connection to its outcome seems like overkill. Apterygial 00:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - this will already be covered at 2009 Brazilian Grand Prix and no-one will ever, ever search for it individually. Practice sessions are meaningless outside the context of the race itself, and an article about a practice session is equally meaningless. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WE'RETALKIN'ABOUTPRACTICE! (I've always wanted to do that). Wasn't an actual race, just a time trial which only affected the latter starting grid in the actual race. Nate • (chatter) 06:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not even that; only qualifying decides the grid position, practice decides nothing. Apterygial 07:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per User:Bretonbanquet. Cs-wolves(talk) 12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Apterygial. Darth Newdar ^talk 12:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No-one will ever search for it, and the little about it that may be relevant to a general purpose encyclopedia is covered in the race article. 4u1e (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2009 (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 Keep (NAC). RMHED 19:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling the Hogs

Calling the Hogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't really see the need for a whole article on a "Hog call", doesn't seem that notable. Maybe it should be merged somewhere? Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 23:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to the article on the university sports team in question, I think - but checking on this article brought something to my attention, namely, there is no wikipedia article on the sport of hog calling which is really surprising, because it is a notable sport/pastime. Hard to believe someone made an article on a sports cheer taking its name from it but there is no article on the thing itself. Someone should really make a hog-calling article, I guess this shows Wikipedia is short on rural USA editors. There are plenty of newspaper sources about state fair hog calling competitions that could be used for some context and sourcing. Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. —Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as creator of the article, I obvisouly think that the hog call at the University of Arkansas is notable. It is a well-known tradition unique to the University, and is very important to the lore of University athletic teams. Regardless to the results of this deletion, an article should be created at hog calling as per Ben Kidwell. Brandonrush Woo pig soooooooie! 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as there are references to this call in particular in several items here: [131] In addition, hog calls in general are a notable subject There are literary references in Wodehouse, and in folklore. There are academic articles in jstor & elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep A college football cheer is probably notable enough. Another article on real hog calling is needed, as others have mentioned. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hans Bielefeld

Hans Bielefeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced BLP; no evidence or indication of notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Google search has not found anything significant. [132] Also per WP:BLP, "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I added a reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have read the reference that you provided, but it only mentionned Hans Bielefeld's name and saying that he is the vocals of a local rock band "The Split Lips". Most of that article talks about the band and not about this particular person... Thus, the notability of this person is still not established... Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 03:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This is exactly the sort of thing we should be vigilant against. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The only cited information establishes the subject's membership in a band that doesn't have its own, doesn't appear to be notable, and may only be a local Saskatoon band. The blue-linked name of another band that he supposed was a member of actually links to a different band's article which doesn't list him as a member. According to uncited content, he's played with notable musicians. But it's uncited, and even if it was cited, merely playing a gig alongside a notable musician shouldn't confer notability on an other non-notable person. --JamesAM (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Miss Tourism Universe

Miss Tourism Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

web-based Beauty pageant that seems to have come into existence this year. If reliable sources exist for this article, I can't find them - simply forums, blogs and geocities sites. Cameron Scott (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete If any of the models mentioned as previous winners know they won, I can't see any evidence of it. --Cedders^tk 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete There was more content that has recently been removed [133], but all of it very poorly sourced. Reliable sources don't seem to exist. Rror (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:11, 18 October 2009 (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 delete. Google hits alone to not confer notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Radio

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Celtic Radio
• Articles for deletion/Celtic Radio (2nd nomination)

Celtic Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An Internet radio station with some degree of notability (Boston globe article) - looks like advertising (user who posted it has the same name as the article name) RandomTime 15:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Deleted after an AFD in 2007 - although it could have gained notability from when it was first listed RandomTime 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I am sorry if I am not using this right, I am just one person trying to figure out how to submit an article on Celtic Radio since 2007. I don't understand why another radio station had their article published which is the same format as mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Music_Radio I am just one person running a website and broadcast. They are a corporation with many people. I am not trying to advertise, if you think that then I will remove the link to CelticRadio.net. Alot of the great groups like Celtic Thunder, Celtic Woman and even Michael Flatley recommend Celtic Radio as a source for independent musicians. Well, I am sorry to both you again, but I just don't understand why my article is taking as advertising when I am just spelling the facts out of what we do. Again, I run this site by myself, so I don't know how to do it otherwise. Am I suppose to have someone else submit it? Thanks for your help. --Celticradio (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep 57 google news hits UltraMagnus^speak 17:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment most if not all of those Google news hits do not refer to the radio station in question. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • well, it is a weak keep --UltraMagnus^speak 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, Possible Speedy Delete: Riiiiiiight, this is clearly not a conflict of interest. It clearly also isn't unambiguous advertising either. The fact that it has been deleted before for the same reason, hint perhaps? Nezzadar (speak) 21:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I recommend a user name block, as it is a violation of user name policy to advertise in a user name. Nezzadar (speak) 21:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Again, take a look at the wiki article above for Celtic Music Radio. I have not done anything different then they have done. I will contact the people running the WikiProject Radio Stations and see if they can help me out. It would be nice not to get sarcastic comments, why don't you explain to me what I can do to fix the article. I guess the best thing to do is delete it if that is your attitude about it. --66.92.78.217 (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERCRAP - also, the main objections are that it was created as an advertising article (Conflict of interest between the user that created the page and the page's content). Celtic music radio also has reliable sources, per WP:NOTE RandomTime 21:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I understand now that username can not be the same as the article name. Thanks for point this out to me, did not realize that. We've done some things with Celtic Radio that even the multi-million dollar radio stations do not have. Like listener generated top ten count down that is completely automated and a linux based chat room that you can make requests through a BOT. Thanks again for helping me understand all of this. I am sure this will get deleted and that is ok. I will work on learning how to properly submit an article to Wikipedia.--66.92.78.217 (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this internet radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2009 (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 no consensus. The community here is roughly evenly divided, even after the relisting. Given that the article has some redlinks not in the category, and some short notes regarding the time period the neurologist lived, the "redundant to a category" argument holds less merit. I cannot delete here without a consensus to do so, and at present I cannot see one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

List of neurologists

List of neurologists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

An article that lacks any sources and the list looks very short for a comprehensive list Fasach Nua (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This five-year-old article, classic stale Wikipedia, could have been so much more, but it doesn't contribute any relevant information that isn't accomplished by Category: Neurologists. I'm not a category zealot, but listing nationality and dates of existence reveals nothing about their contribution to the science. Mandsford (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The correct implied meaning is List of notable neurologists, where notable means having a Wikipedia article, not the list of all the neurologists in the world. They are all neurologists, and all notable. (the redlinks can be easily fixed, usually by writing the missing articles) . The list does more than a category could, for it gives the date and the country. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, and there is. there should be a list DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per established precedent on this kind of list article which serves as a kind of disambiguation page for notable figures in the field. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Wholly pointless, redundant of Category:Neurologists. Lara 14:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep per DGG's reasoning. I don't think Wikipedia will be much better for keeping it nor do I think it will be much worse for getting rid of it. Location (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• This page seems to straddle the rather fine line between being a legitimate list and a random compilation of links that would be better suited as a cat. For the most part I agree with Lara's reasoning, so I say delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Lists and categories are complementary, not mutually exclusive, and the list is more informative than the category. There is lots of room for improvement, but deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete redundant to a cat. — Jake Wartenberg 03:44, 24 October 2009 (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 Keep (NAC). RMHED 19:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Surya Prakash Chaturvedi

Surya Prakash Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am not sure about this guy's notability. He doesn't seem notable, but I do get Google hits on him. Thanks. LouriePieterse 19:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 09:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 09:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep His books in Hindi (and translated to Urdu) and English appear to be notable enough for him to pass WP:Author. This piece from PTI, book launch by Bedi, Worldcat listing of his Hindi books in western (with no cricketing heritage) libraries show notability. Also the google cache of this page has the Hindustan Times calling him noted Hindi cricket writer. -SpacemanSpiff 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep for above reasons. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The three last books support notability Rirunmot 00:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2009 (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 delete. The topic in general might be notable as defined by WP:N, but this is in no way an acceptable encyclopedic article as it (fundamentally) violates such basic content policies and guidelines as WP:OR. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of antisemitic accusations

Misuse of antisemitic accusations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a fascinating essay and I've already taken the liberty of saving a copy (with the history) for future reference. It makes a lot of very valid points. However, it is ultimately an essay. And the topic by nature cannot help be both original research and an essay. Almost everyone who is accused of antisemitism denies the accusations. Deciding which are valid and which are not is fraught with difficulty. Useful analogies would occur to the hypothetical articles on similar topics such as Misuse of accusations of homopobia and the like. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does not get into the messy (and impossible to resolve) question of "Is a certain accusation of antisemitism true or not". That is an impossible question to answer in many cases. Instead, this article focuses on the signficant issues raised in the two books, namely: Is there a _pattern_ of overuse of the accusation with the goal of stifling debate? That is notable, topical, and has many articles and books to support the discussion (regardless of whether or not one thinks there is such a pattern). --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

David Duke doesn't get included as someone who denies being an anti-Semite. Why not? The decision to take some accusations seriously and others to take as reasonable examples where accusations of anti-semitism may be inaccurate is inherently POV and OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does not include David Duke or others, because it only includes persons who claim that accusations were intended to stifle criticism. If you examine the article closely: every person/organization is saying "Not only is this accusation false, but the intention (or consequence) is to censor legitimate criticism". That is the point of the two books this article is summarizing. --Noleander (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? I just googled for "David Duke" + anti-semitism and the first hit I got was this where Duke makes precisely that claim. So, should he go in? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In the case of David Duke he really was in the KKK, so as far as I know he never denied having been anti-semitic at least at some point in his life. He may deny currently being antisemitic. The point is you can never know if someone is lying and if the accusation is true or not, or if the denial is true or not. Mel Gibson, yes has made anti-semitic comments, that is verifiable, is he antisemitic in general though? He says no, the comments were "accidents" and he was drunk. Well, whats the truth? Plus the entire topic of this article is synth, and any outside source you find that tried to put it together on its own is going to have a serious reliability issue and would never get by RS/N as acceptable "peer reviewed" or reliably published material to use in a Wikipedia article. I also would like to question Noleander's fascination with articles that put Jews in a bad light and that inherently, by topic and by name, have a POV against Jews. It seems the only articles he works on are about Mormons and Jews, and his treatment of Mormons is much fairer and on a variety of neutral points. Could Noleander please elaborate as to why his work on these subjects?Camelbinky (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure: But first, I'd have to say that the article - like any article - needs to be judged on its merits, regardless of the motivation of the editors that created it. Anyway, I'll answer your question: I have no strong feelings about LDS or Israel or Scientology or Islam. My motiviation is simply that I've noticed that the encyclopedia tends to be missing lots of critical (in the sense of "negative") information. The editing trend is very clearly that certain topics are "owned" by a group of active editors, and they numerically dominate any discussion. Efforts to introduce valid critical (negative) information into LDS articles or Zionism/Israel articles is met with very stiff resistance. As a consequence: The encyclopedia tends to be too, um, politically correct? Censored? Lacking balance? From a Palestinian's veiwpoint, Wikipedia is a "fucking joke" to quote Steven J. Anderson from farther down in this discussion. The lack of balance in Jewish/Israel related articles is astounding. I have no special interest in Palestine or Israel, but I do have an interest in attempting to bring balance to the encyclopedia. I cant imagine how many muslim editors have given up on trying to contribute to this encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not hide behind Palestinian rights. Also, please get your own story right - first you tell us that the intentions of the author of the article (you) are irrelevant, and then you tell us that your intention is to make WP less of a fucking joke. Look, either is a plausible position, but you can't have it both ways - either your intentions don't matter, or they do, just stick to one. Now, if you want to write an article on racism against Arabs or Muslims in the US or generally, go ahead. I am sure it is possible to write a good articl on this without stooping to anti-semitic remarks or insinuations. I have problems with articles relating to the Israeli occupation the West Bank, but in my view the problem is that WP editors do not go to libraries and read the scholarly books by historians and political scientists on the ways the occupation took shape. There are scholarly books by Jews that are in fact quite critical of Israeli policy, and of the occupation, period. But since most editors do not know how to, or do not want to, do library research, they just surf the internet for quotes, and for a variety of reasons we should all understand all that is left of NPOV after this form of research are quotes from two sides each calling the other side wrong. This is indeed a problem and the worst of this crap rightly gets deleted. But the sollution is to read the considerable scholarly research on the occupation, and write about it. The solution is not to attack Jews. I really believe that one can write an NPOV article on the current situation of Palestinians and how they ended up there, drawing on scholarly sources, and I do not see how this article brings us one step closer to that, so please, spare us the pieties. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Whatever worthy content exists in this article belongs in articles on the two major books cited. If these views are deemed significant, I assume there is room for them in articles on anti-Semitism or the new anti-Semitism. I just can't see them having their own article. I fail to see how a series of bickerings involving accusations of anti-semitism and denials of anti-semitism is in any way an encyclopedic topic. Do we have an article on Misuse of slander accusations or Misuse of sexist accusations or Misuse of posession of marijuana accusations Misuse of "Liar, liar, pants on fire" accusations?? Where will this end? I just do not know where to begin - all criticisms of another person are potentially controversial, and often meet with denial. That is inherent in any accusation. it is not in and of itself noteworthy. The issue in this article best I can tell has to do with politics, and these politics are already covered in other article. I do not like seeing Wikipedia articles appropriated as someone's soap-box, no matter what their politics Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You give some good examples there, but I would disagree for two reasons:

1) the other examples you cite DO NOT have two widely read, notable books that cover those topics. This article does, so this article is much more notable than those other examples you cite.

2) You ask "when will it end"? This encyclopedia is intended to grow and grow, and gradually acquire more details as the years go by and editors do more and deeper research. Articles will get subarticles, and those in turn will get sub-subarticles. There are many hundreds of articles on Antisemitism and singling this one out for deletion smacks of censorship.

--Noleander (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Those books are not primarily "about" the misuse of antisemitic accusations. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep For several reasons:

• There are two notable books on the subject The Politics of Anti-Semitism edited by Alexander Cockburn and Beyond Chutzpah by Norman Finkelstein. So clearly the topic is notable.
• This topic has been discussed, in writing, by many, many notable people including Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky.
• This topic is a subject of noteworthy on-going discussions by Jewish groups such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians and Jewish Voice for Peace.
• There are approximately 400 articles on antisemitism (see Category:Antisemitism) and virtually none of them are critical of the alleged overuse of accusations of antisemitism. One article to present some balance against 400 brings some balance to the topic.
• The topic of the article is noteworthy, topical, and of interest to many people, including Palestinians.
• Including this neutral, informative article improves the quality of the encyclopedia, and provides information that would otherwise be missing, or not readily accessible to users and readers.
• One of the key points of the article (and the 2 notable books) is that there is a pattern of overuse of the accusation. The existing two articles on the notable books are just two instances: a new article is needed to comprehensively survey the range of claims of alleged overuse of the accusation.

--Noleander (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete The subject is absolutely notable, but the article as it now stands is an essay. It would be better to start from scratch than to try to salvage the existing article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Malik Shabazz. Article looks too much like SYN; though there are notable books on this topic it should be reframed -- "misuse" is not the best title for OR and NPOV reasons. csloat (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Syn, OR, POV. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Malik. Perhaps a neutrally re-written compilation of other authors making this point in suitably notable publications would be acceptable, but this is not. Avi (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per synthesis, and nom. I agree that this article as it stand now is an essay, so delete. - Epson291 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename and Rework The use of accusations of anti-Semitism in political contexts is a significant topic and is the subject of continuing debate. It is worthy of an article in Wikipedia. However the very title of the current article pre-judges the matter in hand by saying that the such accusations are misused. Within the article, denials are taken on face value and the sources selected are heavilly weighted to one side of the argument. Renaming and reworking will remove the POV-fork (Declaration of interest: I am a member of one of the organisations mentioned in the article. However, I do regard one of the individuals listed as anti-Semitic.)--Peter cohen (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep by merging into other articles per Peter Cohen and Noleander. The article on Antisemitism should have some more of this kind of well-referenced info. So should many of the other 400 articles in Category:Antisemitism. Since in many cases there is no way to know the heart of the person accused, it is problematic to have an article titled Misuse of antisemitic accusations. The word "misuse" in the title puts the opinion of "misuse" in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. Maybe keep an article called Accusations of antisemitism that is spun off of the starting info in Antisemitism. There is not enough room in Antisemitism for all of this important info concerning the notable topic of the defaming, slanderous, silencing, threatening, or intimidating use of accusations of antisemitism. I hope the closing admin here remembers that their decision should not be based on counting votes, or accusations that User:Noleander, the main author of the article, is an antisemite. Oh, the irony. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is user:Noleander an anti-Semite? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC). Later note: Keep. Rename to "Anti-Semitic smear". Per CarolMooreDC. I think, besides being merged as I previously stated, that the article itself should be kept, further edited, enlarged, clarified, and that all major viewpoints in the form of X says Y be covered. How do baseless and near-baseless accusations of antisemitism effect people, organizations, their livelihoods, their relations, their safety, etc.. It is interesting that "anti-Semitic smear" can mean both baseless accusations of antisemitism, and antisemitic attacks in the media and elsewhere. It is used both ways in Google Scholar. See: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anti-Semitic+smear --Timeshifter (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to the "oh the irony" comment :-) The fact that I was accused of antisemitism for presenting an article that was _about_ the use of accusations of antisemitism to censor criticism of Israel, is ironic indeed. --Noleander (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't ironic at all. You should look that word up. Moreover you're doing precisely what all bigots do when their odious activities are uncovered, you're shrieking censorship. It's more than clear that you're using these articles to push a vile, anti-semitic POV here at Wikipedia. Crafty (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, guys? A bit of civility please? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil. No need to resort to name-calling. I would point out that many of the people/organizations that claim that accusations of antisemitism are over-used include are, I believe, Jewish, including Chomsky, the Jewish organizations listed in the article, Finkelstein, and William Robinson. If you'll notice: the article is presenting the statements of notable people in their own words. Because this was a controversial topic, I was careful to ensure that the editor's voice was not presented in the article. --Noleander (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Malik and nom. Shlomke (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Syn, WP:POV as others have noted.ShamWow (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete this is the second article this editor has created/worked extensively on that deals with Jews in a POV manner, and thankfully both are now up for deletion. Non-notable subject, and poorly written.Camelbinky (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete An appropriate topic could be something like "contemporary debates about antisemitism," although that in itself should probably start as part of a larger article. As framed here it's a WP:POVFORK, by limiting its scope so narrowly to one controversial claim. Mackan79 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This, as it stands, is little more than a poorly written persuasive essay. Perhaps it could be written as an encyclopedia article. What is there now is just synthesis. Hipocrite (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Delete This is a fucking joke. It's basically a personal essay and the most obvious example of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK I've seen on Wikipedia. There's barely anything here but a list of people who have been accused of antisemitism, who, presumably in the article creator's infallible opinion, didn't deserve it. There are absolutely no objective criteria determining which cases are considered a "misuse", and even if there were the whole exercise would still be clear-cut original research and synthesis.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Double Standard at work. Yes, but that is a double-standard. The encyclopedia's job is to present information: If 40 notable people think that accusations are made to effect censorship, the encyclopedia should capture that information and present it. It is not an editors job to decide if Noam Chomsky is sincere ot not. There is a double standard at play here: In an article on Antisemitism: if 40 examples of offensive comments are captured in an article, we dont ask "Why _those_ 40?" or "Were those targets _really_ offended"? No: the encyclopedia captures the notable, documented instances of antisemitism and presents them. It is a double standard to suggest that a list of people like Finkelstein, Chomsky, Nader, Tonge, etc must somehow "prove" that their issues/concerns/hurts are .... what is it that you are suggesting they must prove? In any case, it is a double standard, and censorship. --Noleander (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: How is this article different from the article Israel and the apartheid analogy? Both deal with a controversial political issue that has been raised in books and articles. Both articles are basically a list of _examples_ of notable people making a political point. The Israel and the apartheid analogy article is a long list of people, books, and articles that say "The situation in Israel bears some resemblance to Aparthied". This article is a list of people, books, and articles that say "The antisemitism accusation is used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel or Zionism". What is the distinction? My point is: This is an encyclopedia, and it should be capturing key topics of note, even if they are uncomfortable or controversial. Censorship is not healthy. --Noleander (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Being familiar with the many discussions over how to deal with that article, I'd say the primary difference has only to do with where the material is best placed. A whole list of options with that article were considered, but couldn't garner consensus. Human Rights in Israel, for instance; I don't think either side of the debate considered that especially desirable. The debate went on for years all the same. Here it would seem there are plenty of more balanced ways to approach this material, and thus no real need to separate it into its own article. Mackan79 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Can you give a couple of examples of "more balanced ways" to approach this material? --Noleander (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggested "contemporary debates about antisemitism" above, which presumably would start at Antisemitism before being branched into other articles. That may be a place to start a discussion. See also Timeshifter's comment above about merging into various other articles. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete In the interests of balance I will start by saying that I'm sure there are many cases where an argument has been deflected or attacked by responding with "you are x" where x is some bad label. However, as noted above, this is an essay not an article; it is SYNTH, OR, POV. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There is an underlying sense that this essay spins a little too hard in the opposite direction of its true intent...Modernist (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I would ask that commentors be a little more rigorous and precise in their comments. Simply saying "OR, POV, SYNTH" is no different than saying "I dont like it". Every article is a synthesis of something. For example, take a look at Antisemitism #Middle East. That section is very, very poor. A non-notable list of events, without any notable cite that even claims they are antisemitic. Yet, are any of the above editors cleaning up that section? Bear in mind that is the top level article of a Category that contains 400 articles! That section, of course, is negative towards muslims, and has stood un-edited, un-challenged for who knows how long, so it gives the appearance - to me, at least - of a double standard. --Noleander (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as original research by synthesis unless very substantially rewritten. There appear to be few if any reliable sources characterizing the various examples cited as "misuse of antisemitic accusations". The general topic appears to be notable (either as an anti-semitic or as a political phenomenon) and could warrant an article, though, beyond coverage of the two books it cites: Beyond Chutzpah and The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Such an article would need to be limited to summarizing the phenomenon as characterized in reliable sources preferably independent from the authors of these books, as they seem to be somewhat involved themselves in the dispute they say they describe.  Sandstein  06:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• You are correct when you say that "There appear to be few if any reliable sources characterizing the various examples cited as "misuse of antisemitic accusations" ". The reason is the following: The sources characterize the issue as "many accusations of antisemitism are false, and are targeted simply to stifle negative commentary". I originally entitled the article something along those lines, as "Controversies related to false accusations of antisemitism". But then I figured that was rather provocative, and thought I would try to tone down the title to a more sedate phrase, and I picked "Misuse of antisemitism accusations". You are correct that none of the sources use the word "misuse", but it is unfair to use that as a reason to delete the entire article, when the more accurate title would have been even more provocative. I concur the title could be improved to more accurately reflect the sources in the article. --Noleander (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

See Quote mining. It is precisely to avoid POV opinion pieces that Wikipedia requires articles to be based on reliable sources. A well known person may say something, but later explain that their words suggested a meaning they did not intend. An independent analysis is required to determine whether the person has a history of that kind of view (did they really mean it, or was it just a mixup?). Sorry, but you cannot write articles on Wikipedia based on your own collection of data. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct: Quote mining is not acceptable. However, I dont think this article suffers from that defect. The sources in this article are all notable, and their comments fall into two classes: (1) "I offered a legitimate criticism Israel or Zionism, and I was subsequently labelled antisemitic, in an attempt to silence me"; and (2) "There is a pattern of the overuse of the term antisemitism, whereby the term is loosely applied in a systematic effort to silence critics of Israel or Zionism". As I look at the article now, I see that the sources are all jumbled, and there is no distinction between the two distinct points. The question facing us, as editors, is: "Is this topic of censorship relating to antisemitism accusations notable?". My opinion is, Yes, it is notable. My main reasons for noteworthiness are:

• Two books cover this topic (see above)
• Notable people discuss it, including a Nobel Laureate (Desmond Tutu) and a member of Parliament (Jenny Tonge)
• The topic not yet addressed in the Category:Antisemitism category, which includes 400 articles on the topic if antisemitism, yet none of them mention this particular topic.

--Noleander (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:Syn, WP:POV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The title is unavoidably non-neutral. "Accusations of antisemitism" would be better, if there is to be an article like this. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. There is no doubt that the topic passes the notability guidelines, so it can have its own article, although it need not necessarily have one. The author clearly tried to be as neutral as is possible with such a topic. That the article is not generally being recognised as neutral is probably due to the topic's inherent difficulty more than anything else. It's not a very well defined topic, and even choosing what to write about in detail amounts to taking a position. Hans Adler 12:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Rename and rework, per User:Peter cohen above. Remember, our job here is not decide whether we like the article as it is at the moment (a few days old, before the community has really set to work on it), but rather to ask whether there is a subject to write an article about here, and whether WP could have a reasonable article on it. In my view the answer is yes. It doesn't (necessarily) make somebody antisemitic if they bridle at a hard-right Likud-nik view of Israel's foreign policy; or if they think that it is indeed reasonable to hold a Jewish state, created to be a "light to the nations", to a higher standard of ethical behaviour than the level of the thuggish terrorists who oppose it. The article perhaps needs to be seen as the other side of the coin to the article New antisemitism -- a similar but perhaps opposite non-neutrally titled article, if titling an article predisposes the reader to assume that what is being named by the title actually exists. Jheald (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

• Delete per Syn, POV, OR. Article could be interpreted as being antisemitic in and of itself, too. --Nsaum75 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete yes, it's OR / POV / SYNTHESIS, and its very premise is a polemical argument. If there is anything to the subject, it belongs in the article about the subject (allegations of antisemitism, or antisemitism). We don't clog up the encyclopedia with articles opining on backlashes (accusations that accusations of antisemitism are improper) against backlashes (accusations of antisemitism) against backlashes (antisemitism). For every controversial type of allegation there is a phenomenon that some people think the allegation is wrong. That the article's creator and prime proponent plastered "see also" links to this article on bios of people who called things anti-semitic, or were accused of anti-semitism, illustrates the problem here. This article cannot be fit into the encyclopedia in any meaningful way without it being a political opinion piece. We don't need a soapbox for that here. Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• rename to "accusations of antisemitism" and expand per several editors above. notability seems apparent, and POV isn't a reason to delete. many scholarly sources discuss the prevalence of using an accusation of antisemitism, or "self-hating Jew"-ism, as a means of silencing debate about israel. untwirl(talk) 18:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl: Your point about Self-hating Jew is an important one. Two of the sources cited in this article, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein were both given that label by their critics. I suppose that topic could be more clearly explained in the article as in "Some notable people say that the accusation of antisemitism is levied in order to silence otherwise legitimate critism of Israel or Zionism. If the recipient of the accusation is Jewish, the accusation sometimes includes the additional charge that the recipient is a Self-hating Jew. Some commentators point out that both charges sometimes have chilling effect on discussion about Israel or Zionism. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete—this article is a collection of loosely-related topics under an inherently biased title. It is extremely difficult to think of a way to salvage an article on a topic like this, because of problems already mentioned, like inappropriate synthesis. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Far too many of the contributions here by the delete lobby seem to be variations on WP:IDON'TLIKE combined with libellous personal attacks claiming that the original author of the article is anti-Semitic. There are also unfounded claims that there cannot possibly be reliable sources that look at the matter when the article references a number of academics. I can certainly envisage this as a topic that might be covered in peer reviewed social psychology journals.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (Removing clause now that soem material in other article has been sourced to Stormfront)--Peter cohen (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep/Possibly Rename First, there obviously are problems with the article that need work. That aside, there is no doubt that there is a phenomena described as false accusations of antisemitism or “misuse of antisemitic accusations,” among other things. The phrase that came to my mind and brought a number of WP:RS references is "Antisemitism smear.” It is very well established and a possible alternate title. See books.google, google search and news.google. (Different results may be obtained searching “anti-semitism smear,” with the spelling not used in google.) Probably most of the incidents mentioned in the article will have some WP:RS source using the words "antisemitism" and "smear," if not the phrase itself. Other material can be merged into the antisemitism and two articles others have mentioned.....It should be noted that the fear of being labeled antisemitic - as the author of the article was most inappropriately in a WP:ANI - probably keeps people from voting for keeping this article. Just like it keeps others from voting for deleting things like Category:Antisemitic_propaganda - now up for deletion - or the phrase Anti-Israel lobby in the United States which survived a deletion move, even though there is not one entry for the phrase in google search. One certainly hopes these sorts of numbers on various pages are not an example of the success of the CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia. The issue particularly of organized WP:tag team especially would undermine Wikipedia's credibility. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note another suggestion for what to do below...

• Delete, per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep & Rename. I agree with several editors that the topic is notable, and should be covered in a separate article. I agree that the title is too long and leading, and support Carol's proposed alternative. As I noted at ANI, the fact that Noleander was accused of antisemitism for writing this article seems a textbook case of this false accusation. That said, I agree with Peter that the accusation is indeed sometimes appropriate, and we will have to be vigilant to ensure that this article does not become the scene of edit wars intended to either smear or whitewash individuals.RolandR 07:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No one ever accused Noleander of being an anti-Semite Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This Diff shows the original title of the the WP:ANI thread was "Is user:Noleander an anti-Semite?" Later changed at this diff. Asking a question on this topic is just as good as making an accusation. The text of the renamed ANI is here now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? If people ask if I m a racist, and others answer, no, she is not a racist, that means i am not a racist, right? How else does one ask a question? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is along the lines of publicly asking someone if they beat their wife. It is one thing for people to discuss the public angles of "liberal media" or "vast rightwing conspiracy". But public accusatory questions at the personal level are considered a form of attack in the real world. If you did it on your job you might be fired. You would bring that up privately to your boss. Is so-and-so a racist or bigot, and is it effecting how he treats his coworkers. At the public level it is along the lines of people asking "Is Hollywood controlled by Jews?". The question itself is problematic. It is one of those type of Fox News type set-piece "debates." Any public accusations or discussion of personal or organizational antisemitism or Jewish control or Christian Zionism or George Bush's Gog and Magog comments (see Gog and Magog#Gog and Magog and President George W. Bush), etc. ... all of it is fraught with spin. They all deserve WP:NPOV Wikipedia coverage. At least in the form of covering the history. It will be very difficult to cover some of it in a neutral manner though without spin and adding to the flames, but it needs to be done. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your thinking is pretty sloppy - the joke is not about "Do you beat your wife." If someone asked m I beat my wie, the answer would be "no," case closed. The joke is trying to make a serious point which you seem to miss entirely, and which has nothing to do with these kinds of legitimate questions. And my question was in no way analogous to asking if Hollywood is controled by Jews, which is why there is nothing rong with my qustion. However, the artiucle under question is alanogous to asking whether Hollywood is controlled by Jews And you are right, that this is a very unconstructive way to phrase a question, and that is exactly why you must agree that this article should bedeleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed the points I was making. Number one; I wasn't making a joke. Number two; asking these kinds of questions publicly can be perceived as an assumption, an accusation, a smear, a stain, and a setup. Covering this issue in Wikipedia is important, as it is a notable topic with a long history. See CarolMooreDC links. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You were referring to a very old and well-known joke (about beating one's wife), but missing the point of the joke. Secondly, your point is rubbish: a question is a question, a statement is a statement, and we learn these things when we are very young. A question asked in public is a question that can be answered in public. You say "covering this issue" and I agree, anti-Semitism is covered by two articles already. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was missing the point of the joke so much as not needing it. CarolMooreDC's point (and now also Timeshifter's point) was clearly that antisemitism, like domestic violence, is considered such a strong accusation that the normal way to treat it is 1) keep your suspicion quiet until you have convinced yourself that the accusation is true with at least 90% certainty, then 2) start mentioning in public that you have a suspicion, and say precisely why.

The well-known joke is completely irrelevant for this, although I note that it would work just as well with "When did you learn to get your antisemitic feelings under control?" This is not the way you put it, but part of the reason the joke is so funny is that even just asking "Do you beat your wife?" / "Are you an antisemite?" is offensive unless you have a very good objective reason to ask. Hans Adler 12:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite. The "are you still beating your wife?" joke is both funny and makes a sharp point, because whether the question is answered yes or no, the answer is an admission of guilt. The question, "Is x an anti-Semite" can be answered "no" with no admission of guilt, indeed, the answer "no" is (unlike in the joke) a negation of guilt. I asked the question because I saw one editor create two articles, one of which belitles accusations of anti-Semitism, the other of which showcased and continues to chowcase anti-Semitic canards without any encyclopedic content e.g. analysis of what these examples of anti-Semitism reveal about anti-Semites or anti-Semitism or the epoch in which they were (are?) popular. They are both gratuitously offensive. Since that time another editor made a number of cuts, some of which turned attention away from anti-Seitism to other issues in Jewish-American history - this is material I would not consider offensive, but which no longer fits with the article title or the article. I would be just as offended by an article called "misuse of homophobic accusations" or "misuse of racist accusations" or "misuse of anti-black accusations." At the AN/I I provided my reasons and invited people to respond; there was nothing coy about my question. I believe that Wikipedia should have no tolerance for racism. I think Hans Adler's point abo9ut spousal abuse is dead wrong. As to my question: If the answer to my question is "no," there is no harm done as the articles will simply remain. If the answer to my question is "yes," we need to act, and act quickly, to delete articles and to watch the edits of this editor. How many people turn to Wikipedia each day for information? Where in google searches do Wikipedia articles come up? A lot, and high up. Wikipedia should not be a purveyor of racist material. The harm that this does far outways the possible harm of the question. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my point about spousal abuse is technically wrong, but after looking a little bit closer I am not sure how relevant it is. It seems that you had more convincing arguments for your suspicion than those I was aware of. E.g. I was not aware of the existence of the Jews and Hollywood article. Presumably I would have to spend more time on this than I can right now to form an opinion. Hans Adler 13:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Wikipedia offers perhaps endless opportunities for people in good faith to disagree. I just wanted Timeshifter to acknowledge that my concerns were serious and expressed in good faith. His casual remarks left me in doubt. Your's do not, and I appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Carol is mistaken. It wasn't this thread that was originally titled "Is Noleander an anti-Semite?", but an ANI thread initiated by Slrubenstein, in which s/he writes that another article by Noleander "seems to be a thinly disguised pretext to bring out the anti-Semitic slur of Jews controlling the media... what kind of person would even think to create such an article? I view it as an attack against me." So it certainly looks as though Slrubenstein is accusing Noleander of antisemitism, and her/his comments above are at best disingenuous. RolandR 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I hope my clarification a few days ago that I was in fact talking about ANI thread and not this one was clear :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that some of Noleander's work is a direct copyvio of material located at Stormfront. Specifically, in this, the writing starting "The article then describes" through "prominence of the Jewish role" is apparently lifted (copyvio!) from [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=98084&page=2 this forum post (WARNING HIGHLY OFFENSIVE)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 October 2009

Sigh. No, the source of the Michael Medved quote was RadioIslam, here. I apologize for cutting-and-pasting that text without proof-reading. I dont trust Stormfront, I dont like Stormfront (Im a liberal environmentalist, for crying out loud). Let's focus on the quality of the encyclopedia rather than the personalities or motivations of editors, shall we? --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The only person loudly commenting about your anti-semitism or lack thereof is you. If you don't want people to think you are an anti-semite, perhaps taking articles that are the bottom-scum of the shitbucket are copyvioing them into your brand new articles is an error. Hipocrite (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Radio Islam article is itself blatantly anti-Semitic. Further the fact that one of your new articles was plagiarised means that there is a strong possibility that this article too is a copyvio and shoudl be deleted as a precautionary measure.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no copyright violation in the other article, but even if there were, why would that impact this article? Again, the issue here is censorship: Censorship of people like Ralph Nader, and even censorship here in Wikipedia. The value of this article needs to be judged on its own merits. From my point of view: it looks like the "Deleter"s do not have a strong argument for deleting this article, so they are now resorting to a possible, minor copyright violation in another article, as an argument for deleting this article. Lets focus on this article in this AfD. --Noleander (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Still copyvio. Source article still anti-Semitic. This point now taken to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Noleander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2009

(unindent somewhat). Slrubenstein. Accusations of antisemitism are a serious matter. You continue to say that it was OK to title your ANI thread "Is user:Noleander an anti-Semite?" People with years of Wikipedia experience disagree with you. That is why the thread title was changed to user:Noleander and antisemitism-related articles. Here are some relevant quotes:

Slrubenstein and Camelbinky, if you believe the article(s) written by Noleander are problematic, take them to AfD, please, and not to ANI. Asking these sorts of loaded questions on ANI, and thereby accusing another editor of racism - a very serious allegation where I live - is a violation of good faith and our policy against personal attacks, and I strongly advise you not to do it again unless you have many and very persuasive diffs to back it up. (This comment is, of course, not an endorsement or defense of any actual anti-semitic disruption that may have been going on.)  Sandstein  06:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I still have an open mind on whether the article itself should be deleted or massively rewrittten. But this thread seems a textbook case of the phenomenon being discussed. Of course it is possible to suggest that such accusations are misused without oneself being an antisemite. RolandR 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I share Slrubenstein's concern, although I have toned down the thread title[134] as being needlessly accusatory. ... [snip] ... - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[End of quotes from ANI thread]

Others have apologized to Noleander on his talk page. See User talk:Noleander. I looked at the Afd articles in question, the deletion discussions, and Noleander's past history. He does not seem like an antiSemite to me. I looked at the titles of his user contributions going back a couple thousand edits. He helps edit many articles on various religions. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Userfy This is an essay, not a wikipedia entry. But it is a pretty darn good essay. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This is not a topic worthy of an encyclopedia entry. We could have articles on People and groups objecting to being called right-wing, Misuse of the term liberal, Misuse of the term Jew as it applies to Jews for Jesus, Environmeltalists objecting to being called tree-huggers, This sort of POV-pushing can get out of hand. Josh02138 Josh02138 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I hear what you are saying. But there a couple of distinctions between this topic and the exmples you list, such as (1) This article's topic captures an assertion made by very notable people including Desmond Tutu, Ralph Nader, Jenny Tonge, and Noam Chomsky; and (2) this article is about the censorship or chilling effect of the accusations; and (3) there are a couple of books (see the article) that address this issue of censorship. If a Nobel-prizer winner and a member of Parliament ever say "tree hugging accusations are being used as a form of censorship", then that may well deserve an article in this encyclopedia :-) --Noleander (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • We tree huggers are never taken seriously. Seriously, though, terms like "right-winger," "left-winger", "ultra-", and liberal are used just this way. To censor and condemn. An article on "right-wing" is appropriate, as is an article on anti-semitism. The problem is that this is not an article that is about something, it is about people who object to a label. There are, of course, people who deem the label anti-Semitism appropriate for anti-Israel individuals and groups. They would see the sources in this article as anti-Semitism deniers. So we could have an article about "Anti-Semitism denial". Then Norman Finkelstein would object to being called an anti-Semitism denier and we would have an article about "misuse of the term Anti-Semitism denial." Which, since Finkelstein writes quickly, there would be articles about. I think we should leave it at articles aobut anti-Semitism. And put the denials of anti-Semitism by Finklestein et al in their personal pages and...Josh02138 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• this material already exists In the page on New anti-semitism. Which is where it belongs.Josh02138 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with new anti-semitism might be the best course--the material is not identical, but similar. The material in this article seems reasonably OK to me, and not SYN or essay. the problem is really just the title--as it's hard to think of a NPOV one, I think that suggestion just above is a good one. Joshua, would that course meet your original objections? DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The odd thing is that, compared with New antisemitism, the arguments for keeping this article could be seen as stronger. "New antisemitism" is a sort of paradigm in which, drastically reduced, various forms of hyper-criticism of Israel are considered to represent or reflect a new form of antisemitism. What amounts to hyper-criticism is, like the rest of the theory, under dispute. Another paradigm suggests that, in recent times, Israel's policies of various sorts have come to be inappropriately defended with the "misuse of antisemitic accusations." It could be argued that an article on one is no more or less POV than the other. For basically this reason, I don't think it's right to say that this material can just be "merged" into New antisemitism. The follies of socio-political rhetoric nevertheless seem to include that sometimes language lines up behind your concept, and sometimes language leaves you looking more muddled, which is basically why I think this is still material in need of a better home. Mackan79 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is some overlap between this article and New antisemitism. A merger is certainly something we could consider. A couple of things to ask: (1) Is there any important material in this article (now) that does not fall under the umbrella "New antisemitism" and hence would get lost?; and (2) The topic of this article is very focused (censorship) yet the New antisemitism concept is rather vague (the article implies that there is not even a single agreed-upon definition), so would a merger cause the censorship topic to become "buried"? Hmmm. I suppose another option would be to leave this article as-is, and move the censorship material from New antisemitism into this article ... that would solve the "some censorship material is not under the 'new antisemitism' umbrella" problem. --Noleander (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent point, Mackan 79. How about merge into New Antisemitism by changing name to Accusations of antisemitism with "New Antisemitism" a sub-section. The phrase has many hits on all search engines and does not have the ambiguous meaning of "Antisemitic smear." CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Searching Google Scholar for "accusations of anti-semitism" (phrase search) pulls up around 326 results. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Guess what comes up with 200,000 searching the web though a lot less on books, news and scholar: "FALSE accusation of antisemitism" - and those are the issue of concern. FYI In any case, time to start a draft article somewhere? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
        • The actual phrase (Google Phrase search) only comes up 7 times though. Drsmoo (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Anti-Palestinianism, with a section for "Accusations of antisemitism." Macken79 and CarolMooreDC both make good points about the problem of merging with some of the info in New antisemitism under that name. See: Framing (social sciences) and Spin (public relations). Accusing someone of being antisemitic just because that person thinks there are problems with Israeli policies cheapens the meaning of antisemitism. One can be against Israeli policies or any nation's policies, without being bigoted or racist. Some of the precedents for the article name are Anti-Arabism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Masonry, etc.. Search Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) to find many results for Anti-Palestinian. Less for Anti-Palestinianism. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That is a good idea for its own article. However, it does not include all the other reasons people might be falsely or questionably labeled antisemitic, including especially criticizing Israel supporters because of their lobbying efforts in their own nations, even when a person doesn't necessarily support Palestinians. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with New Antisemitism. Because this is not an independent, article-worthy phenomenon, it is merely a response to accusations of contemporary or new anti-Semitism.Josh02138 (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete it's a content fork at best, definitely a personal essay, the use of the word "Misuse" to invent this topic screams out for a "Sez who?" Are people sometimes unfairly called antisemitic? Yes. But so are people often unfairly called nazis... and unfairly called fascists ... and unfairly called socialists ... and unfairly called racists and on and on. Should we allow our editors to do a bunch of original research and create encyclopedia topics for all these? We'll, if you're voting keep here, you're voting for an encyclopedia filled with this stuff. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Good points, but there a couple of distinctions between this topic and the examples you list, such as (1) This article's topic captures an assertion made by very notable people including Desmond Tutu, Ralph Nader, Jenny Tonge, and Noam Chomsky; and (2) this article is about the censorship or chilling effect of the accusations; and (3) there are a couple of books (see the article) that address this issue of censorship. If notable people start writing books about, say, "the excessive use of the label 'socialist' for the purpose of silencing debate on health care reform" that may indeed warrant its own article in this encyclopedia, true? --Noleander (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

and also, I think everyone here who wants to keep the article is willing to change the title wording, so, Bali, an objection based primarily on that does not quite seem reasonable to me. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, original synthesis, essay. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pavel: I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on your "synthesis, essay" comment, in light of the text immediately above (that starts "Good points, but there ... Desmond Tutu ..." )? Do you still think the article is synthesis considering the books The Politics of Anti-Semitism and Beyond Chutzpah etc? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Although interesting this article is really about people making charges and counter charges at each other, and is mostly about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The fact that sometimes people are unfairly accused of antisemitism, or else protest against fair accusations, is true enough. But somehow it doesn't seem to be the type of article that should be found in an encylopedia. The fact of accusations and denials could be mentioned in each article but there doesn't seem to be a reason to put them all together. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: pervasive WP:Synthesis in its construction. Lacks coherent definition of "misuse" and often third party sources stating that a particular accusation is 'misuse', and thus often relies on self-serving protestations from the acusee (essentially accepting one POV in a 'he says, she says'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• No vote, just comment Since I am a member of one of the groups mentioned I don't think I should vote but just let the AfD run its course. In the case of my group (the Unification Church) we are more often accused of being "neocons" than antisemites. We seem to have just been added to the article so that it doesn't look like everything is related to protests against Israeli policies. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Personal essay, OR, oddly written. The material could be summarized and added as a section to one of the articles about antisemitism, if secondary sources who discuss the material in this context can be found. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: This AfD was never properly transcluded on the log page, apparently. Just fixed.Tim Song (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm sure most WP:SOAPBOX violations could be made into something resembling an article, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic. This is an synthetized essay. Auntie E. 16:52, 24 October 2009 (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.