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. JForget 02:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Producer "Billboard" (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Adspam/unsourced BLP about a musician with purely local and unverifiable claims of notability; first album yet to be released, being a YouTube "phenomenon" is neither quantifiable nor appropriate as a claim of notability, and CJFM-FM is not the worldwide Virgin Radio network; its playlisting decisions for local musicians have no bearing on any other station with the Virgin branding. ttonyb ( talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: This was not listed in the daily logs. It is listed now. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete not notable. ( GregJackP ( talk) 02:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

Recommend delete. No references, notability not established. Cullen328 ( talk) 00:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - He may be come notable in the future but the lack of coverage indicates he is not notable now. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to JLS. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Gill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO failure. Possible route to JLS. KingOfTheMedia ( talk) 23:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to JLS, not notable outside of the band. anemoneprojectors talk 00:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to JLS, per the usual outcomes for members of somewhat notable bands, who are not by themselves really notable. Bearian ( talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to JLS. No notability outside the band yet, but is a very plausible search term and a redirect would satisfy the guidelines - "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 22:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment There was a similar discussion regarding his bandmate, the outcome of which was redirect to JLS Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 22:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Snowball keep. (Bold non-admin closure) -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I've declined a Prod in which it mentionned as reason:

Community census (only about 2-4 votes/comments can be found at: Talk:Whose Line Is It Anyway?#Splitting and merging and Talk:Whose Line Is It Anyway?#Separate or Merge and Delete?. Looking for a larger pool of voters.

I've send it at AFD instead for more discussion whether it should be deleted or kept as its own entry. Remain neutral on this. JForget 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Expand and Keep - I agree that info about the US series should be split from the much larger existing article that combines UK and US series. This new US article seems lightweight now simply because the split of existing content is incomplete. Then some more sources, etc. can be found. Give this article a chance to develop. I will help out where/when I can. Also, since this US series was on a major network (ABC) for several years, I am pretty sure this helps with the notability question. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep per DOOMSDAYERS. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 00:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect back in [ struck - a consensus for splitting is a completely reasonable outcome. Nobody was claiming the show was non-notable! However, the earlier discussions (linked in the nom, explained below, read by some...) were also filled with crossed-wires communication! Plus the editor who initially prod'd it hasn't commented here. So it goes. -- Quiddity ( talk) 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ]. reply
  The shows are so similar/overlapping that most of the differences are best explained by comparing them to each other. Separate articles would require duplicating the majority of the content at each. -- Quiddity ( talk) 00:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Two different shows should have two different articles. That the both have the (almost) same name is irrelevant. Merging would be like merging the american version of The Office, with the British version. Umbralcorax ( talk) 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep No doubt about notability, and it differs enough from the Briish series that it deserves its own article. Cullen328 ( talk) 01:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep Forum shopping when the issue is not deletion. Colonel Warden ( talk) 01:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The U.S. program had a run on a major U.S. television network (ABC), and reliable sources about this U.S. program (such as Brooks and Marsh (2007) The Complete Directory to Network and Cable TV Shows, one of two Holy Bibles of TV programs) barely even mention the British version connection (two sentences). While the connection should be mentioned, a comparison-between-the-two type article (which is what a merged version would be) isn't warranted, and there are more than enough sources for a major U.S. TV network's program, which was aired by 200 affiliates across the U.S., to have its own article. Note that I wouldn't support the existence of a separate article if the content of the U.S. and British version was the same; there could just be a mention of a U.S. transmission of a British production, such as the one at The_Adventures_of_William_Tell#American_airing. This is not the case here: it was U.S.-produced. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This television series aired on a major American television network for 8 seasons and 220 episodes. In the talk page for the article, the only reason given for deletion was that its creation was the only contribution of a new editor (the instigator of the discussion should assume good faith there). Although I'd hate to go into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory here, this is one of the exceptions that proves the rule: we do indeed have articles on other American remakes of British television series, giving this article for this television show a reason to exist. Doc Strange ^Mailbox Logbook 05:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep Definitely no issue here; two separate series, two separate nations, two separate networks, each with long runs. I propose that a cue should be taken from local television station articles, where one station's news team is also seen on another local station in the same market and the minor station is referred to look at staff details in the major station; describe some of the unique American skits in this article, and then for skits shared by the shows a hatnote for See WLIIT UK (paraphrasing title for simplicity) should suffice. Nate • ( chatter) 07:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Snowball Keep A long-running, nationally broadcast U.S. television show is not considered notable? Warrah ( talk) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The show is completely solidly notable. Nobody is claiming the show isn't notable. We're (I'm) just saying it is so-closely-related to the UK version, that is clearer to explain the two in juxtaposition to each other. Just as it has been for the last 8 years!

(Or to use the example that keeps getting used: if The Office (US) used the same actors and scripts as The Office (UK), they would be most easily/clearly written about in a single location. Just as multiple vehicles that are independently notable, have been written about in a single location at Mini.) But noone seems to be understanding that mergist perspective, and instead are using Wikipedia:Speedy keep incorrectly.

As long as something good comes out of the new-stub, then I'm not going to worry about it. But this new article still doesn't even mention the UK version that it sprang from, which doesn't bode well. -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

So... such information could be included in a "history" or "background" section through the course of regular editiong. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If Quiddity thinks the new US article should mention the UK version, then just go ahead and add it to the article. Many of Quiddity's arguments are based on what the US article is now, not on what it could be. Like I said in my original vote way up above, the new US article needs expansion, and there seems to be plenty of interest in doing so. Give it time. Wikipedia isn't a real-time editable resource for nothing. What you see or don't see right this minute won't be that way forever. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 20:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep as the US version has decidely and incontrovertable found its own independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but not speedy keep due to Quiddity's merge !vote. As Schmidt said, independent notability exists. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ran on a major American network for 8 seasons, quite an accomplishment when the average run for a network show is probably 4. Sources show notability. TomCat4680 ( talk) 23:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment Speedy keep does apply here because what other arguments are there for merging? I don't know of any. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 01:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• With my interpretation of speedy keep (although not necessarily correct), User:Quiddity presented an argument for merging (above) with the rationale that the topics are "so similar/overlapping that most of the differences are best explained by comparing them" and so allowing this discussion its full turn might be preferable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment See the problem lies in the fact that if we merge and that section becomes too big, we would have to split it up anyways. So what's the point? Leave it as is. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 04:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep Why was this nominated anyway? Ya think we merge the two articles about The Office as well? WP:SNOW on this one. Mandsford ( talk) 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • For the sake of clarity, here's the timeline: For 8 years we had a single article. The original discussion of a possible future split for this single article was in December 2009, with a couple of extra responses from 10-16 February 2010. Then on 17 February 2010 this new article was created. Then on 7 March this discussion began, about whether a split was really wanted, because it didn't look like the new article was likely to grow anytime soon. At that time, we had 3 editors supporting a split (plus User talk:PF17), and 3 editors against a split. Then, on 26 March, presumably looking to get more input (as his prod summary said "Looking for a larger pool of voters.") Guy M prod'd it, which wasn't an appropriate method to get more feedback, and so the uninvolved admin JForget brought it here.
    Hopefully that at least clears up how we arrived at this point. -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Update - I am doing the split in earnest today, negating many of the arguments in favor of deletion. This split involves pretty major changes to both the UK and US series articles. While Speedy Keep may or may not present a procedural problem, let's consider snowball keep instead. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Completely agree with snowball keep. -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment With the current majority of the revisions in the last day or two by DOOMSDAYER, the article has taken shape nicely. Mr. C.C. ^{Hey yo!} _{I didn't do it!} 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep all TV shows are notable. Dew Kane ( talk) 03:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• snowball keep per Dew. I think AFDs, which can be combative, should always be the very, very last resort. Okip 03:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep notable long running show, I cannot even believe this is being nominated. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 07:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Different shows, different articles. Dream Focus 08:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Please Note - this continues to be a confusing and misleading AfD discussion. When the AfD was first proposed, the article was much less extensive than it is now, and in the last few days we have expanded it greatly. (Admittedly, we did so because of this very same discussion.) Also, the AfD was a procedural gimmick to force some sort of result in a long-running discussion about splitting content from the original article about the UK series. There was never really a question of whether the US series is notable, but its article was pretty anemic before this whole discussion started. In fact, this AfD is now pretty meaningless due to subsequent events. It's probably only still open because the admin who is running it has a notice on his page that he is only available on weekends. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll boldly close it, to prevent further confusion, given that noone is still (vocally) supporting a re-merge. :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Allah Baksh Sarshar Uqaili (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. It would seem from this deletion log that there is a newspaper source in Sindhi about the subject, indicating possible notability. It's a pity that the article creator's talk page is full of templates without any attempt to engage in dialogue, as that is probably the most likely person to be able to help with finding sources. I feel the need for an essay on the lines of "don't template the newbies". Phil Bridger ( talk) 23:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• The article should be kept as it is full of information about a historical personality and this deletion log this source has got nothing to do with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.137.32 ( talk) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I have added a citation the the Daily Ibrat based on this message from the article creator, who appears to feel well and truly bitten. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD ( talk) 22:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. If the page is eventually to be deleted, my suggestion is that it be moved into original author's userspace. I've offered to help clean it up, FWIW. Nuujinn ( talk) 12:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 23:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep for the time being. I've been working on this, but haven't found any decent references. One question I have that perhaps someone can answer--the article Sarshar Uqaili (another rendering of the name of the same person) was deleted for copyright violation. Does anyone have access to that that discussion? If the article was determined to be a copyright violation, surely someone must have had access to a source that I have been unable to find. My mind wobbles. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep It seems likely that ths person is notable, and that a Wikipedian familiar with this culture could improve the article and add better references. Cullen328 ( talk) 01:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Envaulting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article appears to be a solution advertisement instead of a balanced article. Asdf2010 ( talk) 10:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 13:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. This is coatrack spam: Envaulting was developed in cooperation by Envault Corporation .... Envault Corporation has filed international patent applications protecting the envaulting method and several implementation level solutions. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. This process has not yet been the subject of coverage in multiple, reliable sources. — Satori Son 16:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Has 3 references. Sure, the are offline, but there is no policy barring offline sources from establishing notability, even if they comprise 100% of the sources. Dew Kane ( talk) 03:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • You may want to double-check those references for coverage of this specific subject. — Satori Son 17:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 22:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - There are no reliable sources covering this encryption method. The sources in the article are rather vague, as they provide no page numbers nor do they identify exactly what in the article the references are supposed to verify. It's interesting that this press release from 2008 calls it a new crypto concept but the Scheier reference is to the 1996 edition of his book, and the second reference is to something published in 2002. The third reference, I suspect makes no mention of envaulting as it is a paper about a specific type of attack that envaulting is supposed to solve. However, most telling is that despite there being a very active cryto research community, Google Scholar searching turns up only three results with the first two appearing to be the same paper, and the the third not even being about crypto. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Good catch. I've removed the first two book references that clearly do not even mention the subject, much less cover it. — Satori Son 17:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep No consensus based on sources and significant coverage. JForget 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Manuela Kay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is an uncited BLP. I am unable to find significant independent sources on the subject. After searching for this I looked at WP:AUTHOR, and I do not see that it qualifies by any of the guidelines. NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs 03:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Ray ^Talk 22:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ray ^Talk 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete Lots of Gnews mentions, but none of them seem to be significant coverage of the subject, hence, fails WP:BIO. Ray ^Talk 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep A well known person in her field, multiple reliable references in English, French, German and Spanish language. I'm inclined to keep this article, no matter what guidelines say. -- Vejvančický ( talk) 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Week Keep. Squeaks through WP:GNG. Gnews shows around 50 hits in English, German and Portuguese sources. In most of them she is either quoted for work in the Teddy Awards or as a curator for the Berlin Museum. Delete I have changed my mind, i tried to find "significant coverage" as NativeForeigner rightly points out below. Couldnt find any after a day of searching. Article can be recreated if significant coverage can be found.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 08:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Doesn't GNG require 'substantial' coverage? None of the ones I saw had any, but if you found some I'd be happy to see it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs/ ^Vote! 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 03:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 22:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren ^C 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren ^C 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have added new sources and put in translated versions of all of the German ones. The sources easily establish notability, with information of her as a curator, journalist, in charge of a magazine, and in charge of the film festival. Silver seren ^C 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. no consensus to delete after three weeks - default to keep. Any merge ideas can be discussed further in the talk page JForget 02:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Blues guitar playing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

After I removed a complete violation of WP:NOTHOWTO and an IP removed another similar section, there really isn't much encyclopedic content left on the page. It's just a history of the blues, which should really be kept to Origins of the blues. The two references discuss the usage of slide guitar in the blues, but aren't enough to qualify for a valid fork. — Ledgend Gamer 00:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• I saw this when it was created, but couldn't find a suitable place to merge it. Apparently, the nominator has found it. So I suggest a merge to Origins of the blues where feasable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Agree with deletion or merger as consensus occurs. I was planning to incrementally rewrite it but have had some other offline issues come up so can't get to it in any reasonable time. (I thought I could help bring it up to snuff but apparently the initiating editor bailed out.) I like the idea of a blues technique article so have copied an earlier version of it to my user sandbox and will look at it over time to see what can be salvaged and placed elsewhere. I may leave a recommendation to the original editor to post a cleaned up version of the how-to to Wikihow which is where it belonged in the first place. Regards to all. Trilobitealive ( talk) 01:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment - As a Texas native, I find it interesting that this article currently makes no mention of Stevie Ray Vaughan or Texas blues.   —  C M B J   06:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep, though I'm not strongly opposed to a redirect. Definitely a valid topic. However, as it stands, what we have is a preamble without an article. The only argument against a redirect is that it may discourage people from writing a real article on the subject. — Gwalla | Talk 17:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment re Gwalla's recommendation. If the article is kept it may be several weeks or even a couple of months before I could do any substantial editing to improve it so unless the original editor or someone else steps up to do the work needed it will remain in its present condition a long time. Trilobitealive ( talk) 19:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• All the article needs is some editing and proof that an article on blues-style guitar playing is a valid fork. If you're interested, you could userfy it until these conditions are met. — Ledgend Gamer 23:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep The topic has great notability. See Guitar facts for an example of good content which explains the topic well. Colonel Warden ( talk) 01:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I can see your side, but the original editor didn't come back as far as I know. Looking through the edit history you'll see that many of the parts which have been retained were mine and I can assure you I don't know enough about the subject to continue unless a more knowledgable editor (such as yourself) takes an interest. Plus I am still not going to have sufficient editing time to do any intense research and editing work for some months. Looking at the version I put in my user space I can't find good sourcing for the parts I didn't write. Which is another problem. So I'm still weakly in favor of deleting it. Trilobitealive ( talk) 15:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see our editing policy which explains that we keep poor articles in mainspace so that they may be found by readers who may then improve them. We do not require any advance commitment by particular editors as this is volunteer work without any deadline. In order to abort this normal process of slow improvement, it must be demonstrated that the topic is hopeless or improper and this does not seem to be the case for this topic. Colonel Warden ( talk) 15:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article is basically a history on The Blues. It's informational. Str8cash ( talk) 05:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• SMerge" to Origins of the blues. Insufficient evidence of sufficient material for an independent article. - SummerPhD ( talk) 22:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was move back to Western betrayal, without redirect, and revert to this version. There is a strong consensus here that the current content and title of this article is untenable, but no consensus that the old version of the article is similarly problematic to the point warranting deletion. Due to the nature of this AfD, I have no objections to a speedy renomination to consider the viability of the old version, if someone desires to do so. Tim Song ( talk) 04:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Controversial command decisions, World War II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article flagrantly breaches WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV and is an unviable topic. No clear references are given for the 'decisions' in the article being particularly 'controversial' and most of its content has been referenced to a variety of secondary sources which are flat histories of the war. These don't claim things are particularly 'controversial' and are being used to support only one interpretation of events. Moreover, the term 'Controversial' is being used as a fig leaf for POV pushing: this article is a fork of the controversial Western Betrayal article (which now redirects to it) and the author of most this article, Communicat ( talk · contribs), has stated that this article advances the "Soviet view" of the war to counter the "dominant Western narrative": [1]. As such, this article is nothing more than one editor's personal interpretation of selected World War II events, and should be deleted. Nick-D ( talk) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The rationale behind changing the title (which is still not etched in stone) can be traced from the robust and informative discussion that has accompanied the article over the past month or so. You might care to familiarise yourself with that discussion. In doing so, please note that I have certainly not "stated that this article advances the Soviet View ..". Please don't misrepresent me or take my words out of context. Read the discussion properly.

Your allegation is false that "most of (the article's) content has been referenced to a variety of secondary sources which are flat histories of the war". The vast majority of sources cited are in fact primary sources such as memoirs, biographies and official archive material.

I'm surprised at all the fuss over this start-class rated article before it has even managed to properly get off the ground. Communicat ( talk) 23:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Nick-D ( talk) 22:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Nick-D ( talk) 22:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete: smacks of a blatent POV fork. If the author believes that current WWII articles are POV, then he needs to discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages, rather than creating a COATRACK. The name itself epitomizes just how POV this article is, and how unlikely it is that it could ever be sufficiently neutral. bahamut0013 ^words _deeds 22:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and WP:COATRACK. The only viable path for this article in its current form would be as User:W. B. Wilson suggested on the talk page - changing it to 'Soviet views of World War II.' The article presents the Soviet view as to their perceived neglect by the Western allies at critical points. This may be valid encyclopaedic material, but must be presented as the Soviet view; right now that critical distinction is being muddied. I checked the references; 13 and 17 are to entire books (one a two-volume book) which is unacceptable. Ref 24 is an alleged newspaper article which needs to be better sourced. All appear secondary, except perhaps that original World War II documents are reproduced within the collections. Communicat should be reminded that memoirs and biographies are secondary sources, and if official archive material is actually being used, it breaches WP:Original Research.

If the majority believe that retitling the article 'Soviet views of World War II command decisions' is a sensible possibility, I would support that; otherwise, I would support deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment As a note, if the article was to be changed to 'Soviet views of World War II' it would need to be referenced to sources which describe these views. At present almost all of the references are to western histories of the war which don't present Soviet interpretations of events (which is part of the WP:SYNTH problem). Nick-D ( talk) 05:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete: - in its current form and per WP:NPOV. Concur with Buckshot06 ( talk · contribs) that the Soviet view of World War II is very much a valid topic for Wikipedia and that transformation of the current article to such form would be a way for the article to be retained. Retitling the article, however, would only be a start. While Communicat ( talk · contribs) is using citations in the current article, at least one citation seems to be taken out of context (referring to Gordon Harrison's "Cross Channel Attack") -- this suggests that citations should be chosen with more care if they are to avoid the appearance of being cherry-picked to support questionable statements. Again, if the article is changed to represent Soviet views of the war, the identification of solid reference material that can provide valid citations (for example, the Soviet official history of the war) will probably be considerably easier than attempting to find good citations in the current context of the article's title and intent. The article, in the interests of NPOV, will also have to make clear that the issues being presented are the Soviet POV and due care will have to be taken to note that national interests of the USSR will have introduced distortions into their official interpretation of the events of the 1930's, the Great Patriotic War, and the larger context of the Second World War. No one would expect an article on the Nazi German view of the war to be presented without similar amplifying and clarifying commentary, lest such article(s) degenerate into springboards for nationalist propaganda. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Allow me to start at the beginning. My motivation at the outset of editing the article when it was still titled Western Betrayal (as it had been for a number of years) with the emphasis mainly on Poland, was to show that Poland does not have a monopoly on any sense of betrayal by the West. The sense / belief / notion / perception of betrayal was and still is widespread. Okay, so I think I accomplished that mission. Then the article became much too long, requiring splitting. The first content to be split was the post-war content, because the article was linked essentially to WW2, not the Cold War. Also, the original Western Betrayal article commenced from an unverified, unsubstantiated premise and then proceeded as though it was a settled and unquestioned premise. Some of the content that was moved/split to Cold War, incidentally, should have been retained in the newly titled Controversial etc, in particular the Katyn massacre, (which I think qualifies as a controversial command decision, to put it diplomatically). I'm guilty of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in that particular regard, but it can be remedied. Other parts of the original article concerned the section Diplomacy between the Wars, which as the section head makes clear is not about WW2 but about the inter-war period. It was interesting and well researched, so rather than simply deleting it, I moved it to Central and East Europe article. Don't know what happened to it subsequently.

As for renaming the article Soviet Views of WW2, I don't support that. The article incorporates a substantial chunk of impartial Western views by highly respected Western academic sources who've been subjected to peer review, (and who would probably baulk at being referred to as communists). Besides, the article is not just about the Soviet view. It incorporates for example an Australian view (on Singapore). There might be room on wikipedia for an article about the Soviet view of WW2, but it is not this particular article.

As regards what is and what is not a primary source, which someone has disputed above, wiki's own policy guidelines state that memoirs, autobiographies etc of people directly involved in the relevant events are regarded as primary sources. Many if not most of my sources are exactly that. Let's not muddy the waters even more by making false assertions.

In case there is any confusion about what I've meant by using on talk page the phrase "dominant Western narrative", that narrative holds that WW2 was "a good war, which we won." Hogwash. It was a very nasty war with war crimes on all sides, and from which only the largest armaments manufacturers emerged any the richer. Sorry for the digression.

And by the way, I've recently added a sub-section sub-titled Air Offensive to the "betrayal" section, providing a reasoned counter proposal to the Soviet view of "betrayal" by the West. In the interests of NPOV, the sub-section details the reason why the West was tardy in opening and advancing a second front in Europe, namely scarcity of resources and logistical issues, which were not the result of any perceived intentional betrayal by the West. Communicat ( talk) 13:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, and for what it's worth, I thought W. B. Wilson was making a sarcastic joke when he originally suggested the article title be changed to Soviet View of WW2. I see now that some folk have taken the joke literally and seriously. Or maybe he wasn't joking at all. Whatever. Just count me out if you want an article on the Soviet View of WW2. That would require Russian language skills (which I don't have) and an encylopedia all of its own. Communicat ( talk) 14:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I regret that our communication seems to be so problematic. I was not being sarcastic. In fact, it was you who asserted that the Soviet view of the war is ignored in existing articles. I believe the Soviet view of the war is a valid topic for Wikipedia, which prompted my suggestion to rename the article and refocus its thrust, which as I stated before, would be easier to reliably document with citations than a controversies article. As to the difficulty of writing such an article, it could be written as a stub and progressively expanded. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

As to the "betrayal" theme, there is a fundamental problem with the notion. Nations do not conduct relations with other nations in the manner of childhood friendships, and that is especially true in times of crisis. The leadership of all nations understand this and are prepared to exercise a whole spectrum of options, "friendships" with other nations notwithstanding, depending on how the situation develops. That this is true renders the charge of "betrayal" by any nation against another nothing more than a convenient exercise of propaganda. An encyclopedic approach to history should be nuanced enough to recognize such verities and not be influenced by the attempts of governments to pretend otherwise. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree. Actually, charges of betrayal, while they may appeal to overt and covert propagandists, are rarely if ever used openly by political diplomats themselves. To do so would mean closing diplomatic channels and an end to any possibility of negotiated compromise and reconciliation with the adversary.

As for the proposed stub article Soviet View of WW2, I would much prefer a straight forward Soviet Union in WW2 without the "View" part. I think the Soviet role in WW2 is a bit under-stated or not stated at all in the main WW2 article. (There are some other under-stated things in that article as well, probably due to length restrictions, which could be remedied by separate links to specific things omitted in the main article, such as Strategic Air Offensive,etc.) Communicat ( talk) 13:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep, rename back and NPOV back. The article was pretty stable back in the times when it described the concept of "western betrayal". Then all of a sudden Communicat came, renamed the article, added lots of his/hers own POV to it and changed its' scope completely. My advice would be to restore the vandalised parts, rename back to the name from before Communicat's decision to move it to some new place and work something out from there. In any way, I'm keeping a safe copy of the article to re-create it where it was and how it was before the unfortunate changes. // Halibu tt 14:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment - as Halibutt says, this is really a content dispute, AfD is not the proper venue. Western betrayal had existed for a long time undisputed as a whole. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Response: Yes, Western Betrayal had existed for around six years or so in a clear and neglected state of disarray, key verifications and sources missing, riddled with POV bias including bias of omission, inappropriate content that should have been on other page articles, etc etc. All of which appears to have been editorially tolerated because, despite its simplistic title of Western Betrayal, the article was clearly anti-Soviet. All it needed, after years and years in that state, was for someone to come along and remedy some of those problems in consultation with other users on the talk page, and the proverbial $h1t hit the fan. Especially after a couple of citations were provided quoting Stalin and Zhukov (the latter promptly deleted by someone).

There is a policy called be bold, but the entire basis for the rename into this exact title was this single proposal that nobody responded to: Talk:Western betrayal#Controversial command decisions. Don't be surprised when people complain about your unilateral actions. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 11:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I would suggest all the sudden fuss has far less to do with accurate history than with anti-communist hysteria reminiscent of McCarthyism and the Cold War. Is that what wikipedia is really supposed to be about? I doubt it. But why then did nobody bother to post an AFD notice on the original and obviously biased Western Betrayal article? I rest my case. For those users who've now decided to enter the fray some six weeks after it commenced, and who are not too intellectually challenged, I would helpfully suggest they take a look at the article discussion page comment of user JamesMLane t c posted at 19:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC) As it is, the current and disruptive controversy surrounding my article has become dispersed across various separate locations -- i.e. article discussion page, RFC page, AFD page, and some users' individual talk pages. I suspect that only some of the individual users who've concerned themselves with the article have actually been invited by user Nick-d to participate in the present AFD "debate" which he himself/herself instigated inappropriately without first engaging in the discussion on the article talk page, which is the appropriate venue. Such curious behaviour by Nick-d and some of his/her unfounded claims strike me as blatantly mischievous, to say the least. Communicat ( talk) 12:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete Communicat is showing ownership problems, referring to this as "my article". Article fails to show that these were controversial decisions and in some cases fails to show they were command decisions at all. Rather blatant POV, no "controversial command decisions" are listed for any facist or communist leaders. Focuses almost entirely on Soviet perceptions of alleged US and UK actions or inactions. Completely ignores issues like internal US disagreement over a Pacific or European focus to the war, US-UK disagreements over European strategy, or Roosevelt's "Unconditional Surrender". Edward321 ( talk) 15:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • • Changing to Restore old Western betrayal article as per Robofish. Before Communicat hijacked this article, it was on a notable subject, for which more sources could have been found. Edward321 ( talk) 14:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Repurpose: Keep, but prune and Rename -- The core of this article is about Soviet criticism of Western policy in World War II (proposed name), on to which is tacked a section about the failure to defend Singapore and the use of Japanese troops in China against Communist guerillas. I gather than Russian historians have rehabilitated the role of the Arctic convoys. Soviet era propaganda was to the effect that USSR had won the war without Western help: this was essentially nationalistic propaganda. The slowness of the opening of a second front in Europe results from a failure to appreciate the difficulties of undertaking a seaborn landing, compared to a purely land-based offensive or even a river crossing. Accordingly prune off the Singapore and China sections. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete. There are a whole pile of reasons for this. The title is unsupportable: who is to decide what a 'controversial' decision is. The article itself is a blatant POV form of the existing articles, all of which (if I remember) are reasonably neutral. I see no possibility of this article becoming neutral; if it were to cover each 'decision' neutrally it would inevitably be eligible to be a simple set of links to the (already neutral) articles covering them. Any salvageable parts can be copied to existing articles. If User:Communicat feels that there is a Western bias to Wikipedia WWII articles, the correct approach is to fix that, not start a POV fork. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 21:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Restore old Western betrayal article. The article in its most recent form, before any edits by User:Communicat, can be seen here: [2] That article had its problems - it lacked references, and arguably had issues with synthesis - but it was a lot better than the article that exists at the moment. I'm quite concerned at the way Communicat appears to have pretty much destroyed this article and rebuilt it from the ground up on an entirely different topic, without so much as an AFD discussion - that's not how Wikipedia articles should be treated, especially not lengthy ones that have existed for six years without problems. The article as it exists at the moment is a legitimate topic for an article - perhaps 'Soviet criticism of Western Allied policy during World War II' would be a better name - but it should have been created as a fresh topic rather than overwriting an existing article. Robofish ( talk) 22:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a blatant POV fork. Weak support for Robofish's suggestion as an alternative because that version is better, although he rightly points our it still contains multiple issues with sourcing etc (and should probably be retitled "Betrayal of Poland" and expanded to include the Nazi/Soviet pact). EyeSerene ^talk 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• • Comment - that the version noted by Robofish is riddled with weaknesses of its own and is a laundry list of complaints about various western Allied actions prior to and during the war. This version of the article still suffers from a scope that is far too broad -- each issue should have its own article (which some do) -- and in such cases, one wonders why this version of the article even exists and attempts to provide a different view of events instead of these views being addressed in the main articles for the topics. An encyclopedic approach to this topic would be to note that there genuinely is a popular view in these nations that they were betrayed by the West (and probably a school of history in their universities as well). Beyond that, it would suffice to identify the key issues and direct the reader to the appropriate articles for more information. As this version of the article stands now, it is hardly encyclopedic and suffers from issues of structure, approach, and scope. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 15:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep but restore the earlier Western Betrayal article, maybe renamed as 'Western betrayal of central and eastern European states', and create a disambig page. Their scopes intersect somewhat, in the way that military decisions usually reflect political considerations, but they are distinct enough for separate articles. Gbooks returns a lot of results on 'western betrayal eastern central europe' [3] - not just Poland; Czechoslovakia at Munich might be its most frequent usage. [4] On the controversial command decisions article - this is potentially so huge - it does make a referenced start, tho. Both could use some scoping and referencing improvements, but that is not a good reason for deletion of either. Novickas ( talk) 10:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you mean "Delete but restore..."? Having both of these articles would just be duplication. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The intent was keep both. Looked at side by side, there's no overlap. Both are referenced and offer detailed treatments of notable historic angles that are not AFAIK completely covered by other articles. Maybe rename this one Controversial Allied command decisions during WWII. To that end, might I suggest to Comm. that they include, in the current article, brief sections summarizing the controversies surrounding Strategic bombing during World War II and Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with 'Main article=x'. Makes it more comprehensive. Plenty of refs to harvest. WRT to the earlier Western betrayal article, rename it to Western betrayal of Central and Eastern Europe, take out the completely unreferenced sections, unreferenced paragraphs unless they point to Main article = x and Main article is referenced, unreferenced quotes, external links section. That should make it a more manageable size. It was POV, but had lots of inline refs and many more are out there. Getting to NPOV is always a work in progress at WP. Novickas ( talk) 17:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, how about narrowing the scope of the current controversial command decisions article. Call it Allied disputes over Second Front in WWII or something like that. That part looks to contain some new stuff - right now Second Front redirects to a section of Western Front, is quite short, and makes no mention of the dispute - which is notable - from the NYT in 2004: 'In fact, the problem of the second front in Europe was one of the most complicated in the relations between the Allies. Stalin had raised the issue as early as July 1941 in a letter to Churchill.' [5]. To me that says, warrants a stand-alone article. I don't see it at Eastern Front (World War II) either. (Merge whatever's new, sourced and doesn't fall in this scope into other articles, of course. Most WP articles could use more refing). Would that make it more acceptable to those who want to delete it? I really hate to see referenced, well-written stuff go away. Novickas ( talk) 03:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep and Restore to the earlier version when it was called Western Betrayal, as Halibutt and others have suggested. These decisions listed are controversial as far as I can tell, just standard things you'd expect nations to do to sure up their own interest. Dream Focus 16:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Restore to the Western Bertrayal version, as suggested. After reading an older copy ( [6]), I feel the older version has a tighter focus and more balance. The current version has a few scant mentions of other situations, but is mainly focused on the same subject but with a distinct POV. Go back to the old version, and look at what, if any, material from the current version can be added. I noted several edit comments about material being split to other articles, those should be reviewed as well. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Restore agree with the two comments above. The version linked to by Ravensfire seems more NPOV in accuratly reflecting the history as recorded in Guilt at Versailles by Anthony Lentin and other good sources. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per synth reasons explained in nomination. A mishmash of allegedly "bad decisions" in wartime does not make a valid article topic. Tarc ( talk) 20:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete, arbitrary intersection of categories. The concept exists but this is not the format for it since the motivation and context is so vastly different between cases. Guy ( Help!) 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. One of our many pieces of free advice has this to say: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." The answer, I feel, is that you wouldn't expect to find any such heading in an encyclopedia, let along this. As for claims that there is a better version somewhere in the history, that seems improbable. Ravensfire's better version is still entirely unrelated to the purported topic. There's not even a list struggling to get out of this mess. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Get rid of the current version. Looking through the article history, there appears to have been a decent article at Western betrayal; restoring that may be an appropriate way of solving the problems with the current article. -- Carnildo ( talk) 01:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a POV fork. "Western betrayal" is an unacceptable title since it presupposes guilt on the part of the West. An article about "Soviet views" might be legitimate because such a title would not presuppose the truth of the accusations, but it would not cover the surrender of Singapore, and it should be reliably sourced to Soviet sources and secondary coverage of them. A real article on "Controversial command decisions" of WW2 would have to include Hitler's failure to do more to destroy the British Expeditionary force at Dunkirk, his failure to send more forces to fight the D Day Normandy landings, his "no retreat" policy in Russia, his attack on Russia, his declaration of war on the U.S., his decision to terror bomb British cities, Allied terror bombing of Germany and Japan, the U.S. Navy's retreat from Guadalcanal stranding the Marines, Truman's decision to drop the A bombs on Japan, the failure to exercise adequate vigilance prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, the Belgian capitulation of 1940, generally poor generalship of French forces in 1940, Stalin shooting many of his generals before the German attack, the Soviet shooting of Poles at Katyn forest, the Soviet attack on Poland, the failure to attack Germany's industrial areas after the start of the Phony War,MacArthur leaving his food supplies outside his retreat area of Bataan so his troops starved, MacArthur's escape in a PT boat rather than surrendering with his troops, the decision to recapture the Phillipines early so MacArthur's boast that "he would return" would be satisfied, the "Bridge too far" debacle, the Allies' failure to anticipate the German "Battle of the Bulge" counterattack, the Allies failure to do more to interrupt transport to the Nazi death camps, and many other "command decisions" which have been widely questioned. Also much of the text is about grand strategy, worked out at conferences by allied leaders, rather than command decisions made by generals shortly before implementation on the battlefield. Edison ( talk) 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The strategic plan for dealing with a German invasion of Poland was for the Polish forces to retreat to defensible positions and hold those positions while French and British forces invaded Germany from the west; the failure of the British and French to follow through on the plan is commonly known as the "Western betrayal". The delays in opening a second European front in World War II may also be termed a "Western betrayal" by the Soviet Union; I'm not familiar enough with Soviet views of history to know one way or the other. -- Carnildo ( talk) 01:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I doubt anyone would have issues with an article titled "Western Betrayal" if it simply mentioned that such beliefs exist as a popular view in certain countries (and probably there are corresponding schools of history in those countries' universities as well), followed by an identification of the topics which are considered "betrayals" -- but which would do no more than refer the reader to the main articles for those topics. Such an approach would remove any NPOV, Coatrack, Synth, and scope issues the current article and its predecessors pose(d). As it is, both the old and new article presuppose some unique Western obligation to a select group of countries that should have somehow overrode any practical approaches dictated by military and political realities. As such, the article presents an appearance of simply being an irritated reaction to a notion that the western powers believed the outcome of the war to have been just and proper. It fails as an encyclopedic or academic approach to both the phenomenon of the belief in betrayal and the specific topics encompassed by that belief. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 03:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comunicat responds: The Western Allies were certainly under "some unique Western obligation" (W. B. Wilson's words) in terms of the Atlantic Charter, as glossed over in the original Western Betrayal article. The Charter lured indigenous people and resistance movements around the world to side with the West during WW2, with the promise of post-war freedom from colonialism, and the freedom of nations to live under governments of their own choosing. My edit attempted to merge the betrayal of Poland with violantions of the Atlantic Charter elsewhere around the world. Central Europe did not have a monopoly on suffering the consequences of false promises made in the Atlantic Charter. That was the intended meaning of the article. It's morphed a bit since then, to accommodated critics. Communicat ( talk) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Then these points should be made in an article about the Atlantic Charter, not forked to a different article. I still don't buy the notion of unique Western obligation, however. Movements may have felt lured, but in the end, they made their own decisions about what path they were going to embark upon. There is nothing uniquely different in all of this that had not already occurred many times over in history. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 16:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Communicat responds again: Yes, of course there have been betrayals of trust and betrayals of one kind of another ever since Biblical times and throughout history. (Britain and France's First World War adoption of the secret Sykes-Picot argreement to betray their Arab allies is a notable case in point). But that isn't an acceptable excuse for not wanting to use the dreaded Betrayal word in the disputed article because of alleged POV concerns. The Western betrayal of anti-Axis resistance groups and national liberation movements around the world was, in terms of the Atlantic Charter, an enormous betrayal pure and simple. There is no comparable betrayal in military history to match the enormity of the West's betrayal of the Atlantic Charter principles. It had huge wartime and post-war consequences including the Malayan Emergency, fullscale wars in Indo-China, and insurgencies that exists to this day in places like the Phillipines. The West's betrayal of the Atlantic Charter principles should properly and obviously be included under the article heading of Western Betrayal. So why don't you people want to call a spade a spade?

Because the only "spade" to be noted here is that there is a popular belief and likely a school of history in certain universities that use a loaded word like "betrayal" (which we have already noted is more of a propaganda technique than a genuine charge made by one country against another at the national government echelon). As I have already noted twice, I think the phenomenon of this belief is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. But let us document the belief and briefly identify the primary themes it encompasses, letting links to full articles on each theme deal with those themes in detail. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Carnildo in his/her above posting of 01:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC) makes the useful observation: "The strategic plan for dealing with a German invasion of Poland was for the Polish forces to retreat to defensible positions and hold those positions while French and British forces invaded Germany from the west; the failure of the British and French to follow through on the plan is commonly known as the "Western betrayal". Now, that was not stated in the original Western Betrayal article. But, if that particular observation were to be properly sourced and edited into the lead of a restored and modified Western Betrayal article, it would go a long way towards sorting out the mess. It would overcome the POV and semantic arguments that have for many years accompanied that highly lopsided and unstable article, and which eventually led to bold reworking by me, and then subsequent deletion by user Buckshot, for which decision I was not responsible. Communicat ( talk) 09:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Adding one sourced observation will NOT "go a long way towards sorting out the mess". There are significant problems throughout your version which have been detailed above. Pull the plug, revert back to a semi-decent versionm, then improve that version. Currently it's just a mess. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Move back to the old title and roll back to the version [7] prior to the hijacking of the article by Communicat. That was an entirely different subject. Colchicum ( talk) 11:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

No, it was the same subject: Western betrayal of Atlantic Charter principles. Communicat ( talk) 14:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You may create a new and different article on the subject of Atlantic Charter principles betrayal. Biophys ( talk) 16:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep and restore older version. This is well known and notable concept of Yalta betrayal. However, it should be limited only to events related to the Yalta conference, as it was in older version. Biophys ( talk) 16:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

So why then was original article titled Western Betrayal, and not Betrayal at Yalta? Go figure. Communicat ( talk) 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure. You did the trick here. You replaced an established term by the Soviet propaganda cliche which only sounds identical. This article should be moved to Yalta betrayal and reverted to an older version. Biophys ( talk) 18:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Was this AfD raised on the EEML? Should the closer assume that it was? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

And why would it matter? Colchicum ( talk) 21:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Communicat says: Don't know what's an EEML, but I do know the original Western Betrayal article was in Start Class category and had been that way for about eight years. This was possibly because the words "Western Betrayal or Yalta betrayal" in the very first sentence of the article were unverified and unsourced. You can't use an unverified and unsourced premise and then proceed as though it's a settled and unquestioned premise. Nor are people like Biophys convincing when they refer vaguely to the "well known and notable concept of Yalta betrayal". Well known to whom, and why notable? Or else consider the unsourced and unverified words of Carnildo : "The strategic plan for dealing with a German invasion of Poland was for the Polish forces to retreat to defensible positions and hold those positions while French and British forces invaded Germany from the west; the failure of the British and French to follow through on the plan is commonly known as the "Western betrayal". Commonly known to whom? Not me, for a start.

Why doesn't someone just source the "Western Betrayal" words in first sentence of the original article, which will keep purists like me happy, and then restore it? (Either with or without the current, wider post-modern interpretation of "Western Betrayal").

The "Western Betrayal" title was changed to the more diplomatic "Controversial decisions" title because I allowed some users to persuade me to drop the original title. I bowed to peer pressure. (See article discussion page around six weeks ago). My mistake. ( talk) 21:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Communicat ( talk) 22:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Tony Judt: "'Yalta' has entered the lexicon of central European politics as a synonym for Western betrayal, the moment when the Allies sold out Poland and the other small states between Russia and Germany." [8]. Marc Trachtenberg: "In the early 1990s, this interpretation of Yalta as a betrayal of Eastern Europe was used, particularly by the Czech president, Vaclav Havel, but by other eastern European leaders as well, to shame the West into extending NATO security guarantees eastward." [9] Don't want to put those refs in now - they don't fit in the current article, Yalta not being a command decision, and not knowing the outcome of this discussion will be - if it's restored, I'll do it, would only take a couple minutes. Then Trachtenberg, on that page and the following few, summarizes the issue in a rather impartial way and he could be used as a quick start towards NPOVing it.

Since there are, as Communicat writes, several other 'Western betrayals', Yalta betrayal is probably a better title. And a disambiguation page: 'Western betrayal' may refer to: Yalta betrayal, the decisions made by the Allied Powers at the end of World War II; the 1938 Munich Agreement permitting Nazi German annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland; the Sykes-Picot Agreement dividing the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I [10], etc. Again, I support the concept of a separate article about the Second Front timing dispute that would save C.'s valuable work.

EEML refers to this WP arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision. Improper off-wiki coordination of editing disputes in this area. Novickas ( talk) 12:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep, restore, improve. Refocus the article on Yalta, not on various POV fork bits about command decisions that should be discussed at their article pages. Roll back to pre-Communicat, and improve with better references. Binksternet ( talk) 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep and improve: There needs to be an umbrella article that covers WW2 Controversial command decisions, probably linking to a more detailed examination of each. This article needs improvement. I'd like to see it cover a wider set of controversies, such as the raid on Dieppe, bomber campaign against Germany (including Dresden) and the British sinking of the (Vichy) French navy. Jonathan Luckett ( talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Would you support a new list article - List of controversial Allied World War II command decisions - linking to all current WP articles that contain detailed, ref'd discussions of the controversies? It could be headed by a short statement - "This is a list of command decisions by the WWII Allies that have generated..." That would be easier in the short run. An umbrella article is, IMO, a longer range goal. Novickas ( talk) 16:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Renamed: Controversial decisions, WW2 -- i.e. without the "command" part. Communicat ( talk) 19:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Cannot help but violate WP:NPOV. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 21:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Adventures in the Stars (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable video game. DimaG ( talk) 22:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ( Search video game sources) • Gene93k ( talk) 01:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can find no record of this game on the internet at all, which is bizarre since so many arcade emulation and database sites exist, is this a fake or what? No sources = not verified or shown to be notable. Someone another 02:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Per Someoneanother's observation. I too cannot find a single word about it (apart from the handful of Wiki-clones using the identical language from the article itself). The same goes for the game's alleged developer, publisher, and designers (though I do recall a character named Robert Blake in the intergalactic science-fiction Marathon Trilogy...). Interestingly, in going back through the history of the article it looks like it at one point had a picture of the game, but the image was deleted for lack of source information. Furthermore, the caption for the image read "Space Invaders screenshot" which of course is an entirely different arcade game. - Thibbs ( talk) 03:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete – complete lack of verifiability. – MuZemike 03:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Snow Delete per complete lack of any sources at all, let alone verifiable ones. Likely a homebrew game that nobody knew about, or a WP:HOAX. -- Teancum ( talk) 13:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus and the absence of deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Warrah ( talk) 00:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

List of Armenian footballers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Page is redundant to Category:Armenian footballers. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 21:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Lists and categories go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. Also part of a bigger scheme of Category:Lists of footballers by country. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Lugnuts. Str8cash ( talk) 05:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Lists allow information to be organized in ways that categories cannot. Edward321 ( talk) 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment - this particular list is an unsourced and indiscriminate. It could be made useful, but right now the category it duplicates is far superior. I think deletion is appropriate unless someone is going to improve this list (and no one has for years). Jogurney ( talk) 13:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Why not? Could need better structure, though. Ref may or may not provide stats for the listed players. Nageh ( talk) 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 22:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Caleban (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I prodded this article, but an objection was raised on the articles talk page. My original prod reason was "No reason why these fictional aliens, featured in only two books, are notable". Objection raised relies mainly on notability being inherited from its author (or even from a set of books that these aliens don't appear in). I believe they do not meet the notability standards. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 21:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Merge article to an appropriate list. Edward321 ( talk) 15:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep based on multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It easily satisfies WP:N. The WP article needs to get hatted for failing to cite sources.
  • Use newsbank.com and search for Caleban. There's one hit from "io9 - May 6, 2008" - The context of this hit is unclear but it's an example of "notice" in sufficient detail to pass WP:N and appears to be independent of the subject.
  • Beacham's popular fiction in America, Volume 1 By Walton Beacham pp. 618-619 is about the Caleban and their treatment in the Herbert books.
  • Encyclopedia of popular fiction by Kirk H. Beetz pp 4619-4621 discusses the Caleban and their treatment in Herbert's books.
  • The Transcendent adventure: studies of religion in science fiction/fantasy Robert Reilly pp. 152-153 is about the Caleban and their treatment in Herbert books.
  • Dune master: a Frank Herbert bibliography by Daniel J. H. Levack, Mark Willard pp. 63-64 is about Whipping Star but covers the Caleban in what looks like sufficient detail to pass WP:N.
  • Frank Herbert by Tim O'Reilly pp 180-183 is about Whipping Star and Dorsdai Experiment but it includes an explanation of the Caleban. It's not clear how detailed this one is but at least is evidence of notice.
  • The ultimate guide to science fiction: an A-Z of SF books by David Pringle p. 358 has a section on Whipping Star but includes enough about the Caleban that it likely passes as a WP:N notice. -- Marc Kupper| talk 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Kupper. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 18:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Books are notable, article avoids duplicating information. Nageh ( talk) 20:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

New York Grand Prix (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is 100% speculation, violation of WP:CBALL Falcadore ( talk) 21:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. No confirmation that this will happen at all. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I have included the important information at United States Grand Prix. Even if there is a race in New York, who says it will be the New York Grand Prix? - mspete 93 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.-- Midgrid (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - if it happens, it will be known as the United States Grand Prix, and it would be in New Jersey. Not New York. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 23:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom and Prisonermonkeys. AlexJ ( talk) 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This is nothing but 100% speculation, thus fails Wp:CRYSTAL. (Also, it may be known as the New York Grand Prix - after all, the final race is called the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and not the Emirati/UAE Grand Prix.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)| (talk to me)| (What I've done) 23:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the USGP article, as a potentially useful search term. 76.66.192.73 ( talk) 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 as blatant hoax. Let me know if this reappears and the author will be blocked. Wknight94 ^talk 13:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

A.M. Quinn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this person or his show.  fetch comms ☛ 21:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. No such person played in the minor leagues, much less the majors. Wknight94 ^talk 01:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Per Wknight94 - appears to be a pure hoax. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 01:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per above. Like the baseball info, the fishing stuff is pure fabrication. Blatant hoax. Majorclanger ( talk) 12:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Rough consensus is that this particular list covers a notable intersection, although improved sourcing is strongly encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 22:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

List of Muslim astronauts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

delete as per previous discussion and WP:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. article is an orphan and not extended since 2007. Nageh ( talk) 07:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment I can see where this could be a good topic for an article, but it has no sourcing, and no context whatsoever. As with Christian astronauts who have reported experiencing an epiphany of some sort while in orbit, I would expect that some of the persons on the list have described similar experiences to their fellow Muslims upon returning to Earth. In addition, space travel would require some accommodations for persons practicing any religion, whether it's an alteration of diet, routines on a particular day, communication with a chaplain, or facing in a specific direction during prayer (one's orientation toward Mecca would be constantly changing while in orbit). Not a keeper at the moment, but this could be so much more than a list. Mandsford ( talk) 13:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • These seem interesting ideas, and if added would enhance the article significantly. However, at the same time, I am wondering whether a section on religious aspects in space traveling would not be better added under a sociological issues section in an article like Human spaceflight. Nageh ( talk) 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_27#Category:Muslim_astronauts ... 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 05:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Muslim astronaut (or somesuch... Moslem cosmonaut, Islamic spacetraveller, Mohammeddin spationaut, ...) and make it into an article instead of a list. It can cover where to point to when praying in orbit, and when to pray, since you orbit faster than an Earthly rotation, meaning a solar day is your orbital period... 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 05:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"Moslem cosmonaut" could be called a "Mos-manaut" maybe. Mandsford ( talk) 11:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete It has no Ref's and it links to 2 pages. This topic could be covered in one of the many other lists. I wouldn't be opposed if the list was expanded upon and some ref's were included. Stuff like how offten they preyed, any special diets they had and stuff like that could be included. In its current state, the list isn't that great, and I question if it even meats WP:Stub criteria.-- Navy Blue84 13:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment it would need to be renamed to cover topics that are not appropriate for a list article... 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 04:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • We don't insist on such detail for any of the comparable lists. Shimgray | talk | 11:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• It seems a bit of a trivial list to me, but it's doing no harm. We have several lists of astronauts from specific nationalities, which is reasonable enough, and then others - see, eg, List of Muslim astronauts, List of Jewish astronauts, List of Asian astronauts and List of Hispanic astronauts. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with any of these, and certainly no specific reason we should keep those and drop the Muslim list. If any of our "list of X astronauts" could be said to have a problem, it'd be List of African-American astronauts, the first member of which isn't... Shimgray | talk | 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• • I'm not in favor of any of these lists. Creating categorizations based on ethnicity or religion gets a somewhat discriminatory taste, with the result that there will be a list for any ethnicity or religion in the end. Why is the people's ethnicity or religion so notable that it does not suffice them to show up in any of the Lists of astronauts? Nageh ( talk) 12:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I suppose a merged list List of astronauts by ethnicity, citizenship, religion could be created, which would do these properties, while the other lists have other properties, and thus we do not get overloaded by too many properties on a list. 65.94.252.177 ( talk) 04:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I would rather propose a single merged List of astronauts with a single sortable list including order(time)/nationality(flag)/name/mission(s)/comment columns, similar to List of spacewalkers. I don't see why we need ethnicity or religion in there. Independently, and as said before, an article or an article extension covering religious aspects is welcome! Nageh ( talk) 07:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

For a lot of people, ethnicity and/or religion are a matter of pride, rather than something that must never be mentioned. Mandsford ( talk) 23:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I would argue that pride about your ethnicity is nationalistic thinking but I won't follow this discussion here. Instead, I argue that it is simply not notable to mention ethnicity or religion in those lists. Hey, why not add these aspects to List of NFL champions for example, or create separate lists of these? ;) Nageh ( talk) 07:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I would agree that I think it's trivial to mention it on "centralised" lists like our hypothetical complete List of astronauts. This doesn't make it automatically beneath our notice, though; it still seems reasonable to mention it on single, specifically focused lists like this one, or any of the wide range of other pages in Category:Lists of astronauts. Shimgray | talk | 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No problem with splitting up lists, or presenting shorter detailed lists. My issue with the list at hand (and similar others) is that I don't consider ethnicity or religion of notability enough to warrant separation. (But I would love to see an article like Islam and Space Travel or similar addressing the religious aspects Islam has to consider in space travel.) Nageh ( talk) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability - WP is not for random lists-- SuperHappyPerson ( talk) 03:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson !vote by blocked sockpuppet struck by Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 22:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 20:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I am far from convinced that this is not worthy of inclusion. And the article is now sourced. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete: ... and would you care to state a policy ground upon which to retain? (Something that's absent in a surprising number of the comments above, which seem to be a heap of WP:INTERESTING and WP:NOHARM arguments.) For my part, I don't see any references - do we know for a fact that all of these fellows are Muslim? - nor are such religious-based profession lists currently desirable.  Ravenswing  21:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• I agree with this, but many of the articles seem to have references saying that the subject is a Muslim, so this ought not to be too hard. Any that can't be sourced can of course be removed. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep a list obviously capable of expansion. But Ravenswing is right that for such lists, refs. are needed. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The whole thing is now sourced, mostly to an IslamOnline publication that appears to me to be perfectly reliable. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment From my POV as the AfD nominator there are two aspects that justify deletion to me.

1. Non-notable intersection by religion. While I'm personally not excited about this seemingly elitist motivation behind creating separate lists based on religion or ethnicity, I must admit that his is popular in Wikipedia, as examplified by Lists of Jews. The one intent of my AfD nomination was to find out whether people want to accept such lists in general or whether they should be deprecated.
2. Article is a stub and an orphan for more than two years now. Combined with above issue, this motivated AfD nomination to me. So I think if people accept lists based on non-notable intersection with religion and think that the article is doing no harm, then we should keep the article, otherwise we should delete it. Nageh ( talk) 22:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• • Comment renaming it to Muslim astronaut and covering the religious aspects that have to be dealt with (such as when to pray) would make it a better article... 76.66.192.73 ( talk) 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete The nominator correctly pointed out how this type of article is not appropriate, as per Wikipedia policy. Warrah ( talk) 11:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep I also would like to get rid of the categorizations based on ethnicity or religion, but Wikipedia is a also a reflection of our fragmented society. The list is sourced and the potential for expansion is there just like the List of Jewish astronauts (Good luck deleting that page). -- Jmundo ( talk) 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - changed my mind, agree, needs sourcing but otherwise a keep. Shadowjams ( talk) 19:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep The only objection I had to it was that it was not sourced. I hope that this (and the other one about Jewish astronauts) will continue to be expanded, in that religious customs have been carried into orbit and modified by Moslems, Jews, Christians, etc. I'm inferring that some people oppose having an astronaut's ethnic background being mentioned anywhere, whether as a column on a table of all astronauts or in fragmented articles. Mandsford ( talk) 16:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

José_Monti_Montañez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

• DELETE Other member Jose who is mentioned on his page was nominated and deleted for the same reason I believe this page should be deleted. A simple google search show no real notariety to sustain the page.-- Dymo400 ( talk) 09:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

See also [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dymo400 ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 14:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - notable member of a notable band. I found plenty of News Ghits for this and the other band members. What gives? Bearian ( talk) 13:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• DELETE see band mate for identical reasons for deletion Deletion Log for Other Band Mate-- 75.74.208.55 ( talk) 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 19:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Shows improvement. Opinions seem to favor giving it some time for further improvement. Shimeru ( talk) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Actimize (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Spam, but touts notability, so I am foregoing the speedy for now and will defer it to body else. Extremely promotional, with touting to notability, but none of the articles I looked at have more than minor mention of the company, with the exception of an overview of several loss prevention companies. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep As the author of the page, it is probably not surprising that I vote to Keep the Actimize entry. To delete the page would be the wrong course of action. Actimize is a legitimate, influential software company in the financial crime prevention and compliance space. I can point to hundreds of other software companies, many smaller or less notable, with Wikipedia entries. Admittedly, this is my first foray into the Wikipedia world. So, if there are particular elements (statements or sources) within the page that you want to debate, that would be a healthy discourse. To label an Actimize Wikipedia entry as 'spam' and thus delete the page would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers. Jstotts ( talk) 15:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If it's obviously spam like this is, notability is irrelevant: provides financial crime (anti-money laundering/fraud prevention), compliance and risk management solutions to the financial services industry.... founded in 1999 by experts in business intelligence and data warehousing and quickly embarked on building packaged trading compliance... the leading provider of Insight from Interactions solutions and value-added services, powered by the convergence of advanced analytics of unstructured multimedia content and transactional data... That last bit especially sinks to the level of patent nonsense as well. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 16:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 16:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Point taken Smerdis. I spent some time editing the entry and it has benefited by the removal of the superfluous sections you've referenced above. Thank you for the feedback. Jstotts ( talk) 19:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep but suggest incubate.To the author's credit, he admits a conflict of interest and has done some recent work to clean it up, but the article is still very promotional and most of the references are links to the parent company or press releases. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 12:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The references added seem mostly to routine press release announcements of financial reports or acquisitions, not the sort of thing needed to make a business stand out from the crowd enough for encyclopedia level notability. On the other hand, the rewrite is much more recognizable as English. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 14:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the article is a little better, but the only pointers to notability I see are press releases. I'll address the author directly. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Updated Actimize Entry - First, let me say that everyone’s feedback has been very helpful. Based on that, I recently made substantial changes to all sections of the Actimize entry. I’ve added many new third-party references, in addition to reports cited in the ‘accolades’ section from leading research and advisory firms Gartner, Celent and Datamonitor. I also attempted to enrich each section’s description. I would appreciate any additional feedback you may have. Thanks, Jstotts ( talk) 21:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 19:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Notability is provided. Still reads rather promotional, but this is an intrinsic problem of many firm-related articles. Nageh ( talk) 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - subject does appear notable, and, although still not perfect, the article has undergone some spam-removing changes since the nomination. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 14:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's useless fluff 63.95.64.254 ( talk) 19:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Jeff M. Giordano (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article is about a non-notable young filmmaker who is still getting started in his career. I tried and failed to find sources to establish notability, including searches in ProQuest, EBSCOhost, InfoTrac, and JSTOR; both with and without the middle initial. Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:ARTIST or the general notability guideline. Previous nomination resulted in no consensus. -- Darkwind ( talk) 18:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete not notable. ( GregJackP ( talk) 02:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)) reply
• Delete Non-notable filmmaker. Per WP:BIO. Warrah ( talk) 11:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep He is young and at the beginning of his career, true. But he is discussed at some length in an article in the New York Times, and two other newspapers mention his receiving the Special Jury Award at the Provincetown Film Festival. He appparently stumbled into the New York Times article, but there he is, in print. Thousands may very well read the article there, go to Wikipedia, and look him up. Evalpor ( talk) 16:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not able to find any significant mention of him in the actual printed NYT; all I could find was one brief mention that one of his films was appearing in the "Super 8-Millimeter Film and Digital Video Festival" in 2006: "Michelle Falkenstein. (2006, January 29). Jersey Footlights :[New Jersey Weekly Desk]. New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. 8. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 977695771)." That article hardly qualifies as "significant coverage". There was another mention of him in the NYT, but online, in a blog: Sometimes Networking Is Just Saying Hello. If this is what you're referring to, this also does not constitute significant coverage - the article is not about him, it's about networking, and it's in a blog anyway. A blog published by the NYT, but still a blog and not necessarily subject to editorial oversight, so it may not qualify under WP:V. If you found something else that I didn't, could you add it to the article, or its talk page, so we can verify it? However, even with that, he still doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:ARTIST, and the Special Jury Award from Provincetown doesn't qualify as a "notable award" for WP:ANYBIO (I'm unable to find anything to verify the significance or notability of the award, so having received it doesn't contribue to the notability of this filmmaker.) -- Darkwind ( talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, it was a NYT blog, I stand corrected. But I respectfully maintain my vote to Keep. One sees so many worthless articles pass through here, and every once in a while I like to cast my lot with the dark horse, when that individual seems worth defending. Evalpor ( talk) 18:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment - if the source is not reliable (i.e., a blog, and not even on the subject), how does it support notability and inclusion? Well-written, worthwhile or not has no bearing on this - if it is not notable, not of encyclopedic stature, then it should be deleted. ( GregJackP ( talk) 20:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)) reply

• Delete per nom and other comments supporting deletion. I concede GregJAckP's point, and therefore change my vote from "keep" to "delete." There's a first time for everything, I guess. Evalpor ( talk) 23:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep that NYT reference above is not actually a blog in the sense of being an individual creation not under editorial responsibility. The part that refers to him is an edited staff posting by Marci Alboher, one of their Business staff. It is followed in blog fashion by miscellaneous people, in what amounts to the online equivalent of letters to the editor. Most newspapers now publish a good deal of their contents this way, and we might as well get used to it. It is covered in WP:RS. I consider that this material appearsto be proof of notability. A nyt article on column on anyone makes for notability DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm with you on this, and my opinion is that there are many people who will read that NYT blog and want to find out more about this subject. BUT, I don't make the rules or set the standards here. I am a part of a team and sometimes I feel I need to put the sword away for another day. The subject seems like a serious filmmaker to me, and he is likely to make another Wikipedia appearance sometime in the future, when notability can be more clearly established. Hopefully, we can keep him then. Mkativerata makes a splendid argument below, BTW. Evalpor ( talk) 02:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I fully agree with DGG that the blog is a reliable source: a blog produced by a reliable newspaper should be presumed to be reliable. However, I think the source, in combination with the others, fails the test of "significant coverage" in respect of the subject. Significant coverage is an important threshhold in our notability guidelines because without significant coverage of the subject, as opposed to incidential mentions, we have an unreliable article. A subject, particularly a person, cannot be covered properly in an encyclopaedia (even in a stub) without significant coverage on which to source. On balance, I don't think the threshold is crossed here.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete Noting first of all that I made a number of edits to the article in 2007. I agree with Mkativerata here. The sources that we have do not amount to significant coverage of the subject and so the subject does not meet the primary inclusion criteria. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Bullseye (retired pricing game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced since 2007 with no improvement forthcoming. Growing precedent per AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bump (pricing game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Spot (pricing game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shower Game and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone Game that pricing games are not individually notable and can't possibly support a whole article — furthermore, there are absolutely no sources to be found anywhere. Only link is to YouTube. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Hardly notable and already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua ( talk) 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Not a notable game. Possibly merge to the Price Is Right. Shadowjams ( talk) 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 23:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Chester F.C. (2010) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Amateur football club only formed this week, no evidence that the club passes the notability guidelines having never played in a league or any cup competition. In England, generally only football clubs who play at the tenth tier or higher are considered notable. -- Big Dom 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep The club's affiliation with Chester City F.C. gives them some notability, as does the newspaper references and the high-capacity stadium. It's extremely likely that they will go on to become far more notable, so why delete the article now only to recreate it later? Alzarian16 ( talk) 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Normally I'd say delete. But, being formed from the ashes of the recently wound-up Chester City F.C., plus being reported in both the Chester Chronicle and the Guardian surely means that it meets Wp:GNG. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)| (talk to me)| (What I've done) 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Chester City F.C.. This club has achieved no notability, never played a game and will possibly be lost in the annals of history. They are currently a one event wonder. This club has done nothing to become part of the enduring history of football. I don't believe a couple of articles in a paper make it pass general notability - that only shows that a journo was prepared to write about it - but they'll write about anything on a slow news day.--ClubOranje ^T 10:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep - We've had precedent set for this already, with the likes of F.C. Halifax Town, Scarborough Athletic F.C. and Gretna F.C. 2008, and Chester F.C. should occupy the same type of league placing as Scarborough Athletic at the very least. However, I can't help but think that creating an article for the new club now is slightly premature, considering that they're likely several months away from recruiting any staff or players (to say nothing of actually playing in a league). -- DaveJB ( talk) 14:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Although I'm sure this club will end up entering a league for next season, we know almost nothing about them at the minute, other than the club's name and that they will be allowed to play at the Deva Stadium. – Pee Jay 01:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep for significant media coverage. I see no problem with using this page as a basis for expanding as they begin league play. matt91486 ( talk) 01:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - a successor club was always going to be formed, and there is significant coverage, and they can expect to join a league for next year, thus further increasing notability. Eldumpo ( talk) 13:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep – per matt91486 and Eldumpo. – Cliftonian ^{the orangey bit} 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The club are hoping to be back in the non-league (lower) next season so no point deleting. Dashwortley ( talk) 11:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment Every player and club that comes up for deletion is hoping for something. There is every point for deleting - It is purely WP:CRYSTAL to speculate what may happen next season. No article should exist on WP unless it is encyclopaedically noteworthy per inclusion criteria. If and when the club actually becomes something, restoring the article can be done at the touch of a button--ClubOranje ^T 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• This meets the GNG, having had significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. It's a very similar case to Gretna F.C. 2008. I would note (although not as an argument to keep) that it's not unknown for clubs like this to be successful in a relatively short period of time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Chester City F.C. for now, until it's actually confirmed that the club will exist and play in a league next season. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As far as I am aware, there is no specific notability guideline for sporting teams. WP:GNG must be applied. There is significant coverage in reliable sources here. WP:GNG is satisfied. This is a properly verified encyclopaedic article. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• • Comment Would those that claim that this article has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to prove that it is part of the enduring annals of history please add references of such sources to the article, because "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability" - All I see on this page is a local rag article about a local group, a BLOG article which some seem to think is suddenly a reliable source because it is on the Guardian's site despite being labelled "The Sports Blog - Opinion, Conjecture and other stuff", its own personal web page and a facebook page.--ClubOranje ^T 21:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

There is no reason to suggest that this is not a reliable source. Most blogs are unreliable. But a blog produced under the banner of a major reliable newspaper should be presumed reliable. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 22:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Here's a reason to suggest it; "Most blogs are unreliable". Aside from that, direct from WP:RS... "When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting." and I refer you back to the heading of the page.--ClubOranje ^T 09:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Redirect as per my initial edit back in May 2009! Giant Snowman 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. NW ( Talk) 18:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

David Herbert (artist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, I believe. The topic is relatively hard to search for due to the quite common name. What I have found: He's an artist, and he's been part of exhibitions. Hmm. I couldn't find the significant coverage in reliable sources we're looking for. The topic's press page at http://www.davidherbert.com/press.html is thoroughly broken and refers to PDFs on his computer; trying to find them in search engines was largely fruitless, I've only found tagesspiegel.de which mentions the name of the topic, but nothing else.
Tagged for notability since two years, orphaned, initial uploader blocked for disruption since 16 months. Amalthea 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That reads misleading, note that neither the disruption nor the block was directly related to this article! No comment yet regarding the massive overhaul done by Tyrenius. Amalthea 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete per nom, clearly not notable, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Sources have now been added. Ty 15:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete Although seemingly widely, including internationally, exhibited I do not see any major shows/events, or any where they are the featured artist. The fact that the Saatchi Gallery link is unable to provide any articles or interviews leads me to conclude that the subject is not sufficiently notable (yet) for inclusion. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 16:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• (post improvement by Tyrenius) There still does not appear to be either the major exhibition or review by authoritative third party source, although the quantity of references now given has changed my !vote to a weak delete. Just one major review may change my inclination. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• His solo show Nostalgia for Infinity gets dedicated reviews in NY Art Beat [12] and Time Out. [13] The significance of the latter is that if there are 200 shows in a week, a quarter might be listed, of maybe which 20% are reviewed. Review space is very competitive and highly selective. It is also significant that when a group show is mentioned in sources, his contribution is one of those singled out. The references given are only those that could be found online; mainstream publications give minimal space to art, so the presence of his name in e.g. The New York Times indicates enough prominence for there to be more substantial coverage in print-only dedicated art journals. An image of his work opens the book The Shape of Things to Come: New Sculpture, but it's not searchable online for text. The inclusion of his work in the Saatchi Gallery collection is a helpful factor towards notability in itself, as well as inclusion internationally in shows. Judged as a whole, he passes the bar. Deleting what is now a well-referenced article will lessen not improve the encyclopedia as an authoritative work. Ty 01:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• I am going to think more upon this. One sentence from the NYT and a review from Time Out, which is an arts orientated listings publication rather than a critical review (although I take your points), would be excellent if there was one article or interview of the subject denoting that the artist, rather than the work, is notable that could be found. There is little more than a catalogue of the exhibitions the artist has been involved in - nothing substantial about the individual. For that reason, I am not striking or changing my !vote. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• It's not "One sentence from the NYT and a review from Time Out": there are now 22 refs from the US, Holland, Germany and UK, cumulatively far exceeding the normal requirements for articles to be kept. Time Out has highly knowledgeable critical reviews of art from specialist writers. Wikipedia doesn't require coverage in critical reviews, just in reliable sources. The coverage he has had in mainstream sources gives far more prominence than coverage in specialist art publications. It makes no sense to say that the work is notable, but the person who made it isn't: an artist's notability is their work. The article is not just "a catalogue of the exhibitions": it describes specific artworks and gives critical responses/interpretations of them. This is what the reader needs to know—what work an artist does and what recognition through shows and collections it has achieved—and it is how most contemporary artists are covered. Compare: Julian Opie, Fiona Banner, Sarah Lucas, Simon Patterson, Douglas Gordon, etc etc. Those such as Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst with considerable coverage of their personalities and private lives are the exception, not the rule. Ty 00:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep References now added and article rewritten throughout. Ty 20:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep well referenced, seems encyclopedic now especially after Tyrenius's changes... Modernist ( talk) 22:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per shows & reviews, which are good for a 32 year old. Johnbod ( talk) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:DGG, per A7 and G11. Non-admin close.. ukexpat ( talk) 04:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Digital Signature Wireless Speakers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Questionable notability Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete - as spam per G11, so tagged. ukexpat ( talk) 21:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Article moved to Soul in the Bible, and stub recreated in its place. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Nephesh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Questionable notability, almost entirely original research, unencyclopedic content. Nephesh is a Hebrew word from the Hebrew Bible. It is unclear why a Wikipedia article is needed to provide information about this word. It appears to me that this article has been hijacked to promote a certain sectarian theological understanding of the soul and life after death rather than actually explaining the word nephesh. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 16:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The charts seem to get off track, but the solution here is to edit the article, charts included -- not delete it. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 01:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The article was once much worse. It was originally a long quote from a chapter by E.W. Bullinger in his Companion Bible as indicated at the end of the article and in the notes. I've been doing some editing from time to time including and expanding on that chapter. The article is important in that it is actually about the Biblical word soul which is only translated from nephesh (OT) and Psyche (NT). I've been thinking that it should be renamed Soul (Biblical) to indicated its real topic. 8teenfourT4 ( talk) 03:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"The article was once much worse" is not an adequate justification for a bad article. (This sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Renaming the article is a separate question. Another name may be appropriate, but this article as it stands is certainly only tangentially related to the Hebrew word nephesh. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 07:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"Being worse" was an explanation not a justification. And deletion does not make a "bad" article better, editing does. And the article is all about how the words nephesh and psyche are used in the Bible. Not only is the word soul translated only from these wrods, but all the other English words (131 of them in the NIV) are directly related to the Biblical meaning of soul. This is exegesis not eisegesis. 8teenfourT4 ( talk) 15:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It is a useful article that needs improving not deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabucogold ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It seems that the antagonist is driven more by dislike of the contents rather than real interest in encyclopedic integrity, but is using that facade to enforce his view point. Let the article be edited to proper format. WebEdHC ( talk) 16:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The word is not merely a Hebrew word -- it is one of the Hebrew words commonly translated as "soul" in English, and therefore of great philosophical, theological, historical, and linguistic interest.

Biblical and historical scholars frequently explore the literal and contextual meanings of various words in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scripture to gain insight into the actual meaning of scriptures and their likely historical intent. Since the concept of "soul" is a very important theological one to all three major religions of the West (as well as in the entire history of Western philosophy), it seems to me that having a Wikipedia entry devoted to the Hebrew word translated as "soul" is absolutely appropriate.

The original objection mentions Wikipedia violations such as "original research", but objecting to the content of an entry does not mean you should object to the entry itself. (If the Wikipedia entry on "automobile" consisted entirely of orig. research, would you delete the entry?)

In short: the article may need work, but this is an appropriate entry for Wikipedia, as it concerns an important concept and not merely a foreign language vocabulary word. StrangeAttractor ( talk) 03:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok, I accept the arguments that have been made. I will move the existing article to a more appropriate title, and re-create Nephesh as a stub. Thanks all for your input. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 06:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly keep, on the reasonable and policy-based argument that whether the article is NPOV is not a basis for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Gaucho Rivero (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article is a complete work of fiction bearing no relation to the historical facts surrounding this individual. Subject is not notable, other than to a very narrow section of Argentine nationalism that have built extensive myths about the man. The facts of the matter are discussed in detail on other articles and this is a content fork. Addendum To add were there anything worth salvaging in the article I would have rewritten it, there isn't anything of note whatsoever. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 08:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete – This particular fiction has long been exposed in Argentina too. Here is what Admiral Laurio H. Destefani says in his 1982 book, after narrating the murders of innocent Vernet settlers committed by Rivero and his accomplices: “This is the true story of what happened proof of which is stated in 42 documents published by the National Academy of History. Attempts have been made to create a legend about courageous gauchos who attacked and defeated the British, but this is just imagination. The truth as recorded in those documents does not authorize the creation of myths or legends.” (Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982. pp. 91-92.) Apcbg ( talk) 10:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom (embarassingly I forgot to endorse my own nomination. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  Comment (If you nominate it, you do not also need to add a "delete" !vote, so I struck it.) Edison ( talk) 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Regadless of support or rejection for his actions, someone that leads a riot that leaves a political district in anarchy is clearly notable to deserve his own article. In fact, he is, and not just within Argentina: I just checked english google books for "Antonio Rivero" (his real name) and the name given in english to the islands, and found many books as results, and from titles and quoted texts all of them seem to be about this Antonio Rivero (not someone else with the same name). Of course, this is if we consider notability as an objetive rationale ("Is this topic talked about in reliable sources?") and not a subjetive one ("How much importance can we give to this topic?").

As for the content, there are indeed historical controversies about him (for example, the flag incident), but those are included as facts or discussed in many other reliable books as well. The way to preceed then is to adress the controversy and point the conflicting viewpoints, not to determine one to be "true" and disregard the other. Remember that content inclusion criteria is Verifiability, not truth, and even if we write about history we can't act as historians ourselves, as to judge the validity of claims. This is a short article, and it wouldn't take much work to fix it.

By the way, to portrait this article as a "work of fiction" is highly loaded: nobody denies that the riot took place, or that this person existed. Even more, if some sources raise him to the level of a heroe, that's even more reason to expect notability MBelgrano ( talk) 12:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The comments for deletion are that this was a content fork and its adequately covered elsewhere. The article itself is devoid of merit and is an utter work of fiction that bears no relation to historic facts. At most what is "notable" about him would merit a few lines in an article and it can be adequately covered there. Per WP:FRINGE we give WP:DUE coverage, this article contravenes those guidelines. In addition, removing talk page notices alerting interested editors to this discussion is unhelpful. See WP:TPG. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I am upholding my 'delete' vote; as a matter of fact I did hesitate about recommending that the article be rewritten but decided not to, as it would mean writing an entirelly new article from scratch. The present text is quite unusable. Apcbg ( talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 13:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - There is an article in The Historical Journal, 27, 4 (1984), pp 961 - 967 entitled The case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands by Richard Ware of the House of Commons library. Page 1 of the article is available here. Until somebody can rewrite the existing Wikipedia article using reputable sources, I suggest that it be flagged as being "non-neutral" and once it has been rewritten, that it be wiki-linked into other articles. A properly written, neutral article, citing reputable sources will often be a much better challenge to unsubstantiated folk-lore than ignoring such folk-lore. Martinvl ( talk) 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Merge and redirect into one of the Falkland pages. -- Narson ~ Talk • 14:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• • The most likely candidate for merging would be the article about the riot itself, but as far as I know there's not such an article yet. MBelgrano ( talk) 15:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

It merits about 2 lines on History of the Falkland Islands. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Of course it does. "History of..." articles are overviews that must stay focused in the bigger picture, without going into too much detail about the countless topics that take part in it, as such details can be detailed at specific articles. "History of X" is specific only for "X", for other subtopics it is not. MBelgrano ( talk) 16:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thats about all the subject requires, he is notable solely for murdering the 5 senior members of Vernet's settlement in a robbery nothing more. Otherwise its a content fork. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect what exactly? Do you suggest merging the present text "into one of the Falkland pages"? Apcbg ( talk)

Anything of note. If it is already covered, just delete but worth noting that the chap is at least notable of mention if possible, or rather the incident of his fame is. -- Narson ~ Talk • 18:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Support Martinvl proposal. A NPOV rewrite adding sources is more helpful that just deleting it all. If the result is still a short article it may be merged to History of the Falkland Islands. pmt7ar ^{( t| c)} 16:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There is nothing of merit worth keeping in the current article, otherwise that is exactly what I would have done. The subject is already covered with more than adequately already. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Merge any useful content and redirect, probably to Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands, the article that deals with this part of Falklands history in relative detail. I am very doubtful that there actually is any useful content here. WP:SINGLEEVENT would seem to apply: this individual could only be described as notable for his part in the Gaucho murders of 1833. Pfainuk talk 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keepand revise per the numerous reliable sources with significant coverage, since he is considered a national hero of Argentina. The mass killing incident might qualify for a crime article even if it had no political consequences, but the article History of the Falkland Islands notes that Rivero became an Argentine folk hero. The killings had political consequences, bringing to an end Vernet's enterprise and ironically leading to the British takeover. Google Book search has 105 results for falkland 1833 "antonio rivero". See :The Nautical Magazine, 1834, pp 376-377, "Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of His Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle...", Vol 2, page328, 1839, the book "EL GAUCHO ANTONIO RIVERO. La mentira en la historiografia académica" by Mario. , 1971, (no online copy found), an article "El Sangriento episodio de agosto de 1833 en Malvina," in Papiro, Enero 1982 , cited at [14], and the island's capital city had name changed to "Puerto Rivero" for a time to honor him as "national hero" [15]. Then there is the recent discussion in the British Parliament, mentioned above. See news articles, (Spanish): Mercurio magazine, Clarin, El País, La Nacion, Jornada, El Litoral, showing coverage from several countries. Notability is not temporary, it is not a reward for editors admiring someone, and is not based on whether his fame was factually justified. All that is required is significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, which is satisfied. Edison ( talk) 20:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

New version Here I have made a complete rewrite of the article, including a section on the different views over Rivero across Argentine historiography (which, by the way, isn't considered a heroe by all historians), and, as I were at it, a "in ppopular culture" section, which are always so "popular". I think this adress the main concerns here. It is notable, it can't be otherwise if so many historians have something different to say about him (notice that "notable" does not mean "hero", nowhere it is written that subjects must have "positive" notability). The article also provides now specific information about this particular case, which wouldn't fit at the "History of... " article, so it shouldn't be merged either. Notice as well that there is a single link at the references, but that's because there's a historian citing viewpoints of other historians, which helps to prevent giving any of them an undue weight (which may be suspected if I cite them directly).

However, we may discuss if the article should be about Antonio Rivero, the man, or about the uprising, the event. As pointed, his notability comes from this event and only from this event; an event that hasn't its own article yet. But the article would be basically the same, so it would be a discuss about a page move.

As the new version is so different than the one that motivated this AFD, I request the users that have participated so far to check the new article and reconsider or confirm again their idea. MBelgrano ( talk) 01:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've checked the new version, and it's still mostly OR and horrendously POV. But more to the point, it's still a coatrack article. We have an individual here whose "notability" derives solely from a single event, and so the article is always going to be essentially about that event, not about the individual. My position (merge any useful content and redirect) stands. Pfainuk talk 16:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

And in which part of the "History off..." artcle would you describe the different historical viewpoints about Rivero's actions, without going off topic from the global perspective that such an article must have? You may better consider my alternative proposal: rename the article, so that it's about the event itself. The event is notable, no overview of the history of the islands, from either side, leaves it outside MBelgrano ( talk) 18:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I didn't propose we merge to History of the Falkland Islands. If consensus here is for a move, I'll go with it. But it sounds to me like we are agreed that the individual himself is not notable and that we do not need an article on him as an individual. Pfainuk talk 17:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren ^C 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren ^C 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment While one appreciates your good faith effort, the present version is as unrescuable as the original one I am afraid. If it stays, then it will probably get ridden of sentence after sentence due to the lack of reliable secondary sources — until only the factual narrative of the Port Louis murders remains, together with a 'fiction' section (of course duly sourced with reliable secondary sources confirming that the content of that section is fiction indeed). Therefore, I would rather stick to my delete vote. Apcbg ( talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have taken the liberty of putting in all of the links given by other users here. I'm going to rewrite the article if no one minds. Might take me a while though. (Less than a day, but still) Silver seren ^C 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - the new article is as lot better than the original - it is essentially neutral and factual in its approach. Although it describes an event which in itself is no longer notable, the political ramifications are notable and are of importance today and this article could go some way to countering pure propaganda. Martinvl ( talk) 14:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Not particularly. The British takeover of 1833, yes, but the murders have little enduring effect on the modern dispute. Pfainuk talk 17:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

While the murders themselves have little effect, I stand by my original viewpoint that this article is a lot closer to the truth than the original one and as such will counter pure propaganda that might be put out by certain nationaist elements. Martinvl ( talk) 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

No it isn't, there is little improvement with the newer version, though I must express my gratitude for the work in adding sources. Turned up some references I've been looking for some time. I still say delete simply because there is little of any merit whatsoever. The Port Louis Murders and the myth making may make for an article, a biography of the individual no. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

In that case, create a new article The Port Louis Murders of 1833 and redirect the article on Gaucho Rivero to the new article. One could of course include Rivero's biographical details in the article. In this way we will probably get the best of both worlds. Until the new article is ready however, keep the current article. Martinvl ( talk) 12:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Best of what exactly? If I understand you correctly, you consider it better to retain "stuff", while we wait for a new article? Give me a break. There is nothing here to salvage, delete it and write a new article. This article doesn't even conform to basic wiki biography standards. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: While we must make sure to avoid being influenced by Argentine nationalism, we must avoid as well the British one. The historiographical policy of British sources to back their claim on the islands is to state that the islands were no man's land until the occupation of 1833, that there was no violence involved, and that the islands have been a steady posesion of the British empire since then. The existence of this gaucho and/or this event is somewhat an obstacle in such approach, so the British point of view is to downgrade his actions as mere criminal or savage, as if it was "just another" crime, as if it had no real importance in the everyday life of the islands beyond a mere news event. This deletion proposal is clearly in line with such approach. The attitude of Justin and Pfainuk so far was being so disdanful, resorting to general claims (like "it's all OR and POV", "there's nothing to salvage"), labeling the historical disputed information as "fiction" (which implies that they follow a defined POV about what is true and what is false, instead of aiming to equally describe the conflicting viewpoints, which exist and are listed), being openly rude with things such as " seems the sily season is upon us" or " this heap of nonsense" (and explicitily refusing to reformulate such comments when civility was requested), and posting a notice about this deletion request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group but not at Wikiproject Argentina (which constitutes canvassing, which I also warned him to fix by telling at both places, and didn't do), etc. With such an approach, it's hard to consider that they are actually being fair and dissapasionated when considering this article. MBelgrano ( talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. If something is not supported by reliable sources then it is nothing but OR indeed. One cannot avoid the facts in this case, and the basic unavoidable fact is that both the 'heroic' murderers and their innocent victims were the employees of an Argentine company, Vernet's enterprise. By the way, Vernet was lucky in not being on the Falklands at that time, or he might well have been wasted too in the process of “uprising against the British occupation” :-) Apcbg ( talk) 14:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment The naked personal and ad hominem attack above is exactly why this article needs to be deleted. The article is obscenely POV, an example of the worst kind of WP:OR, nationalist myth making and historical revisionism. By wikipedia standards its utterly indefensible and so we see a resort to personal abuse to defend it. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Apcgb's comment seems a clear example: opinions on this article are being mixed with opinions about Antonio Rivero himself. And yes, there are diverse historical opinions about this man, some consider him a hero and others a criminal. In line with NPOV, it is described that way. It is not our task to decide wich historiographical line is "correct", Wikipedia relies on Verifiability, not truth. OR does not apply to authors whose ideas you don't agree with. MBelgrano ( talk) 13:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

There are different opinions on virtually everything, which does not mean all opinions are with equal standing. There are those supported by reliable secondary sources based on verifiable primary ones, and there are opinions refuted by such sources. See Admiral Destefani's sourced opinion above and the more detailed analysis in his book. Apcbg ( talk) 14:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Historical primary sources, such as documents, are not ultimate truths. They may contain mistakes, bias, even lies. Historians do not repeat what such sources say, they study the accuracy or inaccury of such sources and explain the results. In this case, some historians choose to take the british documents as true, and others to consider that, given the context, they may be biased. MBelgrano ( talk) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure, that’s why I’m talking of reliable secondary sources. But you know the history credo: “No documents — No history”. When ‘historians’ put forward theses based on no documental evidence that’s fiction not history. Apcbg ( talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Biased documents do not need to be completely rejected either: the task of the historian is to keep the factual information, while removing the bias or lies that may be included in it, or turning things told as statements of fact as "X stated that...", "Y believed that...", etc. MBelgrano ( talk) 15:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Quite so, but we ought to be concrete here rather than speak of 'documents' and 'historians' in general. Texts in Wikipedia articles should meet certain standards that we all very well know. That's where the present version of this particular article miserably fails, and should better go for good I'm afraid. Apcbg ( talk) 15:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Y, non-admin close..  –  ukexpat ( talk) 00:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Kevin Bell (physio) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD. This unreferenced BLP is about a physical therapist/trainer for a professional football team. I can't find any coverage of him in reliable independent sources that would indicate notability. PDCook ( talk) 13:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I would say that even the club's first team physio isn't notable (unless of course he's had bucketloads of independent coverage) and this guy isn't even that, he's the youth team physio. I'm sure he does an excellent job with the youngsters, but in the grand scheme of things this is simply not a notable position within football -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete: not even close to being notable. As Chris says, I'm sure he's good at what he does but he is a very minor character in the sport. -- Big Dom 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete - per A7, looks obvious to me. Tagging it, though it was already PRODDED. ukexpat ( talk) 21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree A7, no assertion of notability shown, but as long as we are here, fails WP:GNG and couldn't categorise him under any other criteria to keep.--ClubOranje ^T 21:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 22:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Nationwide Teacher In-service Advancement Education Information Web (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Article is spam for a non-notable organization. TN X Man 12:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete - as per nom. Codf1977 ( talk) 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not sure if this is about some kind of official program or what, really, but even if it has some kind of standing with the Taiwanese government and its education departments, the article should be about the program and not about a website. Google searches find nothing, but perhaps a search in Chinese should be tried. And while the article's English is vastly superior to my Chinese, it seems to contain large swatches of meaningless promotional gobbledygook: This service is to promote educational reform in Taiwan and to integrate the resources of in-service teacher advancement education effectively for fulfilling the idea of teachers’ life-long learning . - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Speedy/strong delete - surely an A7? In any event fails GNG. ukexpat ( talk) 21:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. enough consensus based on WP:N JForget 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Nancy Duarte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Bit of an odd situation here. The result of the previous AfD on this unsourced BLP, last November, was that it should be merged to Duarte Design. However, the latter article was deleted shortly thereafter as a result of another AfD, so Duarte's article has been sitting around ever since with a tag requesting that an editor merge the content to a nonexistent article. Since the previous consensus cannot be implemented and the article cannot be CSD'd or prodded after having passed through AfD, it appears that a new consensus regarding the fate of the article is needed.

Although this is therefore a mainly procedural nomination, my personal recommendation is weak delete, as I'm not seeing source material that is independent and substantive enough to support a decent biographical article on the person or to meet the requirements of the GNG. Deor ( talk) 11:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) *Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability -- SuperHappyPerson ( talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat ( talk) 21:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren ^C 02:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren ^C 02:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strongest keep I could possibly give I am absolutely blown away by the fact that this is up for AfD and that the counterpart design company was ever deleted. I have added copious amounts of references and sources to the article. She has been represented in practically every big name newspaper out there. I found 106 hits on Google News from main, reliable sources. What the heck is going on here? Silver seren ^C 02:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Call me crazy, but leaving a message asking for members of a WikiProject specifically designed to retain articles to come here and vote runs afoul of WP:Canvass. The article has been tagged for rescue, why should you be asking for them to vote in an AfD? AniMate 03:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Just asking them to vote, without placing any emphasis on what they should vote, is not canvassing. The other members that come here will, just as I would, look at the article with a neutral point of view and determine if it should be kept or not. If they feel it is not up to standard, then they will vote delete. They are not biased just because we are all part of the group. The group's job is to find sources and make articles up to standard. If that cannot be done, then we will vote delete just as anyone else. Silver seren ^C 03:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I understand the reason for your comment, AniMate, but as a practical matter, ARS template notification and the ARS talk page only identifies articles which may be of interest to those who like to rescue articles, just like deletion sorting does for category interests. For example, so far this Nancy Duarte article is not impressing me, but if it can be improved with sources focusing just on her, it might be worth saving. Drive-by keeps (or deletes from those who follow rescue tagged articles to generally vote delete) are not persuasive anyway.-- Milowent ( talk) 03:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what your edit summary of "evil inclusionist taliban" means, but surely the rescue template is enough. When someone votes "strongest keep I could possibly give" then asks a group of people with decidedly lower norms of notability than most to come vote... well it's hard to see that as anything other than an attempt to sway an AfD. AniMate 03:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment While your objection is relevant, AniMate, the assertion that ARS have lower standards of notabilit is neither appropriate nor justified. I would be equally justified and equally irrelevant in saying the ARS tends to be a group unswayed by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jclemens ( talk) 04:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

AniMate, my edit summary comment is simply a joke based on a comment in a recent RFA where someone was referred to as a member of the "inclusionist taliban", which got people riled up a bit. If the ARS can sway the outcome of an AfD just based on !votes and not article improvement, it likely only happens at articles on the margins (a small % of AfDs), articles in that area where what's "notable" varies from editor to editor.-- Milowent ( talk) 04:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep Business Week and NY Times articles (the latter included in the article as an EL) focusing on the woman and her design efforts meet WP:GNG as multiple, independent reliable sources. I have no opinion on whether the article should be titled for her or her design studio--our practice has differed over the years--but the coverage is sufficient. Jclemens ( talk) 04:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Neither of those articles is about her as a person, and the NYT one just uses her as a human-interest lead-in to a topic not directly related to her or her profession. If these are the most substantive sources that folks can come up with (I'm particularly bemused by the note citing the credit line of the epigraph of an article that nowhere else mentions her), I'm feeling better about the nomination. Deor ( talk) 16:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

What, you expect Business Week or the NYT to do a retrospective on her childhood, high school experiences, and the like? That's an absurdly high bar. She's mentioned non-trivially; that is enough. The fact that it's about her work vs. her personal life is an argument for focusing the article (including possible renaming) on her professional work vs. personal life. Jclemens ( talk) 17:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden ( talk) 16:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - it appears she is somewhat notable. I would have merged the design article into her article, not the other way around, if I had been the closing admin on the 1st AfD. Bearian ( talk) 20:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Enough non trivial coverage to indicate notability. -- Sodabottle ( talk) 20:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ample sources available to meet WP:N. Ty 15:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 02:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

CA. T.N. Manoharan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion. A former president of the ICAI, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, it doesn't seem that he is independently notable outside that position. I'm not even convinced the position itself is notable outside the organisation. The page, and similarly named versions of it have been deleted in the past for being copyright violations, but this page doesn't seem to suffer those same problems (other than the image being a blatant copyright violation.) Canterbury Tail talk 13:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

ICAI is the regulator of accounting and auditing profession in India. It has more than 1,60,000 members and over 6,00,000 students.This year he has been awarded the most prestigious award in india ' Padma Shri award [16]' by government of india. He became very popular after he was appointed by government in the board of scam-hit Satyam Computers. Every thing is easily verifiable.Why isn't he meeting notability criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu1.218 ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Note that their exist a Wikipedia page about another Past president of ICAI - Uttam Prakash Agarwal [17]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu1.218 ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

considering the above please remove the deletion proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu1.218 ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 14:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As a former president of ICAI, i believe he meets #3 or 6 for WP:PROF. ( has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association and has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.). ICAI is the Academic regulatory body in India for Chartered Accountants. Similar to American Institute of Certified Public Accountants in America. And it is equivalent to a university, since it sets the curriculum and administers the tests. Being a winner of the Padma Shri (fourth highest civilian award in India) means he meets #2 of WP:PROF. With his involvement in the Govt rescue of Mahindra Satyam, he has received widespread coverage in Indian media. Gnews has 193 hits for him (a person with a profile like his will always be covered by Indian financial media) and thus will easily satisfy WP:GNG. That said article is a horrible mess and a copyvio problem as well. I will try to cleanup and stub the article. (and it has to be moved to T .N. Manoharan) Done-- Sodabottle ( talk) 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep President of any major national professional association is notable, academic or otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There's no need to look beyond the Padma Shri award, which has been awarded to only 2336 people in over 50 years in a country with a current population of over a billion, to see that the subject passes WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Should have looked closer, I never realised the significance of the award. Canterbury Tail talk 12:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Baudhayana. Shimeru ( talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Budhayan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No references given and Google Books search returns only references to a place name. Delete per WP notability guidelines. RDBury ( talk) 09:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --  -- Lear's Fool ( talk | contribs) 10:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep His correct name is Budhayana. There are enough sources in Gbooks and Gscholar to source the stub. I have added references now. Article has be moved to Budhayana once AfD is over. Redirect to Baudhayana per David Eppstein. Why didnt i see that before!!!-- Sodabottle ( talk) 11:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply