Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:33, 3 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< 24 November 26 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Devil, Inc.

[edit]
Red Devil, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't assert notability and frankly doesn't look like it passes WP:ORG's criterion on coverage in multiple no trivial second party sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Red Devil is, or at least was, one of the best-known brand names in home improvement products, at least when I was growing up. Shouldn't be too hard to find sources. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep "one of the best-known brands ... when I was growing up" is no indication at all. However the article does currently have refs that support some degree of notability, so I'd have to see this one as passing. As those refs also mention particular board members too (mostly obits), then that seems to support notability for the individual articles on the people, and thus the category too. Not the most major or interesting set of coverage I've seen, but we have rules, and they're meeting those rules. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as unnotified creator. Meets every aspect of both GNG and WP:Company. In existence since 1872, and multiple references under the multiple names of the company. We aren't voting based on the stub I created but on the references in the media, and there are enough already in the article to show notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The references do not show notability, they are just mere passing mentions of the most trivial nature. And to the above poster, please quit whining about you being "notified" or not. You are not scoring any sympathy points. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC) *Delete. I cannot find any reasonable sources for this company. The company is obviously insignficant and reeks of self-promotion, advertizing, and conflict of interest. And who cares if the person wasn't notified? This discussion is about the company, not the spammer's hypersensitivity. Stop your bellyaching and move on please. Sepulveda Junction (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, clearly meets notability guidelines, as well as being a major brand in local hardware stores during my youth. (Yeah I know, my memory doesn't matter for Wikipedia notability!). WuhWuzDat 17:08, 27 November 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. Courcelles 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Gass

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

Non notable biography Abstrakt (talk) 23:33, 25 November 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. Courcelles 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Edwards (footballer)

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

Contested prod. Concern was:Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as having not played in a fully-professional league and WP:GNG as having not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". J Mo 101 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:15, 25 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Byrd

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

Non-notable actor with minimal credits. Corvus cornixtalk 22:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There's very little in the way of career as he is just starting out. No body of work of significance. No coverage in reliable sources. No notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No one has taken advantage of IMDB Resume. His page was established through his manager's IMDB pro account. If someone had taken advantage of IMDB Resume there would be a "View Resume" and "Official Photos" link under his name. If you look underneath the "Filmography" section on Brandon Byrd's Wikipedia page, you will see his list of credits for film and stage. Someone had falsely infringed upon his IMDB account by deleting his credits and moving them to Brandon Beard (I). IMDB is in the process of switching his credits back to where they belong. His film credits include "Time Expired (2010)" and "Real Steel (2011)," as shown under the filmography section in his Wikipedia page. Under marketability efforts of establishment into the entertainment industry an actor must establish their artist name when pursuing a career regardless of their position of where they are in their career. Look under the references and you will see credible sources from IMDB and International PR and Talent Management. Given the purpose of this, an artist who is set to be in public domain has by reasonably to be documented whereof in a database. Given this rule, any reasonable person may edit sentences and/or words containing bias remarks or gestures. Under the outlining situations, we cannot find coercive action to delete this page upon inaccurate accusations from bias remarks themselves for proposal of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chittybang (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recommend you familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NOTRESUME, three notability guidelines which apply to this case. Wikipedia is not a webhost or a social networking site, and Mr. Byrd has no inalienable right to be included on it. Beyond that, presuming that the subject is the same as this "Brandon Beard," one minor role in an (unreleased) indie flick and one extra role in another (likewise unreleased) movie doesn't come close to meeting the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER. Finally, you are actually right in ascribing bias to the proponents of deletion; we are strongly biased in favor of upholding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, under which the subject fails of notability.  Ravenswing  22:02, 30 November 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, which defaults to keep, but with a recommendation to rename the article.

The arguments for deletion include:

  • The Nobel Prize committees do not take into consideration race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or other such categorizations upon choosing a prize recipient, and an intersection of ethnicity and the Nobel Prize is not notable.
  • Per WP:EGRS, "Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic", which is not present in this case.
  • There is no standalone article about the Nobel Pize and its relation with China, so a list is unnecessary.
  • "Ethnicity" is not the same as "nationality", and there is technically no such thing as an ethnic Chinese.

The arguments for keeping include:

  • WP:BLPCAT et al. do not apply as this is a list, not a category.
  • There are enough sources to demonstrate the notability of this topic.
  • Ethnicity vs. nationality does not matter too much here, and we should group together all Chinese laureates.

This may look quite similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, but the discussion varies more than one would imagine. Both AfDs include the discussion of applying WP:EGRS/WP:BLPCAT/WP:LISTPEOPLE to lists rather than only pages in the category namespace. In the spirit of BLP, I think it is indeed safe to apply these guidelines and policies to lists as well as categories. However, there is no consensus on how to apply them to this list.

The case of a standalone article along with this list is a fairly minor issue, as there was little discussion on why one is needed for the other and why they cannot exist independent of each other.

The Nobel committee's considerations may be grouped with the notability issue. I think there are enough sources to discuss China and the Nobel Prize, but this ties in also with the ethnicity/nationality debate. Should a list exist on something that technically does not, and do the sources address this? Several participants in this AfD suggested renaming and extending the scope of the article, which would solve many of the issues. Although there would still be ambiguities relating to its inclusion criteria, it is not wild enough to prefer deletion over the renaming route.

As a result, I don't think there is sufficient consensus to delete the article, nor is there consensus to keep it in its current form. I recommend a rename and reorganization, but I'm not sure how that will turn out—it's not clear how to proceed with that from the AfD, as there are legitimate concerns over the inclusion criteria. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates

[edit]
List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Nobel Prize committee explicitly states its prize is awarded without consideration to ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. Ethnicity, by itself, is not notable and the policy on lists states that a good way of judging whether something is listcruft is by seeing if an article can be written about its contents. List of Freemasons exists because of Freemasonry... but List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates doesn't have a The Chinese & The Nobel Prize article to substantiate it. This is a case of Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory and Wikipedia:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_orientation (AKA: WP:OLIST) Bulldog123 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete To quote from WP:OC#CATGRS "...people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently to a Lutheran or Methodist". If anyone wants to suggest that a list isn't compiled by ethnic categorisation, then I'd like to ask how else they would define the method used? It seems to me that any such method could only be either (a) meaningless, or (b) a blatant attempt to bypass Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a list, not a category, so WP:OC does not apply. WP:BLPCAT does not apply to lists based on ethnicity, only those based on religious belief and sexual orientation, or which suggest a poor reputation. Being Chinese is none of these. Nationality- and ethnicity-based lists are specifically exempted from relevance requirements at WP:LISTPEOPLE. --Avenue (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A list is compiled through categorisation, and if one follows through the various policy statements the logic is quite clear: WP:LISTPEOPLE states that Lists of people must follow Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people". WP:BLP states that it applies for "categories, lists and navigation templates", WP:COP states in turn that WP:EGRS applies regarding "categorization by ethnicity" - "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity..." Being ethnically Chinese is not relevant to winning a Nobel Prize. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are important differences between lists and categories. Perhaps the most relevant is that lists can include much more explanatory content than mere category membership. So I think a position based on the arguable claim that "lists are built through categorisation" misses the point. Anyway, as I pointed out above, the first guideline you mention (WP:LISTPEOPLE) specifically exempts ethnicity-based lists of people from those relevance requirements. So either there is a flaw in your long chain of logic, or our guidelines and policies must contradict each other (or both).
      • (Just to be clear, here is the passage from WP:LISTPEOPLE I mean: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud. [...] An exception is nationality/ethnicity. List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania.") --Avenue (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Avenue, I think you misunderstand what WP:LISTPEOPLE says. A List of Albanians is ok because the criteria are 'Albanian' and 'Notable': the list can include all 'notable Albanians': no Albanian can be excluded for any reason other than non-notability, which is the normal Wikipedia standard for rejecting anything. That is really all it says on the subject. A 'List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates' on the other hand is (taking as read that winning a Nobel Prize is notable) a synthesis - the intersection of ethnic Chinese and Nobel laureates: there is nothing notable about the intersection (or if there is, strong WP:RS will be needed to show this notability, e.g. that it is discussed in a meaningful manner in appropriate texts as an intersection with an explanation for why this intersection is itself notable). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What Andy says is pretty much on the money. Bulldog123 19:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • If our prohibition against novel synthesis is the crux of your argument, do you agree that all it takes to refute it is the discovery of reliable sources substantively linking the Chinese and the Nobel prize? That honestly doesn't seem too hard. For instance, there's an entire book titled The politics of cultural capital: China's quest for a Nobel Prize in literature. There are many other reliable sources addressing Chinese concerns over Chinese laureates—sometimes the lack of such, and sometimes their feeling that inappropriate ones have been chosen (e.g. the 14th Dalai Lama, Gao Xingjian, and Liu Xiaobo). There's certainly enough out there to support an article on the topic (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). It doesn't matter for this AfD that it hasn't been written yet. --Avenue (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You can search the "Chinese" and "[anything]" and find something relating the two. The point is that it needs to be well-established (per WP:FRINGE) and encyclopedic. Not every news article ever published is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. That's why they are news articles and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Also, everything you cited is fine to mention somewhere (e.g., an article on Chinese governmental repression) but none of it is enough for an entirely separate article. Bulldog123 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ethnic Chinese is not a notable criteria with regards to Nobel prizes. "Of Asian descent" or Asian Laureates (as opposed to Caucasian ones) would be fine. Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 07:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 07:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and any of these kinds of lists, be they religion, ethnicity, age, or whatnot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and the rest. Ethnicity needs to be added to BLP and this is being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might become a valid argument if and when ethnicity is added to BLPCAT, but it isn't yet. It also relies on there being no sources substantively discussing individual laureates Chinese ethnicity. I have already found some for the more controversial selections; see above. --Avenue (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending a rationale for deletion. Note, any category-relate guideline cannot be a basis for deletion. This is not a category.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:EGRS is a guideline for "categorization" not Wiki-Categories. The definition for "categorization" can be found at Wiktionary. When you put person A in List of X, you categorize that person as X. Barack Obama in the List of US Presidents is categorized as a US President.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently you missed the giant swath of the nomination rationale that talks about policy for lists. Bulldog123 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or perhaps he didn't think that was worth mentioning, since it has already been rebutted above. And that reading of WP:EGRS seems like a big stretch, since that guideline does not prescribe how lists should be handled at all. --Avenue (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, the "Keep it because it does no harm" approach. Bulldog123 05:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, keep it by default because the basis for deletion is invalid. The stringent policies we apply to categories, that cannot be cited with an in-line source, cannot be applied lists, which can be cited with an in-line source. If you want to apply a policy promulgated specifically for categories to lists you have start an RFC or some other type of community consensus.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Avenue.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This and all other "ethnic" lists of this kind. WP:BLPCAT does in fact explicitly pertain to lits as well as categories. The addition of "ethnic" to BLPCAT is currently being discussed. That said, this list is inherently un-encyclopedic trivia. If the list were based on nationality, as in legal citizenship in a nation-state, instead of "ethnicity" it would be less problematic.Griswaldo (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Avenue, and the list is informative. Davshul (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this and all other ethnic lists of this nature. I don't see the difference between nationality and ethnicity in lists of this kind--they are both relevant considerations and equally encyclopedic--and both are sometimes disputed. My own preference is to not try to separate them, and to view "Chinese" as meaning any of ancestry, ethnicity or nationality. Trying to be too precise about these things leads to disputes. If we're going to reopen the question ofBLPCAt, I think the consensus might be to eliminate the restrictions altogether. the principle of BLP is do no harm, and it is enough if we do not list living people under ethnicities or religions or sexualities that they explicitly do not want to be listed in. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a huge difference between nationality and ethnicity. Nationality is determined objectively by legal citizenship. "Ethnicity" can mean a million different things depending on who's doing the talking. In the current case, consider the fact that from a scholarly perspective there is no such thing as a "Chinese" ethnicity -- see List of ethnic groups in China and List of Chinese dialects to get a broad overview of the situation. There is of course a "Chinese" nationality, that is defined by geo-political boundaries. I'm curious which one of the various notions of "ethnicity" is at work in this list, because it appears to me that having been born within the national borders of the nation-state we call The People's Republic of China, or having parents who were, qualifies one as being ethnically "Chinese" according to this list ... or does it? Of all the ways you can cut the ethnicity pie, that's one of the more pathetic.Griswaldo (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doh! How did I miss this? As Griswaldo points out "from a scholarly perspective there is no such thing as a "Chinese" ethnicity": and more to the point, to the various ethnic groups loosely categorised as "Chinese" by outsiders, there definitely isn't. "Chinese" thus isn't covered in any case by the exceptions to categorisations permitted where "ethnicity" is a criteria. This makes the invalidity of this list under Wikipedia policy even more clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Upon reflection, while the arguments above would apply to a List of Chinese Nobel laureates, I have trouble with the term "ethnic Chinese". Racial groupings such as "Jewish" and "African-American" can be resolved by reference to whether people self-identify in those groupings, but I can't see any immediate evidence that anyone on this list self-identifies as "ethnic Chinese" rather than merely "Chinese", and as such the list would have no valid entries and should thefore be deleted. I'd return to a Keep vote if anyone can show evidence of people identifying themselves as "ethnic Chinese" as something separate and different to being "Chinese". - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In fact, Ethnic Chinese is a term that Wikipedia deals with elsewhere by disambiguation, and if this list was to go forward it would probably need to settle on one of those disambiguated meanings rather than taking the group term, or otherwise explicitly state it was encompassing all of them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:DustFormsWords, you seem to be rather misinformed about Wikipedia regarding the (supposed) category 'Race'. To quote from WP:EGRS: "While a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic, the intersection of subcategories of Category:Race are never applied to subcategories of Category:People." And as for suggesting that "Jewish" and "African-American" are racial groupings, I really don't know what to say... AndyTheGrump (talk)
      • I'm not sure in what sense I'm using "race" wrongly - Wikipedia articles race and race (classification of humans) confirm I'm using it in a correct and reasonably sensitivity-conscious manner - and I'm certainly not trying to be offensive. But the importance of it in human affairs (in a neutral way) is confirmed by the degree of sensitivity around it, and if it's important in human affairs, then providing that a clear and relatively-inoffensive system of definition can be found it in some circumstances can be an appropriate way to cross-categorise information. Here I think that race (in the sense of either a synonym for ethnicity or a way of denoting the cross-pollination of biology and culture) is NOT relevant, simply because no one relevant to the discussion self-identifies as something called "ethnic Chinese". There may possibly be a case for Han Chinese but that's not this discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, can I break that into two parts? (1) You seem to be suggesting I've used "race" incorrectly or offensively. I'm genuinely concerned to broaden my horizons as to how I might have been offensive or wrong, and correct that in future if necessary, so I'd invite you to elaborate on that on my talk page if you feel so inclined. And (2) you then bring up a policy argument relating to WP:EGRS, which I don't feel is valid, as that policy applies to categories, which are subject to different requirements to lists, and the restrictions in it are aimed at preventing over-categorisation and offensive categorisation, neither of which apply to lists. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not suggesting you are trying to be offensive, merely that you are a little confused: if 'African' was a racial category (which is highly dubious, but then all racial categorisations are, not because they are insensitive, but merely that they are arbitrary), 'American' definitely isn't. I'll not go into why 'Jewish' cannot possibly be 'a race' here, I'd suggest you read more on the subject yourself - I'd be glad to discuss this on my talk page, though it's getting late now, so don't expect an immediate response. Regarding the supposed distinction between categories and lists, I thought that it had been established that the criteria for inclusion were identical in both cases? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't see where it's established that the criteria are the same for lists and categories. To address the hypothetical that WP:EGRS is in any way relevant (not conceded), the section of WP:EGRS you quote is headed by a disclaimer that its wording is disputed, and then further down that policy under "Special Subcategories" it goes on to list Category:Native American politicians and Category:African American musicians as specifically valid categories, and says that whether a racial categorisation can intersect with another categorisation is based entirely upon whether there is a special notability to that cross-categorisation - which is exaclty what we're discussing here. And as I said, here there is not, simply because nobody seems to want to put their hand up as being notably "ethnic Chinese", whatever that means. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd missed that. Though does it mean 'racial' categories rather than 'ethnic'? It doesn't seem to be entirely clear, but I think 'ethnic' is more plausible given the general disapproval of categorising individuals by 'race'. I think this all illustrates how hopelessly complex it gets when trying to push people (who are awkward at the best of times) into convenient boxes. As I've suggested elsewhere, the simplest solution is to stop doing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Wikipedia articles race and race (classification of humans) suggest "race" and "ethnicity" are, for at least some usages, interchangeable terms, so I don't think we can draw conclusions that the authors of the policy specifically meant one or the other. I agree that in an ideal world no-one anywhere would have much to say on the topic of race, but it not being an ideal world, clearly people do, both in the negative contexts of racism, the positive contexts of community and heritage, and in the reactive contexts of anti-discrimination and affirmative action. Wikipedia's job is to document the world, not to idealise it, so as long as these are terms relevant in the world, there'll be a need for Wikipedia to also use them in order to properly present information in context. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Regardless of what Wikipedia articles say, WP:EGRS itself is absolutely clear about making a distinction between ethnicity and 'race': "While a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic, the intersection of subcategories of Category:Race are never applied to subcategories of Category:People". If there was any ambiguity, why would this be in EGRS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • In as much as there is a difference between race and ethnicity - not conceded - it's not relevant here because the article title is clearly referring to ethnicity, and therefore (if that's a different thing from race) not race. So the prohibition on cross-categorisation of race and people still wouldn't apply. And, as above, I remind you that that wording is under dispute and doesn't seem to square with the rest of the article. It's presumably the result of one editor expressing their intention poorly while drafting the policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. DustFormsWords' !vote of "delete" for Chinese Nobel laureates, while voicing "keep" for Jewish Nobel laureates would seem contradictory from the perspective of the average WP reader (who is not an editor). These folks will not get bogged-down in the esoteric minutiae of ethnicity, self-identification, etc. They're liable to see it simply as a breach of fairness and further "ethnic boosterism" (as Dingo1729 has so eloquently called it). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply - Not too worried about what "the average WP reader" thinks, especially as "the average WP reader who is not an editor" rarely visits AfDs. If YOU, Agricola, don't understand my logic, I'd be happy to explain it for you but otherwise I'm prepared to assume that anyone reading this debate has at least as much information literacy as you do and is therefore untroubled. To be clear, I'm in FAVOUR of a list of Chinese laureates, I'm AGAINST a list of "ethnic Chinese" laureates, on the basis that there's no evidence that anyone (including the "ethnic Chinese" in the list) considers "ethnic Chinese" to be a term with any meaning or notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that DustFormsWords is entirely entitled to treat the 'Jewish' and 'Chinese' cases differently, Bulldog. There can be little room for doubt that 'Jewish' is an ethnicity (though like all large ethnicities, its boundaries are blurred and contextual, and will have its own subdivisions), whereas 'Chinese' seems not to be (particularly when it attempts to include Tibetans etc). I don't think either List is warranted, but I think each needs to be considered on its merits. My reasons for arguing against the 'Jewish' one were centred around the dubious way 'Jewish' was defined to include people who seemed not to be ethnically Jewish at all by any reasonable standards. My objection to this list is that it is imposing a dubious 'ethnic category' in the first place. Personally, I don't think we should be categorising Nobel laureates by ethnicity anyway, but while we do, we have to do it in a consistent way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an appropriate candidate for a rename. It's not that the list has an incorrect name; it's that it has an inappropriate topic. Procedurally the appropriate course is to delete this, and then start the Chinese Nobel laureates article. (Which wouldn't need to deal with ethnicity, only nationality.) In fact, you could start that article before waiting for this AfD to close. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Per DGG" is not a recognizable keep rationale though after the last few days I have to recognize it as a popular mantra in AfD proceeding. DGG's rationale here is completely flawed since there is no such thing as a "Chinese" ethnicity in the first place. If you prefer you might simply say something like "per Keep" in the future.Griswaldo (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. AfD regulars and people who peruse these discussions (such as, say, closing admins) recognize this as shorthand for "I have read DGG's comments and reasoning, and agree in full." As somebody who is ethnically Chinese, I am amused to discover I do not exist. RayTalk 04:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ray, if you really quickly win a Nobel Prize in connection with being "ethnically Chinese" - such a peace prize for efforts in furthering the cause of displaced Chinese, or a medicine prize for curing a disease that disproprortionately targets ethnic Chinese - you could save us a lot of debate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ray I understand what it is shorthand for. I was expressing some frustration that we don't need to go into here, but apologies for the confusion regarding "per DGG". Regarding your other point you do clearly exist, and I take it that you are part of one of the several ethnic groups found natively living within the socio-political borders of the nation-state of China. Han most likely. I would not dispute that you or anyone else could be of a Chinese ethnic group, however, "ethnic Chinese" assumes one such umbrella group. There is such an umbrella group, but it is national in nature, and not ethnic. In my delete comment I noted that if this were a national category things would be different. Indeed for every other group named after a nation state it is a national category. Look at Category:Nobel laureates by nationality. But if it is a national category, then people who are not longer Chinese do not belong on the list. They belong on lists of Nobel laureates for the nation-states they are actually citizens of. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you want a list of Chinese nationals who are Nobel laureates sorted on the list by ethnic group? "Chinese Nobel laureates" means those who won the award while being citizens of China. We're on the same page here right?Griswaldo (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not really. I was describing what I currently see there, not what I want to see. "Chinese Nobel laureates" can have a broader meaning than merely citizenship at time of the award. But I have no real objection to the list being more tightly focussed, as you suggest. --Avenue (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taiwan is a non-issue. They claim to be an independent nation-state and the world community recognize them as one. Tibet is tricker as many/most native Tibetans clearly do not consider themselves Chinese in terms of nationality. To use an example, the 14th Dalai Lama is the only "Tibetan Nobel laureate", according to Wikipedia. Should he be considered Chinese? I don't think so, because he renounces any status as a Chinese citizen and he lives in political exile abroad. I think you would find this to be the case in pretty much any example like Tibet. That we would have clear self-declared renunciations of nationality. It doesn't matter if the region falls within Chinese borders then. However, should a native Tibetan have no problem with being a Chinese citizen, then we should absolutely include them in the Chinese list.Griswaldo (talk) 19:13, 3 December 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) 20:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MigreLief

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

Entirely promotional article, borderline WP:CSD#G11. This medication may or may not be notable, but if it is, this article needs to be trashed and rewritten by somebody who does not have an obvious WP:COI.  Sandstein  21:39, 25 November 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 The Annoying Orange#Background. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Annoying Orange characters

[edit]
List of The Annoying Orange characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Main article is pushing WP:FILMNOT and WP:WEB but the Lack of Sources for WP:V creates an WP:OR on this independent list. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly a redirect seems pointless to me, It does not seem to be a viable redirect. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:54, 26 November 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, defaulting to keep.

There was no consensus to support the argument that the list was not notable. Coverage was presented and only a few editors, admittedly quite forcefully, took issue with whether the coverage of the topic of Jewish Nobel laureates was significant. The pro-notability arguments were quite strong (see for example Christopher Connor and Jayjg). The arguments raised on the delete side generally concerned issues other than notability.

One general concern was the maintenance of the list: that it may be subject to the inappropriate inclusion of persons who do not identify as Jews, or that it would be susceptible to BLP violations or POV pushing. These are legitimate concerns but it has not been shown that they warrant the deletion of the article.

Another argument was that WP:BLPCAT precludes the list because it is based on religious beliefs. The principles of BLPCAT are explicitly applicable to lists. The argument therefore has some force. However, it is also pointed out that Judaism is more than a religious belief, and that BLPCAT does not exclude ethnicity. This argument also has force and there is no consensus either way.

A further argument was that being Jewish bears little to no relationship to winning a Nobel Prize, being a prize awarded without reference to religion or ethnicity; therefore, it is an entirely random and inappropriate intersection to support a list. This argument also has merit, but is balanced on the other hand by the valid arguments that the intersection has received significant coverage, and the argument that Jews have received a disproportionately high number of Nobel prizes.

A further argument was that the coverage in sources would only support a prose article instead of a list article. It's a valid point and I suspect many of these lists have arisen without accompanying prose articles simply (and with all due respect to WP:FLC) because it is easier to create lists than write prose. But it hasn't really been explained why we can't have both other than by reference to policies such as BLPCAT, the applicability of which is disputed.

The above summary is necessarily succinct as it can be, and doesn't cover every single argument, subargument and rebuttal made. So I apologise if some feel the summary is overly broad or misses some points made. I assure you I have read the AfD in detail and my health is none the better for it. Suffice to say that in my view, the arguments supporting the deletion of the article do not have consensus support, either individually or taken together. Nor is there a consensus to keep: a number of valid deletion arguments were made and supported by a large number of editors. The headcount here is about 9354235-9354234 and is affected by a number of partisan and reflexive !votes on either side, so the focus has to be on the arguments, all the more so given the allegations of canvassing. It's a firm no consensus if there is such a thing: nothing remotely approaching a consensus to keep or delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Nobel laureates

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, The Nobel Prize is awarded without consideration of ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. There is no inherent connection between the topics. We do not have other lists of Nobel laureates by religion, no List of Christian Nobel laureates, no List of Hindu Nobel laureates, etc. There is no reason this could not be handled by a category, such that the regular editors of the biographical article could ensure accurate inclusion. Many of those editors may not even be aware of this article, and the repeated inclusion of Andre Geim despite being a living person who does not self-identify as Jewish shows the problem here. There may be many other invalid inclusions, better to use a category and let knowledgeable people about each subject maintain inclusion. Yworo (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Yworo, I beg you to acknowledge that Jews are also an ethnicity before somebody comes on and says "!keep ethnicity is notable." Bulldog123 21:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, but also not a valid intersection on which to build a list. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that several of the people on the list do not selfidentify as jewish is the big problem in my opinion. It seems a little like applying the Nuremberg laws retroactively.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be attempting to classify every Nobel laureate by their Jewishness; of all the current AFD Jewish lists, this is by the most problematic. It's just not as far as it should be from putting little yellow stars into List of Nobel laureates. Rd232 talk 11:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article was deleted in 2007 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination). I find no evidence that this deletion was ever officially overturned via process, so technically this is a recreation of a deleted article. Yworo (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article was nominated on deletion and kept. Second nomination in less than a year is simply a waste of community time.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is for the community to decide what it considers a 'waste of time'. Given the number of participants in this discussion, I'd suggest there is little evidence that your suggestion is of merit. Argue the case, not the history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe recreating articles is allowed unless expressly prohibited (except when done in a disruptive way). --Avenue (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Recreation of an article deleted via AfD must go through deletion review. Any article recreated after an AfD is subject to speedy deletion under G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, G4 refers to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy [...]" of a deleted article. As far as I know, no one has suggested this is a nearly identical copy of the deleted article, and the initial author of the current article has said she wrote it from scratch. --Avenue (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How different can a list be? The content of a list will be basically the same regardless of how it's formatted. While the previous articles were said to be poorly sourced, that wasn't the major reason for the deletion. The primary reason for the deletion was that no influence was established between religion/ethnicity and the specific work for which the subject won the award. That's still not been established so the deletion reason still stands and the article should not have been recreated because it is impossible for it to have substantially different content. Yworo (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the previous list, so I don't know how different they are. Perhaps an admin can enlighten us. But if they were nearly identical (which I think is unlikely), then the early 2010 AfD would have effectively been a review of the 2007 deletion of this list, and could be interpreted as having overturned it. --Avenue (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You realize the only reason this list exists is because a CATEGORY like this would be put up for CFD and deleted immediately per WP:Overcategorization. Bulldog123 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No there's not. There's not a single link that documents the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Bulldog123 21:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there is. A simply check would have found them. I'm guessing you did check, but somehow didn't find them. Though I'm not sure why it isn't all in the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the check was so simple, why not link to said WP:RS that academically document the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize? "There's a lot of them" is not an academic discussion. The fact that Charles Murray uses "Jewish Nobel Prize" winners as evidence that Jews value education more, etc... is also not reason enough to have this list because Wikipedia is not a directory and this is not Charles' Murray's Wikipedia. Bulldog123 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added a list of sources that discuss or document Jewish Nobel Prize winners. It was so easy for me to find that I can only conclude that you either didn't check or you did but still said there wasn't any. But simply repeatedly insisting that there isn't is disingenuous. There really is no debate here to have with regards to the notability of this list. I don't know why this discussion is being plastered with text. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're intentionally intending to ignore the point or you really don't understand. A LIST is not the same thing as a SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS. The information you're providing does little more than present a LIST (I should also note some of those refs are clearly vanity publications). If a header article cannot be written about the list, the list should not exist. It can't in this case, because there is not enough encyclopedic scholarly information to write about. Once again... "There's a lot of them" is not a sole qualification for notability. Yet again, Wikipedia is not a directory. Bulldog123 01:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lists and analyses are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the FL criteria stipulate that lists must have sufficient explanatory prose, which does not have a size limit (except as set by unrelated article guidelines). Therefore I do not see a problem. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list has to have something encyclopedic to justify its existence. "The body social: symbolism, self, and society" By Anthony Synnott is an academic publication with a pretty thorough section on blonde celebrities. Yet, list of blonde actresses would still not be an eligible list on wikipedia. I'm not saying these lists are equivalent. I'm just giving an example. There's a reason other wikis don't have this list yet (nor are they pining for it). Bulldog123 15:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't read the sources in the article because if you did you would see that most of the sources don't actually provide a (full) list and do actually discuss the phenomenon of Jewish Nobel laureates. As above, a quick check on the sources would show that. I could provide quotes from the books but that would be unnecessary. Even after I disproved your assertion that no secondary sources exist, you still want to insist on further falsehoods. That seems to be your tactic: keep making false statements in the hope that no-one notices and to also force people to do work to disprove you. You now also say "some of those refs are clearly vanity publications" ... Christopher Connor (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just unnecessary, it's synthesizing false notions. These people are not famous for being JEWISH Nobel Prize winners. They're famous for being Nobel Prize winners. They happen to have Jewish ancestry also. As for the surreptitious comment - it's most regarding what's been happening on Andre Geim - and you may have not been around yet for when this happened with other lists. Category:Jewish mathematicians was deleted and List of Jewish mathematicians (which has been lingering around untouched for years now) started getting linked to all the former articles. Bulldog123 23:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the user that added the link to this article from the articles of the listed laureates, I personally object to the to accusation that this was done "surreptitiosly". As pointed out above, I posted a comment on the Talk page to the article, to the effect that I had inserted the link. As to the reason for such link, I took the view that a user reading an article on a laureate who happened to be of Jewish descent might be interested in seeing the list of other Jewish laureates. Davshul (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I ended up seeing this list via the biography of Andre Geim, recent Nobel laureate in physics who describes himself as having a Jewish great-grandmother and a name that sounds Jewish. His name got stuck onto the list, which changed its rules in order to justify the addition of somebody who was briefly described in a 2006 computer journal as Jewish, with a few other sources picking up that info no doubt from the Googlable first one. List enthusiasts claim its methods need not be limited by WP:BLPCAT because it is a list not a category, although it gets used to tag articles like Geim's "See also: List of Jewish Nobel laureates' thus asserting "without disclaimers or modifiers" that Geim is Jewish. And if a curious reader clicks to the List, again there are no modifiers, and certainly no explanation that the rule in force, since it got changed after Geim's win, is only ""A Jew is anyone that reliable sources say is a Jew." The list is a magnet for POV-pushers who care less about the accuracy of information in Wikipedia than they do about stretching the length of the list by one name--even though putting fake names on the list serves to devalue the list's integrity. If the list fell under some Wikipedia rule for putting (or not) people on it, preferably including for living laureates a requirement for self-identification as Jewish, I would feel differently. But the list enthusiasts make up their own rules. betsythedevine (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously should be kept per Christopher Connor. Issue of the high proportion of Jewish Nobel Prize winners specifically discussed in several reliable secondary sources. Fortunately, WP:Notability is a guiding rule in Wikipedia, not WP:Political correctness. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A very notable intersection. There's a fair number of sources about the oddly large size of this intersection. The intersection is thus naturally relevant and makes sense as a list. We may need to be careful about inclusion criteria but that's not a reason to delete. (edit conflicted with Plot Spoiler who said almost the exact same thing.) JoshuaZ (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have source for that proportion relative to say those of say British, French, and German ancestry? I'm sure at least one of those ancestries has as great or greater proportion than those of Jewish ancestry. If so, are you arguing that those lists should be created as well? The problem is, this list isn't simply including people who self-identify as Jewish, it's including people by ancestry, even including people with one Jewish grandparent regardless of whether it was the maternal or paternal grandparent even if the individual has specifically indicated that they don't identify as Jewish. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentOne can imagine research on the intersection of Nobel Prizes with Jewish ethnic heritage, but is there any such interest in the intersection of Nobel Prizes with people who have been described as Jewish despite having minimal numbers of Jewish "genes"? I can see the potential interest of an article about "Nobel laureates who are ethnically Jewish" but NOT of what we have now, "Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish." betsythedevine (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Out of curiosity here, Joshua - because your position on this baffles me the most considering you're one of the more eloquent and levelheaded !keep voters here - why do you consider the qualification "[an] oddly large... intersection" to automatically qualify something as having encyclopedic value? Why is this list given special treatment over something like List of white Nobel Prize laureates. After all, white people form only 1/5th (20%) of the world's population but 93%+ of Nobel Prize laureates. Right? And there's actually plenty of secondary sources and scholarly analysis to back it up as notable. Would you support such a list with as much fervor? Bulldog123 16:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's an interesting question (although frankly I don't think I'm that eloquent. Talking a lot is not the same thing. A bit flattering though). There seems to be some intuitive, almost visceral reaction that there's a difference. But that seems to be primarily on emotional grounds, and dislike of certain forms of racism along with my own dislike of Murray and Jensen (more in the form of "seriously guys, do you know how much freaking privilege white people have had in the last hundred years?" sort of thing). One could make some sort of argument that the ratio distinction is much more extreme in this case but that shouldn't be an argument for Wikipedia since it is essentially OR. One could make a WP:WEIGHT] argument by claiming that the idea that the prominence of Caucasians has anything other than a trivial position is a more fringe claim, but it would seem suspiciously convenient that the cut-off between somewhat-fringey and too-fringe would be just where emotional reactions become more severe. The only argument I find that seems to actually distinguish them is one of practicality: when you are talking about 90% of a long list, marking a separate list for that 90% seems like a not great idea. But overall I think that if someone made such a list I'd have to more or less hold my nose, scrunch my face into an unhappy grimace, and say "keep". JoshuaZ (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This specific intersection is a notable topic due to its disproportionately. This is supported by the multitude of sourcing and scholarly material cited in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
your response appears to veer into let-me-throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks, so let me respond on just one aspect, the claim that there is no scholarly material discussing the intersection between Jews and Nobel Prize winners is unequivically false. This much is evidenced by the sources in the article and cited in this discussion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete To quote from WP:OC#CATGRS "...people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently to a Lutheran or Methodist". And following logically, a Jewish Nobel Prize winner is presumably not treated differently from a Christian or Atheist one. If anyone wan't to suggest that a list isn't compiled by category, then I'd like to ask how else they would define the method used? It seems to me that any such method could only be either (a) meaningless, or (b) a blatent attempt to bypass Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete violates BLPCAT, NPOV, and WP:EGRS. Ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation is only important when directly related to article subject's activities. This (and similar lists) serves no valid purpose, and is only used for vanity and bragging. I'm not sure if any of the keep editors has ever seen a real encyclopedia, but this is not something that belongs in one.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what's the basis for a 'strong' delete" as opposed to a regular delete?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A strong delete (in this case) is due to the fact that the list violates several Wiki policies (especially EGRS). It's not just this list, the Chinese one is up for a delete too, and there are more.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so its a strong delete when it violates several wikipedia policies and a plain delete when it violates only one wikipedia policy?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
crickets. i ask because two out of three "policies" you mentioned are actually guidelines, not policies, and they apply to categories not lists. The other policy, NPOV, seems to be a WP:VAGUEWAVE. so i was kind of hoping that perhaps we can have a downgrade or two.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one of the sources Connor added do anything but list Jewish Nobel laureates. Most of them spend less than two paragraphs on the subject and zero provide any sort of scholarly interpretation of the situation. Furthermore, nearly all online sources regarding Jewish Nobel Prize laureates are vanity pages. If external references are all that's needed to make a ethnicity + Nobel Prize list, we might as well get started on list of ethnic German Nobel laureates [7] with List of ethnic Swede Nobel laureates soon to follow. Just because there are more writers concerned with Jewish studies than other ethnic group studies, doesn't mean the intersection automatically fails to be an irrelevant intersection. There is no relevance provided in any single external reading anyone has linked here. (Perhaps with the exception of Charles Murray's book - which, ironically, nobody has bothered to cite - but that then becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue). Bulldog123 02:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump and Bulldog123, I understand what you're both saying, but your actions seem to me to be inconsistent with your points; so far you've both only !voted to delete this article, but not the other two. I find this confusing; is there something about this particular list that makes it far more deletion-worthy than the others? I haven't heard that argument yet. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've !voted delete on all three, just for different reasons. Bulldog123 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I like to read AfDs before voting, and I was more concerned with the most pressing issues, as I see them. Since when has not participating in the debate over one article been relevant to another in any case? Even the most avid Wikipedian can't participate in every discussion, though I'm sure some try. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jayiq, how about discussing the topic at hand instead of making a WP:POINT by creating two new AfDs, which of course also serves to WP:CANVASS all the people who edit those other articles to read your one-sided denunciation of this AfD so they can come here and !vote. You might start by explaining your rule that anybody, living or dead, who was called Jewish by some cherry-picked WP:RS is Jewish, and that all the many more WP:RS discussions of the person's ancestry that don't say he's Jewish don't count against his inclusion.betsythedevine (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Betsy, how about you discuss the topic at hand, rather than making untrue personal attacks on other editors. I notice that you didn't make the same false complaints when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was created above in response to this AfD. This and related inconsistencies are troubling at best. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a serious suggestion of a different AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_Chinese_Nobel_laureates. The nominator gave a clear and coherent explanation of his thinking about why the list should be deleted, making an effort to get people to vote with him to delete it. Now contrast that introduction with your minimal Afd statement: "Non-notable intersection, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which is addressed by many reliable secondary sources. Also trying to address the larger issue here." Perhaps others will understand, even if you do not agree, why I thought that your two nominations were WP:POINTY and his was sincere.betsythedevine (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My AfDs are entirely serious; I sincerely believe those lists are non-notable intersections and BLP-violation magnets that should be deleted. My explanation is perfectly clear, and policy based. Now, please redact your untrue personal comments about me, assume good faith, and act with more consistency in the future. Thanking you in advance. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 0

[edit]
You know what's sad? One of the references in the "Further Reading" section of this book has the following footnote:
A family member intervened, claiming that Otto Warburg would "turn in his grave" if he knew that he were presented as a "Jewish Nobel Laureate." - Jews and sciences in German contexts: case studies from the 19th and 20th ... By Ulrich Charpa, Ute Deichmann Pg 26
This issue apparently extends to dead as well. Bulldog123 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...And with that, can there be a reply? I think we'll not see a better reason why such listcruft shouldn't be permitted in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a stamp collector's album. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Richard Feynman would have been another opt-out, as he was from a 1960s book on Jewish laureates, when he wrote to its author "requesting not to be included in your work. I am expecting that you will respect my wishes."betsythedevine (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That letter ought to be reproduced in full in this discussion. As nominator, I will refrain from doing it myself, but should any other choose to do so I will support its inclusion. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

Richard P. Feynman to Tina Levitan, February 7, 1967
Dear Miss Levitan:
In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.
Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be inherited from the "Jewish people," and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are not inherited by these same "people." Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of an "Aryan" inheritance.
It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born from particular parents, but to try to teach these "valuable" elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their race.
It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one element in my composition.
At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth. The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all, but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general. Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way "the chosen people." This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work.
I am expecting that you will respect my wishes.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Feynman

Concise, and to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in getting involved in another absurd Afd timesink, but it needs to be said, that in addition to being a brilliant scientist, Feynman was also known for some very strange views. For example, he apparently had difficulty accepting the germ theory of disease, as he believed that tooth brushing was unncessary and that hand washing, especially after using the toilet, was a "superstition". Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Feynman letter is absolutely correct, but irrelevant to the discussion. Feynman's (40 year old) letter is responding to a book that proposes to draw the conclusion that his success is BECAUSE he is Jewish. No one (I hope) is making the claim here that there is a CAUSAL relationship between Jewishness and Nobel success (well, except in the case of authors nominated for their contributions to Yiddish literature or politicians nominated for their work on behalf of Israel). We are saying there is a a CATEGORICAL relationship - that of the total number of Nobel Prize laureates, enough of them are Jewish to make a meaningful list of them. Possibly in either case Feynman does not belong on this list. That's okay. Clearly some people DO belong on it, and the presence of some dubious entries does not invalidate the possibility of a list composed solely of appropriate ones. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully sympathize with Feynman's views. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not have a policy of political correctness. I see that the letter is 43 years old. The fact that it is still reproduced makes it notable, and by extension the topic itself.
An other argument for keeping would this. We do not have an article named List of Israeli Nobel laureates. The reason is that reliable sources do not cover that topic, but instead link Israelis together with the broader topic of Jewish Nobel laureates. Besides – heaven behold – we might one day even have an Palestinian-Israeli Nobel laureate! Would we respect the wishes of those who would not want to be listed in the same article? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. – Is this article related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? How about the conflict on Race and intelligence? ...or Fascism? How is my party / tag team voting? Or should I just check how my opponents voted and vote against them? Too long; didn't read. I guess I will just have to make up my own mind. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nergal said, in effect, "you only did that because you're a Jew", which is highly inappropriate at best. In addition, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates is, in fact, a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situation, primarily because we don't have multiple, reliable secondary sources commenting on the intersection of "Chinese" and "Nobel laureates". On the other hand, we do have multiple, reliable secondary sources commenting on the notable intersection "Jewish" and "Nobel laureates". And here's the real "truth of the matter"; almost none of the users who are so vehemently trying trying to keep this list have even commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors -- which are FAR WORSE situations. It's clear the issue is not that people are concerned with BLP per se, but are actually concerned that Jews in general, or perhaps specific individuals such as Geim or Feynmann, be associated with being Jewish Nobel laureates. This has become blindingly obvious; it's mostly an issue because 3 or 4 editors want to keep Geim off the list, and attempt to win an editing dispute by deleting the article. Thus, the reasons for advocating the deletion of this list have, in reality, nothing to do with policy (I exclude you from this, Bulldog123, since you are one of the few editors who has actually advanced a consistent position on this topic). Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Neergal said was unwarranted, and a breach of WP:NPA. However, I consider Jayjg's later response that "the issue is not that people are concerned with BLP per se, but are actually concerned that Jews in general, or perhaps specific individuals such as Geim or Feynmann, be associated with being Jewish Nobel laureates" to be a much more gross generalisation and a more grave breach of WP:NPA, giving a clear intimation of prejudice. I think it shows the weakness of some arguments presented here that such attacks are being resorted to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't intimated prejudice, I've pointed out, quite factually, that many of the "delete" voters here are concerned with an extremely narrow issue with one or two individuals on one list, mostly unrelated to policy, rather than the larger systemic issues, policies and problems they claim to be concerned about. And I've also pointed out that their inconsistencies are what really "shows the weakness of some arguments presented here". See more at my comment below. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the Feynman red herring, and Bobby Fischer. I believe the entire Feynman discussion is a red herring. Bobby Fischer renounced his American citizenship. He is listed and categorized as an American on Wikipedia. As well he should be under wiki guidelines, because at one point he was American. We don't in knee-jerk fashion say to ourselves: "Gosh, Fischer would if he were alive be upset to be called American -- let's therefore delete all American lists from Wikipedia! That is tantamount to some of what has been suggested on this page. The way we handle such issues is on a case-by-case, individual fashion. We don't kill the patient to stop the pain of it's hangnail.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the above: How exactly is a Nobel laureate of Jewish descent stating that he doesn't want to be included in a book about Nobel laureates of Jewish descent a 'red herring'? He was precisely on-topic, which is more than can be said for some of the arguments presented here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s logical arguments. IZAK (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you truly regard these as being of equal significance, or of being of equal interest? DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I don't think that this one passes the threshold either.... --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an arbitrary intersection. Yes, there are plenty of people promoting Jewish culture who are interested in the topic of which people of Jewish heritage have achieved some success, and accordingly there are several references where enthusiasts have likewise listed Jewish Nobel Prize winners. However, every other significant grouping of people has similar enthusiasts who would like to publish any connection between their group and some form of success. Wikipedia should only have intersection lists where there is some independent study of the intersection as a topic (e.g. How does being Jewish affect winning this prize? If the loose criteria for being "Jewish" were applied to other groups of similar size, would the other group have some significantly different result with regard to this prize?). This list has no encyclopedic purpose other than original research to promote a POV with regard to the success of a particular religion/ethnicity/elastic grouping. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if there are several Amish ones, make a list. there's a fundamental difference in intrinsic important between being Amish, or Jewish, and having visited Paris. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Non trivial intersection; some recipients are notable for being Jewish, and for being Nobel Prize laureates. Perfectly allowable under WP:SALAT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unquestionably strong Keep The principle should be that every defined binary ethnic or religious or national intersection with occupations or professions or prizes or anything else ought to be kept, both as a list and a category--the only ones that should require evidence of the intersection itself being significant are tertiary intersections, and the standard of proof for that should not be very onerous. The only difficulty with these in particular is whether to regard "Jewish" as ethnic or religious or genetically related population group--this debate is not going to be settled at Wikipedia, so all we can do is go by the broadest sense, including any one of these, using the criterion of either self-identifies or generally recognized by multiple reliable sources including those from outside the group involved--i.e., a Ruritanian source is likely to over identify people as being Ruritanian in dubious cases. People come to encyclopedias for this sort of collected information, and in case of doubt, that should be our criterion--with respect to our own identity: free, and open, and uncensored, however important, are just adjectives qualifying the truly basic concept, that we are an encyclopedia. this is not promotional, but informative. the proof that it is merely informative, is that it could be used equally to show the true importance or the unfair over-represenbtation of the Jewish winners--this is purely neutral information. I see no reason why people interested in promoting Jewish culture would be the only ones interested. I'd like to see a similar list for Buddhist , or Irish--and I have no conceivable special interest in them. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is not WP:INTERESTING because... ? "The body social: symbolism, self, and society" By Anthony Synnott is an academic publication with a pretty thorough section on blonde celebrities. So, list of blonde actresses is okay right? Don't tell me people wouldn't be interested in that. It's the whole reason most people dye their hair. Bulldog123 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an intersection between Jews and Nobel laureates. The article is merely a compilation of those intersections. I don't think it matters whether these intersections occur frequently or infrequently. As long as it is kept accurate it potentially serves a useful purpose. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two main reasons: (1) The Nobel Prize is awarded without consideration of ethnicity, religion, or even nationality, hence this is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. (2) Ignoring the former: (a) If "Jewish" is regarded as religion in this context, then delete because there is no List of Christian Nobel laureates etc. (b) If "Jewish" is regarded as ethnicity, we have a problem as soon as someone (i.e. almost everyone nowadays) is of mixed ethnicity; we can't allow him to be listed in List of ethnic Swedish Nobel laureates and this list at the same time or in a few decades/centuries every new Nobel laureate is listed in every list. (c) "Jewish" can't be regarded as nationality because it's not a country (but e.g. List of Swedish Nobel laureates would be fine). (c) If "Jewish" is regarded as "self-identified Jew", then what's the difference to someone who self-identifies as loving Spaghetti? List of Spaghetti-loving Nobel laureates is clearly nonsense. – sgeureka t•c 08:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though there is no possible valid reason to divide people by race or religion, many people do, and the Wikipedia reflects that. There is news coverage and books about this. Dream Focus 15:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Keep views of Jayjg, Bus Stop, Conner, Brewcrewer and DGG trump the Delete arguments of Bulldog and other editors, in my opinion. Contrary to the Delete editors, there is nothing wrong with listing Nobel Prize winners by whatever category is of interest to encyclopedia users, since the purpose of the encyclopedia is to be a reliable information source, and the propriety of this or that item within a list is no objection to the existence of the list as such, as some of the Delete editors appear to want to argue. Talk pages are provided for just such editorial discussion about particulars. Every single article has questions raised about the propriety of this or that item; this does not lead to the demand for the deletion of all articles. Secondly, the pressure to delete this article above all others and first in line raises its own problematic issues. Thirdly, as for the argument that the Nobel Prize committee does not award the honor on the basis of anything other than significant scientific contributions (or for notable peace efforts), this does not logically mean that analysis or lists based on other criteria are illegitimate. In fact, the opposite is true: the absence of such criteria in Nobel selections enhances rather than diminishes the interest in any other patterns, cultural, national, ethnic, social or what-have-you, that appear in the list, and would make more relevant the fact that Jews, while perhaps 0.25% of the world's population, have contributed 22-25% of Nobel Prizes, an 100% over-representation based solely on meritorious grounds and not ethnicity. Fourthly, this unparalleled over-representation is a significant fact in itself and calls for explanation, and various reasons have been given (so, as Connor has pointed out, it is not the case that no analyses or discussions of this topic exist). Just the intrinsic interest of the subject, and the debate over its causes, makes it worthy of inclusion. Since Jews include almost all the races of humanity in their number even if there is some ethnic continuity down through the ages, so they are not a race, the more likely reasons have to do with cultural and historical factors, and there have indeed been studies of this. It has for example been noted that Ashkenazi Jews are more represented in these Nobel Prizes than Sephardi, most of whom have lived in past centuries in the Muslim world. Of course, cultural patterns can end up having genetic consequences: marriage patterns favoring more Rabbinically learned young Jewish males may have ended up producing more higher IQ descendants. Some have argued that this over-representation has also been influenced by the discrimination Jews have had to deal with in modern European culture, so they over-produce so as to justify their existence and to attain some security in an insecure world; this is also advanced as one reason they tend to go into the professions where they are less subjected to social pressures. So it is not just a matter of ethnicity nor internal cultural and social patterns, but also the larger socio-cultural environment pressuring Jews as individuals in modern societies. Reasons advanced have been many, in any case, but that there is something there of great interest and not just to Jews cannot be doubted. Fifthly, since there are many antisemites who wish systematically and sweepingly to denigrate the Jewish contribution to humanity's well-being, both in the past and in the present, this sort of list provides an important resource to indicate the opposite. Anyone concerned about antisemitism ought therefore to support this list. Sixthly, as for the appropriateness of providing lists of Chinese recipients of Nobel Prizes, I see nothing wrong with that either. Why not? And as with the Jews, it may well have something to do with the traditional strong Chinese valuation of learning, as well as inculcation of strong motivation for industry and responsibility to live up to the family's or community's expectations. So there may be interesting reasons there that are similar in some ways, different in others, from the Jewish case. Seventhly, in regard to Richard Feynman's comments, he is entitled to them, but they cannot provide a rationale for ignoring Jewish contributions to world civilization. They are just his opinion (and his specialization was not in the history and cultural patterns of Jewry, so as an authority he is just another Joe Shmoe), and in any case assume a racial-ethnic argument for inclusion, which is not the only or even the best way of understanding Jewish identity. Feynman himself was clearly shaped by the cultural-social patterns of his background and environment, despite himself. And finally (eighthly), the objection that not all "Jewish" Nobel Prize-winners are clearly and self-identifyingly Jewish is itself part of the wider interest of such a list, not a drawback as claimed. The very frequency with which these Nobel Prize winners were marginal to the Jewish community, and came out of highly assimilated backgrounds (like Feynman), or that some have only fairly remote Jewish ancestry like Geym, relates again to the factors leading to their exceptional contributions: these were indeed sometimes people betwixt and between, who suffered more than self-affirmative and traditionalist Jews the marginality often assigned to Jews in majority culture. This in itself may have helped lead to their very distinctive individual careers, their willingness to criticise the stale consensus and to improve the future, to do something positive for universal benefit and to make noteworthy contributions to Western society. Tempered (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...since there are many antisemites who wish systematically and sweepingly to denigrate the Jewish contribution to humanity's well-being, both in the past and in the present, this sort of list provides an important resource to indicate the opposite. Anyone concerned about anti-Semitism ought therefore to support this list.". Tempered, that is a grossly offensive comment to make. There are many arguments for deletion being put here by people who are can in no way be considered anti-Semitic - do you consider Richard Feynman an anti-Semite for presenting similar arguments?. I suggest you withdraw it immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting response, Grump. The comment I made was a recommendation and justification for retaining the list, not a specific condemnation of you nor in fact a negative comment about anyone specifically, including those advocating deletion, although that group may possibly include antisemites amongst them. It is you who has applied it as a direct criticism. I see nothing to apologize for and stand by what I wrote. It is a manifestly true observation about the world today and therefore a legitimate recommendation, perfectly permissible to make and not insulting to anyone unless they wish it to be. You are the best judge of whether the shoe fits or not. By the way, I was not aware that Richard Feynman voted for deletion of the list.Tempered (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your comments are almost entirely WP:OR, when they are on-topic at all. And You'll note I didn't say this was an attack on me specifically. If you wish to state what you think is 'manifestly true' in the world today, I'll respond by suggesting that others may think your comments were 'manifestly' intended to cast aspersions on those voting for the deletion of this article. And don't try to get away with patronising qualifications about 'whether the shoe fits or not', they look like desperation. Oh, and by the way, if I were you I'd not waste your time writing long off-topic rambling 'justifications' in AfD's, they rarely get read (and can have no bearing on the result in any case), which is probably the reason nobody told you not to be offensive earlier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

[edit]
Comment to all those that try to interpret my comment: seriously guys that is not a racist comment and I do not have a problem with any jew I know. What I do find disappointing though that users here do try to diverge the attention from the actual article by overly-interpreting the comments made. I think that any controversial AFD like this one should require users to reveal their COIs and my original comment was only meant to suggest that. I do not think separating by ethnicity is either encyclopedic or constructive for the project or to the humankind itself. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I don't really see how it's a COI to identify as Jewish and to !vote here, but... I would prefer if everyone could give a better reasoning than "Jews are an ethnicity and this list is notable." Plus, I think everyone gets super sensitive whenever these types of lists are nominated and interpret every off-color remark as a personal attack. Bulldog123 18:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What nergal said was an antisemitic comment that smells really bad, and BTW this comment "I do not have a problem with any jew I know" is an antisemitic comment too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that Nergaal (doesn't anyone spell names right? I see I got it wrong too...) contributed to the page linked. Your comments are once again a clear breach of WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Nergaal (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1, I suggest you apologise promptly for the false allegation you made about Nergaal, rather than attempting to hide it by masking its deletion with a misleading edit summary: the diff shows it clearly enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mistake and I reverted it. There's nothing else to be said about this. I suggest you stop suggesting what I should do, and I assure you I am not going to apologize for calling antisemitic comments "antisemitic comments"--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, we have accusations of antisemitism again. As is always the case in these AfDs. Bulldog123 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Per Christopher Connor this is a notable intersection covered in reliable secondary sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Wikipedia is NOT a directory - inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. It all depends on what criteria you use, the recent disruption by users at this article and a BLP in an attempt to include someone that is clearly not Jewish, is an example of why this dubious list is a disrupted net loss. Off2riorob (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra-Supremium Megatron-Softy Keep -- With sugar on top! - Serisouly, though. This is a keep. There is a disproportionate number of Jews who were awarded the prize, to the point where the Arab world speaks of it were a conspiracy. Last I heard, it were 22% of the nobel winners (maybe in certain categories) when Jews consist of approximately 0.2% of the global population. I think brewcrewer and others iterated a similar point -- this subject is very noteworthy and anyone who reads material on it would be interested in checking out a list of Jewish winners -- this is why wikipedia was created -- to share knowledge between people. Several editors expressed concern regarding disruptive conduct, but we have those in many articles relating to Jewish people (see Jerusalem diff) and we can handle such issues without wiping out public-interest encyclopaedic content. Keep. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
> this subject is very noteworthy and anyone who reads material on it would be interested in checking out a list of Jewish winners
There isn't going to be anybody curious about this because there is no material on it. I don't know how many times this can be stressed. I feel like a broken record. Not a single one of the provided secondary sources in this article academically probes the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize. Over half are vanity publications and the others spend less than two paragraphs remarking on Jewish overrepresentation in fields of academia. The one, only, singular source that briefly STUDIES the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize is Charles Murray's sociology article. This is not Charles Murray's wikipedia. If it were, we would also need to create List of black criminals as there's plenty of research of his that considers that too. Bulldog123 14:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
>22% of the nobel winners (maybe in certain categories) when Jews consist of approximately 0.2% of the global population
It's a nice statistic, but it's also synthesis of unrelated information - 100% of the world population is not in the field of chemistry/physics/medicine/or literature and 100% of the world population is not eligible to be awarded the Nobel Prize even if they were. A statistic worth mentioning might be the population of eligible academics in Nobel committee approved institutions versus Nobel Prize winners. Which, given the Jewish faculty at places like UPenn, is probably not going to be overrepresented by much - if at all. The question of WHY Jews are overrepresented in eligible faculties is something of encyclopedic value (environmental? genetic? divine?), but this list is not. Bulldog123 15:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Richard Feynman. His statement is a brilliant explanation of why this list is irrelevant. Unless someone can show in what way this intersection is notable, then this article has no purpose. Even if criteria were not being stretched, and the list abused (which some comments above suggest is happening), it would be unnecessary. I would take the same position regarding most of the lists above suggested either as positive or negative examples; though the List of Jewish anarchists mentioned by Jayjg may indeed (I haven't yet looked at it) reflect something more that ethnic knee-jerk listing. RolandR (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I suggest you reread Feynman's letter? Feynman isn't saying such lists are intrinsically bad. He's objecting to the fact that the list which included him was part of an attempt to push certain views claiming that the proportion of Jews with Nobel prizes was due to inherited traits. That's a very different claim. Feynman is objecting to that. Nothing in in his argument objects to such lists as such. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per RolandR, aside for Richard Feynman statement that overall is only one view (not necessarily a valid one) but I consider witty (yet wrong) by itself-all other reasons Roland counted actually sharpened why I should vote opposite than him. It's an encyclopedia and not a memorial site which follows desist people last willing.--Gilisa (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand you haven't provided a single reason detailing how this list is of encyclopedic value -- which is what the argument is. The argument is not "Delete this list because Feynman wouldn't like it." Bulldog123 14:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titanium keep per Plot Spoiler, and actually per RolandR and Richard Freyman who is merely in denial, but that is his right. 'Jews' are a people. The religion is the traditions of this people. It is notable to show the disproportionate number not to prove they are better (certainly not to compare with some 'Aryan' people claims though they make good cars and their economy is one of the few that have export surplus), but in fact the importance of education is important to the Jewish people. --Shuki (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shuki, could we please stay on topic? Whether Jews are a people or a religion or a culture or a group of aliens is not relevant to whether the article should be included. And if you are going to make nasty remarks about one of the most brilliant humans in the last century, the least you could do is spell his name correctly. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, there can be no serious doubt about the notability of this topic, instead the nomination appears to come from the difficulty some people are having with categorization -- and indeed the difficulties others are having in understanding anything much about Jews. I'm finding it tiresome to continually encounter this business: "oh, it's just too much of a hassle, let's just nuke it". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "the difficulty some people are having with categorization" is exactly the point. Some people (including Feynman) think that dividing people into arbitrary categories on the basis of supposed 'ethnic' or 'religious' roots, rather than on what the people themselves consider appropriate, has a long and ugly history, and is not anything that Wikipedia should chose to engage in for the convenience of those who wish to compile lists. As for the comment about "others" having difficulties "understanding anything much about Jews" I'd ask exactly how you know which "others" are and are not Jewish themselves? Not that this is of the slightest consequence regarding the topic under discussion - it seems instead to be a mere insinuation of ulterior motives, and has no place on a Wikipedia talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Another who would agree with Feynman is Andre Geim. Here was response to an Israeli interviewer: "As for his decision to come to Israel, he said, 'My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish, so I identify with you. Nonetheless, I don’t divide the world by religions or countries, but by stupid people and slightly less stupid people, and I hope that I am numbered among the second group. Israel has several cultural characteristics which result in an especially high proportion of the less stupid people.'"betsythedevine (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your biases are interfering with your interpretation. (by that I do not mean at all to imply anti-semitism) You cannot know that Geim would have agreed with Feynman based on that comment alone. Geim even contradicts himself in the final sentence by saying Israel has "less stupid people." If we were to follow this statement with Wikipedia action, we would have no articles on countries (except Israel?) or religions. Just long lists of stupid people and not-so-stupid people. KantElope (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the supporters above and Raphael Patai, who says: "While it would be giving too much credit to the Nobel Prize Committee to assume that, in selecting the recipients of the prizes, it infallibly comes up each time with a man of genius, there can be no doubt that in general the laureates are men of extraordinary accomplishments....In any case, the Nobel Prize winners constitute what is unquestionabley the most elite group among men of unsual intellecutal achievement. Hence there is at present no better yardstick for measuring Jewish intellectual preeminence that the record of Jews among the laureates. from The Jewish mind by Raphael Patai Wayne State University Press 1996 [8] If someone wishes to be excluded from this list for reasons such as Feynmen has iterated, we can either respect that and leave it out or we can make a clear note that a person wishes to opt out.KantElope (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment'Sadly, I'd not suggest that Raphael Patai can be taken as a neutral or reliable source on this question. Particularly given the way his book 'The Arab Mind' has be subject to criticism for its negative portrayal of Arabs, and for its use as a NeoCon guide to methods of repression in the Middle East. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I have not read his book about the Arab Mind so I cannot discuss that one way or the other. On the other hand, Googling in Google Books for "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" brings up 380 results that use just those words to describe certain Nobel Prize winners. As far as I know, none of the authors has been sued by anyone for mistakenly id-ing them. As I said earlier, if someone should object that they are mistakenly id'ed as "Jewish," that could be easily fixed. KantElope (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Raphael Patai was a respected scholar, and author of dozens of respected works; please stick to relevant discussion of the policies and this article. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question why do we have a list on Jewish Nobel laureates but none on the American laureates? That list is less controversial and better defined, and is more notable because it contains about 1/3 of all nominees. Also, UK, Germany, and a few others are comparable in size to this list and they do not exist. Nergaal (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I think it would be great to have an article on American laureates, also UK, Germany etc. Of course this is no reason to delete this one.KantElope (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's what really astounds me about this AfD. I've been trying to deal with the issue of Jewish lists and categories literally for years, trying to ensure that the non-notable intersections are deleted, or if kept, that policy is adhered to, and non-cited items and BLP violations are removed. I've spent tens of hours mostly deleting names from them or, failing that, at least trying to cite them. It has been a thankless task; I've met with huge opposition every step of the way, and have at times even ended up at AN/I over this issue. Yet now, because a small number of people want to set up special rules to exclude a specific individual (Andre Geim) from one list, they devote huge amounts of effort and mostly spurious non-policy-related argumentation to that end. Wikipedia has hundreds of Jew lists and categories, and thousands of articles in the Jew categories, and they're mostly garbage. Where were you all when people were idiotically adding James Franco and a hundred other people to categories like Category:Sephardi Jews or Category:Russian American Jews [9][10]? When people were trying to add hundreds of unsourced or improperly sourced names to lists like List of Jewish actors or List of Jewish American businesspeople?[11][12][13][14][15]? Where are you all now, when you actually have a chance to get rid of some of the worst of these lists, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers? Sorry to have to be so blunt, but based on their actions so far, it's pretty clear that very few of those actually voting "delete" here really care about overall policy or systemic BLP issues raised by these lists and categories. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing at all. I'm here now, and I'm working on the issue I consider of most significance. I was unaware that other contributors could tell me where I should be working. Perhaps you'd like to indicate which policy entitles you to do this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this now seems to have degenerated into a name-calling session:

Can I point out once again that even if a decision to 'keep' is made, inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. Policy cannot be overridden for an article 'by consensus'. I fully intend to ensure that this policy is kept to, and may choose delete any contraventions immediately. If people wish to see Wikipedia policy on this matter changed, this isn't the place to do it.

(And in response to anyone asking why I'd do this here, and not elsewhere, I can only say that (a) I'm not the only person responsible for ensuring policy is adhered to, and (b) The level of debate here shows the need for particular attention. Frankly, I've got other subjects I'd rather be looking into). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Andy, you are the only person who seems to think that a list of this sort would by nature violate BLP to include living people. And no one (including me) seems to understand what your logic for this would be. I'm incidentally curious if you think that including Robert Aumann on such a list would be a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is quite simple, really. Robert Aumann is a notable person because he has won a Nobel Prize. This notability, combined with his self-identification as Jewish (I assume he does) makes him eligible for a list of 'Notable Jewish people'. He is also eligible for inclusion on a list of 'Nobel Prize laureates', as this confers automatic notability. There is nothing whatsoever inherently notable linking his being Jewish with winning a Nobel prize in Economics. The list is an arbitrary intersection between a (vaguely-defined) ethnicity and a list of prizewinners. There is nothing to support the suggestion that the intersection itself is of any note: it is instead a synthesis created by those who wish to create the list. I'd sggest that people actually read what policy states, rather than assuming you can cherry-pick through it to suit a particular purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that people should actually read what policy says rather than cherry-pick to suit a particular purpose. I doubt you'd find anyone who disagrees with that bit of rhetoric. So what part of policy are you using to assert that any such list would violate BLP? (Hint by the way, there's a specific reason I choose Aumann as an example...) JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd suggest you take a look at what WP:LISTPEOPLE says. As I've already illustrated here with an hypothetical example. A List of Albanians is ok because the criteria are 'Albanian' and 'Notable': the list can include all 'notable Albanians': no Albanian can be excluded for any reason other than non-notability, which is the normal Wikipedia standard for rejecting anything. That is really all it says on the subject. A List of Albanian Nobel laureates on the other hand is (taking as read that winning a Nobel Prize is notable) a synthesis - the intersection of Albanians and Nobel laureates: there is nothing notable about the intersection (or if there is, strong WP:RS will be needed to show this notability, e.g. that it is discussed in a meaningful manner in appropriate texts as an intersection with an explanation for why this intersection is itself notable). Now possibly there is something notable in itself that links Aumann's ethnicity with his Nobel Prize, but if so the notability is his and not a general attribute of Jewish Nobel laureates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Andy, please reread what LISTPEOPLE says, and then apply your analysis to Robert Aumann. Since you aren't getting the point: Aumann is an example (one of quite a few) where his notability as a religious Jew is in some ways connected to his work in probability and related issues. If you want a more blunt example, Yitzhak Rabin's Nobel Prize was deeply connected to his being an Israeli Jew. So at minimum, your claim that any inclusion of living people would somehow violate BLP or LISTPEOPLE is wrong. In any event, if you are trying to (erroneously) claim there's a LISTPEOPLE violation and are not trying to claim there's a BLP violation, then the overall claim you are making is much weaker, precisely because BLP is a much more serious issue than LISTPEOPLE. Moreover, as has already been explained this specific intersection is noteworthy rather than an arbitrary intersection because the unusually large nature of the intersection has been remarked upon in reliable sources. Thus, we now seem to be in a position where you are agreeing that there's no BLP issue, just a possible LISTPEOPLE issue, and even that argument seems quite weak. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:LISTPEOPLE says that "Lists of people must follow Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people": BLP includes lists of living people by definition.
As for whether Aumann's "notability as a religious Jew is in some ways connected to his work in probability and related issues", I'd say that is for you to provide a neutral WP:RS for. Even if it is true, it will apply to him, his work, and his prize. It is on no significance to anyone else on a list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Andy, you may want to work on your reading comprehension. Or your logic skills. Or some combination thereof. Of course lists have to follow BLP. But you seem to be trying to argue that that somehow that means that any LISTPEOPLE issue is a BLP issue. That's not what the quoted sentence says. As to the Aumann thing, it is actually in his article if you read it. A major reason his opinion on the so-called Bible codes is that he's a religious Jew who had a Nobel prize in math related issues and thus people care about his opinion. And of course Aumann's specific situation doesn't impact whether others should be on the list. The reason why Aumann is relevant is because you claimed that such a list couldn't have any living people on it for BLP reasons. Aumann is simply one of the most interesting and blatant examples of how that claim has no basis in policy or reality. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Firstly, see WP:NPA. Secondly, WP:LISTPEOPLE states that for living people, BLP principles apply - which in this case comes down to the provisions in WP:EGRS. As for your final point, I'd say this is totally irrelevant to the topic under debate. Aumann's views on matters of religion may be regarded more highly because he has a Nobel laureate, but he didn't win the Prize because of anything related to his ethnicity, and that is supposed to be the reason he is on the list. Of course, if my claim "has no basis in policy or reality" then any attempt on my part to remove somebody from the list on the basis that their inclusion violates WP:EGRS will fail. I'd almost be tempted to try Aumann as a test case if I wasn't convinced that this list will have to be deleted anyway, as the case for it breaching policy is so strong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You don't mean NPA. You presumably mean CIVIL. Saying someone is failing to logically apply or read policy isn't NPA. It is just a fact. If someone said someone was an idiot that would be an NPA. In any event, at this point you are just repeating yourself. So I'll simply note that EGRS is not a subpolicy of BLP but a guideline. This seems about representative of the many issues with your above comment (another noteworthy one is not understanding the point about Aumann. The point there is not what he won the Nobel for. It is subsequent events related to his Nobel and other things he has done and been asked to do.) At this point, it doesn't seem that any further attempt to convince you is likely to go anywhere. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Frankly, having to nit-pick over the difference between a policy and a guideline (and between NPA and CIVIL) to support a list has got to be indicative of a weak argument. Guidelines are supposed to be followed with "occasional exceptions" and I don't see any rational arguments so far for "exceptions" in this case - just assertions that rules shouldn't apply. Can you actually suggest any reason why the guideline shouldn't be followed? And as for Aumann, 'other things he has done' afterwards are utterly irrelevant to his inclusion on the list, which is supposed by its own criteria to be of people who (a) are of Jewish ethnicity, and (b) have won a Nobel Laureate. If you are suggesting that Aumann only gets included because of additional criteria, can you tell us what these are? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • No. The difference between policy and guideline is critical here when the policy in question is BLP and the guideline is just a guideline. Interpretation of guidelines (again specific interpretation) is a very different claim than any claim that something follows from BLP which is one of the strongest policies in question. I don't see what you aren't getting about the Aumann issue. Aumann was used as an example for your claim that having any living people on such a list would run afoul of BLP. Do you not see why he is a counterexample to that claim and a variety of other claims you are making? Let's be explicit: Aumann is notable for his religious and ethnic heritage and his Nobel prize and much of the coverage of him in the last few years has been precisely in the context of him as someone so prominent to have a Nobel to have certain opinions about some issues related to his religious beliefs. This example is intended primarily as a counterexample to your claim that any inclusion of a living person on such a list would be a BLP violation. If you don't see how he's a counterexample then I'm not sure what to say. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Researching other lists on Wikipedia to see if there is some consistency or clarity to this argument. We have the following which include prominent scientists and writers who may or may not have won a Nobel Prize. These are by ethnicity and religion, excluding Jewish. There are doubtless dozens more. What makes those lists acceptable but this list not acceptable? What we have here is a list of outstanding Jewish contributers in various fields, as defined by the Nobel Prize society. Americans and Germans have won a lot of Nobel Prizes as well, and perhaps someone would want to create an article for that. Some of the Jewish winners would be on those lists as well. This can't be a BLP issue as there are a number of lists below that are religious and/or ethnic in nature.

I just cannot see what all the fuss is about, about this particular article! The German article even has a list of German saints. Where is the list of Jewish saints? KantElope (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the fuss isn't about this particular article. It is about this particular type of article: a synthetic intersection. I suspect there may well be examples of similarly-flawed lists amongst the examples you give, but in any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a valid argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering almost everything you listed is either a nationality or a religious group, I don't see your point. Bulldog123 21:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Nationality and ethnicity are not the same. There is a list of notable Israelis, and that's fine. (Notable as defined in Wiki, and Israeli as per the people's citizenship.) In any case, why are none of the "keep" editors refuting the policy issues stated? An AfD is not about the number of votes, but the quality of the arguments.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, not. Wikipedia's article on Jews defines them in the very first line as "The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎ Yehudim [jɛhuːdiːm]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East." If you disagree with that assumption, you should work on changing the Wikipedia definition first. The articles above are about nations, religions, ethnicities, that are found throughout the globe, just like Jews. (with the exception of the Arab-American article, by definition only those Arabs found in America) KantElope (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said nationality, not nation. From Nationality:"Nationality is membership of a nation or sovereign state." I was referring to the citizenship aspect. As in, List of Italians being people who are notable and have/had Italian citizenship. This is because there is no discussion (you're either an Italian citizen or you're not, you can't be half.) That is why religious, and ethnic lists need to go.
Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a premature question. It should be asked after DR is closed, and if the article is kept.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course Feynman is on the list. Are you imagining that if this list is kept, the same editors will not continue to watch it and to control the rules of consensus on its talk page? Editors whose attitude is that Feynman "is in denial" or that anybody who has been described as "Jewish" belongs on the list but that this rule of the list need never be made public in the lede? Editors who regard it as "troubling" that anybody objects to the list's changing its rules to absorb a new laureate who says he's 1/8 Jewish and has a name that sounds Jewish? Editors who consider the article exempt from WP:BLPCAT, WP:EGRS, and WP:LISTPEOPLE? Why on earth would they care what Feynman thinks? betsythedevine (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a real problem with the list inclusion and there may be people acting based on biases but the Feynman letter is making a much more narrow comment than it is being used for here. He's objecting to being on a specific list being used for a specific end at a specific time. Not the issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So Feynman's lengthy criticism of a list of Jewish Nobel laureates is no reason to think he might object to this list? Another great sample of this kind of reasoning: If Geim tells an Israeli interviewer that he has one Jewish great-grandmother, that is no reason to think he is ethnically 1/8 Jewish--he did not specifically state that his other 7 great-grandparents weren't Jewish and besides, if his mother's mother is Jewish then so is she, and if his mother is Jewish then so is he. betsythedevine (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a problem, because per WP:LSC one should come up with a criteria beforehand. The criteria here seem to be inclusion in "Jewish Nobel Prize Winners", The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia, Schreiber Publishing, because it's by far the most widely used source. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list had explicit inclusion criteria that appeared to have consensus until they were removed in this edit a month ago. Further discussions about this on the talk page did not reach consensus. --Avenue (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERCRAPEXISTS comment:

Apparently being a Jewish entertainer is horrible, but being a Jewish or Chirsitian scientist is okay, unless you're a Nobel laureate or FRS. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, there is a great deal of evidence that in regard to lists, Wikipedia policy and guidelines are being inconsistently applied. Frankly, it's a mess, which can lead to some real horrors going unnoticed. This is no reason to carry on with inconsistency though, and this article is more visible than the horrors. We're here, and we need to start somewhere. I suspect that this is becoming something of a test case (not that in theory Wikipedia has such things), and will help sort out the criteria for getting the mess fixed - as I've said before, that is why this matters to me. If the result of all this is that it is decided that 'a list of anyone we feel like making a list of' can include 'anyone who might vaguely fit in', then at least we've arrived at a policy. I'd prefer lists of people to be based on criteria not arrived at via a particular POV, or at the whim of the list compiler. I think that Feynman was saying the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the books in the "Further reading" section lead me to believe that the notability guideline is met for an article on the subject. The ratio of Jewish winners has been discussed often enough. The lead here is a fine base and if the list is too long for the available prose then it should be a list with Jewish Nobel laureates as its blue link.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of policies and guidelines as others have noted above. It's past time to do something about such lists and categories. I do like the point about the obvious problem if we added a column on religion to our main list. Oh, and per Feynman. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is clearly notable; there are some nontrivial categorization issues, but they are solvable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A notable subject, well written list and per user:JoshuaZ. Broccoli (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability rules from WP:SPIP: " The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." If one sets aside works whose focus is to celebrate Jewish achievement, and books that simply list some Jewish laureates, you find little discussion of the topic aside from the thoughtful comments of Harriet Zuckerman. I'd like to see better support of notability in some of the Keep !votes this AfD is getting. betsythedevine (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...the thoughtful comments of Harriet Zuckerman". Indeed. I'd suggest that anyone supporting the retention of this list should first read Zuckerman, and then perhaps reconsider their position. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see more discussion of how a prose article on the topic fits in. Much of the claims to notability and topic coverage suggest that, and not a list. This also neatly avoids the problem of trying to characterise every Nobel laureate according to their Jewishness. A prose article would only cover laureates where reliable sources have discussed their Jewishness specifically in relation to the Prize (not merely mentioning X is Jewish and won a prize). Rd232 talk 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you, Rd232, do understand that after you wrongly speedy deleted the article last night, and after you prevented me closing the post at an/i, which I consider to be trolling, and now after that comment you should not be the one to close that DR, don't you?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? what is this "DR" you keep talking about? I can't stop you thinking that The Moon is made of green cheese or that action X is "trolling" (a misuse of the term, but I get the gist), but I can't help pointing out that constantly repeating the claim looks like, well, actual trolling. As to your substantive point, I don't normally close AFDs and wouldn't dream of closing as contentious a one as this, absent a Speedy Delete G4. Besides which I've now participated in the AFD - what sort of admin do you think I am? (Wait, don't answer that.) Rd232 talk 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorise: I think this sort of intersection is more suited for categories: lists should be used for where a characteristic is essential to the understanding to its members (so Russell T Davies should be on a list of LGBT screenwriters, but Phil Collinson shouldn't be on a list of LGBT producers, despite the fact they're both gay). With categories, there's a bit more leniency, so Collinson could be in a category of gay actors (and he is). Also, there are ethical concerns due to the fact that the Jewish identity is more complicated than other ethnicities or religions. For example, Feynman was Jewish by matrilineal descent, but did not consider himself to be a Jew (and asked to be removed from a compilation of Jewish Nobel laureates), and vice-versa, other people (I personally know one) are quite comfortable being Jewish and atheist. Same for Geim, who is ethnically Jewish, but we use seven citations in this list, indicating that the "fact" of his Jewishness is not as concrete as first thought. As Geim is alive (and the most recent Physics laureate), this is a BLP problem too. However, I think the section about Jews being forced to decline should be woven into the Nobel Prize article. Sceptre (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those seven "citations" included one non-link, whose contents nobody can check, and three articles that did not say Geim was Jewish. I whittled that list down to 3 items, due to misunderstandings like this one that those 7 "references" were 7 independent bits of evidence Geim is Jewish. Nor are the remaining 3 at all impressive as "evidence." I also do not think Wikipedia should support the claim that Geim is "ethnically" Jewish because his mother is one-half or one-quarter Jewish. The matrilineal-Jewish-determination theory is a religious theory that has nothing to do with the modern understanding of genetics and ethnicity. betsythedevine (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

[edit]

I'd like to see more discussion of how a prose article on the topic fits in. Much of the claims to notability and topic coverage suggest that, and not a list. This also neatly avoids the problem of trying to characterise every Nobel laureate according to their Jewishness. A prose article would only cover laureates where reliable sources have discussed their Jewishness specifically in relation to the Prize (not merely mentioning X is Jewish and won a prize). Rd232 talk 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just commented elsewhere, I think that perhaps what is needed is a single general article discussing the relationship between ethnicity and the award of Nobel laureates. This will need proper WP:RS of course to justify (e.g. the topic being discussed elsewhere in a meaningful way), but might overcome most of the difficulties with categorisation. As to whether additional articles are merited for individual 'ethnicities', I think each case would need considering on its own merits. Regarding the Jewish example, I'd say that Harriet Zuckerman's treatment of the question, taken with the opposing viewpoint, would provide sufficient justification for an article, subject to it not then being used to in turn recreate a list based on dubious criteria and a 'flexible' approach to BLP considerations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe this is the best option. There are sources that can be used in the further reading section. The list can be removed while the lead is turned into a stub. One thing to keep in mind is that the list could be recreated since we would have a valid blue linked article.Cptnono (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck maintaining an article with absolutely nothing to say. Bulldog123 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the further reading section. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like this one.[17] It is brought up often enough and we even already have a source that is apparent from simply skimming the title of the chapter. And anything for dummies is alwas fun to point to on Wikipedia, IMO.[18]Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you've read both and you see that both readings (especially the latter) consist of utterly contentless self-aggrandizing coffee table book vanity that would never hold up in serious academia. Patai spends the entire section number-crunching all kinds of Jewish statistics, providing literally nothing but charts and percentage signs and has this weirdly starry-eyed (and very much opinionated) tone about it all. I especially love how Comparative Religion for Dummies is written for children and maintains this creepily dogmatic tone with baseless and sourceless remarks like "The three greatest men thinkers who had the greatest impact worldwide in the last 150 years were all Jewish." Bulldog123 01:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey now, I just skimmed them as well. But it is obvious from those and other sources available that it is a notable er... phenomena(?). The two provided I feel meet RWP:RELIABLE. One of them is from an academic publisher even. But if you want more sources I would be happy to start seeing what is all out there if turning this into an article is actually something editors are willing to consider.Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the list could be recreated". Nope. The list as it stands violates policy (and common sense). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the standards for lists since it is spelled out clearly enough. I'm not saying it should happen just that it would be inline with the guideline if someone wanted to do it.Cptnono (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, you clearly aren't concerned about policy here, since you've adamantly avoided commenting on the actually non-policy compliant Jewish list AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors‎‎, and List of Jewish American cartoonists. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And off with the insinuations we go again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't insinuated anything. Do you claim your concern here is policy violation? Yes. Have you !voted on other current AfDs for actual policy-violating Jewish lists? No. Therefore, your concern cannot be what you claim it to be. Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've stopped insinuating and instead resorted to making direct personal attacks now. Fortunately, the flaw in your logic is so obvious that I doubt anyone will take you seriously. I suggest you look the word 'therefore' up in a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot "stop" doing something one has never done in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Jayjg. The mere fact that you make these comments here, shows that your main goal for those AfDs was to criticize users that oppose your views. That shows you are not really concerned with the issues those articles have, and are using AfDs to prove a point. I suggest you refrain from that activity.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Therexbanner, my main goal for these AfDs is to ensure that we address a systemic problem, as I made quite clear in my "Comment" of 18:22, 26 November 2010 above. I've been trying to deal with these non-notable, BLP/NOR/V violating lists and categories for over five years now, with little or no assistance, and often a great deal of active opposition. So what happens here? Two or three editors get bees in their bonnets because Andre Geim is added to the List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and other editors object to his being removed, so they try to get the whole list deleted. But what are they doing about the hundreds of other Jew lists and categories on Wikipedia? Well, even when there are currently four other on-going AfDs for other Jew lists, they deliberately choose not to get involved. I care about policy; I've been trying to deal with this issue for over five years. On the other hand, they only care about the fact that the don't want Andre Geim to be on this list, and all the fancy words in the world can't disguise that. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, your "two or three editors get bees in their bonnets" comment makes it seem like those who object to Andre Geim's inclusion are in the minority... even though that's completely false. Bulldog123 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that more than two or three editors don't want Geim on the list, but it's really those two or three vocal ones who pushed this AfD, are all over it, and really just care about ensuring that Geim is not listed as a Jewish Nobel laureate, nothing more. I exclude you from that, of course, you've been concerned about the broader issue for years, and I recognize that. But it's really outrageous to hear them complain that my motivation has anything to do with this—frankly minor—issue of whether or not Geim is listed as Jewish or not. Here's what I said, for example, in November 28 2005, five years ago to the day, one of many similar comments before and since. I'm saying the exact same thing today. My position has been consistent, and my actions have been broad. I'm not here just to get one name on or off one list. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg stop and think about what you are saying. Read what I've actually written about why I'm involved with this thread. Check my Wikipedia contributions if you like. Then come back and explain how you can tell what my motivations are, based on the fact that I choose not to be ordered around by people who seem to think that not participating in debates five years ago is something to hold against someone who has only been contributing to Wikipedia for a few months? You are making a fool of yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors‎‎, and List of Jewish American cartoonists, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish heavy metal musicians are all happening right now, not five years ago. Want to prove that for you it's not all about whether or not Geim is listed as a Jew? Then put your money where your mouth is. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, I have looked at your contributions. It is one sad sight.Please stop screaming at other editors, who BTW do make real contributions. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Zilch. Nought. Nothing. Nada. No new articles. I prefer to wait until I can actually contribute something useful, though if you like I'll make a list of notable One-legged Rastafarian Slalom Skiers. Personally, I think my time is better spent sorting out the mess that others create, at least until I've got proper references etc. In case you didn't notice, Jayjg was suggesting I had an agenda: I suggested he looked at my editing history to see if he could find it. I'm sure you could find one, but not the one he thinks is there. I was going to offer to actually take a look at the AfDs Jayjg suggested, but now I'm having to deal with a tag-team, I'm not sure this would be wise. Now how about getting back on topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)
Indeed. When there is swill created such as this, someone needs to be around to make sure that it is taken care of. Tarc (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to over 100 Featured Pictures, Mbz1 has three articles on the Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#All-time DYK page view leaders. Who else here can make similarly impressive claims? Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and here's her latest DYK: King Philip shipwreck. 8,200 views, pretty impressive. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::::::Didn't you know, Jay, tarc could make more impressive claims. Not only he called me out on wikipedia review, but he also called me out on his own talk page. Of course he shot up last night, when I asked him what else besides "calling people out" he's done on wikipedia. Sadly one day most content contributors will quit because they will get tired of tarcs--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason I'm missing that nobody is slapping you with a WP:NPA link yet? Bulldog123 03:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get back on track or do we need another subsection. An alternate proposal to deletion has been raised. I believe that there are sources available to create an actual article that meets notability requirements. In this list alone, the following sources look promising if someone wants to try it: [19][20][21][22][23][24].Cptnono (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article needs to meet NPOV requirements too: don't forget Harriet Zuckerman's "Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States" (cited in the article 'Further reading' section). And please don't try to convince yourselves that the existence of an article on a subject automatically justifies the creation of a complete list of everything you think is covered by the article. It doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, do your best, and see how far you get. Off topic, but... am I the only one that noticed Willem Einthoven is incorrectly listed as Jewish here? Bulldog123 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but does he fail the 'Jewish until proven otherwise' test? Back on topic, have any of the 'keep' faction actually read Zuckerman? I'd take them more seriously if they did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that have any bearing on the proposal by Rd232?Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Zuckerman have any bearing on an article on the relationship between Jewish ethnicity and the Nobel Prize? Er, yes... AndyTheGrump (talk)
The topic at hand is the deletion (or not) of this list. I don't think deleting this list would require or rule out creating an article on the topic, or adding a section to Ashkenazi intelligence that would cite any research done on the topic. Most of the writing about Jewish Nobel laureates basically points out the statistical anomaly and offers untestable hypothetical explanations based on Jewish history, Jewish culture, or evolutionary genetics to explain it. And I await with interest any scientific or other work on achievement by people who are "Jewish" because some magazine writer called them Jewish, which is the criterion for inclusion in the current list. My guess is that their achievement will be even higher than those of people with much more significant Jewish heritage, because only the top achievers will be sought out with such avidity for inclusion. betsythedevine (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the list is the deletion discussion. So if someone wants to create the page then I would vote "merge" for it. And the source provided show notability regardless of the reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, only problem is, there are like 6 or 7 Sephardic Nobel Prize winners. Bulldog123 06:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

[edit]

My final comment. I've been trying to deal with this problem for over 5 years now. There are dozens of Jewish lists (and hundreds of other similar ethnicity-based ones), and they're simply not covered by WP:EGRS or WP:BLPCAT. Believe me, I know this from not just the plain meaning and wording of the policies/guidelines, but from many, many AfDs. There is a much bigger issue here than just this one list. There are four similar AfDs going on right now, with much less attention and interest, and very little in policy to cover them. Please try to deal with the systemic issues here. I've said my piece more than enough times, and I don't plan to comment here again. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of which may well be true. I feel the same way about "systemic issues" too, but don't see 'Jewishness' as being a locus. The problem is more about categorisation of people in general. The answer is quite simple: stop doing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read so much speculation here about people's hypothetically unworthy motives for wanting to delete this list, with list-proponents delving into and critiquing other people's contribution histories, I followed a link from this page to an AfD of a different article, now deleted, authored as this one was by Mbz1. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Wagner's_first_love got "Keep" !votes from its author Mbz1, and also from Jayjg, Brewcrewer, Epeefleche, and Shuki. In fact, those were the article's only Keep !Votes. And here on this discussion, you can also see Mbz1, Jayjg, Brewcrewer, Epeefleche, and Shuki leading the fight against this list's deletion. betsythedevine (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly true. Possibly hilarious. But not actually relevant Betsy (can I call you Betsy?). Since as far as I'm aware Richard_Wagner wasn't Jewish(!) and never won a Nobel Prize, this is once again off-topic. If indeed there actually is a topic here any more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, [25]. [sarcasm] You see... there is no such thing as a successful person who works with Jews but who himself isn't Jewish in some form. There's also no such thing as an anti-semite who isn't secretly Jewish too. Or so that seems to be the crux of most arguments on wikipedia for the last four years. Especially on Adolf Hitler, Richard Wagner, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Alexander Kerensky, etc... [/sarcasm] Bulldog123 05:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Betsy make such a gross misstatement about me, I wonder?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What gross misstatement? Bulldog123 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was this not your !Vote concerning Mbz1's article based on an article from a turn of the century Jewish family magazine about Richard Wagner's Jewish girlfriend when he was 13 years old: "Keep. Notable topic, as evidenced by RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)" betsythedevine (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't really be that hard to find, can it? I mean, Betsy only made two statements about me in toto. One was a gross misstatement. I can't for the life of me imagine why she made it, and why Bulldog can't see it either. The depths to which this discussion has sunken, with editors making wholly unfounded loud accusations about others as Betsy about me, and others -- as Bulldog -- turning Nelson's eye towards them, are disturbing. I'm not sure what is driving this lack of care in accusations and the like. But would urge editors, when making inflammatory accusations about others, to hue somewhat more closely to the facts.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche, my memory misled me. You have been an active debater on Andre Geim and List of Jewish Nobel laureates but my memory misled me when I stated that you had been active in this debate. I apologize for that error and I will redact your name from that part of the list. betsythedevine (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, what? Secondly, why have you not given your two cents in this Afd yet? Are you going to act now (for the first time in years) that Jewish AfDs do not concern you? I want to hear your rational explanation for continually maneuvering this list onto Geim's See Also section. Bulldog123 05:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Betsy--Thank you. @Bull--I find your entry to be largely incomprehensible. The part that I do find comprehensible appears to be irrelevant.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously folks, are there any rational(ish) arguments left now, or has sanity left the building? I'm tempted to suggest that all remotely on-topic arguments have been made, and those responsible must inspect the entrails of this AfD, and then tell us what the Gods are saying. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for responding in kind, however briefly, to the varied claims here about people's motivation. Really, the only topic under discussion here should be whether or not one particular Wikipedia article is deleted. betsythedevine (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being snide? You have already wrecked this discussion pretty well. Haven't you made enough derailing comments already? You should probably knock it off unles you are trying to be disruptive. I actually started reading the Zuckerman source (one that was in the list I originally pointed to) and it looks alright.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shows how serious you were about that article if you consider it "snide" that I expect you to actually make it with those ridiculous secondary sources you presented. Which is my point, really. Bulldog123 06:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a suggestion here? If everyone just assumes the insinuations of prejudice have been sent, received, and responded to in kind, and just posts the afterthoughts of relevance, we might actually get somewhere. Not that it matters to me, even insomnia can only keep me awake for so long. G'night all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you liked the Zuckerman source? Anyways, would you mind going to sleep if it is impacting your ability to use this page appropriately?Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been through this exact same AfD twice before. I've searched the internet for legitimate encyclopedic information on it for hours and hours. Always came back empty-handed. I repeat that point over and over throughout this Afd, yet there's always someone who comes back with the same sources I've seen a million times and thinks they've done some great service. Sorry, it gives me migraines. So forgive me if I expect you to write the article now. Bulldog123 06:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because this list is a magnet for WP:POV-pushing, because it's been recreated, despite having been deleted once already, and because its' original AfDs (the very first ones) were plagued by sockpuppet votes and canvassing. Bulldog123 07:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nomination is based on flawed WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST arguments (no articles on lists of other faiths). I also don't see any reference to policy that you cannot have both a list article and a category. Yonideworst (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your opinion, but I would like to clarify something. The nomination is not based on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is the argument used by several "keep" users who claim that since other lists (like the List of Germans) exist, so should this one. The list violates WP:EGRS (which deals with categorization, not wiki-categories, I hope you all know the difference) by categorizing (verb) people as members of an ethnoreligious group whose notable activities (mainly science) are not related to their ethnicity/religion. It also violates BLP, and is generally unencyclopedic (esp. vanity).--Therexbanner (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional points from policy directed specifically towards Lists:
"When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself:
If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?"
"Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?" So let me ask you (example), if Albert Einstein wasn't Jewish, would that reduce his fame or significance? Is Albert Einstein a canonical example of some facet of Jewish people?
What a silly question!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1, what 'facet of Jewish people' is Einstein an example of specifically? He was Jewish (by self-attributed ethnicity: his religious beliefs are less easy to categorise). And he is clearly notable. But would he have been in any way less notable if he hadn't been Jewish? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His Jewishness was notable in his persecution and escape from Germany in 1933, as it was for 14 other Nobel laureates. It was also notable in the fields of German Science in the 1930s and 40s which set out to discredit his findings because of his Jewishness. If he had not been Jewish he would still have been notable for the most significant finds of his life but work from 1930 onwards may have developed differently and led to greater or lower notability. The important thing is that his Jewishness changed his life and destiny from that period onwards. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a great response, Stuart! Jews are different people, and not because they are chosen people, but because their history is very special and unique. They have lived between different people, they have been persecuted and expelled, they have always fought for their very survival. All that history could be responsible for so many Jews being great scientists, writers, poets. If there were no Jewish diaspora maybe Jews would have been no different from all other people and maybe we would not have talked about Ashkenazi intelligence and overwhelming number of Jewish Nobel prize laureates.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty close to original research. Moreover, the idea that Jews are somehow unique in their history is deeply problematic as an argument for making a list of this sort. It assumes one of the deeply controversial ideas that such lists are apparently often assembled to show. Incidentally, there are other historical groups which have been exiled and/or persecuted. Arguments of this sort should probably be avoided when discussing this list. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It of course was not an argument for keeping the list, and I stated my personal opinion, original research, if you wish. I simply tried to respond the question about Einstein I was asked above to the best of my understanding of the the issue.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists --Therexbanner (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't even bother convincing Alansohn of anything. This user !votes "keep" on any list with the word "Jewish" in it (unless - perhaps - there's some negative connotation to it like "List of Jewish criminals"). Slap me with a WP:CIVIL if you like, but you have proven your motivations questionable pretty consistently over the history of these AfD debates. Bulldog123 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of Jews in science (or, broadly, Jews in any advanced sphere of life - politics, finance, literature...) is notable, and the subject of the list is well defined - Nobel winners, unlike ill-defined "inventors" or "polymaths", are a well-defined, finite set. Disclaimer: Yes, Epeefleche pinged me, so what? You may even brand me "pro-keeper", which I'm not but I won't mind being in the company of DGG and Co. East of Borschov 07:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4

[edit]

Let's review some of the policies and guidelines being cited. As list-supporters have pointed out above, a guideline is not a policy. Agreed -- one namespace template message defines a guideline as "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow though it is best treated with common sense and occasional exceptions may apply." The definition at the guidelines category: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus and should generally be followed, though with occasional exceptions." Those who would disregard a guideline should make a clear case for why that guideline is not a best practice in this particular case.

  • WP:BLPCAT is a part of the policy WP:BLP: "Categories, lists and navigation templates: Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Many list enthusiasts have noted that the label "Jewish" need not imply Jewish religion -- it could refer instead to ethnicity, culture, or public self-identification. Others say that similar claims could be made for many other religious designations, and should not exempt them from the clear mandate described here.
  • WP:LIST (guideline): "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list... In lists that involve living persons, the Biographies of living persons policy applies." The selection rule for List of Jewish Nobel laureates can be found in the talk page but has been edit-warred out of the article lede for a month.
  • WP:LSC is part of the guideline WP:Stand-alone lists: "Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. This section, not the page's name, defines the subject of the list. Ideally, the selection criteria will be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Again, the inclusion criterion for List of Jewish Nobel laureates which was summarily changed after Geim's October win, is that some WP:RS has called the person Jewish. But an explanation of that selection criterion was edit-warred out of the lede, and no public explanation of what list membership means is in the article lede.

WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality: "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest." This is a guideline for inclusion in categories. Why this clear statement should not apply also to a list based on ethnicity ... etc. is far from clear.

WP:OC#CATGRS: "Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." This is a guideline for inclusion in categories. Why this clear statement should not apply also to a list based on ethnicity ... etc. is far from clear.

The primary claim of those who would keep the list seems to be the guideline WP:Notability. I am not aware of any published research or other interest in the number of Nobel Prize winners who meet the only requirement for being put on this list -- having been described as Jewish, quite independent of the person's degree of religious belief, ethnic/genetic heritage, cultural experience, self-identification or any other criterion. betsythedevine (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do category based standards apply here?Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a better question would be, why should this particular list be exempt from category standards? Are not all members of this list being categorized here as unmodified-ly Jewish, without any disclaimer or modifier? Have not links to this list been used to "tag" member pages with "See also: List of Jewish Nobel laureates", putting forward a public claim just as does a category? Whatever the reasoning behind the efforts Wikipedia makes to honor the wishes and protect the privacy of people being categorized according to ethnicity or religion, why should our concern be less for people being listed by ethnicity or religion? betsythedevine (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"How do category based standards apply here?" See WP:BLPCAT, which explicitly states they do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Because lists have some prose which can clarify potentially contentious material with sources while this is severely limited in categories (cat page can have clarification but the bottom of articles do not).Cptnono (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that one policy did. That is stupid but it is in there so I can't argue against it.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unclear to me how far WP:BLPCAT does apply here. It does not apply to most lists, and only extends to lists that "are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation." Discussions on the policy talk page that might clarify things do not seem to be reaching a consensus. --Avenue (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to me to be a strong consensus developing there to include privacy rights for ethnicity in BLPCAT, and for lists as well: "These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on ethnicity, religious beliefs and sexual orientation..." betsythedevine (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote from WP:LISTPEOPLE misses a very relevant point: that it specifically exempts nationality/ethnicity based lists from notability relevance requirements.
Your characterisation of the current implicit inclusion criteria for the list is inaccurate, because the list does not include some people who have been described as Jewish but for which contradictory sources have been found: e.g. Pyotr Kapitsa. Call its removal edit-warring if you like. But please do not call people who disagree with you "list enthusiasts". I agree with you about the need for the list to describe its inclusion criteria. I also think that these should be reflect talk page consensus and that the list should follow the agreed criteria. --Avenue (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Jewish" can refer to religion, it has to be treated so per WP:BLP, which says to err on the side of caution with respect to living people: "do no harm", "when in doubt", etc. As long as the article uses an unqualified "Jewish" in its title, it needs to abide by WP:BLPCAT. It could be renamed to "List of Nobel laureates of Jewish descent" to avoid this, or we could simply choose to abide by the spirit of BLP and only include self-identifying subjects. Yworo (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I now generally agree with you. However if BLPCAT does apply, relevance of notability is also required, not just self-identification. --Avenue (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria and "contradictory sources": The initial inclusion criterion for List of Jewish Nobel laureates was apparently Shengold's Jewish Encyclopedia's list of Jewish Nobel laureates. The lack of neutrality and reliability there is strongly suggested by the fact that it includes Pyotr Kapitsa, Joseph Murray, and E Donnall Thomas, none of them Jewish. But Shengold is still the only source cited for most list members. And good luck getting somebody off List of Jewish Nobel laureates once any source is been found to put them on it -- now you need some WP:RS to state that the person is not Jewish. Have you ever seen any WP:RS stating that a public figure is NOT Jewish? By that test the Pope himself must be Jewish. But that is the test a "contradictory source" must meet to get someone off the list.

Talk page consensus is great when a page has many independent people watching it. But the local talk page consensus at List of Jewish Nobel laureates is that Shengold is a fine and reliable source. The consensus is that the list does not need to describe its new inclusion criteria publicly. The consensus is that somebody whose maternal great-grandmother is his only Jewish ancestor therefore has a mother who is Jewish--and this makes the 1/8 Jewish person Jewish. I don't think any of these local consensus beliefs is making Wikipedia the most accurate and WP:NPOV encyclopedia it can be. betsythedevine (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For several months Shengold was not the only source for most entries, so I think your "still the only source" comment is misleading. I agree the current situation is not good.
There does not seem to be a consensus that the list should not state its inclusion criteria. You and I have both argued that it should, and I don't think that issue is resolved.
If the "maternal great-grandmother" bit refers to Andre Geim, he has recently been removed from the list, so I think you are overstating the consensus there too. --Avenue (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply re Shengold as a source -- of 13 Nobel Laureates in literature, 11 cite Shengold only and 2 cite other references. Of the Chemistry laureates, a majority cite Shengold only, a few cite others sources, and 8 give no citation at all for the claim the person is Jewish. And so on. Shengold remains the only source for a majority of entries on the list, and no authority at all is cited for a significant number of list members.
The removal of Andre Geim on November 28 by one of the advocates for deleting the list was indeed a welcome change. betsythedevine (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So about 75% of all !keep votes here are of the argument "notable intersection covered in reliable secondary sources." You do all realize that's been discussed on here and shown to be false. Right? Bulldog123 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's 'shown to be false' when it's reflected in the text of community agreed policy documents, Bulldog123. Anything less than that is a temporary agreement of a non-exhaustive list of editors, and I'm not sure you even have that. Please don't misrepresent your policy argument as a policy statement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be snide, Bulldog123, it makes you sound like you have a personal investment in the discussion. The relevant policy is WP:SALAT, and in particular WP:LISTPEOPLE, which specifically provides that a list of Jewish Nobel Laureates would be allowable provided that all entries on the list are notable for being Jewish and for being Nobel Laureates. There's no lesser importance in a list of Jewish Nobel Laureates than there would be a in list of female heads of state or in a list of African-American Oscar winners. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great then. So I expect you to !vote Delete given that argument, since very few people on this list are notable for being Jewish. Bulldog123 06:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DustFormsWords you are comparing apples to oranges in a very problematic way here. The reason why female heads of state would be notable for being female is precisely because there have been so few of them. There are disproportionately more male heads of state now and historically. Do you think that male heads of state are notable for being male? According to many of the keep voters here there are disproportionately more Jewish Nobel laureates than any other ethnic group. Now tell me why that makes each them notable for being Jewish ... for being members of the most commonly represented ethnic group? I'm sure you didn't mean it this way but your argument is a slight to both women and African Americans who, despite large numbers, are often dis-proportionally underrepresented in positions of power and prestige.Griswaldo (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have no problem with a list of male heads of state either; I'd think it would be a necessary result of having a list of female heads of state, to put both lists into proper context. The reason we have the list isn't to address disadvantage or prejudice. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it fundamentally doesn't care about disadvantage or prejudice, except to the extent that it's possible to write an article about it. Wikipedia only cares that there is data, and the data can be sorted. Sorting by nationality, race, or religion is no worse or less important a way of sorting than by gender or by year. It's a non-trivial intersection because it's capable of producing a list of sufficient scope to be potentially useful as an aid to navigation and analysis. To Bulldog - AfD isn't for cleanup. If there's names on the list that don't belong they can be deleted, but clearly there are names that do belong, and therefore deletion isn't appropriate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said anything about the encyclopedia "caring" about disadvantage or prejudice. I said that what makes female heads of state notable, as opposed to male heads of state who are not de facto notable at all, is the fact that there are so few of them. Some male heads of state are notable, for other reasons, but not because they are male. All female heads of state are notable, because they are female. This notability is what Wikipeida "cares" about. Now the notability is itself entagled in the facts of disadvantage. My point was simply that you, in making your comparison, slight those groups that are disadvantaged. Get it? Your poor analogy is a slight, but I've said nothing about the encylopedia having a job that entails "addressing disadvantage or prejudice". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:POLITICIAN all heads of state ARE inherently notable, being political office holders at a national level. It's also the case that all Nobel Laureates are notable per WP:ANYBIO ("the person has received a notable award"). Per WP:SALAT, such notable entries are capable of being sorted into lists via any intersection that allows for potential use as a navigational or analytical tool, provided the list is neither too long nor too short and has a clearly defined scope. I'm entirely unsure what part of that you disagree with, or say doesn't apply here. There are clearly scholars - and many scholars - of Judaism and the Jewish people, a significant portion of them being people who would claim the level of Jewish success in the sciences is itself notable, so there can be no question that this is a list of potential value even if you personally do not havea use for it. What's the problem here? - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dust, if you can point out five people on this list who are notable for being Jewish alone, I will switch my vote to "Keep and clean up" based on your criteria. All I ask for is five. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll start you off Saul Bellow. Four more. Bulldog123 03:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gustav Hertz is a quarter Jewish. He's not even listed on most Jewish lists. Albert Einstein and Henry Kissinger -- very debatable that these two are famous for being Jewish outside of their contributions. Simply being persecuted or "outted" is really not a strong enough criteria. Everyone is persecuted for all kinds of reasons - its not something special amongst Jews. I'll agree with Elie Wiesel for obvious reasons. Bulldog123 04:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, now, come on. Admittedly you shouldn't have made the ridiculous promise to change your vote if I could name five notable Jews on the list, but by the standards of any reasonable person your response is, on a scale from "weaksauce" to "disappointing", definitely in the range of "totally weaselling out". I don't need to subjectively defend Einstein and Hertz as notable Jews. The significance of their heritage is right there in the articles, and if you want to go on some kind of crusade to change the articles to downplay their Jewish-ness, that's your ill-advised right, but until you do you're bound by the consensus of those editors. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, yes you do have to defend their "notability as Jews," because simply being known as Jewish and being notable as Jewish are not equivalent things. This just exemplifies how "vague" your criteria for this list is going to be - not just for me - but for everyone. You understand what you're asking for is very much unmaintainable? Think of it this way. On a list of "Things X is famous for" - where would "Jewish" rank for Einstein? Probably not in the top 100. Where would Jewish rank for Elie Wiesel -- definitely top ten. Hertz is probably the worst example you could have given. Not even the most hardcore Jewish mags have him listed in their Nobel laureates section -- because they don't even see him as a Jew - and there's no evidence he saw himself as one. Bulldog123 03:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are approximately 2 million Israeli citizens (2/7ths of the population) who aren't Jewish, so in as much as you obtained support for such a claim it was misguided. The terms "Jew" and "Israeli" aren't coextensive. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- WRT the claim this article should be deleted as per the previous {{afd}} -- the previous {{afd}} claimed "The lists, with the exception of the atheist one, are either poorly sourced or completely unsourced..." Since this version is referenced the previous {{afd}} is inapplicable. Isaac Asimov, a writer I really admire, wrote extensively about prominent scientists, and often listed them by their nationality/ethnicity. It seems to me that when it is wikipedia contributors who compile lists that do not rely on WP:RS those lists are both listcruft and lapse from WP:SYNTH. But lists that are properly referenced, as this one is, and, apparently, the previously deleted version weren't, are entirely appropriate. As per User:DGG's comment, this is exactly the kind of thing where our readers would like to look for a neutrally written, properly referenced article, because they can't rely on other, less neutral sources. 173.206.18.118 (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC) — 173.206.18.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Response to claim that article now is "properly sourced." Of the chemistry laureates listed as Jewish, most are sourced only from Shengold's Jewish Encyclopedia, a source that has aggressively tagged at least 3 non-Jewish laureates as Jewish but is still considered WP:RS by the list owners for all the rest of its claims until somebody goes to the trouble of digging up counterproof. I do not think that Wikidpedia should endorse the claimes of such a partial and prejudiced source.
Eight chemistry laureates have no source at all made for the claim. Living person Jerome Karle is one of these, you can read his Nobel autobiography to see if he mentions being Jewish .. he doesn't. But Wikipedia has tagged him as Jewish not only on List of Jewish Nobel laureates but also in categorizing him as a Jewish scientist. In the lede of his Wikipedia bio, he is described as a "Jewish physical chemist." In the previous AfD, complaints about sourcing included a reminder that Wikipedia should not be used as a source.
There was also a claim during that AfD that very conservative principles were used in selecting names for the list. On Feb. 27, Mbz1 uses Jelinek as examples of a name that is NOT on the list because it has such a conservative policy on adding names. On March 7 the AfD is closed as "Keep" and on March 8 Mbz1 adds Jelinek to the list;it is only two days later that Avenue adds a source for that claim.
On October 22, the list criterion "Jews are defined here as people who have at least half Jewish ancestry" was blanked by an edit whose explicit purpose was to make 1/8 Jewish-ancestry-not-self-defined-as-Jewish Andre Geim eligible for inclusion.
Others have complained that some Delete votes come from people who care only about Geim being on the list. In my opinion, Geim's inclusion there is not the main problem; it is a symptom of a systemic POV problem. There are many websites where patriotic groups of whatever kind can trumpet their own achievements and stretch the list of group high-achievers by whatever criterion makes the list longest. Wikipedia should not be lending its authority to endorse the reliability of Shengold's Jewish Encyclopedia or How the Irish Saved Civilization or any other similar WP:POV project. betsythedevine (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something here? If Shengold's Jewish Encyclopedia has already been been demonstrated to have "aggressively tagged at least 3 non-Jewish laureates as Jewish", then surely it cannot be a WP:RS by any reasonable definition, and at an absolute minimum, any listing done solely on the basis of this encyclopedia should be removed until a reliable source (in accord with WP:BLP policy regarding categorisation by ethnicity/religion) can be found to indicate the person is/was Jewish. This is assuming that a decision to keep this list at all is taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People still think Encyclopedia Judaica as "reliable" even though it lists Ralph Benatzky (no Jewish ancestry whatsoever according to all biographers - he was mistakenly thought to be Jewish because his wife was) and Eugene Ionesco (approximately 1/8th Jewish according to his daughter - and even that is only "a guess"). The point Betsy made is flawless and eloquent. Something I've been trying to say for years but couldn't put it in the right words. People will continue to claim unreliable sources as reliable - even after numerous false entries - because it makes their ethnic pride lists a lot longer. People will also claim that Jews are a religion, ethnicity, and nationality (according to Epeefleche now) because it's an easy way to include as many people as possible without having to present evidence for why their Judaism has any bearing on their careers/lives. Bulldog123 01:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Per many of the keeps, but DGG says it best, above, in his ultra-strong keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly urge that this article be kept The disproportionate contibution of the Jewish people to mankind, as exemplified by the number of Jewish recipients of the Nobel Prize should not be ignored by Wikipedia, although I agree that the criteria for inclusion should be resolved, and/or a cited source added for each person listed indicating the basis for his inclusion in the list. JackJud (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You (and other people using that argument) do realize that's discrimination? That's like making a list of Caucasian people's accomplishments, and then arguing at an AfD that there is overwhelming evidence of disproportionate contribution to society (there is), that says that Caucasian people are better (contribute to society way more than others) than others inherently.
    • I don't care what sources you have for that argument, it is discrimination and racism towards other people, and basically supremacy (saying that Jews are better because they're Jews.) It has no place in an encyclopedia.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering the fact that the policy discussions were ignored (of course, since they don't have any arguments), this discussion has come down to: Notable because there are more Jews (who is a Jew?) winning the Nobel prize, and several Jewish magazines (based from their own descriptions) claim the same. I hope that whoever closes this looks at the issues raised (policies) versus the counter-arguments.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly object to the innuendos in the above comments:
(i) The fact that I have (out of choice) only limited Internet access and that I choose to have another life, apart from Wikipedia, should in no way detract from my right to comment here.
(ii) the comment that I "only emerge from hibernation when a Jewish-themed topic arrives on CfD or Afd" is untrue. Of approximately 100 edits (yes, just 100) made by me, only eleven relate to CfD or Afd with a Jewish theme (including the five currently under discussion). On the other hand, on looking over the last 400 contributions of Bulldog 123, it would appear that nearly all were of, or in some way related to, Jewish-themed topics on CfD or Afd, and in which he took a negative view regarding the continued existence of such Jewish theme categories or articles.
(iii) As to the charge of discrimination or racism, this is simply absurd. The question of proportion of Jewish laureates was raised early in this discussion (on November 25) by the nominator, Yworo in which he (or she) stated that he (or she) was "sure at least one of those ancestries [British, French and German] has a great or greater proportion than those of Jewish ancestry". I have not read through the whole of this discussion, nor do I intend to, but cannot see where was a response to this comment. Approximately 170 laureates are listed in the article. If we reduce this by, say, 10% to allow for those whose listing is disputed (the figure is probably far less than this, although a great deal has been stated about the incorrect inclusion of certain persons, it appears that it is the same names that keep coming up), we are left with over 150 laureates who were Jews, out of a worldwide Jewish population of some 13 million. According to the Wikipedia categories, there are 102 British laureates out of a population of 62 million, 99 German laureates out of a population of 81 million and 56 French laureates out of a population of 62 million. (There are also 300 American laureates out of a population of over 300 million). Also, in many instances the British, German, French and American laureates were Jews.
Having had my say and having spent much longer on this matter than I intended, I do not intend to participate further in this discussion. JackJud (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have a long history of participating in Jewish AfD/CfDs because somebody has to keep them from being hijacked by special interest users, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets - as they always seem to be. You'll note how none of this is going on in the identical-topic-AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates. Bulldog123 03:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list fully complies with WP:List and WP:SAL to include the question of notability. Any arguments to the contrary are disengenious. Additionally, arguments that a category is sufficient ignore WP:NOTDUP. Finally, the most ludicrious delete argument in this discussion: It [the list] serves no purpose assumes the voter speaks for millions of WP readers and 1000s of WP editors. That is arrogant and unproductive. This list, as DGG says above, is inherently encyclopedic. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering you absurdly called out my offhand comment instead of the dozens of more ludicrous arguments presented here, I'll respond: Sure it serves a purpose. It serves the purpose of boosting awareness of Jewish cultural achievements (even though the vast majority of these people didn't participate in any form of Jewish culture in their lifetime) and as coffee-table discussion for Jewish pride enthusiasts. Neither of which is an encyclopedic purpose. I (and you) have yet to be presented with a secondary source that proves otherwise. Bulldog123 16:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main arguments were not about WP:SAL, and WP:List. Also, only one person made the category argument. The article/list does not conform with BLP policies, and several guidelines (mentioned earlier in the discussion) that state that ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation need to be relevant to the notability of the person. Also, the definition of Who is a Jew? is disputed, and it would be very difficult to come to consensus on that.
List guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists) tell us that when establishing list membership, one has to check: If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
and Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?--Therexbanner (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bull--This page is filled to over-flowing with empty and often uncivil comments by you. Those comments add nothing to this discussion. They do, however, take up space. @NickCT--I am interested in your response.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. In addition to the other points presented above, this is one that militates in favor or a !keep.

  1. ^ "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  2. ^ Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  3. ^ The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on November 30, 2010

--Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a special nation, then. The only nation where being an 1/8th of that nationality grants you instant citizenship. Interesting. I can't imagine how many Jewish people don't even realize they're of two different nationalities. Bulldog123 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I can tell, the only possible way to work with the term here is to regard anyone who self-identifies or is identified by RSs with any aspect of this as Jewish. There will sometimes be a necessity to specify further, but not for groups like the one in question here. The same sort of ambiguity applies to many other groupings also with multiple overlapping definitions of fuzzy criteria. e.g. . American, male, Chinese, or to such occupational roles as businessman or scientist. To write an encyclopedia one has to schematize a little, and the way to deal with that is to say what we are doing in each instance. The reason we cannot rely on religion alone, is that there are different religiously-based definitions of who constitute the followers of the Jewish religion (or, in most cases, others religions also). As just one of the distinctions, most Orthodox Jews do not regard someone having been converted by a Reform rabbi as religiously a Jew. The correct application of the Law of Return in such cases is at the moment a matter of rather bitter and possibly unreconcilable controversy, which can not be part of the criteria for a list like this.
With respect to BLP, as mentioned earlier, this applies in only some cases, and I would indeed favor not including in this list someone who is living and does not wish to identify as Jewish, regardless of the actual facts of the matter. Living people do have a right to pick what public identities they choose, but any extension of any of the BLP precepts beyond actually living is an extension which would require a new general discussion about BNLP. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ListPeople; application to nationality/ethnicity. As WP:LISTPEOPLE indicates with regard to "nationality/ethnicity" -- "List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania. The criteria for identifying as an Albanian does not solely depend upon the official citizenship laws of that country – a person could be related to the place by birth, residency, parentage, or by his or her personal admission, considers himself or herself to be an Albanian at heart."--Epeefleche (talk)
  • Ok, if WP:ListPeople; application to nationality/ethnicity is the appropriate criteria, should we apply it to this list then? In the case of "Jewishness" you can't be "related to the place by birth [or] residency", since there is no "place". That means the only remaining criteria are "parentage", and "personal admission". I don't think "personal admission" can be considered anything other than valid (if you accept the argument that WP:ListPeople is applicable to all intersections with other criteia, without establishing the notability of the intersection: I don't). This leaves parentage to define: Necessarily both parents? Or is only one enough? What about Grandparents? And in any case, you are then left with the problem of defining the ethnicity and/or beliefs of these relatives. I think this style of logic has a long and particularly ugly history, and don't think it is the sort of thing that Wikipedia should endorse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when is not having previously learned or spoken up at some different AFD now to be called "suspicious lack of particpation"? I do have a life away from Wikipedia, and I know of no policy or guideline that says that if I speak up at one AFD, I must magically know of all others and then must speak up at these others. And toward your other point... as this nomination is not about blonde actresses or German Nobel laureates, if those other non-existant articles were to be written and were then sent to deletion, they would also have to be descernable as meeting guideline... but you're welcome to write them. And, as I know you were not canvassing me here for input there, I do wish to thank you for bringing that other to my attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong gab 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR, criteria #6, which states that: "Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." This article is an almost exact fit for "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", where religious group X = Jews and organization Y = Nobel laureates. SnottyWong comment 19:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it isn't even that. It is "people we can convince ourselves just about belong in ethnic/cultural/religious group X...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN There's reasonable evidence to suggest that User:Epeefleche is participating in an email-based WP:CANVASSing campaign, targeting users likely to !vote keep on this AfD (and other recent Jewish AfDs). See the following for evidence: [26] Note that User:Epeefleche has a long history of WP:CANVASSing keep-friendly individuals to participate in Jews CfDs/AfDs. Here are diffs from one of Epee's canvassing campaigns a few years ago: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. He now chooses to do this more surreptitiously by email. Anybody who has been canvassed by Epeefleche to participate in this AfD should come forward to quell suspicion. Bulldog123 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Excuse me, while I'm not particularly worried about being outed as having my account occasionally connected to that (multi-user) IP address, it's nevertheless strongly against Wikipedia policy to call additional attention to the connection. And the responsibility to assume good faith requires you to assume that Epeefleche's efforts were in accordance with allowable canvassing under the canvassing policy, and that any editors who feel improperly canvassed will come forward of their own accord as I did. And for the record, that was the ONLY one of the Jewish list articles I was asked by another editor to comment on, and I've not voted on it because I didn't feel comfortable with the invitation. Your need to resort to ad hominem attacks speaks poorly for the strength of your argument. I think in any case there's very little chance that any of these AfDs will be closed as other than "no consensus".- DustFormsWords (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've participated in maybe a handful of Jewish AfDs/CfDs recently. I've participated in many over a span of years. You don't know the history of WP:SOCKPUPPETtry and WP:CANVASSing that goes on in them. I'm 100% in the right to mention this. Bulldog123 03:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong forum... to share accusations based upon one recent edit and then compounding with activity from "some years ago". An AFD discussion is the wrong forum to present your "case". As anyone is allowed to edit, might it not be better to take your allegation to a different and more appropriate forum, and not use it here in an attempt to negatively color a discussion-in-progress among many editors? I suggest this off-topic comment be moved to the talk page until such time as Bulldog123 wishes to file a formal complaint at the proper venue... specially as I have seen it repeated at all the Jewish-related AFDs where you and he have disagreed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is an example of active canvassing. User:DGG is notorious for being an inclusionist. Epeefleche knows full well that he will !vote keep on all those lists - although he's unsuccessfully pretending not to by making remarks like "I don't know where you will come out on this" Bulldog123 03:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not. Before Bulldog123 begins telling others it is, he might wish to re-read WP:CANVAS. Asking a question of one editor in one location for clarification is not canvassing. If he asked it from many editors, then perhaps yes. But not if neutrally posed to one, and specially not if the one is DGG, "notorious" only for being respected, reasonable, and neutral... even if seen as inclusionist... who does not fall prey to such. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Individual notices like that are clearly WP:CANVASS, though I now see that they are not pertaining to this discussion directly. Do you have any evidence that he has engaged in this activity right now? I will note that after being called out on the possible canvassing above, he's been leaving notices on the talk pages of people like me, who are opposed to his POV. What a childish circus all of this is. Bah.Griswaldo (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: Epeefleche brought this AfD (and several others) to my attention on my talk page (diff, including my response). I have no intention of !voting on the others, but I hope no one objects if I continue to comment on this one. --Avenue (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - Epeefleche actually notified 65 editors on their talk pages about all of these jewish-list-related AfD's. I have posted a notice on his talk page asking for an explanation. This AfD is hopelessly tainted (as are all of the other ones), and should be automatically relisted at a later date in the hopes that an unbiased consensus can be determined. SnottyWong soliloquize 18:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A neutral notification sent out for balance only after the notice and accusation by Bulldog123 had been placed in all those same related discussions... and only to those who had opined in other related "List of Jewish" discussions. It is clear that the notice was not "targeted" to any one mindset, nor was it accusatory or inflamatory, but was sent to editors equally, no matter their likelyness to !vote delete or keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having received this notification myself (after the issue of canvassing was raised), I'd like to state that I found in it the implication that I was likely to wish to participate in other AFD's on the basis that they concerned Jewish issues to be dubious at best. As I hope I've made clear, my concerns are regarding the widespread arbitrary categorisation of individuals throughout Wikipedia, and to imply that people are participating in this AfD on the basis of the ethnoreligious group concerned is making unwarrented assumptions. Regarding the suggestion that this AfD is 'tainted', and should be relisted at a later date, I'd point out that to do this while maintaining the contentious list might merely encourage further attempts to prevent a decision being made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "A neutral notification sent out for balance"? How about this solicitation Epeefleche posted to a user page before his activity was under scrutiny here? "There is currently an energetic effort afoot to delete lists of Jews. Some of the lists have withstood such efforts in the past. This is taking place even where there are articles and entire books about the intersections. I'm not sure that the AfD process works best here, as the same discussions are repeated again and again, in various AfDs ... it would seem, until an AfD is successful somewhere....Some current such AfDs are efforts to delete the lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians." Would you call that a neutral notification? Would you call it an accurate description of the process whereby one AfD was inflated into many by opponents of this AfD creating new ones and then egging on Bulldog to prove his sincerity by creating yet more? Do you really think that Epeefleche's public mass mailing will add more "balance" to this discussion, which already has way more !Votes than policy discussions, to solicit 65 more editors on Dec. 1? And this would be in addition to the previous undercover email alerts he sent out to a more selected group.betsythedevine (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the notice Epeefleche left for me has led to an interesting discussion on my talk page with others, in particular with betsythedevine, which led to my changing my view on a related page, and striking out part of my comment. Had he not placed the notice, and she complained about it, she and I would not have had what I consider a mutually helpful discussion. (And my initial reaction to his notice was to first consider whether I wanted to get involved in this at all. I almost decided that I didn't want to, and my decision to do so was not based on anything he said--rather on what some of the opponents said.) More generally, I have the impression that if you wish to attract people who oppose my likely views, asking me about my opinion on my talk page is a good way to do it--and the same applies to a number of other widely watched pages. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 5

[edit]
  • Keep: I can't be asked to possibly read what everybody else wrote above but its a beautiful list and well worth keeping! Calistemon (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobel prizes do not have a separate category for Jewish people and who should be considered Jewish is unclear. TFD (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable intersection, as defined by the fact that secondary sources find it to be an intersection that they like to mention/discuss. Note: this has no bearing on other articles intersecting religions and other factors that Wikipedia has, had, or will have - it's specific to this intersection, per WP:N. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: what about the secondary sources points to a comprehensive List Of rather than a prose article? Despite the ever-increasingly WP:TLDR nature of this page, nobody seems able to directly address this issue. Rd232 talk 11:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an interesting question, but not relevant for an AfD. If the AfD does not end in deletion, it can be discussed at the article talk and if there is consensus, it's a matter of article improvement, including a page move. Article improvement issues are a useful by-product of XfDs, but aren't arguments for deletion and can become distractions from the business in hand. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not relevant?? A prose article is hardly trivially different from a list! I'm not sure any of those !voting Delete would oppose a prose article, the reason being that the BLPCAT issues disappear by virtue of needing non-trivial RS coverage to justify working any given person into the prose article. Rd232 talk 11:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent point. If the topic is encyclopedic and can be sourced reliably then write an article about it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, but irrelevant at XfD. Discuss it afterwards. Lists can be converted into prose articles - here's one that started as a list and became a Featured Article. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not irrelevant to the claim that is made over and over here - that the intersection is notable. The lack of an entry now indicates that such notability is unlikely. My suggestion below is more general. These lists ought to pass the "main entry test" if people are going to argue about the notability of the intersection they focus on. Do you not think so?Griswaldo (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFC These issues are increasingly messily spread across multiple RFCs on Jewish lists, yet apply even more broadly than that. This really needs an RFC on the wider issue of how these types of lists are handled. Rd232 talk 11:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. The current situation appears very much so to be heavily skewed by the narrower objectives of wikiprojects focussed only on this ethnicity/religion. Broader input would be very helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Editors here keep claiming that this is a notable intersection. If it is a notable intersection then lets see Jewish Nobel laureates get created first. I think in these situations if an intersection is indeed notable enough to be the criteria for a list it ought to stand up to the test of having a stand alone entry. Is there somewhere we can suggest this as a bare minimum guideline requirement? In this case we could delete and userfy the page and give those who champion the intersections notability the time to write the stand alone entry first.Griswaldo (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong way round. See my comments above. --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. It is a fact that "Jewish Nobel Pize winners" is a topic that has received a significant amount of scholarly and other attention (partly because there are surprisingly many of them). This fact, which is sufficient to require keeping the article, was brought up at the beginning of the discussion and never refuted. That this monstrously long discussion exists anyway is a testament to the fact that some people, when they really want to delete something, simply don't care about policy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the above. I suggest you actually read this AfD discussion, and then ask yourself how many of the 'keep' !votes are actually based on policy, as opposed to 'I like it', before making assertions about the motivations of those proposing deletion. As for 'scholarly attention' to the topic, yes there has been some, but the suggestion that there is anything of significance to this is very much a minority fringe viewpoint, and compiling dubiously-validated lists according to fringe theories is hardly a way to maintain NPOV. Particularly when this list is then used to arbitrarily justify categorising people as 'Jewish' in other articles without any indication of either (a) the vague definition of what 'Jewish' means, and (b) why this is even relevant to the topic in question. To put it in plain language, the list is being used to stereotype people according to 'ethnicity' (or worse), on unsupportable grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on policy (reply to Jalapenos) Actually, the arguments for deletion include a lot more about policies than those for keep, which tend to cite only WP:N. The claim that a topic is potentially notable does not give Wikipedians a license to create and maintain an article on that topic that violates many other Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, it is impossible to imagine serious research on Jewish Nobel laureates that does not choose some real criterion for demarcating subjects as Jewish. betsythedevine (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Nobel Prize laureates.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that one wasn't even strongly contested; nor are many other list AfDs. If there's coverage of an article topic and the coverage conveys notability, that's a good baseline for keeping.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read over this whole page. (its verging on tl;dr) I have to say that from looking over the list there are independent sources that back it up. In addition, we need to remember that Jewish is an ethnic group. It doesn't matter if you self identify with that group is something that you are born into. This doesn't seem like an arbitrary list like some people have tried to say and it isn't demeaning like the policy that was quoted disallows.In addition, I agree with DGG. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strong discussion here, but what makes the most sense to me is that this is an article attempting to replace a category that would then be deleted. And why? Inclusion criteria are often faulty or mistaken, the Nobel people don't take religion into account, the subjects themselves may not self-identify as Jewish, they may not even be Jewish... it's a mess. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all cleanup issues; none are a policy-supported reason for deletion. It is unarguable that many Nobel Laureates are Jewish, whether you define "Jewish" as a matter of race, heritage, culture, religion or self-identification. It's further unarguable that some of them have received their awards in clear CONNECTION with their Jewish-ness - most notably Israeli politicians, holocaust scholars and Yiddish authors. So it's clear that there are individuals for whom there is a nexus between "Jewish" and "Nobel Laureate", and enough of those individuals to form a list of meaningful scope. Therefore the list itself should not be deleted, and argument about who belongs on it should go back to the list's talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-up. This list has proven itself - time and time and time and time again to be unmaintainable. And your criteria for inclusion - having to be famous for being Jewish first - is not going to go over well with all the special-interest !voters WP:OWNing the article now. Bulldog123 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more of a mess than can be cleaned up. It's a mess from its germinal concept, that an article is supposed to cover what a category should be doing: intersections of two groups. That the category would be deleted is no reason for this article to be created under the wrong conditions. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I've not read all of the extensive discussion above, I've read enough to justify the retaining of this article. Davshul (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (responding to AfD nominator). It does not matter if Nobel Prize was awarded without consideration of ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. It only matters if the coverage of the Prize recipients in press and other reliable sources justifies such article. Yes, it does, as follows from the sources provided in the article.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Jewish Nobel laureates, and write a proper, broad article about it, taking in such points as theories on Jewish intelligence, Feynman's letter, with subsections covering the individuals presently named in the list, in some sensible order, explaining the merits and demerits of claims made for their Jewishness, etc. --JN466 01:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Bound to be of interest to our readers, decently sourced, of legitimate scholarly interest. RayTalk 02:49, 3 December 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) 20:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

410@Steeles Business Park

[edit]
410@Steeles Business Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable business area development. No indication of significance beyond simply being an area where a number of businesses and big box stores have a retail or office location. Mindmatrix 18:41, 25 November 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) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Jackson (conductor)

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

Non-notable music student/apprentice conductor, appears to be an autobiography. Actually reading the references given only reinforces the impression that he's non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This afternoon, I have just read an interview with the conductor George Jackson in a magazine, which is being released online this week. Aside from opinion, is the mere reference to this particular media coverage an indication of notability by Wikipedia's standards (which, I admit, should most certainly be maintained to the highest letter of its doctrine)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.32.39 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop voting, you only get one vote. Hairhorn (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a magazine interview with Jackson would be a good source, provided the magazine itself qualified as a reliable source. Are we talking Time, Newsweek, or a trade publication like Classical Music?  Ravenswing  14:23, 29 November 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shamir Doshi

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

WP:V, WP:N. While starting a couple newspapers certainly has the potential to establish notability, I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources that provide more than incidental coverage of this businessperson. j⚛e deckertalk 17:59, 25 November 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 procedural close. Article already merged and redirected Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hook-handed man

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

I have copied the article into the article about the theater troupe to deal with this subject's lack of notability. Us441(talk)(contribs) 17:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since you have copied the content from this article to another location, Wikipedia has to keep the page history intact, so deletion is not an option. It's better to redirect now. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. NotARealWord (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict) Carefully reading the link provided twice above by Uncle G should cure your puzzlement. All content in Wikipedia must be attributed to its original author, and the standard way of doing that is to redirect the article from which content has been merged to the merge target, and note in the edit summary of the target article where the content came from. Deleting the "from" article would destroy the attribution that is required for copyright purposes. I have performed the edits needed to conform with our copyright licence, and which should have been made as part of the merging process. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I learned something new from this. Us441(talk)(contribs) 14:04, 27 November 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) 20:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Merigliano

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

Former Minor League Baseball player, never made it past Triple-A. Adam Penale (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vision critical

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

Spammy article about non notable company, started by an admitted acquaintance of the company CEO WuhWuzDat 16:07, 25 November 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 -- Ϫ 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madden NFL 12

[edit]
Madden NFL 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant hoax. Not quite speedy deletion due to the fact Madden 12 will be made, but the content of the article... anyway, we need to delete this and restart the article based on FACTS. BwburkeLetsPlays (talk|contribs) 14:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exacctlly, there would have been a lot of Canadian press if the CFL was going to be added as well as a press release from the league.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 04:37, 29 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exodwarf planet

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

Non-notable neologism. Invented on a blog, once used on another blog. Captain Hindsight (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete To be fair, it does get a mention in course lecture notes at the University of Oklahoma. No hits on google scholar, though, so I suspect we have a neologism coined by one or two researchers in the field. Maybe it'll become a mainstream term in a couple of years - but for the moment there are no peer-reviewed publications which makes it non-notable. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I am not a researcher. I have complied with the former sign. I posted the below on the page:"I showed that Dr. David Jeffrey uses the term exodwarf planet. I could rename the article Extrasolar Dwarf Planet and it would mean the same thing and that word is used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1257%2B12_D without a problem. I have stated all this in my undoing of the revisions and yet revisioner violated Wikipedia rules by continually putting up the former sign and making the same charge that exodwarf is a new word being coined here.

    The previous sign said it could be removed if I showed the source and said so in my revision or on a Talk Page which I did and still the sign was put up with the same charge, thus violating Wikipedia rules. The sign also said that after seven days of being up it can be removed. Therefore the dispute since it has not changed in content can be over in seven days starting from one minute past the time this message is posted and the below sign will therefore be removed any time from then."Yisraelasper (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Entries on neolgisms require references about the word, not simply references that use the word. The only candidate so far is a single blog entry. Since the meaning of "exo-" is pretty clear, this is largely redundant to Dwarf planet (and Extrasolar planet). Hairhorn (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I can change the name to Extrasolar Dwarf Planet. I am not interested in the name. This is an article about a concept. Extrasolar planet and exoplanet mean the same thing."Yisraelasper (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's obvious.... which is why an entry isn't needed, there are already entries on exoplanets and dwarf planets. At the moment, a third entry is redundant. Hairhorn (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you say that what I said is obvious, namely that exo and extrasolar mean the same thing then you are saying that the charge against my article is wrong. Instead you say that there is no need for the article as there are already entries on exoplanets and dwarf planets. What you fail to mention is that there are general articles and then specific ones and yet that is not called redundant especially since there is no general article on exodwarf planets [until I made one there was no entry I mean 14:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)]. Yisraelasper (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the sign Yisraelasper is referring to is a previous proposed deletion (PROD) notification here (and another one here).

    The seven days talked about in that notice refer to the fact that if the notice is not removed in seven days an admin will review it and make a decision whether to delete it or not. It is believed that if no one removes the notice during those seven days then the community generally feels that this article shouldn't exist (see WP:PROD). This is WP:AfD. What's happening here is a discussion about whether the article should exist or not. The discussion usually lasts 7 days and the article shouldn't be deleted during that time. Captain Hindsight feels that feels this article is about a neologism and thus fails WP:NEO. For the article to be kept it's necessary to show that the article doesn't fail that policy. Captain Hindsight was not acting against the rules to nominate this article for deletion here (see WP:DEPROD).

    The problem with the article, as I see it, is that is the *only* reference to the word outside of blogs and the Merriam-Webster equivalent of wiktionary are the course lecture notes the (Dr Jeffrey reference). A search for Extrasolar Dwarf Planet does, indeed, bring up a peer reviewed paper so if the article's kept I'd prefer it was moved to that location per published literature. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and move per KFG - nobody is 'charging' your article. However I don't see how this can be considered notable enough to merit its own article at this time.Given that there is an Extrasolar Dwarf Planet article, if kept it should be moved there and Exodwarf redirected there. Otherwise, should be merged to sections in Exoplanet and/or dwarf planet, and once more peer-reviewed information is available, we can reconsider the need for an independent article. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • What is the difference? Extrasolar Dwarf Planet and Exodwarf Planet is the same word. It is two ways of saying the exact same thing. You have an astrophysicist Dr. David Jeffrey using the word Exodwarf Planet and you have another astronomer using the term Extrasolar Dwarf Planet. I'm willing to switch the name but it is not going to change the fact that people will use the two terms interchangeably despite whatever you decide. You are going to have the article either with one name or the other. Pick your choice. Yisraelasper (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that the term "Extrasolar Dwarf Planet" is in a peer reviewed publication whereas "Exodwarf planet" (so far) only turns up in one set of lecture notes. The peer reviewed publication will have been vetted by a number of experts in the field which means that a number of experts in the field are happy with the term. Course lecture notes don't (to my knowledge) have to be verified by anyone before being taught. If the page is moved a WP:REDIRECT will be left at Exodwarf planet so there shouldn't be an issue with people failing to find the article on those grounds and if "exodwarf planet" becomes the dominant term it can be moved back there later. All of that said, Nergaal seems to have provided a better solution below. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the correct name is "Dwarf exoplanet". The term is new, like many other astronomical terms. It is not very much in use now, but that is because not many examples are known. Still, it is a valid concept and therefore should exist either as its own article or a section somewhere (NOT in Dwarf planet which is an FA). Nergaal (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the moment, I think that "extrasolar dwarf planet" deserves a mention in dwarf planet, since there are two instances of it being used in peer reviewed articles, whereas "exodwarf planet" has not been used in a peer reviewed article. In the future, there may be enough information on such objects that an article on extrasolar dwarf planets is merited. At the moment, I do not think it is notable enough that it needs an article of its own, as the majority of the well-referenced information that could be included in the article is discussion of this article. If the result is keep, then I would support move to extrasolar dwarf planet. James McBride (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All peer review does is make sure the science is ok. The words are subject to editors who have the final say. If extrasolar dwarf planet is acceptable as a concept, no peer review in the world is going to ban exodwarf planet. It is outside their mandate. Yisraelasper (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article will exist under whatever name. Yisraelasper (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in all likelihood, when astronomers write about this in the future, they will use the term that has already appeared in journals rather than the one that appears on a blog. Perhaps you will find 10,600 hits for "extrasolar dwarf planet" vs. 146 hits for "exodwarf planet" more compelling an argument. James McBride (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the real issue whether it is used period? This is English not science. Further if even one scientist has what you value so much a peer reviewed article using the exact wording of exodwarf planet, it means the editors of the article said that it is proper English. There are many words that are not used as often but they are still words that make it to the dictionary. In this case exodwarf planet is a real word by virtue of the fact that extrasolar always is allowed to be replaced by exo. That's English. Once extrasolar dwarf planet became a real word so did exodwarf planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraelasper (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue that began this was whether "exodwarf planet" was a neologism. Since you have stated that you are using the term to mean "extrasolar dwarf planet" (a term we can actually find in the peer reviewed literature) the discussion has been much more about whether this topic is notable enough to merit its own article or if it is better as a section of another article.
Whether or not exodwarf planet is a 'real word' only becomes an issue if you believe the topic merits its own article. Assuming for one moment that it does, the issue isn't whether the term "exodwarf planet" is used by someone somewhere, it is whether it used by researchers in the field - and as I (and others) have been arguing we really don't have any evidence that it is.
As for extrasolar always being allowed to be replaced by 'exo-', could you find a reference for that please? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Webster's Dictionary the word extra as a prefix means outside and in Webster's Dictionary the prefix exo means outside. If I say exoasteroid do you think I mean anything other than an asteroid outside of our solar syatem? Yisraelasper (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.41.40 (talk) [reply]
Absolutely, the 'exo-' prefix does mean outside, but outside what? It isn't always the solar system. Exoskeleton, exogenous and exothermic all use 'exo-' and have nothing to do with the solar system. Besides which, a dictionary definition of 'exo-' isn't the same as a reference which says that in all circumstances 'exo-' can substitute for extrasolar. In any case, even if you could provide such a reference it doesn't alter the fact that we have no evidence that any researcher in this field uses the term exodwarf planet. I think we're going in circles here. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In astronomy it means outside the solar system when speaking of something that can exist within the solar system. No one questions what some one means if they say exostar or exomoon etc. It doesn't matter what a researcher uses for his or her speech pattern. They are just going according to English established by others who are not astronomers. When they coin a term the acceptance depends on the general public accepting it. Yisraelasper (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Wow. Just wow. The only sources provided are the website of the person promoting this made-up word, and some astronomy-related websites where he has gone around promoting it in the user comments section. This is one of the silliest things I've ever seen. Reyk YO! 12:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to mention the quote from Dr. David Jeffrey where he uses the term exodwarf planet and you eliminated it from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1257%2B12_D but I put it back in. Dr. David Jeffrey makes mention of that very article to support his statement on "exo-dwarf planets." Yisraelasper (talk) 23:24, 30 November 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 per consensus and per CSD G12. Insufficient evidence that the source page is under a free license. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Lisa McEntee-Atalianis

[edit]
Dr Lisa McEntee-Atalianis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO jsfouche ☽☾ talk 14:02, 25 November 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) 20:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Round

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

Does not satisfy WP:N or WP:NSPORTS. Played for Burton Albion in the 1960s, when they were a non-league club. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The one verifiable fact seems better located in Burton Albion, in light of ISBN 9781848764477 pp. 55. The reliability of this potential source needs investigation. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obscure, non-notable player. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATHLETE, a non-notable player. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fire It Up (EP)

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

This keeps getting re-created by the same author. He promised that he would add sources, but the only sources he added are primary. The last several AFDs have turned up absolutely no sources whatsoever, and the article has been G4'd several times. I decided not to G4 again due to the sources. Delete and salt. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I didn't vote keep, just trying to help out the author, cos I assume they might have better sources for Kid Rock than I could find in a moment. They are trivial, but the EP is under a major record label and he's a big star; I wouldn't be against a merge. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a recording by a prominent artist, which has been rated in the Rolling Stone album guide and mentioned in Spin. Furthermore, as indicated by Theornamentalist's cite to Billboard above, the National Association of Independent Record Distributors nominated this recording for Best Heavy Metal Album in its Indie Awards in 1994. I would give this recording the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia about music singles that have less than half of the information thats on the Fire It Up article, and they've been there for years and never get deleted or even flagged. This was the only EP Kid Rock ever released, its included with most full-length LP discographies of Kid Rock. This probably doesn't matter, but its significant to Kid Rock's career for being the first time he recorded a country-music song and the first time he released "I Am The Bullgod" (one of his biggest early hits). Someone looking up Kid Rock information on Wikipedia definitely deserves to see an article about the Fire It Up EP! Its an important piece of Kid Rock's career and people deserve the see the album cover, track listings, and musicians that played on the record. The sources Metropolitan90 and Theornamentalist gave are better than 70% of the sources and references on Wikipedia anyway. Seriously, compare this article to most articles about contemporary music singles. Please keep the Fire It Up article.--Mrblinky (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy userfy This was undeleted and userfied via WP:REFUND (currently at this section, but it may later be archived). The user was instructed to contact User:Tone before un-userfying, and by Mrblinky's contribs, it would appear such communication has not yet occurred. --NYKevin @126, i.e. 02:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & salt the inclusion bar is pretty clear. being mentioned or listed is not a substitute for substantive sources. Spartaz Humbug! 10:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the reasoning presented by Metropolitan90 and Mrblinky above. I'm not aware of an existing policy on EPs; were this an album, it would meet WP:NALBUM. Given the debate over this article, if there is still opposition to it, might I suggest that a better way forward than an AfD would be to consider a merge with I Am the Bullgod? Bondegezou (talk) 12:17, 25 November 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) 04:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geier hitch

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

Despite extensive discussion over several years, no independent refs have been found to support the existence of this claimed cattle handling technique. If such a memorable technique did exist, it would not be hard to find refs. It is clearly a hoax or joke. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:18, 25 November 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 LibStar (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eve van Grafhorst

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

as per WP:ONEVENT, as tragic as her life was, the coverage centres around her HIV infection. [49]. LibStar (talk) 11:21, 25 November 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) 20:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Symes

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

Declined Speedy; unreferenced autobiography of a minor actress. I think she lacks sufficient evidence that she meets the WP:GNG. None of the projects she has been in have Wikipedia articles. A google seach shows that she does have profiles at various talent agency websites and listings sites: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], but there doesn't appear to be anything of great note here. roleplayer 11:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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) 20:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ögmundur Kristinsson

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

Contested WP:PROD about a young Icelandic football goalkeeper with no appearances in a fully professional league (the Icelandic top flight is not fully professional), as well as no caps at senior international level (only under-21 level). He therefore fails WP:NSPORT and, in addition, fails WP:GNG too. Angelo (talk) 10:44, 25 November 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) 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issam Hamid Al Bin Ali Al Jayfi

[edit]
Issam Hamid Al Bin Ali Al Jayfi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Hasn't received sufficient significant attention from reliable independent sources. A short entry in Andy Worthingtons work describing all Guantanamo's detainees is all that is available. Searching for either the article title or Issam Al Jayfi did not return further significant results from independent reliable sources on Google Books, Scholar, News Archives, or regular Google. Fram (talk) 10:42, 25 November 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) 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hörður Björgvin Magnússon

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

Contested WP:PROD about a 17-year old Icelandic footballer who fails WP:NSPORT (the Icelandic football league is not fully professional) and WP:GNG. The fact he is moving to Juventus was never confirmed by the club [56] and is in any case irrelevant, as being contracted/on loan to a top club does not make the subject notable on his own. Angelo (talk) 10:41, 25 November 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) 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faizullah (Guantanamo detainee 919)

[edit]
Faizullah (Guantanamo detainee 919) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Searching for either Faiz Ullah or Faizullah did not return the necessary sources to establish notability for this BLP. The only independent source that gives him some attention is Andy Worthington, who has described all Guantanamo prisoners. Everything else are primary or non independent sources, or sources not about him but other people with a similar name, or more general sources. Fram (talk) 10:34, 25 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forstal (disambiguation)

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

Partial title match list. No Wikipedia articles actually ambiguous with "Forstal". Orphan, unneeded navigation page that could have been speedy deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There don't appear to be any other articles on subjects that are called Forstal. There are other towns that have the word Forstal in them, but that doesn't count. There may exist some other things that are called Forstal (as identified above), but until there are Wikipedia articles on those things, there is no need for a disambiguation page. SnottyWong spill the beans 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 10:18, 25 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Palmer

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

Bio of chess player of little note. No trace of player in any of the standard material on renowned professional or amateur chess players. From previous afd discussion and history of article, subject appears to have been a teacher at a school in England when page was created. Catchpole (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even assuming that chess is accepted as a sport (a stretch), and given that Plamer was the Jamaican champion (which I never challenged), he does not meet WP:ATHLETE#Generally acceptable standards, as this was not an international competition (a criteria presumbably put in place to avoid false-positives for the national competitions of very small nations). I would dispute that the chess championship of a small nation such as Jamaica is a " well-known and significant award or honor". Sub-international chess championships generally do not garner significant publicity or prestige outside the chess-playing community. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Since chess isn't a sport, WP:ATHLETE obviously doesn't apply, any more than it would for a "national" raspberry tart baking competition or a "national" origami contest; the common fallacy that WP:ATHLETE somehow applies to any and all types of competition isn't supported by the guideline itself. No evidence this passes the GNG.  Ravenswing  16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except Chess is a sport of course. The sport of kings. A mind sport as recognised by the international Olympic committee. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete no sign of international competition to meet WP:ATHLETE. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I would regard a national champion (even if Jamaica is not the strongest chess playing nation on earth) as just enough to give notability. If he has played in any Olympiads then that would also be for me a reason to keep, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that he has.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: By the bye, has anyone examined the sources here? The FIDE rating card states that Palmer is unrated. The "Chess Drum" webpage has a single paragraph describing him as a "former Jamaican champion." The Shropshire Chess Association webpage lists him as playing on a couple local club champion teams. The article (from another webpage, www.voice-online.co.uk) supposedly backing his "national championship" up is a broken link, and a search on www.voice-online.co.uk for "Ryan Palmer" turns up no hits. A general Google News search for "Ryan Palmer" + "chess" turns up zero hits. Right now, we don't have any source - let alone a reliable one - asserting that Palmer is a former national champion. Would any of the Keep proponents care to present a reliable source or two backing up their contentions?  Ravenswing  14:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The voice-online link works for me, it states: "The reaction has come as no surprise to Tobisch, who for several years taught chess in Jamaica, nor Staffordshire-based maths teacher Palmer, Jamaica’s 1992 national chess champion." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I have generally held national championship, adequately sourced as in this case, as sufficient for notability, but I have been forced to revisit that stance after looking at this article. Jamaica is not considered a strong chess nation (although they gave Norway a serious run for their money in the first round of the 2010 Olympiad), and the list of champions shows that the top level seems to be around 2200-2300, below the International Master level. Still, I have arrived at the same conclusion as Pawnkingthree. While the sourcing is quite sparse, it is reliable, with independent coverage here for example. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I'd thought you were talking about another reliable source which might support a claim of notability, not another simple mention of the subject's 1992 championship. I'd think we could take the federation's word for that much.  Ravenswing  16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. National championship is sufficient for a brief article. It isn't required that every article be a long, in-depth examination of the subject. Short pages are valuable to the encyclopedia too when they contain all the details of interest. This helps in building the web, as the article provides information that would not fit well at Jamaican Chess Championship. Quale (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with the "national champion" reasoning, that means the "Groënland Golf National Champion" would deserve an article, even if he can barely hold a club ?! SyG (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would note that only one other person on the Jamaican Chess Championship list of champions has an article -- and he won it five times. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But then again, "because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should" (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST [essay]). Guoguo12--Talk--  20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that biographies of sports people are the kind of low hanging fruit that Wikipedia had exhausted about 4 years ago. If no-one has seen fit to create articles for numerous Grandmasters after all this time, I doubt that biographies of Jamaican chess champions, who play at a much lower standard, will ever be created. According to the only source we have, there hasn't even been a national champion of Jamaica since 2006! Also note the only other Jamaican champion we have an article for (Warren Elliott) was created by an single-use account named Wechess! (note initials). Catchpole (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point taken. While I agree that Wikipedia cannot be about everything, I still think that the subject in question is notable enough to have its own article, seeing as the entire reason we have notability guidelines is to assure that Wikipedia is not about everything. (Did that make sense?) Having said this, I now point toward WP:GNG, which states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it can have its own article. The subject has been documented in "reliable sources" ([57]) and has also received what I consider "significant coverage" ([58]). Guoguo12--Talk--  02:59, 2 December 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) 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artūrs Zjuzins

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

Delete. Latvian youth football player. Subject does not meet criteria found at WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not been called up to the senior side or participated at the highest level of football. Cindamuse (talk) 08:59, 25 November 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. Though in my opinion as an editor, the article needs better sourcing and a partial rewrite. Currently much of it reads like a cable by the Korean Central News Agency.  Sandstein  07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdowsi millenary celebration in Berlin

[edit]
Ferdowsi millenary celebration in Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability :)Ladsgroupبحث 08:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (edit conflict) This event is a unique moment in the history of relations between Iran and Germany and it is more than notable to have an article here. It has reliable sources such as academic magazine of Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft and also several sources in Persian, including BBC Persian. No other foreign government has ever held such ceremonies to praise any of the Iranians like this and this event had a significant effect on relations between Reza Shah and the government of the Third Reich. I can say this article is more notable than over 80% of articles of the English Wikipedia.--Ferdolf (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict with the previous editor) It was an interesting event in the history of Germany, revealing a bit about the ideological background of the Third Reich. This could be an interesting source (in German). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we not have articles about the obviously notable topic of Nazi propaganda? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we should have that. But why under the banner of "Ferdowsi celebration"?Siricius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Please read the opening sentence of the main article Ferdowsi Millenary Celebration: Ferdowsi Millenary Celebration (Persian: جشن هزاره فردوسی), was a series of celebrations and scholarly events in the year 1934 to commemorate the thousandth anniversary of Ferdowsi's birth. ... This article describes in detail the situation in Berlin, Germany. What's wrong with the title? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The exact title of German article is "Die Firdosi-Feier in Berlin" which means "The Ferdowsi celebration in Berlin". No body has explained where is the so-called propaganda in this title?--Adel Wolf in EnWi (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because this user has created several sockpuppets in Farsi Wikipedia to delete this article there. Don't worry his socks will rush here to vote. He is indeed a sock himself. Take a look at his contribution list and you will see this account has been created, only to vandalize this article. Be prepared for his sockpuppets and meatpuppets as you will see lots of "Delete" votes here with ridiculous reasons, such as "Nazi propaganda", "No reliable source", "Notability" etc... And also be prepared to see this account be blocked for cross-wiki vandalism by recommendation of his supporter who is a steward in meta and has lots of sysop friends in English Wikipedia. Just forget about the so-called policies of Wikipedia, this site has became a mafia-like dirt-hole with lots of gangs of sysops and stewards to eliminate anyone whom they don't like.--Adel Wolf in EnWi (talk) 04:16, 28 November 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) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Perkovic

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

This article was written in 2007 to look like this, and then rewritten to the current form as well as repeatedly blanked by a (currently-blocked) account who claims to be the article subject. In neither version is it clear how the subject meets WP:BIO, as I can't immediately find any substantial third-party coverage about him. If the article is correct, there may well be coverage about him, but until such third-party sources are cited and the article rewritten by a non-WP:COI editor, we should not simply serve as a repository for this artist's CV.  Sandstein  07:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)  Sandstein  07:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the one who added the current tags to the article. This has the looks of someone who may be notable, but the sourcing is so poorly done that it's impossible to tell at present. I wasn't aware of the COI, but with that additional info, deleting until someone without a coi writes an article seems likely the best idea. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 13:24, 25 November 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) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lacuna Expanse

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

I killed a speedy tag here, but notability might not be good enough. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:48, 25 November 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) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mad and Spectral

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

This group doesn't seem notable, and even seem to be begging for a contract in the intro. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:47, 25 November 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. CSD A7. Importance or significance not asserted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Finning

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

Delete. Article written by apparent descendant of the subject. Mostly a memoir stating that the subject is "mentioned as being the first trainer of Hercules football club of Alicante, but elsewhere he is listed as being the second. It is not known if the post was full time, paid, etc." The only reference is a website with the subject's name on a list along with a hundred other names. Cindamuse (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion are stronger. Per WP:V, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And the blog post cited at the bottom of the discussion probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source.  Sandstein  07:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bordeaux (software)

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

Unremarkable minor league commercial fork of a popular freeware package. This article reads like an advertisement, and IMHO would likely get deleted if it were tagged for speedy deletion as spam, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and go through AFD instead. Simple Bob (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does not read like a advertisement, it reads the same way CodeWeavers reads! If Bordeaux should be removed then CodeWeavers and Cedega should be removed at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twickline (talk • contribs) 10:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Wine page, Bordeaux is "is a Wine GUI configuration manager that runs winelib applications. It also supports installation of third party utilities, installation of applications and games, and the ability to use custom configurations." Possibly it merits a page for itself, but not a page like this one.
    • It reads like an advertisement, and seems to be actively maintained to remain exclusively in that vein
    • Criticism of Bordeaux is removed from the article [60] & [61]
    • A near identical article has been posted to the wineHQ wiki by a "Tom Wickline"
  • Delete as non-Encyclopaedic Kiore (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per nom, "Unremarkable minor league commercial fork of a popular freeware package". However there is some discussion of it out there, and I consider recognisably distinct distros to (just about, in this case) warrant coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the following reasons:
    1. The product is not notable:
      1. There are a number of references to it out on the web but on inspection it is clear that proponents of the product have heavily promoted the product on Linux/BSD oriented Wikis and listing services. It is difficult to find meaningful web references to it that don't originate in this article (Including its original on their site) or their press releases
      2. There are comparisons, reviews and references on the internet but none of the ones I could find are on notable sites
      3. The article's references all seem to originate with the Bordeaux team.
    2. In its present form it does once again have the criticism section restored, but other than that the article lacks an NPOV and reads like an ad. The criticism section has problems of its own including referencing a page on the Bordeaux site that has been blocked.
    3. The primary author of the page has a massive WP:COI Ref: Interview with Tom Wickline, of the Bordeaux Project and demonstrates WP:OWN of the page with his constant reverts of other editors changed. At best there's enough to make a good stub, but this should only be entertained if reliable independent references can be found. (NB: Replacing my earlier comment) Kiore (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the fact that Twickline (talk · contribs) has received a 72 hour ban for advertising/promotion speaks volumes here. I really do think we have a strong case for speedy deletion. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's a source: a blog post containing a detailed review [62]. The author is a three-time [63] contributor to Linux Gazette and his most recent contribution was on the same topic. [64]. He frequently blogs about the topic, too. [65] To be notable, I think we'd need one more source that's a little better. --Pnm (talk) 04:14, 2 December 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) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Monarch (producer)

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

Delete No evidence of notability. In October 2010 I proposed the article for deletion, giving as reason "Non-notable pair of producers, expecting to make "major" releases in the future. No sources, despite tagging for 4 months." The article was then rapidly edited by its author to add three"references". One of these references is a link to an answers.com entry which does not mention "The Monarch" nor, as far as I can see, anything else remotely relevant. The Wikipedia article describes this reference as "D.N.A. Album Review", but it is nothing of the sort. Another reference is a dead link. That leaves just one reference (here), in which the only mention of "The Monarch" is "The song was produced by The Runners and The Monarch". Consequently the article does not indicate notability, and nor do my own web searches. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been edited and now includes evidence of notability and references from credible sources. The Billboard website lists this pair of producers in the song credits for a song that has been on the U.S. Billboard charts (song credits) (chart position), which according to #2 on the list of wikipedia's criteria for musicians and ensembles makes them a "notable pair of producers" .

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:36, 25 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia Airlines

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

I could not find any reference on the extent of flight services offered by this airline during its short "livespan", which means that the encyclopedic impact and importance is very low. There is no deep, significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, so the company fails WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added sources that show that they operated for 3 months, on a three times weekly basis between Mostar and Zagreb. Not sure if this is enough to make it notable. Also, these sources [66] and [67], seem to suggest that it had some sort of operations between 2006 and 2008, but I could not find any information on these. Might have more luck if someone can do a Serbian language search. Ravendrop (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Request I don't believe Fortunecity pages meet WP:RS, but the others might help. Strongly suggest some of our Serbo-Croatian-language editors be given a chance to take a look at this. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:01, 29 November 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 United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 20 . Spartaz Humbug! 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Vidak

[edit]
Andy Vidak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think this should probably be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Vidak. I messed up somehow and made the reason for AfD the title.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per this thread, AFD page now moved to correct location. January (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created in good faith as he seemed possible to win, but as he didn't I don't know that he's notable. Some failed candidates are, because they were in state government at a high level or what have you, but it sounded like he wasn't. I'm not a 100% sure he should be deleted though as there could be notable things about him I missed when I created this.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, we all make mistakes but if you want to delete this article and are the one who created it, just tag the article with a speedy delete tag and explain that you are requesting removal as the article's creator. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm leaning that way, but I thought we might due a discussion in case someone knows a reason he'd still be notable. I've never even been to California, although my Dad was born there, so I thought maybe there could be a reason I didn't know. Besides I already started the process, but I'll remember this for next time.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I favor inclusion because I think (1) running for Congress and getting over 49% of the vote is notable; (2) he has announced plans to run again in 2012, and regardless of the results of that race, there needs to be one unified article; where would you redirect to if he loses in 2012 as well? WP:POLITICIAN says that someone can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." There was considerable coverage of Vidak in the Fresno and Bakersfield media during the 2010 campaign. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you don't keep an article on Wikipedia for an individual deemed non-notable just because he claims he'll run again for office in two years. And if he loses in 2012 he is a two-time political loser and just as non-notable. Why worry about where to redirect his name in two years? Does that make sense? Redirecting is not mandatory anyway. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually create articles on prospective candidates, I'm not sure I ever did before this year, but he seemed to have good odds of winning and the article on Tom Marino worked out. In retrospect though maybe I should have held off, particularly considering his pre-election CV is arguably less noteworthy than Marino's.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:02, 28 November 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) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Q. Bovik

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

Bovik is a fictional person (basically a local urban legend), famous only at Carnegie Mellon. I don't see any reliable sources, and the only unreliable ones are all associated with the campus itself. Unless this legend can be shown to have wider notability than Mellon, it does not qualify as encyclopedic (in formal terms, it doesn't meet WP:N or WP:V). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press Start (film)

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

Absolutely no secondary sources found anywhere. Fails film notability as there are no third party sources anywhere, nor did anyone notable receive a major role (the three bluelinks are minor roles). Only sources are tangential mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yikes. For the nominator to use the term "Absolutely" is a bit of unneccessary hyperbole... specially as searches DO find sources... though such as Micro Film Magazine may not be seen as particularly reliable. But to flatly state there are "absolutely no third party sources anywhere"??? Come on TPH. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 25 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Luchagors

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

Contested prod; reasoning supported a merge, but contestor did not perform or request said merge. This article does not meet WP:BAND and violates WP:NOTINHERITED. The band meets none of the criteria from items 2-10 of the BAND policy - the album they released was done as a digital self-release, did not chart, and there are no notable musicians in the band. They have won no awards, are not a prominent representative of their genre, and have done no work for any major media. As for criteria 1 - some interviews and articles do exist, but they tend to focus more one the fact that the singer (Amy Dumas) was a former pro wrestler. Coverage on the band and its music otherwise is trivial, being mainly performance announcements for local clubs. The band is therefore not notable as a band, but because of its association with Amy Dumas as a wrestler (not as a musician). MSJapan (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That will need to be supported - Shay's article claims an unbroken career from 2001 to present in Genitorturers, then Dope, and currently Murderdolls. If he was session or touring only for Luchagors, he doesn't count as an official member of the band, because that's just the way it goes. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he is listed as the drummer for The Luchagors on their official page "On February 11, 2009, the band welcomed their new drummer Racci Shay Hart." I have no idea if this is the only band he is in, but there is no policy that says a musician can only be in one band at a time... or else it doesn't count. Anyway that is only further support, coverage of the Luchagors is significant by itself. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 25 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariza Ikonomi

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 18. Original AfD rationale was:

Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 05:31, 25 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tobuscus

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

Page about youtube personality Toby turner. It's been A7ed under that name repeatedly, but technically I think this falls outside A7 since there's a claim of celebrity. There's sparse coverage I found in Google news, including a press release from his new corporate sponsor. Gigs (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I would say keep because of his references elsewhere, or perhaps switch the name of the article from "Tobuscus" to "Toby Turner". His acting was significant enough that he is listed as one of the major actors in the movie New Low, which is referenced on this site. Perhaps it needs some more information, but I have seen articles with a lot less that this. I also edited it to make it less of an advertisement than it was before, like mention below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbarbe (talk • contribs) 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless significant coverage is found and added. Having a corporate sponsor is not enough to indicate WP:Notability. LadyofShalott 06:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just found this article out of curiosity to see if it even existed. I enjoy videos the person has made, and they do indeed have many views on Youtube. However Views alone do not make you notable. He may be more notable in the future, but Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball. Right now this page seams like more of an advertisement for him then an encyclopedia article anyway. --Jaryth000 (talk) 10:19, 25 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HEMA (Hookers, Escorts and Masseurs Association)

[edit]
HEMA (Hookers, Escorts and Masseurs Association) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable web site (fails WP:GNG). According to this article, created by User:Hemanetwork, the site receives 65 hits per day... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the organization is notable and unique.Hemanetwork (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how did this not get speedied under G11? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All 501c3s are notable!Hemanetwork (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that; besides, read what WP:CSD#G11 is, it has nothing to do with notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:04, 25 November 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) 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ryan (USMC)

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

Declined the speedy deletion of this article for a wider audience to determine whether the military history described is notable. Stephen 04:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to nit-pick, but most Marines (such as myself) don't take kindly to being called a "soldier". I shall AGF (because I'm sure you meant no insult), but please be mindful of this in the future. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe us mere soldiers should take offense at that! I jest of course... objection noted Bahamut (as I'm guilty of this oversight as well). Anotherclown (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know, we all can't be natural-born killers like myself. No shame in being in 2nd place. :P bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked with them before, but it'll be 2011 before I get a reply. I'm not inclined to dig that deep anymore, given that the only keep vote is from the author. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its unfortunate that they are so slow, because the article is not bad. With just a couple of refs, it would be a keeper, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what: I'll request more info, and then ask for the closing admin to undelete if they find anything with some substance. This would require some of the other participating editors to note that thier delete votes are without prejudice for recreation. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I for one, certainly would have no problem with recreation if suitable refs come to light at a later date. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:35, 1 December 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 I've decided to bundle this AfD with several others from the same book series. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanology: The True Account of the Voyage of the Nautilus

[edit]
Oceanology: The True Account of the Voyage of the Nautilus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability criteria for books. No reviews of any type or scope found. Article should be redirected to series page (Ologies (series)). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:57, 25 November 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 Ologies_(series). merge anything sources at your discretion Spartaz Humbug! 14:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vampireology: The True History of the Fallen Ones

[edit]
Vampireology: The True History of the Fallen Ones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Mythology: Greek Gods, Heroes, & Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Monsterology: The Complete Book of Monstrous Creatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spyology: The Complete Book of Spycraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oceanology: The True Account of the Voyage of the Nautilus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet notability criteria for books. I found 2 news reviews; one listed the book as one of a dozen or so similarly themed books, the other is a 2 paragraph online only review. Article should be redirected to series page (Ologies (series)). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have added 4 other books from this series to this AfD. Essentially, its the 5 most recent books in this series that are being nominated. The first 4 books were all nominated for prizes or received significant reviews in general sources, and thus meet WP:NB. Essentially, it looks like the series started off being notable, but, over time, the individual books became less popular, at least in that they no longer get regular, independent reviews. As such, the above 4 books should be redirected to the series as a whole. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 25 November 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) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmedial play

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

Non-notable neologism. Appears to be an attempt to bootstrap the term into greater currency by creating a Wikipedia article about it. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmedia Activism (2nd nomination) -- Rrburke (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uuugh. I tried to read the article, but I have no idea what they're trying to say. Delete per nom. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 05:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like total jibber-jabber. Eddie.willers (talk) 16:45, 25 November 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. Yes I know that's entirely dissatisfying—I'm right there with you.

First let me say that I've obviously read the previous close by User:Black Kite (overturned at DRV) and the closing rationale by User:Mkativerata at the ensuing DRV. With respect to the latter, I wholeheartedly concur with Mkativerata's summary of the DRV. In a sense that was my jumping off point—consensus at the DRV was best interpreted to mean that the original discussion should have been relisted rather than closed, i.e. we needed more discussion.

Has the additional discussion helped? For the most part no, at least in terms of determining consensus as to what to do with the list.

There were a whole bunch of comments/votes that simply did not provide anything in the way of a valid rationale—and yes that means folks on both the keep and delete side of things. In the end this AfD is largely a conversation between GreyHood and a few who disagree with that editor, with S Marshall making some helpful meta points. Frankly it's not a very good discussion, which I don't remotely intend as a negative comment directed at anyone in particular—sometimes that's just how these discussions go.

The main arguments revolved around WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SALAT (incidentally the fact that WP:SALAD is a redlink is goddamn shameful, and if someone doesn't fix that soon....well you just wait and see what I do! and how fat we'll all get!). Some of the arguments were based on an earlier version of the article which seriously deforms the AfD (and is often a problem in these drawn out discussions). Overall there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the is-this-a-random-infinite-meaningless-list (there's the rub) argument. GreyHood commented far more than anyone else in the discussion, but the fact is that said editor makes some good, exhaustive/ing arguments rooted in our guidelines (or at least a completely reasonable interpretation of them). There just isn't a consensus to delete or change the status quo ante based on the indiscriminate/salad (sic) discussion (incidentally Pgallert phrases the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument most persuasively, but it certainly did not overrule other discussion).

A couple of delete supporters invoke a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH argument. The point would seem to be that, in order to limit the list in such a fashion that it does not fall afoul WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a criteria was developed for the list (this happened during the AfD) which said it would be based on other Wikipedia lists and basically nothing else. That's probably a pretty good argument (a counterpoint that List of countries is in the same boat is not entirely persuasively for reasons not worth going into), but it was not developed fully (Quigley probably came the closest) and it certainly did not achieve anything like consensus.

I genuinely had no idea how this ought to be closed when I decided to shut 'er down after a quick glance, but the "no consensus" conclusion seemed pretty inescapable after weighing all of the relevant factors. As I said it isn't satisfying, but that happens.

Because I spent way too much time on this and am annoyed—and because the previous close resulted in unsubtle suggestions that thumbs were pressed on scales—forgive me (or not) if I "editorialize" briefly (the frustration is very much directed generally and at no one in particular). Appropriate given our policies/guidelines or not, I find this list semi-ridiculous, and more importantly the entire process surrounding the deletion discussion über-ridiculous. en.wikipedia is an encyclopedia project with a ton of gaping holes in it, and the fact that we (that means me too—no doubt) spent as much time and effort as we did dealing with this thingy is frankly embarrassing as hell. Good day, and good luck to all of us with whatever this is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS--For a bit of hilarious perspective, I think, check out (if you haven't already) what the article looked like when it was created by none other than the Wiki-notable Simon Pulsifer (also notice the redlink at the bottom of that version—Wikipedia lists were mad different back in 2004 before the Biographies of Living Countries policy came into effect).



List of statistically superlative countries

[edit]
List of statistically superlative countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is totally unencyclopedic. There are at least a million other items of similar quality which could be added to it. Kill it before it takes over the world. It has already started to spawn (see List_of_statistically_superlative_objects_by_country). Honestly, I expect this nomination to be defeated by the arguments A) “It's interesting” and B) “It's all referenced”, but I feel the need to at least try to save the world from this mind-numbing dross. The answers are of course A) “Only if you're interested in worthless trivia” and B) “IT'S STILL WORTHLESS TRIVIA”. I apologize for insulting everyone who has contributed to the article, and for shouting. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Thank you for your apologize. Truly a rare gift for a Wikipedia rare visitor who is more active in deleting articles, instead of expanding them ;) GreyHood Talk 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is perfectly encyclopedic, and interesting, indeed. There is however a potential problem with the scope of the list. And instead of so straight and quick deletion proposal, one should have brought this problem on the talk page first, to find a decent solution for it. One such solution may be limiting the scope of the list exclusively to the statistics present in Wikipedia's List of countries, that is to non-trivial and noteworthy statistics approved by the community (at least so far as the lists in question are not deleted). In fact, most of the page currently is composed of links to various Wikipedian list of countries, and the page provides useful summary for them, and there is really no need to remove this summury. GreyHood Talk 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the List_of_statistically_superlative_objects_by_country, I created it in order to pipe off non-general and non-statistical records, which some users started to add to the original list. I won't strongly object to deletion of that spawned list. Of course its scope also may be restricted in some reasonable way, like the similar connection to the lists of objects, but still the number of noteworthy objects likely would be dozens and hundreds times higher than the number of noteworthy statistics, and the list could become unmanagable. GreyHood Talk 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another possible solution is not modifying the list at all, until it really becames too big, and then splitting it by topic area, like with the old Template:Lists of countries which became too big and eventually was splitted into several templates (see Category:Country list templates). However, I would prefer to have a multi-topic list of countries intact, since it gives certain general picture of a country and an option of multidimensional country comparison. GreyHood Talk 22:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite having contributed to this list, I agree with the nominator that it is nothing more than a big list of trivia. It doesn't even allow to do any meangingful comparison since it includes both the worse and the best of each country. For instance, Zimbabwe has 10 entries when the UK only has 5 - what are we supposed to learn from that? Laurent (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should we expect to learn anything from the number of entries? (Btw, I'm against the addition of the number column.) We can learn from the statistics, however - being top or bottom at something is considered an important characteristic of a country. Look at most of the Wikipedian articles about major countries - editors typically try to mention the things the country in question is good at. And we can learn from the current list that China is a major producer of many agricultural and industrial products, Russia has a large territory and strong energy sector, the United States has a great prominence in financial sector, Germany is good in sports etc. GreyHood Talk 19:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. The number column has been removed. GreyHood Talk 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a collection of endless trivia with no cohesion. It's basically a directory of "things" a country is best/worst at. Oh, and can we please include an entry for the country with the longest average toenail length? Do U(knome)? yes...or no 09:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The criteria for inclusion has been set in the lede of the list, in such a way so as to include only notable and non-trivial statistics, approved by the Wikipedian community. Now the list is mostly an extended version of the Lists of countries (with rankings), sorted by the name of the country which is at the top or (in some cases) in the bottom of some ranked country list. GreyHood Talk 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, now the list is in now way "unencyclopedic", since it is set to include only the information approved as encyclopedic in the other parts of encyclopedia.
    • The list is no longer potentially endless, since there is a finite number of lists of countries and maps with rankings on Wikipedia. GreyHood Talk 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure whether re-branding the article as List of Best and Worst Countries in Lists in Wikipedia will work. It makes it very clear that everything references back to Wikipedia and that usually isn't allowed because of WP:CIRCULAR. I thought about this before I nominated the article and my opinion is that we would really need some outside source which discusses “best and worst countries in lists in Wikipedia”. But I'm the nominator and there are widely different views on what should or shouldn't be allowed in List Articles. So maybe someone else can provide an opinion. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how we rename it, the article will remain a big list of random trivias. If this article exists, then why can't we also have a "List of best and worst humans", "List of best and worst dogs", etc. and then we end up with a Guinness Book of Records, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. Laurent (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Best and worst" is misleading, since it may sound as a violation of neutrality. Otherwise, I think this is quite an interesting idea to create the List of statistically superlative people or the List of statistically superlative dogs with the similar inclusion criteria as for the list of countries. Why not? This would be interesting, encyclopedic, handy and quite volume-limited lists. GreyHood Talk 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list of Lists of countries and many technical lists don't require any outside sources, and generally there is no need in single outside source for a list if the criteria for inclusion are clearly defined and the idea behind the list is notable and encyclopedic. And again, now the list of statistically superlative countries is mostly an extended version of the Lists of countries (those with rankings), sorted by the name of the country which is at the top or (in some cases) in the bottom of some ranked country list. In fact, we may even insert the similar table or several tables by topic right into the Lists of countries or into the List of international rankings, changing their format. GreyHood Talk 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The artcile is informative and encyclopedic.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article provides valuable and encyclopedic information. (Same goes for the list of statistically superlative objects). In my humble opinion, most of the ratings can be found in other good wiki articles, so unless you can justify deleting the "List of countries by Gross National Income" article or other similar ones, do not try to do it to this one.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP/Delete. I as a contributor to this page, would have liked to keep it for these reasons: the page contains useful information about nations which is difficult to find in one page in other places which is the nature of an encyclopedia, the page has a high traffic volume proving that it is popular on the net, the page is designed to be fun and many school children use it to learn stuff and the page though not proper for a 19th century Encyclopedia Britannica is very much a wikipedia article. Besides the history of the article shows that its size has been very much stable as hardly few entries have been added to it since the past several months, certainly it was not becoming the Godzilla swallowing the world. There are longer articles on wikipedia than this one.

These were my arguments for keeping it. But since today I visited the page, its character has changed. Some one has removed a large portion of entries in the name of triviality. This is wrong. For example the opium production in the world affects the lives of millions of people, kills hundreds of thousands and probably causes hundreds of billion dollars of economic damage to the world. Calling that trivial is none sense. On the other hand the best performance in swimming is trivial. So if the article is going to become a "sanitized" one made palatable for consumption of a few then it should be deleted. I am in favor of its old format, with possible splitting up to different pages if its size goes over 150K. But it is to become a propaganda page in line with "ideologies" of a "few" then its deletion is a better choice.--119.156.25.46 (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the opium hasn't been removed completely, just commented (put into the tags "< !--" and "-->"). The entry is clearly worth of inclusion when compared to the other entries, but according to the criteria for inclusion which I have set (or proposed), the opium production in Afghanistan may be re-added if somebody creates the List of countries by opium production, or finds or draws a map of opium-producing countries (at least the top ones). However, if the majority of editors will agree that the proposed criteria are too strict, and that we may include new entries that are obviously important and in the same league as the entries already in the article - well, OK, it will be easy to de-comment such entries. GreyHood Talk 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Ideologies" of a "few" has nothing to do here. The article just needs some reasonable criteria to limit its scope. I had hoped to discuss such criteria before single-handedly implementing them, but my proposal was ignored and people kept voting "delete" because the article is possibly an endless list of trivia, so I decided better to limit the scope of the list right now. However, you may propose different or less strict criteria if you like, and de-comment the old entries. GreyHood Talk 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, these criteria mean that we're relying on Wikipedia itself both for accuracy and notability for each of the items. Wikipedia just isn't that accurate and isn't a good measure of notability. I just don't know if there are any criteria would work. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the accuracy of the items we may provide external references if there is any particular need. As for the notability, there is no any universal measure of notability, and all content here on Wikipedia presumably follows the lines of the notability in Wikipedia. As long as a list is on Wikipedia and hasn't been deleted, the information in that list is presumed to be notable and encyclopedic. GreyHood Talk 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Useful" is a relevant factor for lists. The title is hideously awkward, but I cannot immediately think of a better. The sources are in the linked articles; they can be copied over, but I think it would just make the table harder to read. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful for any purpose of information that I can think of; indiscriminate collection of information in which such gems as "Best performance at Sidecarcross World Championship" are given equal importance to statistics such as "Highest Human Development Index".  Sandstein  08:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From DR: People create games based on this list, which is one example of how this information can be used.
  • On equal importance: if something is listed together with something else, that doesn't necessarily mean that those items are given equal importance. Let's put aside the statistics for a moment - this is a list of countries, but the fact that some smallish countries are listed beside the world powers don't make them all equally important. GreyHood Talk 20:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listing notable accomplishments in various fields. Perhaps the Agricultural ones could be in their own article, listing all the accomplishments in that field per nation, and then split off the sports related things, and then other things as well. Get a world view about how different nations are exceeding in various things. Dream Focus 12:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Needs some more sources, but otherwise it is interesting and everything is notable. So why not have it? A lot of encyclopedias have interesting facts like this listed in one spot.--NavyBlue84 16:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: The discussion was re-opened at this point as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 15#List of statistically superlative countries (closed). The outcome of that deletion review was that the AfD should be re-opened for at least another seven days. The AfD is eligible for closure 168 hours after the following timestamp: --Mkativerata (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- this article is a textbook violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no possibility that any meaningful comparison can be drawn between such wildly random properties like "Best performance at Paddle Tennis World Championship", "Largest sisal producer", "Most frigates in operation" and "Highest number of World Heritage Sites". This entire list is meaningless, incoherent WP:TRIVIA, and deciding which of the millions and billions of possible statistics to list is unavoidably original research. Reyk YO! 03:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been already shown at the DR, that the only point of WP:INDISCRIMINATE which may apply in this case is the Excessive listing of statistics. The main concern of that point is the neatness of the article and its readability. Nobody questioned those so far, and as WP:INDISCRIMINATE suggests, the table format is already used to enhance neatness/readability. As for the volume of statistics, the criteria have been set already in order to make the scope of the list finite, and if some editors still find the volume of statistics "excessive", there is always possibility to impose stricter criteria and delete more not-that-notable entries. This can be done by editing the article and by discussing its improvement on the talk page; this is content dispute and not a good reason for deletion. There is no point in deleting the entire list when the problem can be solved by deleting some parts of it.
  • The idea that a sprawling, incoherent mess of an article can be excused because it has borders, pretty colours and neat little national flags is abhorrent to me. It's like chrome-plating a turd. Restricting this list to properties that can be meaningfully compared is not the answer because we already have lots of lists like that, which would make this one redundant. Reyk YO! 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On comparison: this list doesn't compare "wildly random properties", this is a list of countries, and it provides reader with some means to compare countries. Since the countries of the world differ very much in many ways and are expected to be good or bad at different things, it is quite natural to see very different types of entries in this list.
  • I maintain my position that there is no meaningful comparison to be drawn between statistics like "Highest lowest point among all countries" and "Winner of most Bandy World Championships (women)". Reyk YO! 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comparison of the two suggests that one country is prominent in some sport, and other has a prominent geography. An opposition of the two is mostly pointless, but the combination of such facts can tell us, for example, that China is the largest producer, US is the largest consumer etc. Pretty interesting way to create a general image of the country, and pretty encyclopedic: read almost any Wikipedian article about a (major) country, and you will see that editors try to put into prominence the information about things that country is prominent at. GreyHood Talk 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you go back to WP:TRIVIA and look at the six words in bold at the very start of the guideline. "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." I also suggest that, if you think the spirit of that guideline can be dodged because this list is an entire article rather than just a section of one, that you have a good long read of WP:WIKILAWYER as well. Reyk YO! 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies. Again, basically the guideline writes that information from the trivia lists should be transformed into good prose as the article is further developed. The first six words are not a good summary of a guideline - there is a nutshell for short summaries, read it please. Thank your for your WP:WIKILAWYER reading advice, but I think that obvious misinterpretation of the letter is not a good companion of supporting the spirit. GreyHood Talk 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I'll add that your relentless badgering of all delete !voters is getting tiresome. We were not convinced by your badgering of earlier voters, nor by your badgering at the DRV. What makes you think we're going to suddenly be convinced when you badger us with exactly the same faulty arguments you've made previously? Reyk YO! 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, show that my arguments are faulty. So far I see mostly the misinterpretation of some WP policies, and the persistent ignoring of the fact, that absolutely nothing prevents us from fixing the problems with this article instead of deleting it. I believe that if all those problems were brought to the article's talk page instead of AfD, they would long have been solved without all those tedious discussions. Unfortunately, I also can say that it is getting a bit tiresome for me to read and answer the same type of arguments all over again. Perhaps this is a wrong way of conduct, but I'm a rare participant of deletion discussions and haven't time to acquire better manners. GreyHood Talk 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:SALAT, detailing the appropriate topics for stand-alone lists, provides that "lists that are too general or broad in scope [...] have little value". WP:INDISCRIMINATE also bars "long and sprawling lists of statistics" especially where such lists fail to provide sufficient detail to put those statistics into their proper context. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On WP:SALAT - here is the full quote: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. This list's scope already has been limited and can be limited even more, and this list can be sorted by country or by topic/field which is as good as sections.
  • WP:INDISCRIMINATE is discussed above. Providing details to put statistics into their proper context makes sense only in case of non-list articles. This standalone list has a clear purpose and certain criteria for inclusion. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is relevant here only so far as editors find the volume of statistics "excessive". The problem should be solved like all other content disputes and cases of overgrown articles; it is not a good argument for the deletion of the entire list. GreyHood Talk 21:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user looking for the world's largest producers of pears would expect to find the answer at pear; a user looking for Argentina's exports would look at Argentina. What additional encyclopaedic purpose does this list? What possible user query could be answered by this page? Hence WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Re WP:SALAT - this list cannot be broken into non-arbitrary sections, hence it can't satisfy the stand-alone-list critera.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user looking for largest, greatest, smallest, statistically superlative countries would get this list, as well as user who looks for international rankings sorted by top country. Additional encyclopaedic purpose, as it is quite often on Wikipedia, is creating a good general reference page to the most notable statistic superlatives. Above and below I've already given an example of how some people created an on-line game based on this list, which means it is interesting to readers and has some application. As you can see, the list can easily be broken into sections by country or by field, but arguably this will make it less handy. I won't argue against switching the format of the list, but I think it is not a good place and moment to discuss it here and now. GreyHood Talk 01:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straw man argument. The Guiness Book of World Records is irrelevant here. As well as the technical list of Lists of countries, this list doesn't aim to become The _Complete_ Book of Lists. Like in case of all Wikipedian articles and lists, we should try to include only notable enough end encyclopedic information, not all records and not all lists. This list's scope has already been limited, and nothing prevents us from following Wikipedian policies here. GreyHood Talk 21:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD is focusing on the article's current state, and there's a consensus that as written there's too much in the way of trivia. I agree: it can't be retained in its current form. However, the discussion has yet to consider whether a process of selective trimming and removing the trivia could bring the article into compliance with policy. It's essential that this is done before deletion would be appropriate. AfD isn't about what the content is today; AfD is about considering an article's potential in the light of the sources.

    It doesn't help that this list doesn't have the right title for the subject and we might want to think about what the list should really be called. My own view is that there's potentially encyclopaedic material here, but it may also be redundant with other lists we already have. I wonder whether the correct outcome is a redirect to the List of international rankings.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SALAT, unclear inclusion criterion. Not to mention ambiguous title: "statistically superlative", what does that mean? Apparently any random subject where a country is in some way exceptionnal is enough. That is too broad in scope, and meaningless altogether. Repeated entries galore! I mean, did you know that China is the country with the largest population? With the largest ethnic Chinese population? The highest proportion of ethnic Chinese in the population? The largest number of Mandarin speakers? The largest number of Cantonese speakers? It's also the largest country in Asia that is not also part of another continent? The country with the largest wild population of pandas? The largest wild population of Chinese alligators? Pick a country, any country, and start counting its "statistical superlatives". You can come up with an arbitrary number of them in no time.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SALAT is irrelevant, see above. The title most likely will be changed, we've already started the discussion. The scope may be broad - OK, lets make it even more limited and restricted, but why delete the list? And couldn't you see that even according to the criteria already set for the list, most if not all of your example statistics shouldn't be added to the list? Adding "an arbitrary number of them in no time" hardly ever occured for the last year, and many attempts to add trivial statistics were reverted as non-notable. GreyHood Talk 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You think seem to be the only one to think WP:SALAT is irrelevant. The article still serves no purpose. Make separate list articles if they don't exist already. There's no point in a completely arbitrary collection of "statistical superlatives". We have a bunch of List of countries with specific purposes. This one has none. But if WP:SALAT is not the right guideline according to you, how about WP:NOTDIR? You can't get more loosely associated topics than this. --137.122.49.102 (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article serves to identify which countries are at the top of the international rankings present on Wikipedia. A minor thing, but still an example that there is a point in this collection of "statistical superlatives": people create games based on this list. Then, the collection is not arbitrary, at least no more arbitrary than average Wikipedian article which usually tries to reflect the most notable facts about its subject instead of collecting all possible data. Here we also have an attempt to collect only the most notable statistics. If there are some flaws in the collection, this can be fixed by editing the list. As for the WP:NOTDIR, let's quote its first point which you apparently are talking about:
  • Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
  • Core topic: notable international rankings. Sorting by top country is a format, not a topic. Listing all possible superlatives is not an aim. GreyHood Talk 00:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB. I kindly advice the following for the people here:

  • Before voting, make sure you have carefully read
    • The current inclusion criteria in the list, at the top of the page
    • Previous votes in this discussion, answers to them and other comments
  • (Reading the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 15 also may be of some help to those who haven't participated in it.)
  • As S Marshall have pointed out, we should consider not only the current state of the article but also the ways of improving it, since AfD isn't about what the content is today; AfD is about considering an article's potential. GreyHood Talk 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributors should also note that Greyhood is the only user to have made a keep argument since the relisting, and not be misled by the fact that his contibutions have a higher word count than everyone else combined. (They're not bad contributions, mind, being both polite and referring to policy, and he's entitled to make them, but it's a mite disconcerting to realise all this argument is only against one user.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not misrepresent the situation, please. The keep votes made before the relisting still should be taken into account, and there were plenty of people on the DR discussion that were against deletion of this article. I'm not the only proponent of keeping the list, and all this argument is not only against one user. I've just been the most active editor here so far, and judging by your reaction, I was a bit too much active ;) GreyHood Talk 00:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though that way of arguing has been contested before, WP:INDISCRIMINATE indeed is the right policy to cite to delete this creation. Because what it means is "List of statistically superlative countries under any criterion", and that's just not acceptable. Please also note the following quote from WP:NOT: "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.", which is linked to WP:BEANS. So it is not the case that excessive statistics would be the only violation that could possibly apply. --Pgallert (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflicted, but placed here in order to keep the chronology of posts) Well, DustFormsWords, the numbers aren't really relevant. It's the arguments. The fact that GreyHood is the only person saying what he's saying doesn't mean that he's wrong.

    Where GreyHood is wrong is when he says "there were plenty of people on the DR discussion that were against deletion of this article", because DRV is not about that. Decisions about whether to delete belong at AfD. The DRV decides whether the AfD was correctly conducted. There was a widespread view at the DRV that the AfD needed to be more thorough and rigorous, with !votes on both the "keep" and "delete" sides needing to be disregarded for being little more than a statement of opinion with a vague handwave towards a policy. (To my amazement, users who have contributed since the DRV are still doing this.) But that does not mean that users at DRV were opposed to the deletion of this article. What it means is that they were opposed to its deletion based on the previous debate alone.

    Quigley's remark, above, is very pertinent and needs to be taken seriously. Quigley is right to say that the article as presently written is a novel synthesis, which means it cannot be kept in its current form. However, could this be solved by selective trimming?—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you are right of course that DRV was about the correctness of AfD closing. But naturally, the merits of the article and arguments for its deletion simply had to be discussed there as well. That's why I'm right in asserting that there were people on the DRV discussion that were against deletion of this article, at least against deletion on the basis of arguments presented up to that moment, including the application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While I agree that this policy may be applied here to show the drawbacks of this article and to demand its improvement, I do not agree that it is a good basis for deletion. GreyHood Talk 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My answer to Quigley was that there is no any general requirement for WP:LISTS to be based on one single source, that many technical lists of lists don't need sources at all, and that there is a possibility to cover the entire collection of lists by a very limited number of general sources. Where am I wrong? GreyHood Talk 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposal to discuss the following scheme, which may lead to improvement of this article and perhaps several other articles as well. This is also an attempt to answer the last question from S Marshall.

A technical question: is renaming of an article appropriate during an AfD discussion? Does it mean that an AfD discussion should be renamed as well? GreyHood Talk 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very pleased you asked the question rather than just doing it! Please don't rename the article during the AfD, it's potentially disruptive because it can break templates that are supposed to direct interested users to this discussion. There's no urgency to rename it. If there's a consensus that it needs to be renamed then that should be done by the closing administrator at the end of the discussion (although I'm going to propose a different solution in a minute).

    Your answer to Quigley is that WP:SYN doesn't apply to a navigational list. (This is quite logical. It can't be a synthesis if there's no thesis!) However, I think there's more to the article's present content than a navigational list. As it grows and changes, this list is acquiring a thesis over time.

    I think the subject you're actually writing about is achievements by country. In other words, the list shows that most countries are at the top of some league table, somewhere, and some countries are at the top of quite a few league tables in different categories. I do think that's potentially an encyclopaedic subject, and this list provides an index to it. The list could be of value to someone doing research. In that sense it's navigational. However I can't see any objective criteria for including an item on the list. I think you're trying to address that with your latest suggestion.

    I agree that a revamp along the lines that you suggest would be a big step towards making this material suitable for the mainspace, but I don't think we're quite there yet, and I think the best outcome now would be for the closer to userfy this material to GreyHood. Let GreyHood make the changes he suggests in his own time and then move this list back into the mainspace -- when it has a more suitable name, clear criteria for inclusion, and otherwise addresses the various problems this AfD has identified -- in his own time.—S Marshall T/C 17:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't accept this your userfy proposal if the article was not already deleted/restored. The deletion resulted in loss of many links to this article from other Wikipedian articles and templates, which were deleted after the article was deleted. But now the harm has been already done, and there is indeed some point in userfying the article, deleting it from the mainspace, fixing and reshaping it in the user space, and posting it again to the mainspace under different name. I have already copied the article into my userspace, and I'm not going to be very active at this discussion anymore. GreyHood Talk 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I am not sure that I'll revamp the article in a short time, and it has been shown during this discussion that the article was found useful both by Wikipedia editors and outside. That's why I think the result of this discussion should not be delete, but rather revamp and rename, with preserving the current version of the article in the mainspace. Then, if the article is not revamped in some reasonable time, it should be quick-deleted. GreyHood Talk 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you're suggesting that wether or not to delete this is based on what the article would look like later on? I don't think that's a very good keep/delete argument, since the criteria for keeping or deleting. If a topic does deserve inclusion, then it's worth keeping, even if it's article is terrible (unless said article has content that cannot be preserved like copyright violations). If a topic doesn't deserve inclusion, it's article should be deleted, regardless of the article's quality. NotARealWord (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll retract that part of the proposal. I have suggested it just as an attempt to reach some consensus and avoid further tedious discussions, but now I see that it only brings more controversy. GreyHood Talk 20:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial position was that the article needs improvement, but there was no point in deleting it. Basically I agree with the approach to deletion/keeping which you have described, but unfortunately so far this discussion focused mostly on the current state of the article, and the article was actually deleted without conclusive proof that it can't be amended. For many editors, there seems to be a problem here with understanding what is the point of this article, and whether the scope can be reasonably restricted. This problem is enhanced by not very good title, which can't be changed during the AfD because of technical reasons. GreyHood Talk 20:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure pages can be moved during an AfD. Like when list of spoilers was moved when it's AfD was still ongoing.
  • Keep I do not think this page should be deleted. Wikipedia's ideals clearly call for a body of knowledge accessible and informative being free of cost. This knowledge can be in different presenting formats, such as this page, making the knowledge more comparative. I have not read anywhere that the information on this page is wrong or baseless. So if the page contains data why delete it. The page is clearly amongst the popular articles of wikipedia as evident by its usage stats. I think the rigid structure does not help. Information must be fun and presentable. Wikipedia's goal was to build a database for those who could not afford it and I do not see how deletion of a comparative list helps that goal. --119.153.97.89 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started off thinking this was trivial crap and ended up finding it really interesting. Not least Egypt (Largest date producer - but that's all) and Somalia (7,000,000 camels for goodness sake!) and the very smug Scandinavians (so frightfully free and democratic and gender neutral etc etc etc). If only all the tedious sporting trophy nonsense could be deleted. Fainites barleyscribs 23:07, 1 December 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. Courcelles 23:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Men In Hats

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

Source is an interview in Wikinews with the xkcd creator that only mentions this strip for less than a sentence. Other sources are primary. No reliable sources found anywhere, especially not the Amazon user review I removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:58, 25 November 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) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bruce Hart

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

WP:N issues. Can't find reliable secondary sources that provide more than incidental coverage of thisdancer, which means that it appears this dancer does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ENT. Made some attempts to look for sources in Japanese via translation, but there's a risk I've missed something that way. j⚛e deckertalk 02:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barechested

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

Chock full of original research and essay-like prose sourced to blogs or worse. If this were trimmed down it would be nothing more than a dictionary definition. Could easily be merged with (or redirected to) Sociology of clothing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 25 November 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) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James With

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

I came upon this article when I reviewed an unblock request from a user who had been adding unsourced information to it. I tried to help the user, and in the process discovered that I wasn't able to find good sources to verify any of the information in the article. He appears to have acted only in very minor roles, and I'm not convinced that he meets Wikipedia's notabiity criteria. What do you think, Wikipedia community? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:46, 25 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditzy Scene

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

Single with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 25 November 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. No sources have been included to demonstrate notability or comply with the verifiability policy. The fifth single from an album certainly cannot be considered notable in and of itself. ~ mazca talk 14:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Heart Dirt

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

Single with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 25 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive Rural Health Project

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

This seems like a significant non-profit, but after deleting a speedy tag, I would like to confirm with other Wikipedians D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentAdditional reference source has been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Policy2012 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI would also like to highlight the fact that this organization is not for profit and has created a unique rurual health care model. Highlighting the benefits of this rural health care model is different from promoting a profit making firm. The wiki entry is especially useful in the current context of India's growth, as with growing economy and widening disparity rural health will gain increasing importance. Policy2012 —Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 25 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Glass

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

Promotional article. All references provided link to blogs written by the subject, or only mention her in passing. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Wikipedia:CSD#G11, "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." There is even a tag on the article right now that says so. This article is irremediably promotional and needs a rewrite from scratch by a non-WP:COI editor who cites relevant third-party sources.  Sandstein  08:32, 3 December 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. The article is not ideal, but it does not clearly violate a content policy such that deletion would be required automatically, and there is no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Northern Cypriot citizens

[edit]
Visa requirements for Northern Cypriot citizens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed already much factually incorrect info (see arguments in the comment-line of the removals). The data that remains is only sourced by the (for the rest incorrect) source and it therefore not reliable. In fact that source tells something on acceptance of the passport which is not the subject of this wiki and available at Northern Cypriot passport; visa free entry seems not to be covered. What would remain is such a short article (visa free entraynce to 1 country: Turkey) that the article can be best removed. Visa free entrance to Turkey can be a single-line statement in the corresponding passport article L.tak (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I have given this proposal some thought and agree that this article as is leaves a lot to be desired, but it appears that the intention is to re-incorporate content into Northern Cypriot passport. There was a long (and sometimes heated) centralised debate on removing all visa-related material from passport articles generally. The compromise arrived at was that visa-related information should be maintained at separate articles (with cross-links) rather than retained on passport articles, or removed entirely. This has been the stable situation for some time now, and deleting this article would in my opinion go against the spirit, if not the letter, of that broad-based community consensus. RashersTierney (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rashers, thanks for detailing your rationale here. I realize it is important not to set a precedent here for the carefully crafted "visa policy"/passport split. However, I think this is a case where there are good (and more or less unique) arguments not fitting with normal passport articles: 1) already acceptance of the document (rather than the visa free travel) needed to be introduced. 2) the list of visa free countries is small (and is likely to remain small; if not, then it can be created again). 3. in principle I would advocate the usability of a passport (=one of which is visa free travel, although it is one out of control of the issuing authority) can have a place in a passport article, as long as it is not (per wp:undue weight) taking a very large part. Without re-doing the passport discussion, I think in this case removal of the article and adding a sentence to the passport article is warranted without setting a precedent for other articles. L.tak (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not entirely clear why this article is nominated for deletion rather than improving it. It is a quite interesting area that goes to the heart of the sovereignty, or otherwise, of Northern Cyprus.(For the record, I have no strongly held opinion either way) RashersTierney (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed none of those categories seem to apply here. My main concern is/was that an improved version of this article would contain a single sentence: "With a xx passport visa-free travel is possible to Turkey" (possibly with addnl sentence on the government-list where the passport is accepted). it would be therefore be destined to a non-expandable 1(2) line article for which I have sought an alternative solution here. (But then again, wikipedia doesn't break down from 1-line articles indeed) 08:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 25 November 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) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Reckoning (UK rock group)

[edit]
Dead Reckoning (UK rock group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a band that kicked about for some time, but did not produce any hits, nor received significant coverage in reliable sources, and as fars as I can tell, was never signed to any record label. Whpq (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 25 November 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. Per WP:V, a core policy, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This valid concern raised by the nominator is not addressed by any of the "keep" opinions. Neither the number of members of the organisation nor the outcome of any previous AfD have anything to do with the problem that the article lacks reliable third-party sources. Consequently, the "keep" opinions are not taken into account when closing this AfD. On the other hand, the "delete" opinions address the sourcing problem and conclude that the sources given in the article are inadequate. That is the sort of policy-based reasoning required for an informed consensus. As a result, the article is deleted. It can be restored after a draft with adequate sources is submitted to WP:DRV.  Sandstein  08:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Virtual Aviation Organisation

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

Delete. Non-notable organisation/website sourced largely from the website itself. It seems that WP editors are keen internet gamers leading to a number of articles about the gaming community. WP is for what is notable and not for what we like. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I do agree the article needs more sourcing, IVAO is a virtual online community with over 100,000 members. It is disturbing that these Microsoft Flight Simulator communities are being nominated for deletion. They are real, because you haven't heard about them, doesn't mean they are not real. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it is approx 10,000 members. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is volunteers. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair enough. Would you care to give a valid guideline or policy to support your Keep vote? "It's real" isn't one.  Ravenswing  15:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it seems the Twinkle did not pick up the third nomination. Ahh, the page name change fooled Twinkle! Note that two of the previous debates resulted in a no consensus so the horse is not dead yet. Also, given that an AfD is only a snapshot of a small pool of the total number of editors there is nothing wrong with retesting the waters with a new AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Wall

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

Notability of subject not made clear and article is unreferenced. Largely edited by one editor, presumably the subject. Jsmithers09 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)— Jsmithers09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }[reply]

N.B.: Nominator's sole contribution is to nominate this BLP for deletion. Curious. Bearian (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise this being my first posting would be an issue. Subject is not notable - Google only brings up results from his positions at 2 Universities, pages on small time websites that he has written and listings for books he has published - but next to nothing in the way of reviews etc. Does every university professor warrant a Wikipedia entry? Jsmithers09 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)— Jsmithers09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 25 November 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) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Horowitz

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

lack of references, also different authors disagree about the values and truths of these (few) references Tauʻolunga (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability would come from being head of the Atenisi Institute, but it is an very small institution indeed, and I'm not willing to stretch WP:PROF that far. Insufficient publications to count as an expert in his field. But I note that scholars in the humanities and social sciences always disagree about the merits of each others' work. What counts is the amount of attention they pay to it. The nominator should have mentioned that the article was once considerably longer--see the article history. But this was not an ordinary content dispute--that version was noted for unacceptable BLP material, violating DO NO HARM. In fact, I'd recommend a Speedy Delete on this to remove those revisions. I'm reluctant to remove them during the AfD, unless another admin agrees with me. DGG ( talk ) 14:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG: Good call, I've now done that. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find appropriate sources to meet WP:GNG, doesn't appear to rise to the requirements of WP:SCHOLAR. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete due to lack of non-trivial reliable independent sources and past use as an attack vector. This gentleman falls into the category of marginal cases where we should err on the side of honouring the subject's request for deletion, received via VRTS ticket # 2010111610008011 and apparent also I believe in the edit history. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_November_25&oldid=1142640144"