The result was delete all. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete A useless article. Just a long list of external links (which I've removed) which goes against the "not a list of indiscriminate links" part of WP:NOT. And a bunch of red links (which I just removed) pointing to articles that no-one has any interest in creating. The only articles that exist are one liners. And its been marked as needing expert assistance for a year and a half. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 23:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because NOTABILITY <= ZERO (and they have both been one liners for more than a year now):
I am also nominating the following related page because we gain nothing here that isn't done better by using categories (which already exist), because of WP:NOT and because articles like this just invite spammers trying to advertise their products/projects (please note I've deleted the spam content, but everyone knows it will inevitably come back).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlistairMcMillan ( talk • contribs)
The result was no consensus. There are some extremely unpleasant aspects to this AFD. The canvassing and battleground attitude to delete votes by Kaasalan were wholly unnecessary and tainted the whole discussion. On the one hand the delete side rightly say that this is an indiscriminate list and the significance of the information is unclear - even some keep vote acknowledge that it is not clear what the list is about. There are also claims that this is a POV fork and a coatrack. On the other hand, the keep side cite sources that discuss the banned items - the list is even hosted on the BBC website. The issue is clearly that we have an article masquerading as a list and the scope and purpose of that article hasn't been agreed. I'm going to close this as no-consensus but with a clear requirement that the list is moved/merged into an article and properly expanded to put the list into context. If this doesn't happen in a reasonable timescale then I can see another AFD on the horizon and that will be harder for the keep side if this doesn't get better in the meantime. Spartaz Humbug! 04:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Trivial errata that serves no encyclopedic purpose at all. Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Note that the ban itself is noted in 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. There is no encyclopedic value in a table detailing the entire list itself. Tarc ( talk) 23:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was unconfirmed until the Gisha filed a court case and the list is official by Israeli courts. Kasaalan ( talk) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
There are even more. Kasaalan ( talk) 14:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I prefer listing multiple RS media sources about the case instead personal arguments. There are even more in related articles, including UN reports. Kasaalan ( talk) 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I created a table for banned items [contains items permitted in 2010] by Gisha's list. After we merge the tables, it will reflect complete information. The items in the permitted list were also banned before 2009/2010 so all items are already banned at least for a period. Kasaalan ( talk) 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There is a majority (though only just) in favour of deletion. Several arguments on both sides were rather week or provided no real rationale- variations of WP:JNN and the exact opposite. At the end of the day, the evaluation of the sources provided by Atmoz appeared to be the strongest argument in favour of deletion and nobody provided a strong counter-argument to that evaluation HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
More of a procedural nomination. I declined to delete this as a G10 as the article is about a subject, a youtube video, that spoofs a secondary subject. As such it is not clearly an article that disparages its subject. Rather it is an article about a topic that itself disparages a subject. To provide an example of that distinction, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is antisemitic drivel, whose sole purpose is to attack a group, but that does not mean writing an article about that topic is an attack on the group. However, the tagger, who can well speak for him/herself, believes this is part of an Astroturfing campaign. In any event, I suppose the questions most relevant to be determined here are whether this should this be deleted because of BLP concerns, and whether the subject is notable in its own right. In that regard, though there are some sources in the article, WP:NTEMP / WP:EVENT might be of significance here.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Transcript of video |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Makin' up data the old hard way Michael Mann thinks he so smart Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate The tree ring data was very thin Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate |
The result was keep. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 05:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
G11, A10 Cosmic Cube ( talk) 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
1. Addressing the rationale of "G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion":
This Wikipedia policy states that "In general, notability is measured by whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. [1]
"Robin Hood tax" (RHT) has received, and is receiving, significant amounts of that type of coverage. Therefore it is a phenomenon of society. Therefore it qualifies to be in an encyclopedia which records societal phenomenon.
If there is bias, then I suggest marking it with tags (specific to the section in which the bias occurs). But the existence of bias is no reason to delete an entire article which is receiving the necessary coverage from reliable secondary sources.
2. Addressing the rationale of "A10 - Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic":
On Feb 11, 2010, in this discussion in the Tobin Tax page, there was a suggestion that there be a new section of the Tobin tax article which would deal with the "Robin Hood tax."
As you can see in that discussion, for reasons of clarity, and for reasons of article length, I objected to an unclear eponym being introduced into the already long article of the Tobin tax.
However when Robin Hood tax (RHT) appeared as a separate article, I did not object because this satisfied my desire to keep the Tobin tax article under the maximum size required by Wikipedia policy.
My desire for clarity in the Tobin tax article was still satisfied because the RHT article was independent and outside the Tobin tax article.
As long as it was not me who was facing the task of explaining another eponym to readers, I was satisfied. (Notice how I did not do much work on the RHT article.)
In the last four and a half months RHT has received a lot of press coverage, and therefore deserves to be a encyclopedia article.
But if it is deleted as an independent article, then what frightens me now is the prospect of being obligated to somehow incorporate it into the Tobin tax article which is already too long. That "obligation" would come from the fact that it has received enough press to qualify to be in Wikipedia somewhere. But if that "somewhere" ends up being the Tobin tax article then I will strongly object on the grounds that the Tobin tax article is already too long.
I have had extensive discussion with the editors of Tobin tax on how subdivide it to reduce its size. But these discussions ended without a clear consensus (so far). See those discussions here.
That lack of consensus is even more reason for me to want to keep as much material as possible separate from the Tobin tax article. That way I don't have to face another huge discussion on how to subdivide the Tobin tax article.... (...nor a discussion on how to subdivide the Financial transactions tax article, which, incidentally may soon grow to be just as large as the Tobin tax article.)
3. Robin Hood tax as an unclear but nevertheless legitimate societal phenomenon (as a proposal)
The Robin Hood tax is, in my eyes, an unclear societal phenomenon: It relates partly to the Tobin tax, partly to a currency transaction tax, and partly to a financial transaction tax. Nevertheless it is a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia. Just because it is unclear, doesn't mean that society doesn't treat it as a phenomenon. The fact that it is a societal phenomenon means that it deserves a place in an encyclopedia which records societal phenomenon. Here are other examples of unclear phenomena which are unclear, but which deserve an entry in an encyclopedia: Quantum mechanics, religion, etc. Notice how religion relates partly to an individual quest for spirituality, partly to traditional culture, etc. Yet the topic of "religion" is not merely a subsection of the encyclopedia entries for spirituality, nor culture. Each has its own article. - Boyd Reimer ( talk) 00:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Cosmic Cube ( talk) 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
1. "Robin Hood tax" is just a marketing name for a call for a financial transactions tax by various organizations (such as Oxfam, the group responsible for writing the original version of the Robin Hood tax article). As such, there is no need for it to have an independent article. Any material that is non-promotional fits into the scope of the Financial transactions tax article.
2. In the interim, I have thought about the issue of dividing the Tobin tax article and I think we could split it into two sections: economic and political. Cosmic Cube ( talk) 01:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
For ease of reference I am posting my comments from the Discussion page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Hood_tax). Please also see Oldtaxguy's user page for further material on this.
I’ve now been interning for Oxfam for 3 weeks (or 3 sets of 3 days if you’re being pernickety) and it’s fast becoming a lot of fun. I’m doing 3 projects for them, all of which are cool in their own way.
I’m doing the communications with some activists which Oxfam trained at a program called ‘Change’ and the evaluation for the event itself. As well as being really good training for me jobwise, doing this is amazingly encouraging. I’m in prime position to hear about all the awesome things these guys are doing and all the great societies that are campaigning for really worthwhile causes. It’s been proving to me that all the little things do matter – that signing petitions or making small changes in your lifestyle really can make a difference. Love it.
The other completely awesome thing I’m doing is learning to use Wikipedia, so that I can write articles and edit the Oxfam related pages. This pretty much feeds all the ‘things Melanie loves to do channels’ – reading, writing, researching, learning new things, being on the internet etc, so it’s been amazing fun. Now all I need to do is work out how to get paid for doing this and my life will be complete! I’m also doing some venue research for Oxfam Live, which has turned out to be more rewarding than I initially expected it to be. As with anything of this nature it’s a lot of phone calls and checking details. However, during my research I did talk to some really cool people. It made me happy to have conversations with people who were just nice, helpful, friendly and pleased that Oxfam was showing an interest in their venue. Made the whole thing feel more personal and pleasant.
I’m also starting to really enjoy getting to know all the people I’m working with. Today I had lunch with one of the members of my department who I didn’t know very well, but she saw me sitting by myself and asked me to join her and her companions. I had a really pleasant lunch and learned a bit more about her work. There are loads of other people who I chat too in passing. Actually, there’s no one I’ve met so far who I wouldn’t be very happy to chat to or have lunch with. Everyone’s talented, interesting and ethically minded. It’s a great place to work.
Cosmic Cube ( talk) 01:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
1. This article was created by Oxfam as a means of promotion.
:2. Check the earliest version of the article when the editors were Oxfam personnel (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Robin_Hood_tax&oldid=351390397). You can see here that the material is unambiguously promotional. The material was directly copied from the Robin Hood tax website. Even the "Arguments against the tax" material comes directly from their FAQ.
:3. All the material covered here that is not promotional is covered in other articles: Tobin tax, Financial transaction tax, or Currency transaction tax. In particular, the material on unintended consequences is in Tobin tax. Moreover, the Robin Hood tax is just a marketing name for a Financial transaction tax. Therefore, the substantive material is covered elsewhere, leaving only promotional material remaining.
:4. You state that these issues can be cleaned up by editing. However, I feel it is inappropriate for Oxfam to put up a promotional article on Wikipedia and then expect the editors here to serve as unpaid labor for their marketing campaign by "cleaning it up".
Hi, just wanted to apologise in case youre still watching the Robin Hood Tax article you created and feel Ive gone overboard in compromising with the objectors. Your original article was very well written and informative, but it didnt meet all our guidelines, mainly as it was sourced largely to the robin hood site itself rather than secondary sources like independent news papers. The campaign has lost much of its high level support for now, and it looks like opinion among decision makers has generally swung in a deflationary direction. But this cannot possibly last for more than 3 – 4 years considering the massive levels of public debt and the increasing ineffectiveness of anti progressive propaganda. When events swing back in a pleasing direction they'll move with some force. Keep the faith! FeydHuxtable ( talk) 16:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again to those editors who offered constructive responses. Cosmic Cube ( talk) 18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
If a Robin Hood tax (i.e. a FTT explicitly meant to fund social programs) is to be considered as a proper subset of financial transaction taxes, then this article must be rewritten at a greater level of generality and cannot focus on the efforts of any one particular campaign or group. That means getting rid of any remaining promotional material. It also means including material on previous such campaigns (by ATTAC and others), replacing references to “the campaign” with “a campaign”, etc. This will put the article on the same status level as other special kinds of financial transaction taxes such as the Tobin tax (anti-speculation/volatility reduction tax) and Spahn tax (protection against currency attack).
The result was speedily deleted (G3, hoax) by Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 13:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
There doesn't appear to be any such thing as North Island nationalism. The article is about South Island nationalism, and Maori nationalism (which is based by iwi, not island), and the only mention which may be relevant is the Christian version, which is completely unknown in New Zealand and sourced only to their own website. gadfium 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a not particularly notable businessman. Bazonka ( talk) 20:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable martial art. It is an offshoot of an art that was removed for not being notable. The article has no independent sources and I can't find any independent sources that show notability. Subject fails WP:MANOTE. The previous AfD was a declared "no consensus" with only 1 keep vote. Papaursa ( talk) 19:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 05:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. References to blog posts and web directory listings do not establish notability per WP:WEB. The metronews reference might be non-trivial third party coverage, but a Google search did not turn up similar material. VQuakr ( talk) 19:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It appears to me that, aside from awards for distinguished service, no strong rationale was provided to counter the consensus of the previous AfDs or the original PROD nomination, therefore my decision is to delete both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Original PROD nomination was, "In accodance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States), which established that non-combat separate companies are not notable, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron, which established that non-combat air force ground support squadrons are not notable, these type of units, are not individually notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)". SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Also nominating 63rd Chemical Company (United States) on same basis. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The sources found by altering the search terms swung this in the direction of a keep, though only just. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This record label has no significant coverage I can find, and when I tried to speedy it, it was declined on the basis that it was founded by a notable person, however this argument isn't valid in that notability isn't inherited. So therefore I am bringing this up before a community discussion on this label. I only came up with 9 Ghits after weeding out all the Wikipedia hits. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: Meanwhile I have added one or two references to the article, and - since I don't know if I referenced the statement "CT was the first label to release The Dixon Brothers' prewar recordings" in a proper way - the following explanations for those "not familiar with classification systems for music": 1. All prewar Dixon Brothers tracks are listed in [24]; 2. The track lists of CT-6000 and CT-6002 are given at [25]; 3. By comparing all the tracks listed in the first source with the CT track lists of the second source you may easily find out, that CT re-released some of the prewar (not postwar) recordings; 4. The information about all the vinyl and CD re-releases of the Dixon Brothers' prewar material can be found at [26]; 5. Knowing the release dates of all the re-releases (CT 6001 in 1973, all others later) it becomes clear that Country Turtle was the first label to re-release The Dixon Brothers' prewar recordings - n'est-ce pas? This may sound like "original research" --- For me it's just putting three and three together ! StefanWirz ( talk) 13:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod -- Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I closed the previous AFD as delete based on strong assertions by the original author and other editors that the sources provided were tangential and did not discuss the subject of masonic temples in detail. Following discussion on my talk page, I have decided to relist this as it is not entirely clear that this assessment of the sources is correct. As this is essentially a procedural relisting I am offering no opinion on whether this article should stand. Spartaz Humbug! 16:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
A sport agent whose claim to fame is the fact that he is being investigated by the French police. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PERP Movementarian ( Talk) 15:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this article of an writer follows Wikipedia Conflict of interest and Notability policy. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Until there are sources this clearly cannot survive in mainspace. If someone wants to host this in their userspace until then, fine. But who should I userfy it too? Answers on my talkpage please.... Spartaz Humbug! 05:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable British University Sports team. British University sports teams aren't usually notable on their own campus, never mind in the outside world. This team does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions. A search on google returns only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. Article is unreferenced and given the lack of independent and/or reliable sources on the subject, there is little prospect of being able to reference or expand the article. Pit-yacker ( talk) 14:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Tjc 6 14:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Tagged as relying on primary sources only since September 2007. Not notable and no sufficient coverage from a third party reliable sources intellectually independent from the subject. Wikid as© 12:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, with no objection to a redirect to Animal ethics or Animal welfare. Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD: This seems to be a single-purpose advocacy/opinion article, and is pretty much just a copy of [31]. There's no way to objectively validate its list of "nations and their components of animal protection (listed in descending order of relevance, the left most component is the most relevent)" - it just seems to be a single author's opinions from a piece of original research. Actually, to delete the current new version of the article, it should presumably be reverted to the 2008 redirect version. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 12:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
It should not be deleted. The issue addressed in the article is reported by two peer reviewed work with multiple authors. Both original work can be accessed online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 ( talk) 12:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
'Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sources and reference 1, 2, 3 of the article are secondary source of reference 4, reference 5 are secondary source of reference 1,3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 ( talk) 13:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
animal protection does not equal to animal welfare or animal rights, please see references 1 to 4 of the article. Therefore it should not be redirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 ( talk) 12:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Very good information provided 1) 'There are 822,000 Google hits on the phrase "animal protection"', yes, therefore its an important term and should has a page on Wikipedia, therefore should not be deleted. 2)'no apparent universal acceptance of any particular definition', agree. Therefore redirect it to animal welfare or animal rights are also not universally accepted. As references shows, there are people disagree with it. Therefore the proposed redirection should also not be a solution for Wikipedia. The information provided in the argument shows, people should edit and improve the article instead of delete it or redirect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 ( talk) 14:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
If the information about the nations should go, then where to put them? In a separate article? It might be too short, wikipedia have articles about people's IQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
60.242.6.177 (
talk)
14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
Please read the study methods, it was based on statistic analysis of opinions of over 4000 people in euroasia. If this is 'personal' opinion, then can someone provide more reliable source (not 'personal') to support the redirection (animal protection equals to animal rights)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 ( talk) 14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
To be fair, source can support the redirection should also be provided to show its not a 'personal opnion' and 'primary research'.
Please provide reliable source to support that animal protection 'is just an alternative wording for animal welfare'. It has to be reliable source and not personal opinions and primary research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 ( talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
'You may edit the article during the discussion. You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion this is wikipedia policy, editing is encouraged, also those editing of adding internal links were constructive and was aiming to helping people when reading. Only page have the term of animal protection or similar meaning was linked, those were not spam. There are plenty of wikipedia page are lot shorter and this one. Why this is not suitable? If you know how to make it suitable, improve it, be constructive! Don't stop others good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Why those nations were linked. If one have read the article carefully, one can find the article has giving defitions of animal protection in 12 nations. Thats why those articles of the 12 nations were linked. It has the definition of animal protection in the nation. Those were not spam!! -- Youdontownwiki ( talk) 19:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC) To CITES, its a international animal protection agreement, why this article can not be linked?-- Youdontownwiki ( talk) 19:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
1)you initiated the debate, if it is deleted then you have significant responsibility. 2) if animal protection is deleted, it will be one of the biggest joke in wikipedia. 3) There are review process after deletion, deleted article can be restored. Its a place to serve for the humanity, to share up to dated knowledge, not a place for some kids to exercise their control desire and ignorance. thanks-- Youdontownwiki ( talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
That webpage you just cited does not has copy right declaration, it can be used. no single exsiting articles address the diversity of this definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
'positive attitudes towards animals' is the consistent definition.-- Youdontownwiki ( talk) 19:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC) To those who say the article does not represent the general usage of the term "animal protection". Do you know anything about public opinion survey? The sources were based on public opinion survey. Or do you mean your personal opinion represents general usage? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The article has been redirected to animal welfare and animal rights in the past. So which article to redirect to? Also people in this page have apparently disagreement with redirection, one say direct to animal welfare, one say direct to animal rights. This is getitng really interesting.-- Youdontownwiki ( talk) 21:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Animal has a definition in dictionary, protection has a definition in dictionary, animal protection together definitely have a general agreed meaning at certain level. As I put previously, it is 'positive attitudes towards animals' the protection of animals. Animal ethics focus on ethics, the study of what is morally right and what is not. Animal protection is about the act of protecting or state of being protected (pls see Cambridge dictionary online). There are difference of both. Also if its going to only have a disambiguation page, where the information about the differences of the definition in different nations should go?-- 60.242.6.177 ( talk) 23:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I also searched animal rights and animal protection in google book, it returns many results too[ [34]] however this method is not scientific because people in many parts of the world use other languages for their literature for example they would use proteccion de los animales which above methods can not covered. -- Youdontownwiki ( talk) 23:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I did not find anything in the reliable source page you provided suggests supporting certain opinion would undermine the source reliability, please point out specific line and paragraph that is relevant. Many wrote articles for wiki before, supporting some authors opinions. There were many types of reliable source, university publication, dissertations, conference publication and journals. The article cited all type of references. There are many other people consider animal protection is a collection of different attitudes, please read reference carefully, in particular those added later. Please focus on the latest version of the article as I am improving it. The article may not be perfect but it does not mean it should be destroyed. Thanks
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
reference 4 and 6 were published before the other references, they are not related!you removed the top notice, but did you read carefully? Which means we need the notice. Even in English world, there is disagreement of which term it should redirect to, animal welfare or animal rights. before my editing the article has been redirected to animal rights for a long time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I just added one more independent reference, number 7, this one is from a US organization HSUS, the previous one, reference 6 was from a UK based international organization. They both use animal protection for more than just animal welfare or animal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Also I just did Google translation search, 'animal protection' 'animal rights' together return much more results than 'animal protection' 'animal welfare'. Which perhaps suggests if look at the whole world, animal protection is more associated with animal rights than animal welfare. Please verify this by yourself.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=1&rlz=1C1DVCJ_enAU378AU378&tbs=clir:1&q='animal+protection'+'animal+rights'&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 2,250,000 hits for 'animal protection' 'animal rights'
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=1&rlz=1C1DVCJ_enAU378AU378&tbs=clir:1&q='animal+protection'+'animal+welfare'&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 1,580,000 hits for 'animal protection' 'animal welfare'
Redirect this page to any of the page would be biased, overall information in this page show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
You missed another one Bostock, Stephen S.T.C. (2007). Looking at 'protectionism'. Society & Animals, 15(2), 203, so 3 other sources at least, how many Wikipedia article has less than 3 reliable, independent sources like this? Are they all going to be removed or merged? Otherwise its unfair editing.-- Thisisaniceusername ( talk) 14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
In terms of copy right violation, there is text on the page say 'Information on this webpage is in the public domain' and no copy rights were declared.-- Thisisaniceusername ( talk) 14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
And now can you please provide your reliable reference for any decision of redirection? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your time and input :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This article animal protection was a redirect page before editing, so this applys 'Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.' please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion'
Global perspective is part of quality standard of wikipedia. 'Global view Except in content with a local focus or where specific localized grammar or spelling is appropriate, or when an established precedent has been established and no clear reason has been accepted by a consensus to overturn it, content should be presented from a global view without bias towards any particular culture or group.' please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
'Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themself discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing.' please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihounding#Wikihounding
'Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_blanking 'Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. ' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Some consider the information in the current article is not balanced, so this applys 'Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources,' see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight. If one consider its not balanced then reliable source need to be provided for the opposite opinions. Because of the comments of some editors here (I am always willing to listen different opinions), I have added the opposite opinions of some editors. but honestly I can not find reliable source to support those opinions at this moment. Restrictively speaking those opinions (such as animal protection equals to animal welfare) should be removed. Please find reliable source and prove current article is not neutral. -- Thisisaniceusername ( talk) 08:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
When you consider a redirect is needed, please dont only say 'redirect', please also say which page as target of the redirect and why choose this(using reliable source). you need to convince others the page should not be redirect to the page they choose. otherwise the debate don't do anything, we still dont know where the page is going to. Currently, there is roughly equal amount vote to animal welfare, animal rights and animal ethics. no really much consensus so far.
So I consider keep the article still be the best choice for wikipedia under this situation (why the afd statistic put me into redirect group?). 'Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.' This is the most related wikipedia policy on this issue. ( please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion' )
The result was delete. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination - previously deleted via proposed deletion with the reason of "Unreferenced since creation in 2007, fails to assert importance". (Previous version here.) Mike Rosoft ( talk) 10:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Dodgy tale about some guy who is reckoned to have teleported from Manila to Mexico. No significant coverage in the reliable sources that we require - only coverage is on paranormal websites specialising in shaggy dog stories. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 10:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. and per nomination withdrawl - though no longer a speedy since it is 7 days now JForget 00:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced actor BLP, no evidence of substantial coverage on Google, zero Google news hits; probably fails
WP:BIO.
Sandstein 10:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein
10:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
*Delete Un-notable Stub.--
Curtis23's Us
al
ions
03:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, article does not assert notability; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; references given only prove the company's appearance on some gov't lists. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer ( talk) 08:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
A possible hoax. Very questionable edit history, including creation which was a probable copy paste from a ryan seacrest article, that was CSD'd, then that was removed by an IP, whose only contributions were within the last few hours, and early contributions were COI warnings to others, but yet chastised reverters for not considering the "newbies". Then a few bizarre additions to other articles by a geographical range of IPs.
Possible hoax, possible copy paste. Want some more eyes to make sure this isn't some shenanigans. Shadowjams ( talk) 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Note - The above concerns over the hoax issue appear to be resolved. Issue currently is the notability of the subject. Shadowjams ( talk) 05:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Soap — 15:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a how to.See Wikipedia:NOTHOW Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 07:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Closed circuit TV station on a college campus. No evidence that it is notable outside that campus. Sgroupace ( talk) 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Bad (album). NW ( Talk) 12:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable non single michael jackson song. Currently discussed on WP:ANI. Wish for redirect to Bad (album) NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 06:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Condoleezza Rice. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Mother of Condoleezza Rice; in addition to that, seemingly hasn't done anything to meet notability requirements. Seems to be a clear-cut case of WP:NOTINHERITED. SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 12:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is a case of WP:BLP1E. He was a college football player at a Division II school (ie, smaller crowds than most high school games) who made a human interest story when he had his pinkie amputated so he could keep playing football. Beyond that one event, there is nothing notable about him. B ( talk) 05:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not seeing the notability here, won a local beauty pageant, but not much else. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Jayjg (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable actor. No evidence of the coverage by independent reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG Nuttah ( talk) 15:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Showzampa ( talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment Old school Newspaper? (that are all going out of business by the way) They don't even know what a webseries is, they wouldn't even cover the most notable of weberies'. If you look through "the Guild's" early wiki history, they were declared notable with an IMDB link and a website. We are talking about a "webseries" actor and Spellfury is a "webseries", not a traditional tv show. Showzampa ( talk) 13:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment Nuttah are you saying wired.com, Ain't It Cool News and tubefilter aren't reliable sources? I would say a webseries actor that has 884,042 (Spellfury views plus S.E.X. views) views of shows he's been in, one he was the lead actor in, the second a huge supporting character (lead villian) has a large fan base, their youtube channel has 15,000 friends and over 6,000 subscribers, are you not counting them? Important Youtube has given Spellfury it's own special showpage at[ [40]], these can't be created by the public, "the guild" has also been given this honor, but notable webseries like "legend of neil" and "riese the series" don't have them. It allows The guild and Spellfury to come up in the listings of traditional television shows, Youtube has deemed Spellfury notable because of the strong viewership of the series and fanbase. Remember we're discussing whether or not Spellfury is a notable "webseries", not a tv show.
Comment Added an article that was in the EMC Perth Newspaper about Spellfury and Robbie Drebitt. For additional notablility as a webseries actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.158.101 ( talk) 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Showzampa ( talk) 14:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment To satisfy wiki editors that want old school newspaper references added better link to full page newspaper article about Spellfury and Rob to show notability. [2] Showzampa ( talk) 16:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep because the webseries Spellfury is notable and the newspaper article says "Gordon met some of the key people involved in the production of Spellfury today. Those key individuals include the star of the show, actress Julie O'Halloran, who plays the role of "half-elf" Druinia, and Robbie Drebitt, who plays evil sorcerer Kruskull." + the wired article Toronto23 ( talk) 16:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)— Toronto23 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was keep. The argument that it is not a directory, is overruled by the fact that sources were found for more than four of the artists. (and they are independently notable) NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 05:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable list construed of mostly original research, and those who are listed are mostly non-notable as well. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Covert ad for something called Percipio Orange Mike | Talk 01:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is a paid-editing piece developed through a conflict of interest via this request on freelancer.com which reads "We need help copywriting a text about our company, BlockMaster, and our products for wikipedia. BlockMaster provides a solution for protecting portable data – a secure USB flash drive and a management console. We need someone who can understand high-tech descriptions and who is very familiar with how wikipedia works. Deadline Fri, June 18th."
Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. This also appears to have sparse notability, as most of the references are to press releases and I am unable to find significant discussion of this product in multiple reliable sources. Two earlier articles were created by this user as part of the same project, and they were both recently deleted via AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeStick and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlockMaster Them From Space 02:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The argument that as they are a member of BUAFL was not met with enthusiasm in this AfD, or the one where the discussion took place. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 05:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable. British University sports teams are rarely notable on their own campus never mind further afield. This doesn't appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions. Google returns nothing beyond sites related to the team and its rivals. Ignoring that almost five years have produced two sentences, an infobox, and a four row table that is two years out of date, the article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of material on the team, it looks unlikely that the article could either be referenced or expanded. Pit-yacker ( talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Indiana Department of Correction. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Was nominated before and debate ended with no consensus reached. Notability isn't clearly established, overall fails wp:N and wp:V. Maashatra11 ( talk) 11:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Long unreferenced BLP, questionable notability, full of gossip Yworo ( talk) 05:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organization, no non-trivial third party sources, no independent hits on google or gnews. 2 says you, says two 02:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy merge to Radio-frequency identification. For the record, you don't have to start an AfD in order to merge an article. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Expression does not seem to exist. Consider moving content to RFID. Schuhpuppe ( talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Dune terminology. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional school - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Despite the fact that the article is well written, I feel it's essentially fancruft - pure and simple in-universe plot description. It's hence a violation of WP:PLOT. Claritas § 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. no arguments for deletion MINUS the nom JForget 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Its been 7 months since this was last discussed and there are still no reliable sources out there. Google is a bunch on unreliable sites, google news [46] has 3 hits none of which discuss her in any detail, and google books appears to be someone else. So we still have nothing verifiable about her. Her best part is a made for TV movie and I am not persuaded that we will ever be able to produce an article that is a proper BLP. Fails V, GNG, BIO and BLP Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Insufficient coverage in reliable sources AJRG ( talk) 07:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply