Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taubman Institute (2nd nomination)


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

The result was   . There is an obvioius consensus that this does not need to be here and need to be move, renamed, or redirected - all of which do not belong here at AFD. Please take the discussions to the appropriate place. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 05:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Taubman Institute
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Relisting. No-one !voted last time. One recommendation of a rename was made, but despite discussion on the talk page, the rename proposal was never done. This article doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. The claims of notability seem to revolve around the implied notability of Dorothy Taubman; but notability is not inherited. (Despite the fact that Dorothy Taubman doesn't have her own article, and this article doesn't verify her proposed notability). The non-first-party sources provided seem to assert the notability of Dorothy Taubman, and not her institute. The majority of these sources are from a single source which gave Dorothy Taubman sporadic coverage back in 1994. One of these sources includes the comment: "I thought the Taubman Institute was some cult, like a hippie club or something." — Fly by Night  ( talk )  22:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth couldn't you have done the rename that you ? It would have taken you one edit, when this re-nomination has taken you six.  Is nominating things for deletion the only song in your repertoire?  Do the action that you want done.  Don't nominate things for deletion just because no-one took an action (during the three day window that you allowed for someone to take it) that you wanted done and could have done yourself.  There is more than one tool in the toolbox.  Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article itself needs more than a rename. If it were renamed then it would need a whole rewrite. I believe the article is a waste of server space. It would have been deleted if I'd have used WP:PROD. I don't want to invest any effort in an article that shouldn't exist. I supported the compromise of a merger, but the proposer hasn't made one. As for your personal attack about my only song being deletion, well, you should do your homework. I've created, in less than one year, almost sixty new articles. Just because I don't like two lined, poorly sourced, stub articles doesn't warrant such an attack. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  00:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no personal attack there. There is, however, a perfectly valid question, which you haven't answered, and have tried to hide behind a smokescreen of "I'm attacked." to avoid answering.  You demonstrate that you can only nominate this article for deletion again and again, and show no use of the very rename tool that you agreed should be used.  Why on Earth didn't you do what you had the tool to do, what you've just said you supported doing, and what agreed to do three days ago?  Your only song is nominating this for deletion, again and again, and all because in three days no-one did what you agreed to do, wanted to do, and could do.  Waving around article creations doesn't excuse this utterly pointless abuse of AFD here.  The page move tool isn't a hard one to master.  Waving around article creations, if anything, makes the question of why you didn't just rename an article yourself even more pointed, because it raises the question of why, if you're as capable as you claim, you didn't just do what you're repeately demanding other people to do for you and abusing AFD to try to get done by other people.  Why are you expending so much more effort on abusing AFD to try to force other people into editing for you, when it would have been simplicitly itself, and a lot less effort, just to pull out the tool that you have and rename?  Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Come one, man. What smokescreen? You were rude and you were aggressive. I'm sure you didn't mean to be, but that's how you came across. Instead of holding your hands up and saying sorry, you just carry on getting stuck in. No need. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  02:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You should notice that the only person talking about other editor's persons is you, here. As already stated, there's nothing at all rude nor aggressive about asking you why you didn't pick up your tools and do, and why you are abusing AFD like this.  Once again there's a smokescreen, this time of personal attacks (which is quite ironic), and you don't answer the questions.  Why are you abusing AFD to make others do work that you could have done yourself?  Why didn't you just do what you wanted done? Uncle G (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ermm, because the article needs to be deleted. have already answered this question. But I'll answer it again. It doesn't meet WP:CSD and isn't eligible for WP:PROD because I thought I'd use WP:AfD. If I'd used PROD then it'd be gone my now. I'm not demanding anything. I'm putting an article through AfD again because it didn't get a single !vote last time. As for the personal comment remarks, well, I can only assume that my computer is broken or my internet connection is down. For you and I are clearly not reading the same page. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  3:20 am, Today (UTC+0)
 * No. You haven't answered why you don't pull your tools out and do the rename and rewrite of an article that you say (several times now) should be renamed and rewritten but rather nominate it for deletion again and again.  You don't understand that AFD is not Cleanup; you don't do with your own tools what you want; and you're abusing AFD not because "it didn't get a single !vote" (which as noted by Arxiloxos isn't even true) but because in three days no-one did a rename and rewrite that you could do, wanted done, and had the tools to do yourself.  Why on Earth don't you do with your tools what you want done, rather than abuse AFD to do something that is not what you want done?  I give you the Wikipedia basics once again:  Deletion is not cleanup.  Renaming and rewriting are not deletion.  And sofixit applies when you have the tools to fix something and want it fixed.  Nominating for deletion again and again, just to get cleanup, is abuse of deletion nominations.  AFD is not Cleanup.  Learn this, for goodness' sake.  Uncle G (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename Redirect to Dorothy Taubman. UncleG is right - the sources put in this article amply support Taubman's own notability, even if they don't support an article about the Institute.  Yes, Fly by Night, a renamed article would require a slight rewrite, and yes, that might take two or three minutes worth of effort.  But to be honest, "I've created a lot of articles" isn't all that great a defense against the charge that this is a lazy nomination.   Ravenswing  00:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a defence against the charge that "deletion [is] the only song in [my] repertoire." I assume that you'd like to help in the rewrite? — Fly by Night  ( talk )  00:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're certainly encouraged to help me in mine: I just created an article for Taubman. Took me about 20 minutes from scratch.  There's a heap of sources ... over 32 hits on Google Scholar, several hundred on Google News.  Finding those sources took me about thirty bloody SECONDS.  You're certainly experienced enough to understand that being a stub isn't a valid deletion ground, however much short stubs may irritate you.   Ravenswing  01:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will help you, what's the link? You know that quality, and not quantity, is important. It doesn't matter how many hits you get. Google is full of junk. There are 32 hits on Google Scholar, but most of them simply mention her. They aren't by her. Using Google Scholar, she doesn't meet WP:PROF. (I've never once said that she doesn't deserve an article. Her institute doesn't.) — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (points to the link above) That being said, no, G-Scholar doesn't support notability; the GNG does that all by itself. What G-Scholar is useful for in this case is information.  Ravenswing  01:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. This is back already?  Seriously?  It's been a week, during a holiday season, since the prior close.  The rename/rewrite that I suggested during the prior AfD, and with which Fly by Night apparently agreed three days ago, is on my list of stuff to do but honestly I've had other things on my plate as well.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need to link to it; I already mentioned it myself in the preamble. This article is a waste of server space. It needs more than a rename; quite obviously. Just read my preamble. Why not just do what you suggested doing 11 days ago!? . After all, it'll only take "three minutes." If you do that then I'd be more than happy. But instead, people say they'll do this, that and the other; they do nothing, and then they attack the person that complains. Does Wikipedia not have quality standards? This "article" is a joke! — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been no attacks on you, although you've attacked others. However, you've been questioned as to why your "complaint" took the form of six edits to renominate an article for deletion, when you could have just hit the rename button yourself and done everything in one; and why you are acting as if you have no other way of doing anything with an article that you don't like except nominating it for deletion again and again, and complaining when after a mere three days no-one else marches to your demands.  sofixit applies.  Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said: this article needs more than a rename, it needs a rewrite. It is a waste of server space. I've already agreed to work with Ravenswing on an article about Dorothy Taubman. It needs deleting because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (see my preamble). As for the sofixit, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't need fixing; it needs removing. I'm sad you can't see that. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  02:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Renaming and rewriting is fixing. Good grief!  This is basics-of-Wikipedia stuff.  Learn this maxim:  AFD is not Cleanup.  Uncle G (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article was reposted twice due to lack of consensus. Why didn't anyone attack those reposters? No-one gave any input, but it was closed. I simply relisted it in order to get some opinion. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a relisting. You know what a relisting looks like.  You've seen one, and this isn't it.  This is a second nomination.  There's a big clue in the very title of this discussion page.  Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. Every objection the nominator notes can be handled by normal editing.  I see no compelling reason to delete an article when all objections can be fixed via editing and moving, which can be done by anyone, including the nominator.  -- Jayron  32  04:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But this organisation does not meet WP:ORG. The last AfD noted, and the article's talk page notes that this institute does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability! Did I miss something? Don't WP:N and WP:ORG matter anymore? Think carefully. There already is an article about Dorothy Taubman, which includes all of this article's information. So, really, this article is now a WP:CSD candidate. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  04:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So redirect this article... Last time I checked, you don't need a deletion discussion to redirect an article. Any editor, even you, could do it... -- Jayron  32  04:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Dorothy Taubman. Notable or not, this article is brief enough that it can easily be included as part of that one; and they're sufficiently closely related that they can be covered in the same article. Robofish (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Dorothy Taubman where the organization can be discussed in more detail if additional sources can be found. And while I am assuming good faith on the part of the nominator, this process has clearly been used incorrectly, and not just once but twice. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Dorothy Taubman. IMHO this AfD was started in GF in the interests of the encyclopedia, even if misplaced. Kudpung (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.